[Stoves] About GACC and Stoves Listserv..... was Re: report with dissapointing results from cleaner cookstoves (Crispin)

Sat Dec 10 19:18:14 CST 2016

Tom and Stovers,
[Subject changed because the topic is changed.]

Excellent questions and comments.

I can say that I am 100% sure that the Stoves Listserv is monitored 
(read by) at least one and maybe more of the higher ups in the GACC.   I 
also know that there is clear preference for the GACC to NOT participate 
in any discussions on the Stoves Listserv.

It is unthinkable that the Stoves Listserv would be shut down!!! That 
someone would suggest it is unfortunate, but highly likely considering 
that we are an open Listserv with plenty of us (including myself) being 
"weird" in our own peculiar ways.   But if the suggestion was from a 
person with some position in the organizations that deal with 
cookstoves, that person is out of touch and should step down or change 
path.

To that person:  We do not know who you are, nor do we want to know.   
But I for one want you to know that you are an obstruction.

Yes, the GACC itself (and its funded research) should be a topic at the 
coming ETHOS meeting 27 - 29 January 2017 near Seattle.  The GACC is 
starting year 3 of the 2015 - 2017 Phase Two of its major game plan.   
That means that thoughts and planning about how to structure Phase Three 
are already underway.

GACC partners can fill in the annual survey and send comments.

But I ALSO would like to see some open discussion on this Stoves 
Listserv and at ETHOS.

Questions and topics include:   (if I make any errors, please correct me.)
1.  GACC claims 60 million of the goal of 100 million improved 
cookstoves have been accomplished.  The GACC co-published with ESMAP a 
classification system with 5 main types of stoves (ESMAP 2015). How many 
of those 60 million are in each of those 5 main types? There needs to be 
attention to the quality of progress as well as the quantity of 
progress.   BTW, I have asked this question before and have never had 
any answer.   My personal GUESS is that 30 million of those stoves are 
in the lowest or least impacting type (Legacy and Basic ICS (Improved 
CookStoves)), and another 20 million are in the second lowest type 
(Intermediate ICS, which includes rocket stoves and Highly improved  
charcoal stoves).   That does not leave many (perhaps 10 million??) in 
the upper three types that are grouped as "Clean Cooking Solutions".   
Those three are categorized by the fuel types, being (***) "Renewable 
Fuel Stoves"  with biogas, ethanol and solar, and (**) "Modern Fuel 
Stoves" with fossil fuel LPG, natural gas, and electricity, and (*) 
"Advanced ICS" with dry biomass fuel including pellets, being ONLY the 
fan jet and natural draft biomass gasifiers (specifically naming TLUD 
and TChar and fan-driven gasifier stoves.)

There is a difference between being stove-technology neutral and being 
stove-technology indifferent.  Bean-counting (or stove-counting) is 
notoriously a characteristic of bureaucrats / administrators.

2.  GACC is not the type of organization that would do things without 
heavy planning.   Information about those plans BEFORE THEY GET SET IN 
STONE would be good topics for public access and discussion.

3.  The GACC has been comissioned (requested, authorized, whatever) to 
do the plannning for the spending of 50 million dollars provided by the 
Canadian govenment for cookstove activity in Haiti.   Whether Canadian 
dollar or US dollars, that is still a lot of money.  The planning stage 
is currently underway since July and is to end in January.   Christmas 
and New Years are upon us, meeting have been held.  And info is not 
coming out to those of us who have activities in Haiti, even with 
specific requests to be informed.  No past minutes of meetings.   No 
draft statements of plans.  Just maybe there could be an estimate of the 
amounts to be spent on administration, research, meetings, health 
studies, stove implementation projects, etc.   50 million could be gone 
in a flash.

4.  More information provided about the GACC funds and expenditures.

These are not private funds of private companies that are financially 
competitive.   GACC is under the UN Foundation (which I believe is NOT 
under the UN, but please correct me about that.).

Summary:  GACC needs more transparency.

Thank you, Tom, for helping move this conversation along.  Those who 
have not read your message below are encouraged to do so.  We will 
continue the discussion without being rude.   But we will not be timid.

