1. Charcoal project in Kenya
Localized solutions for region-centric challenges
Takuro Haraguchi
Kopernik Fellow
-Tokyo Institute of Technology
Department of International Development Engineering

2. Contents
1. Introduction 3p
2. Situation of Charcoal Problem s of m aterials 4p
2.1 Market for charcoal 4p
2.2 Feedback on new type of charcoal from agricultural waste 6p
3. Problem s 6p
3.1 Problems of materials 7p
3.1.1 Agricultural waste 7p
3.1.2 Cassava 9p
3.2 Problems of tools 10p
4. Solutions 11p
4.1 Materials 11p
4.1.1 Agricultural waste 11p
4.1.2 Cassava 12p
4.2 Tools 19p
4.2.1 Oven 19p
4.2.2 Pot 24p
5. Sum m ary 30p
2

3. 1. Introduction
On 29th September 2010, as a Kopernik fellow, I went to western Kenya for 6
months to research how solar lanterns contributed to people’s lives in a
village where there is no electricity.I had many conversations with people
there and realized that there exists a great inequality between the rich and
the poor even in villages. Actually, there are so many widows without stable
income sources who have to support more than 5 children. Many of them are
not in a position to meet basic needs like eating supper, using kerosene lamp
every night, and so on. What can we do for them? One approach is to provide
new job opportunities because lack of income source is the main reason
behind their poverty. With this perspective, I decided to initiate the charcoal
project in western Kenya in December 2010 by using technology invented by
D-Lab MIT. I managed the charcoal project on the ground in Kenya during
two separate terms; December 2010 to March 2011 and August 2011 to
September 2011, partnering with a local, community-based organization in
both occasions. During these periods, we have had many difficulties with the
project, which prevent charcoal production from increasing. Therefore, I
would like to share our experiences of difficulties and how we have tried to
tackle them in this report.
3

4. 2. Situation of Charcoal
2.1 Market for charcoal
Before explaining the problems I encountered, I would like to first explain the
general situation of those who use charcoal in western Kenya. Since there is
no infrastructure of Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for cooking, people are
forced to use charcoal or firewood, driving the demand for charcoal very high.
Then, the question arises: “What type of people use charcoal?” I divided
charcoal users into two groups of people: those who live in town and those
who use them it for business
2.1.1 People who live in town
The first type consists of richer people living mainly in towns. Figure 1 below
shows the estate of a sugar company where workers and their family live.
Everyone here uses charcoal for cooking.
Figure 1
2.1.2 People who use it for business.
The second type consists of people who use coal for their businesses. Actually,
there are so many people who do it. The reason why they use charcoal instead
of firewood is to avoid emitting smoke otherwise customs won’t come to take
foods. In addition, charcoal is much better in terms of efficiency of cooking.
Nevertheless to say, there are some kinds of business with charcoal. So, I
would like to explain one by one.
- Charcoal for cooking food
If you go to market at towns, you can find many people on roads who are
selling food cooked using charcoal as a source of fuel.
4

5. Figure 2 Figure 3
A woman is selling roasted maize on Figure 2 and fried fish on Figure 3.
And also if you go to a restaurant located in either a town or a village, people
there cook using charcoal.
Figure 4 Figure 5
- Charcoal for other purposes
Another type of use for charcoal is for ironing (see figures 6 and 7 below).
Figure 6 Figure 7
5

6. 2.2 Feedback on new type of charcoal from agricultural waste.
One month after the charcoal project began, I researched how people who
regularly use charcoal feel about our charcoal. I gave out samples to around
20 people who run restaurants to get feedback.
Figure 8 Figure 9
The results from the feedback conveyed that most people were satisfied with
the workability of the charcoal. From this we can conclude that charcoal
produced from agricultural waste is a viable substitute for charcoal by wood.
3. Problems
I have managed the charcoal project in Kenya on the ground for 6 months in
total and found there were 4 problems with charcoal production.
Figure 10. The flow of charcoal production.
As you see Figure 10, we use 2 materials (Agricultural waste and Cassava)
and 2 tools (Drum and Compressor) to produce charcoal from agricultural
6

