Clean Impact Bond:
Mobilizing Financefor Clean Cooking

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH

About IFC
International Finance Corporation (IFC) – a member of the World Bank Group – is the largest global development institution
focused on the private sector in emerging markets. We work in more than 100 countries, using our capital, expertise, andinfluence to create markets and opportunities in developing countries. In fiscal year 2022, IFC committed a record $32.8
billion to private companies and financial institutions in developing countries, leveraging the power of the private sector
to end extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity as economies grapple with the impacts of global compounding crises.
For more information, visit www.ifc.org.

Our Partners
About Cardano Development: Cardano Development is an incubator and fund manager for innovative financial sector
solutionsthat

acceleratethesustainable

developmentof

financial

and

local

capitalmarkets

infrontier

economies.

For more information, visit https://www.cardanodevelopment.com/.
About BIX Capital: BIX Capital is an $18 million debt fund for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Sub-Saharan Africa that
supplies low-income people with products that have a high development impact, such as clean cooking solutions and water purifiers.
For more information, visit https://www.bixcapital.nl/.
About Osprey Foundation: Osprey Foundation is a philanthropic impact investor based in the United States.
For more information, visit http://www.ospreyfdn.org/.
About Sistema.bio: Sistema.bio is a global supplier of biogas products that installs, services, and finances systems for smallholder
farmers in Latin America, Asia and Africa.
For more information, visit https://sistema.bio/.

May 2023© International Finance Corporation 2023. All rights reserved.
2121 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433
www.ifc.org

The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violationof applicable law. IFC does not guarantee the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the content included in this work, or the conclusions or
judgments described herein, and accepts no responsibility or liability for any omissions or errors (including, without limitation, typographicalerrors and technical errors) in the content whatsoever or for reliance thereon.

Contents
Acknowledgments

02

Abbreviations and Acronyms

03

Boxes, Tables, and Figures

03

Introduction

06

Context		

08

The Clean Impact Bond

12

Structure

13

Partners

14

Financial Flows and Terms

16

Co-benefit Certification

17

Quantifying and Measuring Health and Gender Outcomes
Key Findings		 •

Health		 •

Gender18
19

Lessons Learned

24

Conclusion

28

Appendixes30

A. Methodology of Baseline Assessment

31

B. Metrics and Standards

34

C. Outcome Results

35

		•

Health		 •

GenderEndnotes

40

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

1

Acknowledgments
The learning brief was produced by IFC’s Gender and Economic Inclusion Group (GEIG)’s Inclusive Business team,in close collaboration with the Climate Finance team of the Climate Business Department (CBD), and Financial
Institutions Group (FIG)’s Sub-Saharan Africa team, in partnership with Cardano Development, BIX Capital, theOsprey Foundation, Sistema.bio, and the Government of Japan.
This brief was developed under the overall guidance of Mary Porter Peschka (Director, Sustainability and Gender
Solutions Department, IFC), Henriette Kolb (Manager, Gender and Economic Inclusion Group, IFC), Heather Kipnis(Global Product Lead, Gender and Economic Inclusion Group, IFC), and Anup Jagwani (Global Manager, Climate
Finance & Policy, Climate Business Department, IFC); led by Kiyoshi Okumura (Senior Investment Officer, Climate
Business Department, IFC), Shino Saruta (Operations Officer, Gender and Economic Inclusion Group, IFC), Jeroen
Blüm (Managing Director, BIX Capital), Fleur Henderson (Senior Project Director, Cardano Development), Claudia
Doets (Managing Director, Cardano Development), Maaike Veen (Consultant, Cardano Development), Louis Boorstin(Managing Director, Osprey Foundation), Alex Eaton (CEO, Sistema.bio), Stephanie Zayed (Carbon and Impact Lead,
Sistema.bio), and Esther Altorfer (Chief Strategy Officer, Sistema.bio).
The baseline assessment summarized in the brief was led by Berkeley Air Monitoring Group. A Kenyan company, Eco
Consultancy & Research Ltd., collected the data.a The authors would like to acknowledge the researchers and fieldteam. Berkeley Air Monitoring Group: Ashlinn Quinn (primary author of the baseline assessment), Dana Charron,
Michael Johnson, Monica Marquez, Heather Miller, Ricardo Piedrahita, and Madeleine Rossanese. The particulatematter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) analysis was completed at Colorado State University, under the
direction of Dr. Christian L’Orange. Eco Research’s Field team: Francis Waweru (Field Manager), Michael Mburu(Operations Manager), Maryanne Waruguru (Project Manager), Monicah Njoroge (Quality Control Coordinator),
Daisy Awuor (Field Supervisor), Mary Maina (Monitoring), Samuel Kiragu (Monitoring), Boniface Koome (Interviewer),
Brenda Karugi (Interviewer), Pamela Gakii (Interviewer), Sophie Ngaire (Interviewer), Winfred Gakii (Interviewer),
Husna Wanjira (Interviewer), Grace Nyambura (Interviewer), Eva Muriithi (Interviewer), Faith Kageni (Interviewer),
Diana Wanjiku (Interviewer), and Peter Mwangi (Driver).
The authors would like to thank the Technical Working Group, which contributed to the baseline assessment,
including Dan Pope (Professor of Global Public Health, University of Liverpool), Elisa Puzzolo (Co-Director, CLEANAir Global Health Research Unit, University of Liverpool), and Inka Schomer (Gender Consultant, Infrastructure& Natural Resources, IFC), who reviewed the methodology of the health and gender impact measurement
and the results of the measurement analysis. The authors are also grateful to the following World Bank Group
colleagues for their review and inputs: Franziska Hannah Deininger, Zijun Li, Amy N. Luinstra, Kathleen Mignano,
Armando Ayala Robles, and Yabei Zhang.

About this brief
This IFC brief introduces the Clean Impact Bond (CIB), a results-based financing (RBF) instrument that Cardano
Development, IFC, BIX Capital, the Osprey Foundation, and Sistema.bio structured to mobilize finance basedon the sales of certified health and gender credits in the modern energy cooking sector for the first time.
Along with the context for the CIB, this brief presents evidence that clean cooking can achieve measurable
health and gender benefits, and summarizes lessons learned from structuring the CIB. Findings are drawn
from IFC’s technical assistance, through the process of the CIB structuring, desk research, interviews withmarket leaders, and analysis of survey data collected from rural households in Kenya. The target audiencesof this brief are investors, financial intermediaries, multilateral/development finance institutions, outcome
buyers, clean cooking companies, and other market players that have an interest in increasing the availabilityof clean cooking solutions, supporting inclusive businesses that are serving the base of the economic pyramid,
addressing climate change, and advancing gender equality.

a	All of this assessment’s procedures and protocols were approved by the Amref Health Africa Ethics and Scientific Review
Committee (https://esrc.amref.org/faq/) in Kenya, and all participants gave their informed consent prior to the collection of
data.

2

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Boxes, Tables, and Figures

aDALY

averted disability-adjusted life year

List of Boxes

ALRI

acute lower respiratory infection

Box 1:	The Impact of Traditional Cookstoves on Women and Girls

CIB

Clean Impact BondBox 2:

Unlocking the Outcome Market Opportunity

COPD

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Box 3:

IFC’s Experience with RBFs

DFI

development finance institution

Box 4:aDALYS and Quality Time

DIB

development impact bondBox 5:

Biogas Technology

GHG

greenhouse gas

Box 6:

Impact of Biogas on End-customers

Box 7:

Time Use Agency

GS

Gold Standard for the Global Goals

Box 8:

Application of aDALYs

HAPIT

Household Air Pollution Intervention Tool

IFC

International Finance Corporation

IHD

ischemic heart diseaseLClung cancer

LPG

liquefied petroleum gas

Table 3:	The Health and Gender Co-benefits of Using Biogas for Cooking

LSM

Living Standards Measure

Table 4: Key Metrics for Health and Gender Co-benefits

μg/m3

micrograms per cubic meterNsample sizePEpersonal exposure

List of Figures

PM2.5

particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns
in diameter

Figure 1: Clean Impact Bond Structure

RBF

results based financing

Figure 3: Process to be Certified Gold Standard

SIB

social impact bondFigure 4: Schematic of Sample Sizes and Data Collection

SDstandard deviation

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal

SME

small and medium enterprise

WHO

World Health Organization

All dollar amounts are US dollars unlessotherwise indicated.

List of Tables
Table 1:	Overview of the Main Parties Involved and Their Function
Table 2:	Overview of Agreed Financial Terms and Conditions for
the Clean Impact Bond

Table 5: Eligibility Criteria for Participating Households
Table 6: Time Use

Figure 2: Financial Flows of the Clean Impact Bond

Figure 5: PM2.5 Exposure Monitor
Figure 6: HAPIT
Figure 7: PM2.5 Exposure
Figure 8:	Disease-Specific Contributions to Averted Deaths and DALYs(Output from HAPIT tool)

List of Map
Map 1: Map of the Assessment Area

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

3

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

4

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

5

Introduction

Biodigester in a garden
Copyright © Sistema.bio.

6

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Introduction
Clean cooking fuel, stoves, and related technology have great

The fundamental objectives of the CIB are:potential to improve households’ health and livelihoods, empower

1)	Provide a results-based finance (RBF) instrument to finance clean

women, and reduce negative climate and environmental impacts.

cooking solutions that achieve development impacts – improving

However, worldwide, more than 2.4 billion people lack access tohealth and women’s empowerment (health and gender co-benefits)clean cooking technology. Annually, this costs our society more than– in the households that use these solutions.

$2.4 trillion globally, driven by adverse impacts on health, climate,
and gender equality,1 and contributes to 3.2 million premature deaths.2,3
Clean cooking solutions4 (such as ones that use biogas, ethanol, liquid2)	Develop a replicable approach to monetizing health and gender
co-benefits, in the same way that carbon credits are available towilling buyers.

petroleum gas, or electricity) are proven solutions for addressing3)	Demonstrate the potential for health and gender outcome markets,these problems in low-income countries; however, they are often too

which could attract development funders and impact investors that

expensive for poor households. For this to change, business models to

could provide financing to scale up the production of clean cooking

manufacture, sell, and/or distribute clean cooking solutions must be

solutions that low-income consumers can afford.

scalable. Unfortunately, lack of financing is a major barrier to scaling up
the production of existing solutions. Research suggests that $25 billion
is needed annually to achieve universal access to clean cooking by 2030
– yet only $133 million has been committed towards clean cooking
investment.

5

To address the finance gap in producing clean cooking solutions
for consumers at the base of the economic pyramid,6 Cardano
Development, International Finance Corporation (IFC), and partners(BIX Capital, the Osprey Foundation, and Sistema.bio) launched the
Clean Impact Bond (CIB) in 2022. This development impact bond (DIB)
is designed to mobilize finance from a variety of partners to supportscaling up the production of clean cooking solutions, by quantifying andselling health and gender co-benefits to outcome buyers (organizations
that commit to purchasing development impacts such as gender equality
and health benefits).

This learning brief, which shows how an innovative RBF instrument canbe structured, illustrates how issuing and selling tradable and verifiable
health and gender certificates can generate additional cash flow for thesmall and medium enterprises (SMEs) that manufacture and distributeclean cooking solutions (the underlying investees of the RBF instrument).
The brief summarizes the findings of a study assessing the measurable
health and gender co-benefits from using a clean cooking biogas system.
This study found that a biogas cooking system can reduce women’s riskof illness from cooking-related air pollution, as well as increase time savedthat women would spend on cooking-related tasks, which they can thenspend on income generation and education.
This brief concludes with a summary of lessons learned from the
CIB to inform future RBF projects and generate interest among key
stakeholders, such as impact investors, outcome buyers, and the SMEs
that manufacture, sell, and distribute clean cooking solutions.