Readers. please forward these messages to your friends who are not (yet) 
signed up for the Stoves Listserv (or who do not read it often.)   The 
GACC will respond to comments from above, so I hope that Hillary and 
others will soon be informed.  And the messages include listening and 
dialoging with those Stovers who are in the trenches and fields and 
kitchens.

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 12/10/2016 3:32 PM, Tom Miles wrote:
> Roger,
>
> REAP-Canada seems to have worked with GACC, at least for a time, so maybe you can enlighten us. I don’t see how a stove developer or supplier on this list can have any input on GACC research, development or demonstration. Who suggests or reviews GACC RD&D? I see several high level administrators on the GACC team but I only recognize one stove supplier/developer. Most of us can't afford to attend GACC meetings. Maybe Richard, Radha, or Ranyee can explain how the good ideas from this discussion, or from the ETHOS meetings, can be channeled to GACC and what the mechanisms are for review and monitoring the GACC work program. Ranyee has occasionally explained the GACC position on certain topics but I don’t know that we have had any input in the process.
>
> We do have an impact. I got a call this year to suggest that this list be shut down. Somebody didn't like the criticism and "misinformation". So I suspect that people involved in funding stove development projects monitor the list.  I refused to shut the list down. As the sole sponsor and owner I prefer to let you people work things out online without being rude. If you insist on being rude then take it offline.
>
> At ETHOS we discussed the need for health studies for years.  This year we should discuss the GACC health projects. How are health studies and projects developed and carried out within GACC? Who reviews them? I don't see any critical reviews on the website or social media.
>
> This discussion group and ETHOS participants have spent years working on various aspects of stoves, household energy, and health. We have contributed a lot of time and money to improve the health and welfare of communities in developing and developed countries. After years of individual development and collective discussions we participated in the creation of ETHOS. Then in 2002 (?) we supported the launch of the Partnership in Clean Indoor Air (PCIA).  In 2010 we all volunteered significant time in working groups to develop priorities for GACC. Many of us are GACC "partners". GACC claims 1600 "partners". Later it was explained to me that the only interaction we would have was through competitive GACC contracts.
>
> How can we help this process? What are the current mechanisms for those in the field to participate in GACC planning and development, or are there any?
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Roger Samson
> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 6:46 AM
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] report with dissapointing results from cleaner cookstoves (Crispin)
>
>
> Here are a few snip-bits from the GACC web site:
>
> http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/standards/defining-clean-and-efficient.html
> "Note that Tier 4 is always the highest performing and most likely to achieve the greatest health or environment benefits".
> "For example, some of the Alliance’s activities are not restricted to the Tiers defined above, some activities are even more restrictive.  Alliance partners also have a broad range of goals. In order to reach 100 million households with a sustained level of adoption, our approach is to support a wide range of activities, while also raising the bar on stove performance over time as the sector matures".
>   
> Does everybody understand how they are focussed on activities (specifically large numbers of advanced technology stoves) and not managing for health outcomes or financial benefits to communities.
>
> The main dedicated biomass users are in rural areas if you examine individual country household surveys.
> If GACC were managing for improved health outcomes of people the simplest low cost program they could do is focus on rural areas in the tropics to encourage stoves that are suitable for outdoor use and encourage outdoor kitchens.  There is minimal exposure to the cook or her family as particles readily disperse before they hit the breathing area of the user as well they do not continuously circulate as in poorly ventilated indoor kitchens. I think understanding of particle dispersion is lacking.
>   
> So you do not need elaborate financially unsustainable Tier 3 or 4 stoves to do this. You do not need to import stoves from outside a country.
>
> REAP-Canada is managing for health outcomes by supporting locally made clay brick stoves that can be used outdoors within a simple well ventilated outdoor kitchen.
> http://reap-canada.com/online_library/IntDev/Brochure%20-%20REAP%20Noflay%20Clay%20Brick%20Stove.pdf
>
> The improved stoves are made with local materials, skills and knowledge.  Our stoves don’t have a place in GACC’s money burn on Tier Technology that is essentially making developing countries reliant on imported technologies (with the benefits going to the more advanced country).
>
> The reality is GACC is effectively doing a shotgun money burn on activities because they aren’t following good development practice and managing for outcomes through results based management.
>
> Roger Samson
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>