7. waste. However, since we implemented our project in the poor village, we
have faced difficulties in using these 2 materials and 2 tools.
3.1 Problems with materials
We encountered a problem in stably acquiring agricultural waste and cassava.
3.1.1 Agricultural waste
Owing to western Kenya’s relative prosperity in agriculture, there is quite a
bit of agricultural waste to benefit from, such as stocks of sugarcane, maize
cores and stocks of maize. In this sense, you might think that it is easy to get
plenty of materials, which is what I thought initially. However, after starting
the charcoal project I realized that it was not easy to acquire a sufficient
amount of these materials. Through observations, I learned that there are
four critical factors that influence the success of people participating in the
project in collecting the necessary raw materials.
1: Whether it is harvest season
One of the major materials for charcoal production is maize. In western
Kenya, there are two harvest season of maize, which are the only times it is
possible to procure maize materials. If maize is not being harvested, it is very
difficult to collect those materials. On the other hand, there is no harvest
season for sugarcane; it grows all year round. This allows procuring waste
materials of sugarcane to be independent of seasons.
Figure 11. Dry is desirable.
2: Whether it is the rainy season
One requirement for carbonization is to use dry materials. Otherwise, it wil
take a lot of time for the materials to catch fire in the drum. In addition, wet
materials means using more burning material than normal, which reduces
the efficiency of the process. Finally, wet materials can lead to ineffective
7

8. carbonization (as in figure 12 below). In western Kenya there are two rainy
seasons, which are from April to May and August to September. Hence, it is
difficult to get dry materials during these seasons.
Figure 12
3: Proximity of waste materials to burning site
As for waste materials of maize, you can find these ready on land just after
harvesting two times per year. And also you can find numerous sugarcane
fields in western Kenya but unlike maize, sugarcane matures after a few
years, whereas the period of maturity for maize occurs after just a few
months. Although abundant, getting waste materials of sugarcane is
completely dependent upon where the waste material is located. If they are
harvested at location far from the charcoal burning site, it is difficult for the
participants of the project to pick them up because the main mode of
transporting goods in this region is by foot.
4: Whether you own lands for maize
Collecting the cores of maize is dependent upon whether people own land and
grow maize. In western Kenya, after harvesting maize, people move it to
inside their houses to store, take out the kernels, and leave the cobs. So, you
cannot get maize in the field as same way you get maize stock. How much
amount of cores of maize you can get is dependent upon how large of field you
have. Of course, many poor people don’t have lands for maize.
8

9. Figure 13. Cores of maize are stored to use for cooking burning materials.
- Summary
To summarize, Table 1 presents the particular difficulties each agricultural
waste has.
Table 1. The situation of collecting agricultural waste.
3.1.2 Cassava
In western Kenya, you can find a lot of cassava. But, there are 2 difficulties
specifically with cassava.
1: Competition with foods
Many in western Kenya people treat cassava as food, especially in Busia town,
which is located along the border with Uganda where cassava is a main diet
staple. In this area, there might be resistance to use it as a binder. So far the
scale of charcoal production is small, but if it expands in the long term, it
might trigger a competition with foods.
2: Scarcity
We can find cassava all year round. However, the demand for cassava in
western Kenya in which the main food is maize depends on harvest seasons
of other foods. During harvest season for maize, there is a large supply of
maize so demand for cassava is low, but during non-harvest seasons for maize,
price of maize go up and demand for cassava is high. Therefore, suppliers of
cassava hold out on selling cassava in maize harvesting season in order to
profit from the higher prices they will reap when maize becomes scarce in the
off season.
9

10. 3.2 Problems with tools
Obtaining tools like a drum and a compressor is difficult for people in village
because of their high costs. Here in western Kenya, the price of a metal drum
is very expensive, which is 1,700Ksh(16.63 USD 1) The price of a compressor
is slightly expensive, 400Ksh(3.91 USD). To give you a better sense of just
how high these prices are in western Kenya, let me give an example. People
who are working at primary schools as a teacher can get income around
15,000Ksh (145.85 USD) monthly. But, I realized from my interviews that
people living in villages only get around 2,000Ksh (19.45 USD) monthly as a
profit from their diverse businesses. So, as long as we target people in
villages, getting drums is next to impossible. Initially, I tried to adopt a loan
model to allow people in villages to acquire drums. I loaned out 6 drums and
compressors (in total, 2,100Ksh each) and asked them to pay back the same
amount of money in 6 months time. The time interval would allow them to
gain the necessary money by selling charcoal made from the drum. When I
came back to Kenya 6 months later, I realized that the loan model works on
the assumption that they can produce a lot of charcoal without any problems.
In addition, it assumes that they can sell a large quantity of charcoal in a
larger marketplace. My conclusion is that the loan model has not been a
suitable way to assist initial investment.
1 I converted Kenyan currency to USD by this ratio USD/KES = 0.00978, 13th Oct 2011
10