About the Clean Impact Bond (CIB):
The Clean Impact Bond DIB is a partnership among Cardano Development, IFC, BIX Capital, the Osprey Foundation, andSistema.bio. BIX Capital, as the investor, provided upfront working capital financing in the amount of $300,000 to Sistema.
bio, the cooking enterprise, which used the financing to scale up operations to reach low-income customers. Outcomes of
the CIB aimed for an improvement in averted ill health and mortality, and an increase in women’s Quality Time7 through theuse of the biogas digesters, provided by Sistema.bio to rural families across 10 regions of Kenya. The Osprey Foundation, as
the outcome buyer, committed up to $500,000 to pay for health and gender outcomes after they had been independently
verified and certified to have been achieved. The outcome payments from the Osprey Foundation will cover delivery costs of
the CIB, including measurement, reporting, and verification, and the repayment of BIX Capital’s investment. The Clean Impact
Bond was officially launched in 2022, when Cardano Development, the impact manager, and the Osprey Foundation signed
an outcomes contract, and BIX Capital and Sistema.bio signed a loan agreement. The launch of the Clean Impact Bond wasannounced in Accra, Ghana, at the Clean Cooking Alliance’s Clean Cooking Forum in 2022.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

7

Context

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

8

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Context
Despite the increased focus on Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG 7

Transitioning to clean energy for cooking, including using biogas, ethanol,- Affordable and clean energy), 2.4 billion people worldwide lack accessliquid petroleum gas, or electricity, provides several benefits. First, theto clean cooking. SDG 7 aims to achieve universal access to affordable,

use of clean cooking solutions can substantially reduce the use of non-reliable, and modern energy services by 2030.

renewable biomass and the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Annually, the lack of access to clean cooking costs more than $2.4 trillion, driven by adverse impacts on health, climate, and gender equality,
and contributes to 3.2 million premature deaths.8, 9 The lack of access toclean cooking is greatest in Sub-Saharan Africa, where only 10 percent of
the population has access to such clean cooking systems.10 As a result,traditional cooking practices – using open fires or stoves fueled withwood, charcoal, or kerosene – are a major source of toxic air pollution.

Second, because clean cookstoves combust fuel at a high temperature,they emit much less lung-damaging fine particulate matter (particulatematter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter – PM2.5). Third, because thesestoves cook food faster, with less fuel, women and girls spend less timecooking and gathering fuel and have more free time available (see Box 1).
Thus, not only can clean cookstoves contribute to achieving SDG 7, butthey can also provide co-benefits11 for health and gender equality that
contribute to achieving SDG 3 (Good health and well-being) and SDG 5(Gender equality).

Box 1: The Impact of Traditional Cookstoves on Women and Girls
Using a traditional stove is time consuming, due to factors such as inefficient stoves, slow-to-light fuels, and fuel collection
and preparation times. In many low-and middle-income settings, women perform the tasks of cooking and fuel collection12,
which is unpaid time they could otherwise be spending on education, income generation, rest, and/or recreation13. Aroundthe world, women spend between two and ten times more time on unpaid care work than men.14 Traditional stoves also
have negative health impacts. Because women and girls do most of their household’s cooking, they experience the highest
exposures to the household air pollution that traditional stoves produce. Studies show that women and children account for
more than 60 percent of all premature deaths from household air pollution.15

Lack of financing hinders progress in scaling up the
production of clean cooking solutions

A development impact bond can mobilize finance forthe clean cooking sector

Clean cooking appliances are in high demand in low-income countries,

Cardano Development, IFC, and partners launched the Clean Impact

but their price point remains a barrier for low-income customers.

Bond (CIB) in 2022. It is a development impact bond (DIB) designed toThis is due to challenges faced by the SMEs that manufacture andmobilize finance from a variety of partners to scale up the production

distribute these appliances. They cannot afford to scale up and produceof clean cooking solutions, by quantifying and selling the health andtheir products for a lower price. These manufacturers usually neither

gender co-benefits to outcome buyers (see Box 2).21 A DIB was chosenearn enough to finance their expansions themselves, nor have accessas the model for the CIB because it allows partners to focus on theto affordable working capital,17 because they lack the credit history

outcomes that clean cooking solutions can generate, rather than paying

and collateral that lenders usually require.18 Of the $25 billion required

for the inputs or outputs.22 Also, a DIB offers SMEs the working capitalannually to achieve universal access for clean cooking by 2030, only

they need upfront.

16

19$133 million was committed by bilateral/multilateral development
finance institutions (DFIs) and international donors, private capitalsources, carbon markets, and multilateral climate funds in 2019.20 An
innovative financing solution is required so that the clean cooking
sector can access financing to enable expansion.

The CIB is a results-based financing (RBF) instrument, which is an
emerging solution that companies have begun using to provide energy
and clean cooking access for underserved consumers in developing
countries. RBF is a form of financing mechanism, and specific applications
can evolve over time. Currently, RBF instruments include social impact
bonds (SIBs), development impact bonds (DIBs),23 results-based climate
finance,24 clean cooking funds,25 output-based aid, and social impact
incentives.26 RBFs27 provide financial rewards to companies after they
achieve agreed-upon and verified results. To test RBF mechanisms, IFC
has partnered with stakeholders in both the modern energy cooking
and the distributed renewable energy (DRE) sectors (see Box 3).

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

9“When you use wood, the pots get sooty, the chimney gets sooty,

and the kitchen becomes full of ash – all of which take a lot of time
to clean.” – Biogas-using participant

Box 2: Unlocking Outcome Market Opportunities
In recent years, the types of outcome markets available for the impacts of clean cooking have been evolving.
The relevant ones include voluntary carbon markets, potential markets for social impacts, and capital markets wherebuyers are seeking environmental-, social-, and governance-related returns. Outcome buyers are the critical enablers for
RBF instruments, because they will pay for the pre-agreed outcomes that companies commit to achieving. For example,
it has been estimated that the volume of voluntary carbon credits will grow to $50 billion by 2030.28 Carbon buyers, which
include corporations, donors, and foundations, are also interested in high-quality carbon projects that achieve social benefits(co-benefits) such as gender equality.29, 30 However, work on gender outcomes is still at an early stage, because few projects
have applied any of the available methodologies for assessing their gender impacts in a way that monetizes them in outcome
markets. Since 2010, the market for impact bonds has been steadily growing. By early 2023, more than $460 million had been
invested in 239 SIBs and DIBs in 39 countries.31 However, only 17 DIBs were issued in emerging markets. Thus, there is an
opportunity to leverage these outcome markets to address the significant financing gap32 for businesses that produce anddistribute climate-smart household appliances, including cookstoves, for low-income consumers. As noted, such financing
could not only improve households’ health (SDG 3), but also advance gender equality (SDG 5).

Box 3: IFC’s Experience with RBFs
In 2018, IFC invested in BIX Capital, which provides financing for SMEs that manufacture or distribute clean cookstoves.33
These SMEs then repay their loans by selling the carbon credits that households generate by using their clean cookstoves.
These transactions leverage the existing carbon market infrastructure. The outcome buyers of these carbon credits
include governments and international organizations – such as the World Bank’s Carbon Initiative for Development(Ci-Dev) – that operate in the compliance market as well as those that operate in the voluntary carbon market. Additionally,
IFC is also developing a new verifiable and tradable Distributed Renewable Energy Certificate (D-REC) that will monetize
the climate impact benefits from DRE projects, such as small solar home systems and off-grid solar, wind, and small hybrid
projects.

10

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

11

The Clean
Impact Bond

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

12

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

The CIB is a financial model that contributes to the wider use of clean
cooking technologies through the following three objectives:1)	Provide an RBF instrument to finance clean cooking solutions that
achieve important development impacts – improving health andwomen’s empowerment (health and gender co-benefits) – in thehouseholds that use these systems.
2)	Develop a replicable approach to monetizing health and gender cobenefits, in the same way that carbon credits are available to willingbuyers.

Structure
The CIB structure comprises five key roles, which are shown in Figure 1.
These roles illustrate the five main parties and elements involved in thetransaction:A) The impact manager, which sells at a fixed price the so-called“development impacts” on health using a metric of healthy life saved
called aDALYs35 and on gender36 using a metric of Quality Time (see thedetails in box 4) to an outcome buyer, to be delivered at the future date.
Development Impacts are certified by standards such as Gold Standard.

3)	Demonstrate the potential for health and gender outcome markets,
which could attract the development funders and impact investors
that could provide the financing needed to accelerate scaling up the
production of clean cooking solutions that low-income consumers canB) The investor, which provides working capital for the cooking
enterprise, based on the offtake agreement between the outcome buyer,
the cooking enterprise, and the impact manager.
C) The cooking enterprise, which uses the loan to scale up and increaseafford.
The CIB is the first global initiative to monetize the gender and healthco-benefits of clean cooking solutions, alongside the more commonly
available carbon credits. The CIB transaction structure has beensuccessfully tested using existing carbon transactions in carbon markets,

the sale of clean cooking solutions to low-income customers, andmonitors the use of these at the customer level.
D) The impact certifier, which certifies the outcomes based on thecertification framework that the impact manager and the cooking

such as those that fall under the World Bank’s Ci-Dev34 and that provide aenterprise jointly develop per the guidance of the Gold Standard.

solid foundation for replication in health and gender co-benefits. ThroughE) The outcome buyer, which pays for the certified outcome that the

the CIB, stakeholders provide financial support to the manufacturers andcooking enterprise uses to repay its loan.

distributors of clean cooking solutions, by measuring and certifying theoutcomes they create.

Figure 1: Clean Impact Bond Structure
B: Non-recourse loan agreed
and disbursed

E: Outcome payment to repay
loan plus return

Investor

A: Certified socialand environmental
goods presold

Outcome Buyer

ImpactManager

Cooking Enterprise

D: Certified social andenvironmental goods delivered

Impact Certifier

C: Health, gender, energy andenvironmental outcome achieved

Source: Adapted from Cardano Development 2021.

Box 4: aDALYs and Quality Time•

The disability-adjusted life year (DALY) is a metric that combines years of life lost due to premature mortality and yearsof healthy life lost due to disability/ill health. The averted DALY (aDALY) metric comprises the amount of healthy life
saved due to an intervention (including time spent free of illness and avoided premature death).

•

Quality Time is the number of minutes per day that a woman spends on income generation, the production of goods
that otherwise would be bought, education, rest, and/or leisure.
CLEAN IMPACT BOND

13

Partners
Beyond the five main parties, several partners were engaged to develop, launch, and operationalize the CIB. Table 1 outlines the main parties and thepartners involved and their functions.

Table 1: Overview of the Main Parties Involved and Their Functions
Role

Name

Function

Impact manager

Cardano Development is an incubator and fundmanager for innovative financial sector solutions that
accelerate the sustainable development of financial
and local capital markets in frontier economies.

Cardano Development initiates the CIB
and supplies cash and in-kind funding forits development. Cardano manages the CIB.

Investor

BIX Capital is an $18 million debt fundfor SMEs in Sub-Saharan Africa that supplies lowincome people with products that have a highdevelopment impact such as clean cooking solutions
and water purifiers.

BIX Capital provides loans to Sistema.bio to fund its
operations to manufacture and distribute domestic
biogas digesters to target customers and refinancing
to scale up Sistema.bio operations in Meru and Embu
counties in Kenya.
Sistema.bio borrows working capital and uses thecertified health and gender credits as collateral for
its loan.

Cooking enterprise

Sistema.bio is a global supplier of biogas productsthat installs, services, and finances systems forsmallholder farmers in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

Impact certifier(independent
outcome evaluator)

Gold Standard (for the Global Goals) is a nongovernmental organization based in Switzerland thathas developed a globally accepted set of standards forquantifying and certifying development impacts.

Gold Standard certifies the CIB’s health (SDG 3) andgender (SDG 5) impacts, together with the CIB’s
environmental impact (SDG 13).

