[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT

[Xavier Brandao]

Dear Ranyee,



It seems neither you nor anyone at the GACC wish to reply to the questions
I sent in my previous emails. It is a shame, because I think these are
simple, straightforward questions, and they are simple to answer.



I understood the GACC was committed to the highest standards of
transparency and accountability.



But there exist little to no information about the round robin testing, nor
how the GACC plans to address the many issues related to stove testing,
issues raised by numerous studies. I read the ETHOS presentation about the
round robin testing, it leaves most of my questions unanswered.



There is an urgent need to talk about these issues, work on solutions, and
again, this has to be done in other spaces than just the ISO TC 285. There
is a need for a strong effort, and we are waiting for the GACC voice on
that.



Given what is at stake, policies for 3 billion people, openness is crucial.



This is exactly what is very well said by a recently published article of
Nature:

http://www.nature.com/news/energy-scientists-must-show-their-workings-1.21517



"Closed systems hide and perpetuate mistakes." it says.

WBT mistakes have been perpetuated for years.



In other sectors, things are moving. The mayors of Paris and London are
pushing for new evaluation systems allowing for reliable information on car
emissions, so we avoid something like what happened with Volkswagen:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/paris-london-seoul-grade-cars-based-emissions



The ETHOS presentation about the round robin testing is here:

http://ethoscon.com/pdf/ETHOS/ETHOS2017/Penumetcha.pdf



According to this presentation, the objectives of the RRT are to:

   - "Facilitate collaboration to establish high quality testing and
   quality assurance procedures
   - Ensure consistent and reliable methods and results
   - Provide resources and tools to diagnose and troubleshoot issues in the
   future
   - Demonstrate potential for high-quality testing and evaluation
   services"

We are not sure how exactly these goals will be achieved. We don't know
where the RRT is starting from, where it is going to. Just like the
previous communications about the ISO TC 285: we have an idea of how things
are organized, but no idea of the actual content, of what is actually being
discussed, and decided for the sector. This is a remark I made to you
Ranyee, I don't know if you remember, long ago, about the GACC webinar on
the TC 285, it might have been June 2015, I think.



The goal of the RRT is to "Strengthen the sector (not focused on individual
testing centers, products, etc.)".


The GACC is acting for and on behalf of the stove sector, but I think the
sector could have been more involved.


I understand that the GACC is working with its 22 Regional Knowledge
Testing Centers (RKTCs), but what I mean by involvement of the sector does
not mean only being asked to provide data. I am talking about being truly
consulted and involved in shaping the methodology of the study. To be
involved in the decision-making process. It is about bringing different
views about state-of-the-art testing, addressing real issues, and involving
the top researchers on the matters, like the ones who wrote the studies I
quoted earlier.


I feel that instead of working on the issues brought by the studies, the
GACC is working on something else.


Correct me if I am wrong in my analysis or if I am missing something. But I
am not sure how actually the RRT will help solve the questions we have. 22
RKTCs all around the globe will do Water Boiling Tests for 3 different
types of cookstoves. A lot of data will be generated. But given the very
high variability and uncertainty of WBT results, and the differences likely
to occur in the way testing is conducted from one testing center to another
(plus the data collected from other actors), how reliable will be the data
collected? Is it comparable at all? Is it usable at all?

And what about other test protocols?



Since there is obviously very little will from the GACC to talk openly or
to support legitimate and collaborative efforts to move forward, we will
continue to discuss the matter, here and in other spaces. We will do so
directly with the manufacturers, project implementers, large NGOs,
researchers, testing centers, humanitarian agencies, funders, and various
partners. We will keep openly critiquing testing, collecting scientific
work on this matter, and will keep encouraging collaborative work. Anyone
is welcome to join, anytime.



Best regards,



Xavier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170413/5efa74b9/attachment.html>