11. 4. Solutions
4.1 Materials
As we mentioned, we had issues of collecting materials. Now I would like to
discuss how we tackled these issues.
4.1.1 Agricultural waste
There are three main agricultural wastes of materials, which are core of
maize, maize stock and sugarcane. However, core of maize and maize stock
are not available in all seasons. So, I focus on sugarcane, which is harvested
on a daily basis somewhere in the region. In western Kenya, there are more
than 10 sugar companies and fortunately one of biggest sugar companies in
Kenya is located near my village. I heard from a friend that the factory
dumped its sugarcane waste nearby.
Figure 14. A hill by dump site of sugarcane bagasse at one of the sugar companies.
So, I went to there to talk with a manager at the sugar company to ask him
whether it is possible for them to provide sugarcane bagasse for the project.
He told me that they don’t throw out it anymore and instead use it for
generating electricity. However, since he was interested in collaborate on this
charcoal project, he finally accepted to provide some sugarcane bagasse for
the project.
11

12. Figure 15 Figure 16
Storage house at the village for sugarcane bagasse, which came from the
sugar company factory.
Through this partnership with the sugar company, we came to have steady
access sugarcane bagasse. But, problems still remain.. We still need to pay
money for transporting the bagasse from the factory to the village as well as
for rent of a storage house even though we have not yet secured a big market
to sell charcoal.
4.1.2 Cassava
4.1.2.1 Alternatives to using cassava as binder in production of
charcoal
One of my friends attempted to use mud instead of cassava as the binding
agent for making charcoal because it is very sticky and, more importantly, we
are able to get it at no cost. Another advantage of using mud is that it can
hold heat even after fire of charcoal goes off.
Inspired by this attempt, I started to think of other alternatives for easily
available and free material that could replace cassava in the production
process. I came up with the idea that cow dung could be used because many
people own it and it’s also free, like mud. For people who live in developed
countries, there might be a resistance to using this material, but it is part of
life in the village. For instance, they use it for building the foundations and
walls of local houses, like in figures 17 and 18 below.
12

13. Figure 17 Figure 18
Last idea for replacement of cassava is molasses, which my Kenyan friend
suggested because it is sticky. Molasses is the waste liquid of sugar that
comes out in the process of producing sugar. (see figure 19 below)
Figure 19
4.1.2.2 How to make binder
Before explaining how to check the effectiveness of each binders, let me first
explain how they are made.
- Mud
The first step is to dig up some soil with spade and add water. After this, you
mix the water and the mud using the spade and also using your feet until the
mud becomes well mixed and sticky.
13

14. Figure 20 Figure 21
- Cow dung
It is important not to choose overly dry cow dung, which will not be tacky
enough to use as a binder in charcoal. After finding wet cow dung, you mix it
with charcoal directly until it is well combined.
Figure 22 Figure 23
- Molasses
Unlike cow dung and mud, molasses does not easily become solid and will
break down if you mix it with charcoal directly. Molasses is like honey; it
needs some processing to make it become solid. To achieve solidity, I boiled it
and, as a result, some parts of molasses became solid. Thus, from this
attempt, you can use molasses as a binder in making charcoal.
14

15. Figure 24 Figure 25
The photos below show bricks made from differing binders.
Figure 26. Made from cassava Figure 27. Made from mud
Figure 26. Made from cow dung Figure 27. Made from molasses
4.1.2.3 Testing an alternative to cassava.
We were initially unsure if the above mentioned binders would work well as
an alternative to cassava. Thus, we undertook tests to ensure their feasibility.
To bolster the reliability of our results, I asked a local restaurant owner to
run the same tests that I would run, controlling for variability in the data.
The result of our tests was very similar, as shown below. The central points
we focused on in the research were cost, hardness, period of ignition,
heat output, quantity of smoke produced and durability.
- Cost
I calculated the input costs for producing charcoal with cassava and molasses
to find out which one is cheaper in the production process. My method was to
buy 10Ksh worth of cassava and molasses and make as many bricks possible
using those materials. The result of this test was that the per unit cost of
cassava was cheaper at 0 .45Ksh whereas molasses cost 0.83Ksh per unit.
15