Outcome buyer

Osprey Foundation is a philanthropic impact investor
based in the United States (US).

The Osprey Foundation purchases the health andgender credits based on the results, against the preagreed prices, and pays Cardano Development the
pre-agreed purchase price for the respective aDALYs
and SDG 5 Impact Statements.

Technical assistanceprovider and investor

International Finance Corporation (IFC) – a memberof the World Bank Group – is the largest global
development institution focused on the private sector
in emerging markets. IFC works in more than 100
countries, using its capital, expertise, and influence tocreate markets and opportunities indeveloping countries.

IFC invests in BIX Capital and advises on the CIB’s
design, collection, analysis, and reporting of thebaseline data, which are used for impact certification.

Impact assessor

Berkeley Air Monitoring Group is a US-based
research company with expertise in assessing impacts
of cooking energy transition programs in Sub-SaharanAfrica and globally.

Berkeley Air Monitoring Group designs the baseline
assessment, and gathers and analyzes the initialhealth and gender data in the project area in Kenya.

Carbon developer

South Pole is a Swiss company that develops andimplements carbon reduction projects and strategies
worldwide.

South Pole is the project developer and owner of theGold Standard-certified carbon project with Sistema.
bio, and it purchases the carbon credits.

Advisor

Shell Foundation is a United Kingdom-registeredcharity that supports people living in low-income
communities to help them to escape poverty andother hardships.

The Shell Foundation provides strategic advice
on the CIB’s design and preparations through thefoundation’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development
Office, and its Transforming Inclusive Energy Markets
program.

AdvisorModern Energy Cooking Services (MECS) is a fiveyear program funded by UK Aid Direct with a mission
to leverage investments in renewable energy byintegrating modern energy cooking services into theplanning for electricity access, quality, reliability, andsustainability.

MECS provides strategic advice and funding tosupport the development of the CIB.

Legal advisor

Baker McKenzie is an international law firm thatprovides advice based on its sector expertise and local
market knowledge.

Baker McKenzie reviews all of the CIB’s legal contracts(Loan Agreement, SDG Impact Purchase Agreement,
Third Party Rights Agreement, and Security
Assignment Agreement).

14

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Sistema.bio sells the gender and health co-benefits
to the outcome buyer (the Osprey Foundation) via
the impact manager.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

15

Financial Flows and Terms
Figure 2 gives an overview of the CIB’s financial terms and conditions and provides a list of main parties and their roles in the financial flowsof the CIB.

Figure 2: Financial Flows of the Clean Impact Bond
IFC provides advisory services to
Bix Capital/Cardano Development6a)	On behalf of Sistema.bio, Cardano
Development transfers the received
purchase price, minus the agreed
costs, to BIX Capital.

IFC provides
a senior loan
to BIX Capital.

4)	Cardano Development delivers
the health and gender credits to
the Osprey Foundation.

4

6a
5
1

Investor

Impact Manager

Outcome Buyer

BIX Capital

Cardano Development

Osprey Foundation

1)	A non-recourse loan by
BIX Capital is disbursed to
Sistema.bio. This loan iscollateralized by the SDG
Impact Purchase Agreement
between the Osprey
Foundation and Cardano
Development.

3)	Sistema.bio’s operations
generate aDALYs and SDG 5
Impact Statements througha program that is registeredwith Gold Standard.

5)	Under the SDG Impact
Purchase Agreement, theOsprey Foundation pays
Cardano Development
the pre-agreed purchaseprice for the respective
aDALYs and SDG 5 Impact
Statements.

36b)	Cardano Development transfers
the agreed costs, plus residual
amounts (if any), to Sistema.
bio, after the company’s full
6b
repayment of BIX Capital’s loan.

Impact Certifier

2

Borrower:
Cooking Enterprise
Sistema.bio2)	Sistema.bio uses the BIX Capitalfunds to finance manufacturing
and distributing biogas digesters tounderserved, low-income customers.

Customers

Source: Adapted from Cardano Development 2021.

16

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Advisory services
Working capital loan
SDG 3 (Health) & 5 (Gender) credits
Impact payments

Table 2: Overview of the Agreed Financial Terms and Conditions for the Clean Impact Bond
Term

Outcomepayment

Size

Info

Terms

Total maximized
at $500,000

The Osprey Foundation purchases
the health and gender co-benefits
from Cardano Development• Price for health credits: $1,816/aDALY37• Price for gender credits: $1 per added Quality Hour38• Three-year contract• Disbursed upon reaching the pre-agreed amount of credits• Gender and health benefit revenues are partof the collateral$300,000Loan

BIX Capital’s loan to Sistema.bio
provides working capital• Three to four years• Market-based interest rate
• Disbursement in tranches based on milestones related
to distribution and program approval

Co-benefit Certification

engagement; extensive documentation, including regular field data

The Clean Impact Bond utilized Gold Standard (for the Global Goals)39
to certify the CIB’s health and gender co-benefits. Gold Standard sets
standards for climate and development interventions to quantify, certify,
and maximize their impact, as well as stringent rules for stakeholder
inclusivity. These standards, which create a platform for results-based
financing, can be used by project developers and implementers (e.g.,
cooking enterprises) to assess the quality of their activities, as well as bydonors to ensure that they invest in projects that meet their objectives.
To make sure that funders are supporting real GHG emissions reductions,and verified SDG impacts, Gold Standard requires local stakeholder

collection; and the use of independent, third-party auditors. Althoughoriginally focused solely on climate impacts through the reduction ofcarbon emissions (SDG 13), Gold Standard expanded its services in 2017to provide standards and methodologies for measuring and certifying
the impacts of SDGs related to improving health, gender equality, cleanwater, and renewable energy.

Certification Process
Figure 3 describes the basic process by which health and gendercertificates are created for sale and trading (only for aDALYs) using theGold Standard for the Global Goals.

Figure 3: Process to Be Certified Gold Standard40

1

2

3

4

Designcertification

Projectmonitoring

Performancecertification

Components

Project
designGold
Standard’s
preliminary
review

Project
designdocument

Gold
Standard’s
designreview

Third-party
validation

Monitoring

Performance
review

Issue Gold
Standard
certified
impactstatements
and GoldStandard
certifiedproducts

Verification

Stages

Source: Adapted from Gold Standard.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

17

Quantifying
and Measuring
Health and Gender
Outcomes

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

18

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

A key aspect of making the CIB feasible is capturing measurable

use would be expected to yield an additional 21 days ofevidence of biogas users’ health and gender outcomes that can be soldhealthy life, spread across the lifetimes of the household’s

to outcome buyers. To obtain Gold Standard’s certification of thesemembers.

outcomes for the CIB, an assessment was required to estimate thehealth and gender outcomes, by comparing the difference between the“business as usual” or baseline scenario (cooking predominantly withwood, charcoal, or kerosene), and the project scenario (cooking withbiogas produced by a Sistema.bio digester).
With support from the Government of Japan and the Osprey Foundation,
IFC and Cardano Development commissioned the baseline assessment

Although exposure to PM2.5 was lower for the biogas-using households
than the biomass-using households,42 the reduced exposure level still
exceeds the latest guidelines for global PM2.5 air quality established by
the World Health Organization,43 suggesting the need to address othersources of air pollution in order to maximize health benefits.
Genderto measure and quantify the health and gender co-benefits from using

This assessment is one of the first to define and quantify the genderbiogas (see Box 5). The goal was to use Gold Standard’s methodologies

outcome of a clean cookstove intervention by using shifts in timeto translate these co-benefits into clearly certifiable outcomes. (For theuse toward productive and/or restful activity. If women’s saved time

methodology of the research, metrics used to measure co-benefits as

is used for more unpaid care work, saving time will not likely leadwell as the detailed results of the assessment, see the Appendixes.)

to improvements in gender equality and women’s empowerment.

The key outcomes assessed in the baseline assessment were female
cooks’ health and Quality Time:•	Health: Through use of a biogas stove, averted ill health andmortality (associated with reducing cooks’ exposure to PM2.5) were
estimated.

Conversely, a shift from lower-valued to higher-valued activities interms of income generation may achieve these benefits.44
The assessment’s quantification of the gender equality outcomes ofbiogas technology was successful.
•	Time savings: The female cooks in biogas-using households•	Gender: Through use of a biogas stove, an increase in the time cooksin the project scenario spent less time, on average, on

spent on productive tasks and/or rest and leisure (“Quality Time”)

cooking and fuel-related activities than was the case withwas measured.

female cooks in biomass-using households in the baseline
scenario, accounting for a total of 99 fewer minutes per

Key Findings

day across the assessed activities.

The assessment confirmed that the health and gender co-benefits ofusing biogas for cooking are measurable and noticeably positive (seeTable 3). It is worth noting that these results fall within the same range
as they did in another similar study that was conducted by the World
Bank41 in the same country, with slight differences in specific locations
for the same clean cooking intervention.

	This amount was more than the estimate in some other studies oncookstove use, but well within the range of time savings observedin other settings associated with biogas adoption.45 Saving time
has been reported in several studies on improved cookstoves46 andSistema.bio’s staff report that customers frequently state that saving
time is a key benefit of using biogas. However, saving time does notnecessarily improve gender equality and women’s empowerment,

HealthThe personal exposure data gathered in this assessment wereappropriate for certifying a positive health outcome. Measured personal
exposure to PM2.5 decreased to a range that can be associated with
important health improvements for the population.
•	Lower PM2.5 Exposure: The personal exposure to PM2.5of female cooks in the project scenario (“biogas-using
households”) was 68% lower than in the baseline scenario(“biomass-using households”), averaging 113 μg/m3 inbiomass-using households, versus 36 μg/m3 in biogasusing households.

because the time women save on one chore could then be used forother types of unpaid household work,47 with no increase in their
Quality Time.
•	
Quality Time: When female cooks’ Quality Time wasassessed, it showed that the biogas-using households inthe project scenario spent an average of 47 more minutesof Quality Time per day (285 hours – or approximately 12days – of Quality Time per year) than the biomass-using
households in the baseline scenario.
	This finding is a novel contribution to the literature on the time-use•	Healthy Life Gains: The reduction in personal exposure toPM2.5 of approximately 77 μg/m was estimated to avert 578
3

disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and 16 deaths per
year for every 10,000 homes with a biodigester; in otherwords,for an average household, each year of biodigester

benefits achieved when women cook with improved cookstoves.
The few studies that have attempted to measure increases inwomen’s productive time and/or rest and leisure when womenuse improved cookstoves have shown both positive and negative
results.48, 49 However, prior to this study, the “Quality Time” metric
was not assessed.

“Since I prepare every meal using the biogas stove, the time spentlooking for other fuels like firewood is less.” –Biogas-using participant

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

19

Box 5: Biogas Technology
Biogas is a primarily methane-based byproduct when livestock manure breaks down in biodigester systems.
To provide households with this clean gas for stoves, water heaters, and other appliances, biogas is transferredfrom the biodigester via a system of pipes. Biodigesters also produce organic fertilizer that can be used to improvesoil for farming.

A technical platform to convert waste to household energy

DurableEasy to install

Diversity of sizes

ModularEasy maintenance

Double burnercooker

Water heater

Chaff cutter

Milking machine

Biofertilizer Tank

Grains and napier grass,
tea and coffee plantation,
vegetables and fruits

Single burner cooker

Biodigester System

Inlet tank

About 25 percent of the Kenyan population could benefit from the use of biogas technology, yet total market
penetration is well below 1 percent of that addressable market.
Sistema.bio’s biogas systems ingest climate-damaging animal waste, capture the gas, and deliver the gas to householdburners, where it can be used to cook food and heat water in place of traditional climate-damaging biomass fuel.
See Box 6 for the impact of biogas on end-customers. Below illustrates the pathways through which biogas
interventions produce the co-benefits for health and gender.

Theory of change
InputsActivities•

Livestock

•

•

Water

Biodigesters
are installed

•

•

Land

Households aretrained in manure
management

Outputs

Outcomes•

Reduced exposure to health•damaging pollutants such as
particulates and carbon monoxide

Reduced mortality and morbidity from
respiratory infections, lung cancer,
stroke, heart disease and COPD•••

Faster cooking
Easier cooking
Reduced need to procure fuel

Women have more time for productive
activities and rest/leisure
Women’s time poverty and drudgery
reducedMen more inclined to use gas technology.

•••

Image Source: Adapted from Sistema.bio and World Bank, 2023.
20

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Table 3: Health and Gender Co-benefits of Using Biogas for Cooking

Outcomes

HealthGenderAverted disability
adjusted life years(aDALYs)

Increase in women’stime used for
productive tasks
and/or rest/leisure,“Quality Time.”

Achieved per biogas
stove, per year

Certified SDG contribution
with the Clean Impact Bond21.2 days (about three
weeks) of healthy life
added to the household
per year of biodigester
use 51285 hours (about 12days) of Quality Time53
added for women andgirls in the household

Impact value: dollars
generated per stove
installation,50 per year
(see Table 2)

SDG 3 (0.058 aDALYs perhousehold, per year)
If the CIB supports thesale of 12,000 stoves,bthis would contribute
696 aDALYs$105 per household,per year52

SDG 5: 285 productive
hours of Quality Time
freedup for the female cook
per household, per year
If CIB supports the sale of
12,000 stoves, this would
result in the addition of
3,420,000 productive
hours$285, per household,per year54

Note:	For the key outcomes and metrics related to health and gender co-benefits, see Table 4 and the Metrics and Standards
section in the Appendix.

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

bProjected number of customers added and included in the DIB (for three years).
CLEAN IMPACT BOND

21

Both the health and gender equality findings in this assessment met

Sistema.bio’s biogas system’s sales in Kenya that contribute to achieving

Gold Standard’s requirements,55 which confirmed that the quantified

SDG 13 (Climate impact),56 as well as impacts related to SDG 7 (Energy

outcomes can be sold to an outcome buyer through the CIB. Thus, theaccess), and SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth). Also, Sistema.

quantifiable outcomes for health and gender can be added to the climate

bio has already sold carbon credits to South Pole, the carbon reduction

benefits that biogas stoves achieve through reducing GHGs. As previously

project developer.

noted, Gold Standard already certifies the GHG emission reductions of

Box 6: Impact of Biogas on End-customers
The biogas customers surveyed in this study expressed a high degree of satisfaction with biogas as a cooking fuel.
They emphasized the ease and speed of cooking with biogas, and they appreciated feeling less pressure to find andprepare firewood. This is consistent with other studies, which show that biogas is a popular household energy choicein rural areas.57 However, biogas technology can present challenges too, which relate to functionality and adoption.
To address these potential barriers, Sistema.bio has conducted extensive field monitoring and financed third-party
evaluations. For example, 60 Decibels collected data from 278 Sistema.bio customers in Kenya in January and February 2022.
This evaluation found that 92 percent of the customers reported saving money with their biogas system, and 88 percent
reported improvements in their quality of life. However, some respondents expressed concerns about affordability, thepayment plans offered, and how quickly technicians responded to requests for help. Sistema.bio has used this feedback toadjust its payment models, speed up technicians’ response times, and train users to avoid common biosystem problems.58

Table 4: Key Metrics for Health and Gender Co-benefits

Co-benefit

Outcomes

Metrics

HealthAverted disability adjusted life years(aDALYs)••Time spent actively cooking

Increase in women’s time used for
productive tasks and/or rest/leisure, which
together are termed “Quality Time”

•
•
•
•
•

Use of any saved time (biogas-using households only)

Gender

Personal exposure to PM2.5
Population demographics (e.g. household size, number of children
under 5, and national background disease rates)

Time spent cleaning utensils and the kitchen area
Time spent procuring and preparing fuel for use in the stoves
Proportion of women’s time engaged in income-generating tasks orrest and leisure“Before getting a biogas system, I spent a lot of time searching
for wood and dry leaves to burn in the fire. But now I waste
no time preparing a cooking fire. Also biogas cooks faster.”– Biogas-using participant

22

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Sistema.bio's technicians visiting a farm for a biodigester installation. Kericho, Kenya. 2019. Copyright © Sistema.bio.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

23

Lessons Learned
Several lessons were learned fromdeveloping and structuring the CIB, andopportunities were identified for improving
the design of future RBFs. The key lessons
learned were the importance of: establishingeffective partnerships to structure the RBF;
designing the RBF so that it reaches targeted
underserved customers; and effectively
assessing, validating, and certifying thegender and health outcomes.

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

24

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

1.	Establish effective partnerships to structure theRBFi)	Focus on funders and/or donors as outcome buyers that are open to
innovation and have a strong interest in supporting projects with social
outcomes.
What we expected: Identifying outcome buyer(s) to purchase healthand gender credits would be straightforward, based on emerging
evidence and anecdotes that clean cooking solutions benefit health andempower women, beyond their positive impact on the environment.
What actually happened: Because health and gender outcomes fromclean cooking solutions had never been transacted before, this initiative
proved to be too innovative for many funders/donors. Measuring theindirect health outcomes of clean air required their climate and healthdepartments to internally collaborate. Also, funders/donors usuallyiii) Work with enterprises/project implementers that are at the appropriate
stage of business development and meet key criteria.
What we expected: Identifying the enterprise that could implement
the RBF project would be straightforward, as long as it could meet
operational and technical criteria including appropriate clean technology
and solutions to reach target customers under the RBF.
What actually happened: The investor/project developer approachedcookstove producers and/or distributors in a variety of countries; theproducers used different clean cooking solutions and were in various
stages of business development. Some of the enterprises did not havethe capacity to implement the RBF, and others were so mature thatthey did not need the RBF funding to scale up their operations.

have long-term programs, so it takes several years for them to add a

Lessons for the future: Select enterprises/project implementers thatnew program to their budget. Funders/donors with a commitment

are at the appropriate stage of business development and that meet key

and openness to innovative approaches to expand health and gendercriteria beyond technology, especially in the following areas:

outcomes showed the greatest interest.
Lessons for the future: Focus on emerging outcome buyers suchas foundations, corporations, bilateral donors, and multilateraldevelopment banks with a strong interest in supporting projects withsocial outcomes (including health improvement and gender equality),
including existing carbon buyers that are seeking high-quality carbon
credits that also generate health and gender co-benefits. Now that thepotential gender and health benefits of clean cooking solutions havebeen demonstrated, donors and funders could be persuaded to invest in
RBFs that deliver these benefits, rather than just donate money.

a.	Business sustainability: The chosen enterprise should have a strong
track record of providing effective, high-quality, and responsive
services for its customers, as well as a good financial track record.
Enterprises should be operational, have established business goals,
and have financing secured to support these goals, so that it is notnecessary for the company to depend on the RBF for its initial cash
flow. The ideal choices are enterprises that are relatively mature butthat still need RBF funding to scale up.59b.	
Additionality,

scalability,andimpact:The

RBF

fundingshould stimulate the type and scale of outcomes envisaged by
the project implementer and also leverage private investment.

ii) Engage with committed and flexible partners.

The funding should also increase the breadth and depth of the project
implementer’s impact, particularly for underserved segments.

What we expected: This pioneering transaction would require learningby doing, and flexible adjustment during implementation.
What actually happened: As expected, implementing the CIB
pilot required a good deal of patience and persistence, a long-term
perspective, and sufficient resources from all stakeholders involved.

iv)	Allow a longer start up period and bring in all project parties early on, so they
can budget upstream time and resources.
What we expected: The CIB team initially expected a one-year
preparation phase.

Fortunately, the CIB’s partners were strongly committed to launching

What actually happened: Getting more than eight parties on board,

an innovative financing market that could generate public good. The

and especially the outcome buyer, took about two and a half years

CIB team was also flexible with regard to the type of outcome buyers,(though the COVID-19 crisis played a big role in the delay) and required

and the types of SDG outcomes to be sold, such as Energy access (SDG

a lot of stakeholder management, affecting the allocation of staff, time,7) and Life on land (SDG 15).

and funding resources.

Lessons for the future: Engage with committed and flexible partners

Lessons for the future: Expect the mobilization of outcome buyers

and donors when structuring an RBF. It is also key to keep all

for an innovative transaction to take a good amount of time. Allocate

parties engaged by celebrating small wins, acknowledging partners’

adequate time, upfront, to define the roles and responsibilities ofcommitments in public, encouraging ownership of the tasks led by eachorganization, and embracing innovation that takes determination forpartners involved in an RBF.

each partner, establish an effective framework, align incentives forall stakeholders, and negotiate the project’s terms and conditions.
Stakeholders need to understand the challenges involved in operating
in impoverished, rural areas, and be willing to accept that this could
impact the project’s timeline and financing.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

25

2. Design the RBF so that it reaches targeted
underserved customersi)	Develop a more sustainable and cost-effective approach while keeping thetransaction costs low.
What we expected: Structuring an RBF using health and gender credits
would require a variety of resources and support from different partners.

What actually happened: For health, in order to set an appropriate
funding level for the CIB, the team used per capita gross domestic
product – a benchmark that changes, annually. For gender, it was
generally accepted that “time saving and quality time” is one of the bestindicators in this context.62 To set fair and reasonable outcome targets

What actually happened: Because this development impact bond wasand the funding level, the CIB team referred to various studies thata pilot, the transaction costs for assessing the health and gender co-

explored setting a value on women’s time overall, and existing RBFs

benefits were nearly half of the transaction’s total costs, exceeding thethat used the W+ Standard (the first women-specific standard that

expectations of what would be required. These were covered by themeasures women’s empowerment)63 created by the Women Organizing

CIB’s various partners, including Cardano Development, IFC, and thefor Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (WOCAN),

Osprey Foundation.

and Gold Standard’s gender methodology.64, 65 The team also obtained

Lessons for the future: Develop a more sustainable and cost-effective

advice from gender experts in the World Bank Group and the Clean

approach. When the impact bond scales up, a cost-effectivenessanalysis should be conducted to compare the costs of implementing
the bond with its expected outcomes. Ways to cut costs include using
technology that enables households to measure and monitor theirhousehold air quality themselves and developing a module for training
local consultants to implement Gold Standard’s methodologies. The
World Bank recommends reducing transaction costs by combining
field work activities (such as data management, logistics and training
sessions for enumerators) when the project is pursuing multiple cobenefits.60 Although the cost of setting up the RBF is high, as the market
develops and the transactions become larger, transactions’ assessment
costs should decline, and more of the costs could be included in thetransaction itself.
ii) 	Work with partners to set the right outcome targets and funding level forthe health and gender co-benefits.

Cooking Alliance. (See Box 7 for findings from the World Bank’s new
study on time-use agency to measure women’s empowerment and themultidimensional impact of cookstove adoption.)
Lessons for the future: Identify the right partners early on andcollaborate with them to set the right outcome targets and funding
level for the health and gender co-benefits. The experience we gained
through this CIB would be a useful guide for future RBFs.
iii) Integrate health and gender certification with the existing carbon reduction
component from the outset.
What we expected: Adding health and gender outcomes to the existing
carbon transaction might add more complexity for buyers, project
developers, and cooking enterprises.
What actually happened: Throughout the transaction, the team foundthat the added complexity was offset by the advantages that health andWhat we expected: An important element of the RBF was setting thegender co-benefits added, including allowing the enterprise to diversify

funding level for outcome targets of the health and gender co-benefits.

the source of income (e.g., working capital) and mitigate the risks of

For health, the aDALY calculation was an outcome quantification

carbon price volatility.

tool widely used for primary health care and poverty-related diseases
such as malaria, HIV AIDS, and tuberculosis.61 For gender, setting theoutcome targets and funding level required a new calculation for theclean cooking sector. The CIB team expected that this would be thearea that required extensive thinking and appropriate expertise.