16. Figure 26. 22 bricks made from cassava Figure 27. 12 bricks made with molasses
- Hardness
Hardness is an important quality that buyers look for because if the charcoal
is not hard enough it will break down when carried from place to place. In
fact, if the charcoal is not hard enough, the producer will not even be able to
transport it from the place of production to the marketplace. I tested the
hardness of the different charcoals by touch. Below are my results, from
hardest to least hard.
Mud > Cassava > Cow dung >> Molasses
The strongest one is mud. Cassava is also strong too. It is difficult to break
bricks with these binders by hand. Bricks produced from cow dung were
much weaker. It is possible to break by hand the bricks produced with cow
dung. As for molasses, these bricks did not completely solidify and thus were
very easy to break (see figure 28). My conclusion is that molasses is not a
suitable material for selling charcoal since its durability is very questionable.
Figure 28
16

17. Figure 29. Normal mode of transport of charcoal from village to town.
- Period of ignition
I tested how long it takes for each type of brick to catch fire. Below are the
results:
Cassava : 3 min
Cow dung : 10 min
Molasses : 30 min
Mud : Nil
Figure 30
As you can see, cassava is the best, just 3 min. I found that
molasses takes the longest time, 30 minutes, to catch fire. Mud
simply did not start to burn, like the bricks oictured on figure 30
above.
- Heat output
Heat output is an important index for determining the suitability of the
charcoal for cooking. Our results below show that cassava produces enough
heat to cook hard food like beef and chicken. But the heat output of molasses
is too weak to cook hard food so that only soft foods like rice and small
operations like warming tea are possible.
Cassava > Cow dung > Molasses
- Quantity of smoke produced
The restaurant owner who also ran these tests said that the only bricks that
17

18. emitted a lot of smoke were the ones made with cow dung. So, it is not
appropriate for use in a restaurant. View a short clip of our charcoals in
action here.
- Durability
Last but not least, I tested the charcoals’ durability. This is also an important
index for cooking because if the charcoal does not last long, we need to add
more charcoals, making it neither economical nor fuel efficient.. The results
are shown below.
Cassava : 2 hours
Cow dung : 45 min
Molasses : 4 hours
Cow dung lasted just 45
min, after which most
parts became ash.
Surprisingly, bricks made
out of molasses produced
heat for more than 4 hours
although it was not hard
before burning. Figure 31
I realized that in the burning process, molasses becomes a very hard material
through a chemical reaction, which allows it to last longer.
- Summary
From this test, we found that molasses is a feasible material. The other
person who did the same test said that we can use cassava and molasses
charcoal bricks separately for cooking different types of foods. For instance,
bricks made from cassava can be used for cooking hard foods whereas bricks
made from molasses can be used for cooking soft foods and warming foods.
Table. 2. The result of test to find out alternatives of cassava.
4.1.2.4 Action assignment
As I suggested, molasses has potential to be a good binder but it still poses a
problem. Molasses is only available in towns where sugar factories are
located because it is a waste product in the production of sugar. It is costly for
people in far away villages to go there and pick it up. However, it might be
possible that the sugar companies will provide molasses like one did with
18

19. bagasse. Until a similar partnership can be made with another sugar
company, we still need to look for an alternative binder in the meantime.
4.2 Tools
4.2.1 Drum
As I discussed, the problem with the drum is that it costs too much and it is
not affordable for the project’s target demographic. So, I decided to look for an
alternative that works well like a drum but would be less costly. Finally, I
came up two ideas that have high potential to be alternative of drum.
4.2.1.1 Oven with bricks
- How to make it.
If you go to a village in western Kenya, you will come across a lot of bricks
that people make from soil. The idea I had was to make an oven with bricks
and use mud to bind these bricks together.
Figure 32. Unbaked bricks Figure 33. Baked bricks
Figure 34 & Figure 35. A workshop for ladies to teach how to make oven with bricks.
The oven had to act exactly like the drum, that is to say, it needed to share its
characteristics. First, it requires holes on the bottom that allow fire to burn
inside. The second requirement is a way to cover the hole where agricultural
wastes are inserted and catch fire. The third and last requirement is a place
from where the charcoal can be removed from inside once it is ready.
Therefore, we need to devise an oven design that meets these requirements at
19