Lessons for the future: Integrate health and gender certification withthe existing carbon reduction component from the outset because
health and gender certifications provide added value. Safeguarding thecooking enterprise’s ownership of the health and gender outcomesneeds to be carried out together with the carbon waiver.67

Box 7: Time Use Agency
A new study, “Building Evidence to Unlock Impact Finance: A Field Assessment of Clean Cooking Co-Benefits for Climate,
Health, and Gender,” which the World Bank conducted with Sistema.bio in 2022, found that, in addition to time use changes(such as time saving, Quality Time), time-use agency (for example, satisfaction with the time available for rest/leisure) is
effective for measuring women’s empowerment and the multidimensional impact of cookstove adoption.66 Although there
were no validated tools to assess the time-use agency, and the results of the World Bank’s field survey were not available
when the CIB was being developed, the CIB team recommends incorporating this finding into the future project design andthe indicators used to measure the gender co-benefit.

26

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

3. Effectively assess, validate, and certify the genderand health outcomesi)	Design indicators that balance the costs and feasibility of data generationand verification, while remaining robust.
What we expected: The costs and choice of methodologies in gatheringand verifying the relevant data would pose challenges.
What actually happened: To ensure accurate and robust results when

Lessons for the future: For future studies, balance the value ofmaximizing the representativeness of the baseline study’s participants
with the extra cost of recruiting them.
iii)	
Clearly define the targeted underserved population and their selection
criteria at the outset.

assessing the health and gender co-benefits of cooking with biogas,

What we expected: The CIB team expected that defining the list of

the CIB chose Gold Standard’s widely recognized methodologies whichcustomers and the control group for the baseline data collection would

were also aligned with the requirements of the outcome buyer.

be straightforward and executed in a short period of time.

Lessons for the future: Design indicators that balance the costs andWhat actually happened: This assessment reached its findings only

feasibility of data generation and verification, while remaining robustin terms of data collection or the quality of indicators. The key outcome
metrics should not be complex, because such metrics generally tie
repayment to measurable outcomes.
ii) Balance measurement rigor and the costs of measurement.

after considerable discussion about the characteristics that would be
the most suitable to match the low-income households that will betargeted in future results-based financing efforts.
Lessons for the future:

Prior

to

launchinganassessment

for impact quantification, clearly identify the target population’s

What we expected: Per Gold Standard’s methodology, the baseline

definition and inclusion criteria—their socioeconomic characteristics asassessment aimed to enroll lower-income, biomass-using households

measured by the Living Standards Measure, LPG/stove/fuel use, incomethat are representative of the CIB’s future target beneficiaries, whichlevel, and ownership of assets.

would gain access to biogas technology thanks to additional financial
incentives provided by the CIB.
What actually happened: This goal necessitated stringent inclusion
criteria, such as low liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) use, which led
to more screen-outs and thus a longer-than-expected recruitment
phase to onboard both biogas-using households and biomass-using
households.68“Since I installed the biogas,
cooking has been so easy, andfaster, creating time for otherwork.” – Biogas-using participant

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

27

Conclusion
With less than a decade remaining to achieve the 2030 Sustainable
Development Goals, financing solutions that help achieve universal
access to clean cooking – as well as gender equality and healthimprovements – must be accelerated.
In recent years, the types of outcome markets for the impacts of clean
cooking have been growing. These outcome markets include voluntarycarbon markets; potential markets for social impact; and capital markets
where buyers are seeking environmental, social, and governance-related
returns. The Clean Impact Bond’s model presents possible avenues forleveraging these markets. The outcome markets represent additionalsources of capital that the private sector can use to facilitate access toclean cooking solutions for the underserved, particularly women at thebase of the pyramid (BOP).
In conclusion, the authors of this brief hope that it will spur future resultsbased financing projects; generate interest among outcome buyers,
SMEs, and impact investors; and encourage stakeholders across theworld’s markets to go beyond “business as usual” and be spurred to unlock
financing opportunities for those reaching the world’s underserved.

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

28

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

29

Appendixes

Carrying firewood
Copyright © Sistema.bio.

30

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

A. Methodology of Baseline Assessment
Assessment Design
The assessment design was cross-sectional and carried out with
two groups of participants to compare the project scenario with thebaseline scenario. The households assessed in this study were in Meru,
Embu, and Tharaka Nithi counties (see Map 1) in rural Kenya, where

Sistema.bio has approximately 700 biodigester customers. This is a
productive region where farmers grow cash crops that include tea, miraa/
khat, and bananas. They also grow vegetables and raise livestock.69

Map 1 : Map of the Assessment Area

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

31

Sampling Strategy
The biogas-using households (“biogas-using households”) in the project
scenario were randomly selected from the sales lists of Sistema.bio, andthe biomass control households (“biomass-using households”) in thebaseline scenario were randomly selected from a list of households thatshare key demographic characteristics with the CIB’s target population
for future biogas system sales. Table 5 lists the eligibility criteria for boththe biogas-using and biomass-using households. The photographbelow shows the stove types commonly used by the biomass-using
households, as well as Sistema.bio’s biogas stove.

From left to right: Three-stove fire, an LPG stove, a Kenyan jiko stove that burns charcoal and a Sistema.bio biogas stove.
Source: Eco Consultancy & Research Ltd.

A total of 126 biogas-using households in the project scenario and 115
biomass-using households in the baseline scenario participated in thisassessment. This met Gold Standard’s minimum for sample sizes—100
households for the survey, and 30 for monitoring personal exposure
to fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Participants
According to the Living Standards Measure (LSM),70 both the biomassusing households in the baseline scenario and the biogas-using

households in the project scenario rank as “lower middle class” in
Kenya. The biomass-using households’ average LSM of 153 puts
them in Group 7 of the 12 LSM groups ranked in Kenya, whereas thebiogas-using households’ average LSM of 224 places them two levels
higher, in Group 9. Both groups’ demographics were well matched onage, household size, children under age 5, and marital status. However,on average, along with a lower score on the LSM, the biomass-using
households in the baseline scenario had less education, fewer jobs
outside the home, and a lower income from casual labor/salaried work.

Table 5: Eligibility Criteria for Participating Households
Biogas-using Households

Biomass Control/Biomass-using Households•

Sistema.bio biogas system installed at least 6 months
prior (earlier than March 2021)•

Household has interest in installing a biogas digester, andaccess to sufficient land and water to support it•

Not delinquent on payments for the biogas system (toavoid a high refusal rate in this group)••

No household members are employed by Sistema.bio

Household has sufficient livestock to feed a biogas digester(minimum 2 cows, 16 pigs, or a combination of livestock,or the intent to expand their livestock sufficiently)•

No household members are employed by Sistema.bio•

Household does not use its stove primarily for commercial
cooking•

Household does not use its stove primarily for commercial
cooking•

Household has no plans to relocate during the data
gathering time frame•Household has no plans to relocate within the data collection
window•

Participant is female and the main cook for thehousehold, age > 18•

Participant is female and the main cook for the household,age > 18•

Participant does not smoke (if selected for personal
exposure - PE)•

Participant does not smoke (If selected for PE)•

Not cooking for an atypical event/large gathering during PE•

Not cooking for an atypical event/large gathering during PE•

Household does not use LPG or household uses LPG less thanseven times per week•

Participant age and household size within the range of biogas
customers

Data Collection
Recruitment and data collection were conducted in two phases – from
September through November 2021, and April through June 2022 – andboth phases included dry and rainy months (see Figure 4).
Two main types of data were collected for this assessment.
First, a household survey was conducted with all participants to gather
data on the primary metric for measuring the gender outcome – Quality
Time. As previously noted, this is time spent on income generation,
producing goods that otherwise would be bought, education, rest,
and/or leisure. The survey also collected demographic information,assessed typical stove and fuel use, and explored time spent on cooking32

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Note, In Phase II, participants also did not have chimneys and did not cook outside.

related tasks (including fuel acquisition, fuel preparation, biodigester
maintenance, food preparation, cooking, and cleanup).
Second, a subset of both groups in the assessment was randomly selected
to estimate the health outcome by measuring cooks’ personal exposure
to fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Personal exposure measurement was
conducted using a gravimetric PM2.5 sampler, which is a small portabledevice71 that participants wore in a custom-designed apron (see Figure5).72 For details on the health measurement methodology, see the Healthsection under Metrics and Standards.

Figure 4: Schematic of Sample Sizes and Data Collection

Scree
nin
g

Enrolled for HH
survey (n=125)

bors using
igh
m
at
ne
f
o
Enrolled for HH
survey (n=125)

Included in analysis:
Phase I subset

Exposure
monitoring(n=50)

Exposure
monitoring(n=50)

d by Sistema.
ne
bio
e
re

Exposure
monitoring(n=25)

(N/A)

2)
=6
(n

Pre
-s
c

Cust
om
er
Ran
l
do
m

ded by the Sist
em
ovi
pr
a.
t
is
c
d ustom
e
t
c
le
er
se
H
ly

i le
prof
ed
ch

Phase II
April - June 2022

Biomass-using households

)
250
n=
5)
o(
=17
bi
(n
H

Phase I
September - November 2021

Biogas-using households

All Phase I•	All biogas project
households;•	Biomass control
households
meeting baseline
definition(target of N=100
for survey and
N=30 for exposure
monitoring)

HH survey(n=13)

Customer list provided by Sistema.bio (n=250)

Note: All fieldwork was done under strict COVID-19 protocols.

Stove Use
Figure 5: PM2.5 Exposure Monitor

Survey data on stove use in assessment participants’ households showedthat 121 of the 126 biogas-using households (96 percent) in the project
scenario used a biogas stove as their primary stove, but 94 (75 percent)also reported using a biomass stove (wood or charcoal) as a secondaryor tertiary stove, and 23 (18 percent) reported using an LPG stove as well.
As expected, all of the participants in the biomass-using households(115) in the baseline scenario reported using a biomass stove as theirprimary stove.

How to measure exposure to PM2.5 using gravimetric PM2.5
samplers (UPAS)
1.	Forty-eight-hour deployment of the ultrasonic personal
aerosol sampler (UPAS) personal air pollution monitor(measures PM2.5)
2.	PM2.5 collects on a filter and must be pre- and postweighted at the same facility.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

33

B. Metrics and Standards
HealthGold Standard’s methodology for assessing the health improvements from household energy interventions73 relies on field measurements of exposure
to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and the known epidemiologic relationships between PM2.5 exposure and a number of negative health outcomes–lung cancer, ischemic heart disease, strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and acute lower respiratory infections. The health outcome ofa particular intervention (such as a biogas system) is estimated by using the Household Air Pollution Intervention Tool (HAPIT)74 (see Figure 6) thatapplies a combination of measured and default parameters to estimate ill health averted by the intervention, which is quantified as averted deaths
and averted disability-adjusted life years (aDALYs) (see Box 8).

Box 8: Application of aDALYs
The disability-adjusted life year (DALY) is a metric that combines years of life lost due to premature mortality and years ofhealthy life lost due to disability/ill health. The averted DALY (aDALY) metric comprises the amount of healthy life saved
due to an intervention (including time spent free of illness and avoided premature death. Using aDALYs to quantify thehealth outcome in the target population is more practical than attempting to measure the actual health outcome. The
aDALY metric facilitates easy comparison of the health outcomes across many different types of interventions–for example,
comparing the impact of a sanitation program with a clean cooking intervention.

Figure 6: HAPIT

Changein exposure
to PM2.5

The HAPIT tool estimates ADALYs:
http://householdenergy.shinyapps.io/hapit3/

Population
demographics

Inputs: PM2.5 exposure reductions, lifespan of the intervention,
the number of homes targeted, and the percentage of homes
using the intervention.

Intervention
parameters

Applies integrated PM2.5 exposure-risk curves for: acute lower
respiratory infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD), ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, and stroke.
Aggregates impact into averted disability-adjusted life years(DALYs), a metric that combines years of life lost to death,and years of healthy life lost due to illness.

Averted illness and death (ADALYs)

Gender

For the CIB, the team developed the gender outcome metric Quality

The Gold Standard Gender Equality Requirements & Guidelines
have two components: the Gender-sensitive Requirements(mandated for all Gold Standard-certified projects) and the optional
Gender-responsive Guidelines. Sistema.bio met the Gender-sensitive
Requirements by documenting female cooks’ benefits from using
a biogas system and building women’s capacity to sell biodigesters
in Kenya.76 The Gender-responsive Guidelines require program
developers to create their own specific gender methodology based on
the hypothesized gender outcomes of their project. As of August 2022,
only one project (the Lango Safe Water Project in Uganda)77 had appliedGold Standard’s Gender-responsive Guidelines.78
75

Time because there is no standard metric to measure the gender
outcome resulting from cookstove adoption. In line with Sistema.bio’s
observation and Gold Standard gender methodology (Gold Standard
Gender-responsive Guidelines), this captured the extent to whichbiogas use progressed households toward achieving SDG 5. It served
as the primary outcome metric for the gender outcome that captured
the redeployment of women’s saved time on productive and/or valued
activities (see Box 7 in the main report for findings from a new study
on time use agency to measure women’s empowerment and themultidimensional impact of cookstove adoption).

Quality Time is the number of minutes per day that a woman spends on income generation, the productionof goods that otherwise would be bought, education, rest, and/or leisure.

34

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

C. Outcome Results

This section features more details on the outcome results of healthand gender co-benefits under the baseline assessment.
Health•The personal exposure to PM2.5 of female cooks in biogasusing households was 68% lower than in biomass-using
households (averaging 113 μg/m3 in biomass-using
households, versus 36 μg/m3 in biogas-using households)•	The reduction of personal exposure to PM2.5 at approximately
77 μg/m3, was estimated to avert 578 disability-adjusted life
years (DALYs) and 16 deaths per year for every 10,000 homes
with a biodigester, or 21 days of healthy life added to eachhousehold per year.

Interpretation of the health result
The exposure to PM2.5 was lower in female cooks in biogas-using
households in the project scenario than in female cooks in biomassusing households in the baseline scenario. On average, PM2.5 exposure
was 113 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) in the biomass-using
households in the baseline scenario, and 36 μg/m3 in the biogas-using
households in the project scenario, accounting for a difference of 77
μg/m3, or a 68 percent reduction in exposure between the two groups(see Figure 7). When this difference in average PM2.5 exposure wastranslated into estimates of averted ill health (see Figure 8) using theHousehold Air Pollution Intervention Tool (HAPIT)79 (see Figure 6), thisassessment found that, per year, for every 10,000 homes using a biogas
system, 16 deaths (4 for children + 12 for adults) would be averted,and the total for averted disability-adjusted life years would be 578(309 for children + 269 for adults). This is equivalent to 0.016 averted
deaths, and 0.058 aDALYs per household, per year, respectively. Also,
overall, more than half of the ill health averted would accrue to children
under age 5, because they would have fewer acute lower respiratory
infections.

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

c	The Gold Standard aDALY methodology stipulates that the 90 percent confidence interval’s margin of error of the sample should be less than 30

percent of the mean. (It does not require statistical significance.) All values are less than 30 percent, meeting this guideline.
CLEAN IMPACT BOND

35

Figure 7: PM2.5 Exposure

BiogasControl

48

45

Mean (Standard Deviation - SD)

36 (17)113 (105)Median

33

86

Range

5 - 7718 - 551

90% Confidence Intervalmargin of error

+ 4
-

+ 26
-

90% precision*

11%

23%

Difference in means ascompared to the biogas
group, μg/m3 (%)

NA

77 (68%)

Number of observations
PM2.5 concentration, μg/m3

PM2.5 Concentration, µg/m3

400

Mean= 113200
Mean= 36

0

N= 48

N= 45

BiogasControl

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

*	The Gold Standard aDALY methodology stipulates that the 90 percent confidence interval’s margin of error of the sample should be less than 30
percent of the mean. (It does not require statistical significance.) All values are less than 30 percent, meeting this guideline.
36

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Figure 8: Disease-specific Contributions to Averted Deaths and DALYs (outputs from HAPIT)

Averted DALYs

Averted Deaths
20

600

15
400
10
200

5

0

0
ALRI

Avertable

COPD

IHD

LC

Stroke

ALRI

COPD

IHD

LC

StrokeAvertedAverted ill-health due to the proposed intervention. Each panel represents a specific health measure. Lightly shaded bars are the total
avertable ill-health by an intervention that has perfect usage and reduces exposures to the counterfactual. Estimates of ill-health assume
that each year of exposure reduction provides five years of benefit.

MeasureAge

Mean Averted

Minimum Averted

Max Averted

Averted DALYs

Child

309

224

356

Averted Deaths

Child

4

3

4

Averted DALYs

Adult

269

133

350

Averted Deaths

Adult

12

5

15

Panels represent different measures of averted ill health. Darkly shaded areas are the mean amount of averted ill health by disease type, andthe lightly shaded areas are what could be avertable by a “perfect” intervention. ALRI is acute lower respiratory infection, COPD is chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, IHD is ischemic heart disease, and LC is lung cancer.

Based on available literature, we initially expected to see slightly
higher personal exposure to PM2.5 in this assessment. For example,
PM2.5 exposures for women using traditional stoves in Rwanda
were reported at 223 μg/m³,80 and a systematic review by Pope etal. (2017) of household air pollution found most studies reported
traditional biomass user groups had means above 200 μg/m³.81

36 μg/m3 for the biogas-using household group, and 113 μg/m3 for thebiomass-using household group. These findings are very encouraging
from a health standpoint. However, the lower exposure level in the baseline
scenario for the biomass-using household group means that the transition
from cooking with traditional biomass methods to cooking with biogas had asmaller impact on health than expected.

The assessment found that air quality was much cleaner
than originally anticipated. For example, the results showA“ perfect” intervention is defined by HAPIT as one that that reduces exposures to the counterfactual of 7 μg/m3, and is used for 100 percent ofcooking (7 μg/m³ was selected based on the 2010 Global Burden of Disease counterfactual estimate; in 2021, the World Health Organization(WHO) guideline for ambient air pollution exposure was revised downward to 5 μg/m³).
CLEAN IMPACT BOND

37

GenderInterpretation of the gender result•	Female cooks in biogas-using households in the project
scenario spent less time on cooking and fuel-related activities
than was the case for female cooks in the biomass-using
households in the baseline scenario; on average, thisaccounted for a total of 99 fewer minutes per day acrossthe assessed activities.
•	Compared to the female cooks in the biomass-using
households in the baseline scenario, the female cooks inthe biogas-using households in the project scenario spentan average of 47 more minutes of Quality Time per day(285 hours, or about 12 days, per year).

This assessment found that in comparison to the biomass-using
households’ cooks in the baseline scenario82, cooks in biogas-using
households in the project scenario reported spending less time on cooking
and all fuel related tasks, and more time on Quality Time activities. For
example, cooks in the biogas-using households in the project scenario
saved, on average, 77 minutes per day on cooking, and 22 minutes per day
on fuel-related tasks – a total of 99 minutes. This assessment also foundthat, on average, biogas-using households in the project scenario spentan average of 47 more minutes per day on Quality Time activities, whichsuggests that approximately half of the time saved when cooking withbiogas is redeployed to Quality Time activities (see Table 6 for detailed
results for Time Use).

Table 6: Time Use (via survey of female primary cooks)

Biogas-using households

N = Observations

Biomass-using households

126

102

146.1 (71.8)

222.9 (140.5)

7%

10%

Difference in means(as compared to biomass
group)

Cooking time (all tasks, min.d /day)
Mean (SD)90% precisione
P-value for the difference between
biogas- and biomass-using
households-76.8<0.001f

All-fuel related tasks83(all tasks, min./day)
Mean (SD)90% precision

36.6 (56.6)

58.4 (73.6)

23%

21%

-21.8

0.02g

P-value for the difference
Quality Time84 (min./day)
Mean (SD)90% precision

412 (266.7)

365.4 (239.2)

9%

11%

P-value for the difference

+46.6

0.17h

d

	
Min. stands for minutes.

e	The Gold Standard aDALY methodology stipulates that the 90 percent confidence interval’s margin of error of the sample should be less than 30

percent of the mean. The Gold Standard methodology does not require statistical significance. All values presented above are less than 30 percent,meeting this guideline.
f	This difference is statistically significant.

g	This difference is statistically significant.

h	Although this difference is not statistically significant, the 90/30 precision guideline was met for each of these groups.

38

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Setting up a biodigester
Copyright © Sistema.bio.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

39

Endnotes
1

ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program). 2020. The State of Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/937141600195758792/The-State-of-Access-to-Modern-Energy-Cooking-Services.

2
IEA (International Energy Agency), IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency), UNSD (United Nations Statistics Division), World Bank, and WHO (World
Health Organization). 2022. Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report. June 1, 2022. Washington, DC: World Bank.
https://trackingsdg7.esmap.org/data/files/download-documents/sdg7-report2022-full_report.pdf.
3
Puthumana, J.S., L.M. Ngaage, M.R. Borrelli, E.M. Rada, J. Caffrey, and Y. Rasko. 2021. “Risk factors for cooking-related burn injuries in children, WHO Global Burn
Registry.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 99 (6): 439–445. https://doi.org/10.2471%2FBLT.20.279786.
4

Per the Clean Cooking Alliance, clean cooking solutions refer to a suite of fuel-stove combinations with emissions performance that meets the World HealthOrganization’s guidelines for indoor air quality. They include high-efficiency charcoal and biomass pellet stoves, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), biogas, ethanol, andelectric stoves and pressure cookers.

5

United Nations. 2021. Theme Report on Energy Access Towards the Achievement of SDG 7 and Net-Zero Emissions.
https://www.un.org/ohrlls/sites/www.un.org.ohrlls/files/technical_working_group_1_energy_access_report_2021.pdf.
6
The term “base of the economic pyramid” is used to describe men and women who are low-income and/or who lack access to basic goods and services. The lowincome segment is commonly considered to include people earning up to $8 per day in terms of their purchasing power parity (PPP). Setting the maximum in PPP
terms adjusts the real figure to equate the PPPs of different countries. G20 Development Working Group. 2015. “G20 Inclusive Business Framework.”
http://g20.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/G20-Inclusive-Business-Framework.pdf.
7

Quality Time is defined as the sum of time spent on income generating activities, producing goods that would otherwise be bought, education, rest and leisure.

8

IEA (International Energy Agency), IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency), UNSD (United Nations Statistics Division), World Bank, and WHO (World
Health Organization). 2022. Tracking SDG 7: The Energy Progress Report. June 1, 2022. Washington, DC: World Bank.
https://trackingsdg7.esmap.org/data/files/download-documents/sdg7-report2022-full_report.pdf.

9
Puthumana, J.S., L.M. Ngaage, M.R. Borrelli, E.M. Rada, J. Caffrey, and Y. Rasko. 2021. “Risk factors for cooking-related burn injuries in children, WHO Global Burn
Registry.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 99 (6): 439–445. https://doi.org/10.2471%2FBLT.20.279786.
10
ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program). 2020. The State of Access to Modern Energy Cooking Services (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/937141600195758792/The-State-of-Access-to-Modern-Energy-Cooking-Services.
11

Any positive outcomes or impacts, other than direct GHG emissions’ mitigation, resulting from carbon offset projects.