20. the lowest cost possible. In this spirit, I developed an oven with 100 bricks,
which cost around 500Ksh(4.86 USD), which is much cheaper than a
1700Ksh drum. The trickiest part of this oven is how to remove the finished
charcoal from inside. When using a drum, one can easily flip the drum over
and get the charcoal out. But, the oven is attached to the ground, rendering
the extraction process difficult. To solve this issue, I include removable bricks
in the construction of the oven that enables easy removal of the charcoal after
cooling down.
Figure 36. Figure 37
In the process of carbonization, you cover the removable bricks with mud like
left pic and when you take out charcoal, you remove bricks, as in the picture
on the right.
So far I talked only about bricks. Needless to say that mud as a binder is very
important for this oven. Initially, I built up the first prototype of oven using
mud as a binder that I made by mixing soil and water until it became sticky.
But, it was easily affected by strong rain and eventually fell down.
Figure 38. First oven prototype Figure 39. Destroyed by rain after a few days
20

21. Then I asked people there whether they have an idea to make the mud stick
to the oven better. And they told me that by fermenting mud, they could
make it stickier. The way to ferment it was very simple. All you have to do is
to gather mud in one place and cover it by plastic paper. Then you wait for a
few days, and that’s it—you get perfectly good, fermented mud after that.
Initially, I doubted its workability but I realized that it was stickier than
normal mud. After that I developed a second prototype of the oven with
fermented mud, while also providing a training session for ladies on how to
build it.
Figure 40. Gathered mud Figure 41. Covering with paper to ferment
The second prototype with fermented mud
withstood erosion caused by wind and rain.
As you see in figure 42 on the right, the mud
on the outside of the oven has not fallen
down because fermented mud is more sticky
and attaches to bricks. Youmight still think
that even after mud become dry, the
hardness of an oven cannot withstand to
support. But, I am sure that the mud will
harden in the process of carbonization
because direct contact with will transform
the mud to be like brick.
Figure 42
- How it works
After developing an oven, we started to burn agricultural waste to confirm
whether the oven functions successfully. First step is to put agricultural
waste inside until it is full.
21

22. .
Figure 43 Figure 44
The next step is to insert burning material through the four holes at bottom,
which are connected to inside. Then ignite the materials with fire and let the
materials burn inside.
Figure 45 Figure 46
After about 15 minutes, fire will rise to the top. At this point, cover the holes
in the bottom with bricks and soil. Cover the top hole with an iron sheet.
Figure 47 Figure 48
The final step is to remove the detachable bricks out from both sides and
extract charcoal.
22

23. Figure 49 Figure 50
From the oven tests conducted, we conclude that this oven design can
function properly for carbonizing agricultural waste and is a viable
alternative to the steel drum.
- Improvements
A. Wire mesh
One criticism from the ladies who attended the training workshop was that
most of the charcoal, after carbonization, fell down to the holes at the bottom.
Because the size of the holes is big, it is difficult to collect the carbonized
charcoals that are lodged there.
Figure 51 Figure 52
Carbonized material fell down to the holes on the bottom.
A way to prevent materials from falling down is to set a wire mesh above the
holes.
B. Unbaked bricks
So far, we assumed that baked bricks (5Ksh per brick) will be used, making
the total cost to build an oven around 500Ksh as I mentioned. But, I believe
there is a possibility to reduce cost of building up an oven from 500Ksh to
200Ksh by using unbaked bricks that cost 2ksh per brick. You might think
that unbaked bricks are weak and will not be able to withstand erosion by
23

24. rain and wind, but the carbonization process for the charcoals simultaneously
and effectively transforms the unbaked bricks into strong and sturdy baked
bricks.
In the process of turning unbaked bricks
into baked ones, you need to pile up
bricks like in figure 53 and directly
expose the unbaked bricks to the fire.
Figure 53
4.2.1.2 Pot
- How to modify
A second alternative to the drum that we came up with is pots for storing
water. You can find these in every village household (see figure 54 and 55).
They can also be used for making local alcohol. And like bricks, pots are
manufactured and available locally in villages.
Figure 54 Figure 55
24