12

ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program). 2022. “Opening Opportunities, Closing Gaps: Advancing Gender-Equal Benefits in Clean Cooking
Operations.” Washington, DC: World Bank. https://cleancooking.org/reports-and-tools/opening-opportunities-closing-gaps-advancing-genderequal-benefits-in-clean-cooking-operations/.
13

Because cooking with a traditional stove takes more time, cooks spend more than 1.3 hours per day on cooking.

14

OECD (The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), Issues Paper: Unpaid Care Work: The missing link in the analysis of gender gaps in labour
outcomes@, 2014 https://www.oecd.org/dev/development-gender/Unpaid_care_work.pdf.

15
WHO (World Health Organization). 2016. Burning Opportunity: Clean Household Energy for Health, Sustainable Development, and Wellbeing of Women and Children.
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/204717/9789241565233_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
16

Clean Cooking Alliance. “Clean Cooking Sector Strategy: Systemic challenges and opportunities.” https://cleancooking.org/clean-cooking-systems-strategy.

17

They cannot meet the criteria (substantial collateral and/or high interest rates) to access debt from local banks, and they are not eligible
for international investments because the amounts they borrow are much smaller than the ticket size offered by international investors.
There are local currency risks as well.

18

Dalberg. Clean Cooking Sector Strategy: Emerging Insights from User Research.

19
United Nations. 2021. Theme Report on Energy Access Towards the Achievement of SDG 7 and Net-Zero Emissions.
https://www.un.org/ohrlls/sites/www.un.org.ohrlls/files/technical_working_group_1_energy_access_report_2021.pdf.
20

SEforALL (Sustainable Energy for All). 2021. “Energizing Finance: Understanding the Landscape 2021.” Vienna: Sustainable Energy for All (SEforAll). https://www.
seforall.org/system/files/2021-10/EF-2021-UL-SEforALL.pdf.

21

Accenture and Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. 2018. Financing Growth in the Clean Cookstoves and Fuels Market: An Analysis and Recommendations. Chicago:
Accenture. https://cleancooking.org/reports-and-tools/financing-growth-in-the-clean-cookstoves-and-fuels-market-an-analysis-and-recommendations/.

40

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

22

The Brookings Institution’s analysis shows that an impact bond is the best instrument to use, when paying for outcomes is more likely to deliver outcomes thanpaying for inputs. Also, simply convening parties and letting them get on with it is unlikely to go well. The main success factor in impacts bonds turns out to be their
management. Gustafsson-Wright, Emily. 2020. “What is the size and scope of the impact bonds market? Measuring the Success of Impact Bonds.” Global Economy
and Development at Brookings. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Impact_Bonds-Brief_1-FINAL-1.
pdf.

23
Brookings Institution. 2022. Impact bonds fund services through contracts where private investors provide upfront flexible funding to service providers, andoutcome funders repay these investors based on the outcomes achieved by the people receiving the services. Since 2010, 239 impact bonds have been launchedacross 39 countries. https://www.brookings.edu/research/social-and-development-impact-bonds-by-the-numbers.
24

King, Matt. 2021. “Results-Based Climate Finance is a powerful tool to build back better, but only if it is within easy reach.” World Bank Blogs, March 24, 2021.
https://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/results-based-climate-finance-powerful-tool-build-back-better-only-if-it-within-easy.

25

ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program). “Clean Cooking Fund.” https://www.esmap.org/clean-cooking-fund.

26

Roots of Impact. 2019. Social Impact Incentives (SIINC). https://www.roots-of-impact.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Social-Impact-Incentives-SIINC-WhitePaper-2016.pdf.

27

Any RBF scheme requires: 1) measurable outcomes that would allow attribution of results to the funding inputs, 2) adoption of widely agreed-upon methodologies
for quantifying results from an intervention, 3) a reasonable evidence base for those interventions, 4) credible, independent, third-party verification of results, and 5)
demand for verified results targeted to close access gaps from donors and/or the private sector.

28
Blaufelder, Christopher, Cindy Levy, Peter Mannion, and Dickon Pinner. 2021. “A blueprint for scaling voluntary carbon markets to meet the climate challenge.”
McKinsey.com. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/a-blueprint-for-scaling-voluntary-carbon-markets-to-meet-the-climatechallenge.
29

Philips, Sue, and Jeanette Gurung. 2021. “Bringing a stronger focus on SDG 5: Gender Equality in the voluntary carbon market. TSVCM Phase2: Public Consultation
Open Letter.” June 20, 2021. GenderTech Enterprises, WOCAN, and W+. San Francesco: WOCAN. https://www.wplus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/TSVCMPhase-2-Open-Letter-Gender-Equality1.pdf. This has also been reflected in a big jump in the volume for carbon offsets, which achieved dual certification undercarbon credits and other standards that certify positive social impacts (these offsets increased 113 percent, from 2.3 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2016
to 4.9 MtCO2e in 2018, and the market value topped $24.8 million). Ecosystem Marketplace. 2019. Financing Emissions Reductions for the Future State of the Voluntary
Carbon Markets 2019. https://icap.sustainability.illinois.edu/files/project/378/2019-Carbon%20Offsets-MarketOverview.pdf

30

IFC’s market sounding consultation with 35 leading market players in the carbon space and 10 development finance institutions/multilateral development banks/
impact investors. The WOCAN survey mentioned above found that 65 percent of respondents believe the demand for carbon credits with women’s empowerment
will grow once buyers are aware of the opportunity to purchase offsets with a “co-benefit” of women’s empowerment/gender equality.

31

Brookings Institution Global Impact Bond Database, accessed, March 1, 2023.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/social-and-development-impact-bonds-by-the-numbers.
32
SEforAll’s Energizing Finance report shows a significant funding gap for clean cooking access ($133 committed in 2019 versus the $4.5 billion required). SEforALL. 2021.
Energizing Finance: Understanding the Landscape 2021. Vienna: Sustainable Energy for All (SEforAll).
https://www.seforall.org/system/files/2021-10/EF-2021-UL-ES-SEforALL.pdf.
33
IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2018. “IFC, BIX Capital Partner to Finance Climate-smart Appliances for Low-income African Households.”
IFC press release, June 4, 2018. https://pressroom.ifc.org/all/pages/PressDetail.aspx?ID=18344.
34

King, Matt. 2021. “Results-Based Climate Finance is a powerful tool to build back better, but only if it is within easy reach.” World Bank Blogs, March 24, 2021.
https://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/results-based-climate-finance-powerful-tool-build-back-better-only-if-it-within-easy.

35Gold Standard. 2016. “Methodology to Estimate and Verify Averted Disability Adjusted Life Years (ADALYs) from Cleaner Cooking and Cleaner Household Air: Public
Consultation.” Geneva: Gold Standard. https://www.goldstandard.org/our-work/innovations-consultations/methodology-estimate-and-verify-averted-disabilityadjusted-life.

36

Gold Standard for the Global Goals. 2017. “Gold Standard Gender Equality Guidelines & Requirements.” Draft for public consultation. Geneva: Gold Standard.
https://www.goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/documents/gs_gender_equality_guidelines_consultation.pdf.

37

Price of aDALY used per capita gross domestic product in Kenya (as of 2019) as a benchmark ($1,816 to $1,970) and followed WHO-CHOICE methodology.
https://resource-allocation.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1478-7547-1-8.

38

Price per Quality Hour (for gender) was based on three available references: 1) W+ units issued using the W+ standard by WOCAN (using the Nepal transaction$0.60 per hour), 2) gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Kenya as of 2019, and 3) the living wage for rural Kenya in 2016. These references yielded a price range
of: $0.60 to $1.02 per added Quality Hour (QH) and worked with the high-end price of $1 per QH.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

41

39

Gold Standard for the Global Goals. “Certify a Project to Gold Standard.” Gold Standard website accessed November 30, 2022.
https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/certify-project.

40

Gold Standard for the Global Goals. “Certify a Project to Gold Standard.” Gold Standard website accessed November 30, 2022.
https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/certify-project.

41

World Bank.Building Evidence to Unlock Impact Finance: A Field Assessment of Clean Cooking Co-benefits for Climate, Health, and Gender (English).
Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099051123130561434/P17423201c1bc105d0a4da0803634916bb0.

42

The assessment found that air quality was much cleaner than originally anticipated. For example, the results show 36 μg/m3 for the biogas-using households group,and 113 μg/m3 for the biomass-using control group. These findings are very encouraging from a health standpoint, because exposure in the project scenario for thebiogas-using households group was close to the World Health Organization’s first interim guideline of 35 μg/m3. However, the lower exposure level in the baseline
scenario for the biomass-using control group means that the transition from cooking with traditional biomass methods to cooking with biogas had a smaller impact
on health than expected.
43Note that this is the interim guideline according to the World Health Organization. The World Health Organization global air quality guidelines for PM2.5 exposure
were revised downward in 2021 to 15 µg/m3 (24-hour average) and 5 µg/m3 (annual average).

44

The W+ domains created by Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (WOCAN) show various methodologies to measureand quantify projects’ outcomes on women’s lives. For example, one of the W+ Time methods for time savings enables project developers to document the increase
in women’s discretionary time, by measuring shifts in the use of time away from lower-value activities toward higher-value activities. WOCAN (Women Organizing
for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management). https://www.wplus.org/w-domains/.

45
For example, a meta-analysis of multi-tier framework (MTF) data on time use across six countries estimated that the time savings of users of improved
cookstoves was 23 minutes per day in rural areas, and 41 minutes per day in urban areas. This was across all cooking and fuel-preparation tasks. Krishnapriya, P.P.,
Maya Chandrasekaran, Marc Jeuland, and Subhrendu K. Pattanayak. 2021. “Do Improved Cookstoves Save Time and Improve Gender Outcomes? Evidence fromSix Developing Countries.” Energy Economics 102, October: 105456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105456). Notably, the study combined “improved” biomass
stove users with users of biogas and other clean-fuel stoves. When the data were disaggregated by gender, the savings for women were reduced in this study to
11 minutes per day in rural areas (range: 8 to 21 minutes). Studies focused on biogas technologies have occasionally reported larger time savings: for example, 110
minutes per day for women using biogas stoves in South India (Anderman, Tal Lee, Ruth S. DeFries, Stephen A. Wood, Roseline Remans, Richie Ahuja, and Shujayath
E. Ulla. 2015. “Biogas Cook Stoves for Healthy and Sustainable Diets? A Case Study in Southern India.” Frontiers in Nutrition 2, September. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fnut.2015.00028); and 136 minutes per day for women using biogas in Nepal (Gurung, Barun, and Shreya Thakali. 2014. “Monitoring Report: Women’s Time Savings
from Biogas in Nepal.” Kailua Kona: WOCAN. https://mer.markit.com/br-reg/public/project.jsp?project_id=104000000015320). However, other studies havereported lower time savings—about 14 minutes per day (Krishnapriya et al. 2021).
46

It is well known that reducing the time that women spend on unpaid labor and drudgerous tasks is important for closing the gap between
women and men with regard to women’s additional labor burden and time poverty. ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program).
2020. Quantifying and Measuring Climate, Health, and Gender Co-Benefits from Clean Cooking Interventions: Methodologies Review. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/436301593546281643/quantifying-and-measuring-climate-health-and-gender-cobenefits-from-clean-cooking-interventions-methodologies-review; Krishnapriya, P.P., Maya Chandrasekaran, Marc Jeuland, and Subhrendu K. Pattanayak. 2021.
“Do Improved Cookstoves Save Time and Improve Gender Outcomes? Evidence from Six Developing Countries.” Energy Economics 102 (October): 105456. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105456; Jagoe, Kirstie, Madeleine Rossanese, Dana Charron, Jonathan Rouse, Francis Waweru, MaryAnne Waruguru, Samantha Delapena,
Ricardo Piedrahita, Kavanaugh Livingston, and Julie Ipe. 2020. “Sharing the Burden: Shifts in Family Time Use, Agency and Gender Dynamics after Introduction of
New Cookstoves in Rural Kenya.” Energy Research & Social Science 64 (June): 101413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101413.