25. The price of pots ranges
with size. This time, I tried
to use the size that is
commonly used, whose
price is around 450Ksh (see
figure 56 and 57). The only
modification that needs to
be made is to make holes
on the bottom so that you
can ignite the fire inside
from the bottom as you do
Figure 56
with a drum and an oven.
Figure 57 Figure 58
Figure 58 shows the modified pot with holes on the bottom that serves as an
alternative to a drum for making charcoal briquettes.
- How the pot works
The first step is to put materials inside in the same way you do for a drum
and ignite fire from bottom.
Figure 59 Figure 60
25

26. Because of the round shape on the bottom of pots, it cannot stand on its own.
We dug up ground and made a small hole where bottom of pot can fit and
stand upright stably. Unlike drums, pots are made with soil whose heat
conductivity is lower than iron, which means you can hold it by hand without
being burned. (See figure 62)
.
Figure 61 Figure 62
The second step is to cover the top hole with an iron sheet and mud to
prevent smoke from leaking out.
Figure 63 Figure 64
After 2 hours, it will be cooled down so that you can take out the charcoal.
Figure 65 Figure 66
26

27. From this test, we produced good charcoal as seen on figure 66, making pots a
strong and reliable alternative for drums.
- Summary
I summarized the features of each structure that can be used for carbonizing
charcoal on Table.3. The most important factor is price. We are able to
provide a better option by developing cheaper alternatives of drum while still
guaranteeing the same quality outcome. The other factor is size. This factor is
also important if we consider that the amount of agricultural wastes
available each year differs. For instance, rainy seasons prevent people from
getting a sufficient amount of carbonizing materials to fill up an entire drum.
In this case, a pot may accommodate the available materials more
appropriately.
Table 3. Comparison of each structure for carbonization.
4.2.2 Compressor
The other tool is a compressor. As
I mentioned, the problem with the
compressor is that it is still
expensive, 400Ksh, even though
most of them said that it is very
effective. So what I have done is to
simplify the design to make it
cheaper. Before stating to explain
it, I would like to discuss step by
step the design developed at D-
Lab works.
Figure 67
First step is to put a lower part inside the pipe that work to push up charcoal
after the charcoal is compressed. As seen on figure 69, the part consists of a
stick that protrudes from the bottom of the pipe.
27

28. Figure 68 Figure 69
And after that you put the upper part (see figure 71) to compress charcoal.
Figure 70 Figure 71
After compressing, remove the upper part and push charcoal up by hitting
the stick on the lower part to a base so that you get charcoal easily.
Figure 72 Figure 73
28

29. This is whole picture of the
compressor. To simplify it, I
first is identified which part is
necessary and which is not. I
noticed that the lower part that
pushes ready out is not
necessary, simplifying the
compressor to only 2 parts, as
seen on figure 74.
Figure 74
The points that increase the cost of this compressor depend on the number of
materials you use to weld. The one developed at D-Lab needed to use 6 iron
materials and weld 3 places to connect them. However, I modified the design
to require only 3 iron materials and places to be welded, decreasing the
compressor’s cost from 400Ksh to 150Ksh.
And also, you can see the difference by movies from these links: compressor
developed at D-Lab and the D-lab compressor that I modified.
29

30. 5. Summary
As discussed, there are four problems concerning management of charcoal
project. To solve these problems, a better understanding of the beneficiaries’
lifestyles and cultural as well as the local technologies available to them is
essential in providing and customizing technologies that are appropriate and
fitting for them. Unfortunately, this information tends to be ignored. As long
as the beneficiaries are those living below or near the poverty line, we need to
continually rethink and understand how they live and what they want in
order for technologies, such as the D-lab compressor, to fit their lives and to
use other local technologies and materials because each country and region
has its own local technologies, cultures and environments. Otherwise,
technologies which have been developed to assist them are not as effective as
they could be. So, again I would like to say that “localization” of appropriate
and improved technologies is very important..In this report, I talked about
how we can localize technology of charcoal production for Kenyans, and it is
possible that this may not apply to other countries. Thus, we need to develop
other strategies to localize the same project if we decide to bring this project
to other countries. I hope this report will contribute to introducing charcoal
technology in other countries.
If you have any questions or suggestion, please let me know.
takuro.haraguchi@gmail.com
Takuro Haraguchi
Kopernik Fellow
-Tokyo Institute of Technology
Department of International Development Engineering
30