47
ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program). 2020. Quantifying and Measuring Climate, Health, and Gender Co-Benefits from Clean Cooking Interventions:
Methodologies Review. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/436301593546281643/
quantifying-and-measuring-climate-health-and-gender-co-benefits-from-clean-cooking-interventions-methodologies-review.
48

A randomized trial in Ghana found that LPG users spent about 50 minutes more per day on income generation than did controls (rest and leisure time was
not assessed). Prah, Rebecca Kyerewaa Dwommoh, Daniel Carrion, Felix Boakye Oppong, Theresa Tawiah, Mohammed Nuhu Mujtaba, Stephaney Gyaase, andAdolphine Kwarteng. 2020. “Time Use Implication of Clean Cookstoves in Rural Settings in Ghana: A Time Use Study.” International Journal of Environmental Researchand Public Health 18 (1): 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010166. Conversely, biogas adopters in South India spent about 60 minutes per day less on paid laborthan controls, but 12 minutes more on relaxation.41 Anderman, Tal Lee, Ruth S. DeFries, Stephen A. Wood, Roseline Remans, Richie Ahuja, and Shujayath E. Ulla. 2015.
“Biogas Cook Stoves for Healthy and Sustainable Diets? A Case Study in Southern India.” Frontiers in Nutrition 2 (September). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2015.00028.
Finally, a study in Nepal reported that biogas users spent 66 more minutes per day engaged in non-cooking-related productive activities, and eight more minutes
per day on rest or leisure than was the case with non-adopters. Gurung, Barun, and Shreya Thakali. 2014. Monitoring Report: Women’s Time Savings from Biogas in Nepal.
Kailua Kona: WOCAN. https://mer.markit.com/br-reg/public/project.jsp?project_id=104000000015320.

49

According to the most recent World Bank study in 2023, the time use surveys did not yield significant differences between primary cooks in the biogas and control
households in terms of time spent on Quality Time, or an association between biogas use and increased time spent on income-generating activities for women.
However, the team has confirmed that the slightly different results observed in the World Bank and IFC studies for health and gender are within the range of whatmight be expected when conducting sequential studies using similar methods (i.e., they are within the range of natural sampling variability, especially because thetwo studies were conducted in slightly different locations). Nonetheless, there were a few key differences in how the participant groups were defined, and how themethods were applied, which may play a role in the observed differences. These specific differences would be available upon request. These are the first two studies
to assess Quality Time in order to measure the impact on women; more studies need to be conducted to test the robustness of the indicator to measure the gender
benefits of using biogas.

42

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

50

The amount of money generated per stove installation based on the CIB.

51

The result was generated by multiplying 0.058 aDALYs per household by 365 days.

52

The result was generated by multiplying 0.058 aDALYs per household by the price $1,816 per aDALY set by the CIB.

53

The result was generated by multiplying 0.78 hours of Quality Time per day per household by 365 days.

54

The result was generated by multiplying 285 hours by the price of $1 per QH set by CIB.

55

Gold Standard. 2016. “Methodology to Estimate and Verify Averted Disability Adjusted Life Years (ADALYs) from Cleaner Cooking and Cleaner Household Air: Public
Consultation.” Geneva: Gold Standard. https://www.goldstandard.org/our-work/innovations-consultations/methodology-estimate-and-verify-averted-disabilityadjusted-life.

56

For these Gold Standard project documents, see https://registry.goldstandard.org/projects/details/2198.

57

Clemens, Harry, Rob Bailis, Anne Nyambane, and Victoria Ndung’u. 2018. “Africa Biogas Partnership Program: A Review of Clean
Cooking Implementation through Market Development in East Africa.” Energy for Sustainable Development 46 (June): 23–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2018.05.012.

58

Eaton, Alex. 2022. Communication written to the Berkeley Air Monitoring Group. August 2022.

59

Companies that are already bankable can attract working capital from banks/local mainstream investors. If a company is too small, its operations are notsufficiently organized to meet due diligence requirements from the impact investors and standards including Gold Standard.

60

World Bank.Building Evidence to Unlock Impact Finance: A Field Assessment of Clean Cooking Co-benefits for Climate, Health, and Gender (English).
Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099051123130561434/P17423201c1bc105d0a4da0803634916bb0.

61

Because the negative health impacts of damaging environmental exposure can take years to develop, using aDALYs to quantify the health impact in the target
population is more practical than attempting to measure the actual health impact. This methodology has been implemented at least twice previously – once for acookstove program in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Hill, Lawson, Ajay Pillariseti, Kirk R. Smith, Samantha Delapena, Charity Garland, Kirstie Jagoe, David
Pennise, Mette Rohr Boatman, Philipp Koetting, and Aurelie Pelletreau. 2015. Air Pollution and Impact Analysis of a Pilot Stove Intervention: Report to the Ministry of Healthand Inter-Ministerial Clean Stove Initiative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, and Berkeley Air Monitoring Group); andonce for a public health intervention in Rwanda.

62

The World Bank’s 2023 study finding suggests that time use agency, in addition to time use, is an effective way to measure women’s empowerment and themultidimensional impact of cookstove adoption.

63
The W+ Standard, created by WOCAN, is the first women-specific standard that measures women’s empowerment in a transparent
and quantifiable manner, gives a monetary value to results, and creates a new channel to direct financial resources to women.
https://www.wplus.org/about-the-w-standard/.
64
United Nations Climate Change. 2021. “The W+ Standard: Nepal.” UN Global Climate Action Awards. Women for Results. United Nations Climate Change website,
accessed November 30, 2022.
https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/women-for-results/the-w-standard.
65

Gurung, Barun, and Shreya Thakali. 2014. Monitoring Report: Women’s Time Savings from Biogas in Nepal. Kailua Kona: WOCAN.
https://mer.markit.com/br-reg/public/project.jsp?project_id=104000000015320.

66

World Bank.Building Evidence to Unlock Impact Finance: A Field Assessment of Clean Cooking Co-benefits for Climate, Health, and Gender (English).
Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099051123130561434/P17423201c1bc105d0a4da0803634916bb0.

67

This means that cooking enterprises need to understand, based on the terms and conditions at the time of sale, that they have waived their rights to the GHG
reduction, health, and/or gender outcomes. Also, at the time of sale, the additional revenue from the sale of these outcomes should be worked into the offering to
the enterprise.

68

The study required two data collection phases in order to meet the minimum sample size required by Gold Standard. This was necessary because the study
collected an over-representation of control households that use LPG at least seven times per week, and an unreported number of households with chimneys that
could affect household air quality.
69“Meru County–Agribiz.” Accessed August 10, 2022. https://agribiz.kenyacic.org/meru-county/.

70

LSM was calculated using a procedure developed by the Marketing & Social Research Association-Kenya (MSRA-Kenya). The measure borrowed heavily
from ESOMAR South Africa (http://www.eighty20.co.za/lsm-calculator/), but it was customized for Kenyan households. For the definition of social classes,
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRS_social_grade.

71

Access Sensor Technologies. https://www.accsensors.com/.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

43

72

The monitoring device was worn continuously by subjects for 48 hours, except when bathing or sleeping. The device collected PM2.5
on a filter that measured the concentration of PM2.5 before and after the participant began wearing the device.

73
Gold Standard. 2016. “Methodology to Estimate and Verify Averted Disability Adjusted Life Years (ADALYs) from Cleaner Cooking and Cleaner Household Air: Public
Consultation.” Geneva: Gold Standard. https://www.goldstandard.org/our-work/innovations-consultations/methodology-estimate-and-verify-averted-disabilityadjusted-life.
74

Pillarisetti, A., S. Mehta, and K. R. Smith. 2016. “HAPIT, the Household Air Pollution Intervention Tool, to Evaluate the Health Benefits and Cost-Effectivenessof Clean Cooking Interventions.” In Broken Pumps and Promises – Incentivizing Impact in Environmental Health, edited by Evan A. Thomas. Switzerland: Springer, 2016,
147–169. Note that as of January 2023, HAPIT is still available but no longer updated or supported. ABODE is the successor model to HAPIT and incorporates themost updated and internally consistent evidence linking exposure to health impacts. Therefore, it has been recommended that Gold Standard update its aDALY
methodology to use ABODE rather than HAPIT as the modeling tool going forward (as of January 2023).

75

Gold Standard for the Global Goals. 2017. “Gold Standard Gender Equality Guidelines & Requirements.” Draft for public consultation.
Geneva: Gold Standard. https://www.goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/documents/gs_gender_equality_guidelines_consultation.pdf.

76

Project Information and Project Design Document (PDD). https://platform.sustain-cert.com/public-project/1874.

77

Gold Standard. “Access to Clean Water for Communities in Uganda.” Gold Standard website, accessed November 30, 2022.
https://www.goldstandard.org/projects/access-clean-water-communities-uganda.

78
For a summary of field studies that have attempted to measure the gender impacts of development projects, see ESMAP (Energy
Sector Management Assistance Program). 2020. Quantifying and Measuring Climate, Health, and Gender Co-Benefits from Clean Cooking Interventions: Methodologies
Review. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/436301593546281643/quantifying-andmeasuring-climate-health-and-gender-co-benefits-from-clean-cooking-interventions-methodologies-review.
79

Pillarisetti, A., S. Mehta, and K. R. Smith. 2016. “HAPIT, the Household Air Pollution Intervention Tool, to Evaluate the Health Benefits and Cost-Effectivenessof Clean Cooking Interventions.” In Broken Pumps and Promises – Incentivizing Impact in Environmental Health, edited by Evan A. Thomas. Switzerland: Springer, 2016,
147–169. Note that as of January 2023, HAPIT is still available but no longer updated or supported. ABODE is the successor model to HAPIT and incorporates themost updated and internally consistent evidence linking exposure to health impacts. Therefore, it has been recommended that Gold Standard update its aDALY
methodology to use ABODE rather than HAPIT as the modeling tool going forward (as of January 2023).

80

Kirby, M., C. Nagel, G. Rosa, L. Zambrano, S. Musafiri, J. Ngirabega, E. Thomas, and T. Clasen. 2019. “Effects of a large-scale distribution of water filters and natural
draft rocket-style cookstoves on diarrhea and acute respiratory infection: A cluster-randomized controlled trial in Western Province, Rwanda.” PLOS Medicine 16 (6).
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002812.
81

Pope, D., N. Bruce, M. Dherani, K. Jagoe, and E. Rehfuess. 2017. “Real-life effectiveness of ‘improved’ stoves and clean fuels in reducing PM2.5 and CO: Systematic
review and meta-analysis.” Environment International 101: 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.01.012.

82
In total, 115 biomass-using households were enrolled in this study. In Phase 1, all of these households took part in the household survey, whereas in Phase 2, only asubset of biomass users were surveyed because the focus was assessing personal exposure to PM2.5. Thus, although demographic information was collected from all
115 of the biomass-using households, the household survey collected time-use data from only 102 biomass-using participants.
83

Fuel-related tasks were defined as the sum of time spent on wood fuel collection, wood fuel purchase, charcoal purchase, LPG purchase, wood fuel preparation,water collection, and (for biogas) 50 percent of the time spent collecting manure, adding water, and maintaining the biodigester.

84

Quality Time is defined as the sum of time spent on income generating activities, producing goods that would otherwise be bought, education, rest and leisure.
Production of goods that would otherwise be bought was defined as: growing food that you eat, producing milk that you drink, making baskets used in the housewoven from your own grasses, and (for biogas-using households) production of organic fertilizer, including 50 percent of the time spent collecting manure, adding
water, and maintaining the biodigester and 100 percent of the time spent agitating the slurry.

44

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

Copyright © Sistema.bio.

CLEAN IMPACT BOND

45

Contact Information
Bhatti Murti
Communication Lead, Gender & Economic Inclusion
International Finance Corporation
2121 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20433
www.ifc.org