[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT
Xavier Brandao
xvr.brandao at gmail.com
Thu Apr 20 12:24:39 CDT 2017
Dear Ranyee,
Thanks for your answer.
/"//I thought that I had answered the questions already in my previous
e-mails, but happy to clarify."/
Actually, my questions weren't answered by your previous emails, and
they are also not answered by this one.
My questions are the following:
* what is the budget of the Round Robin Testing?
* is there a document, like a report, which presents and describes the
Round Robin Testing (other than the ETHOS presentation)?
* when did the RRT start, and when do you expect it to finish?
* which protocol(s) will be used during that RRT? Other than the WBT,
because from what I see from the ETHOS presentation, only the WBT
seems to be used?
* "The agreement that the testing centers made when making plans for
the RRT is that participating centers would not be shared".
Shouldn't the origin of the testing data be shared? Can we still
know which organization is coordinating/managing the RRT?
* when you say /"protocols have already been changed and updated from
the WBT"/, which protocols are you talking about?
* is the GACC now able to officially declare the WBT has serious
flaws, and therefore should not be recommended to certify stoves or
select them for programmatic purposes? This was what I meant by
"taking a decision about the WBT".
Now, to reply to your last email:
*/"This means that we are not promoting any particular protocol. In
fact, we provide links to multiple testing-related resources from many
organizations
<http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html>."/*
Yes, indeed, and on top of these links and at the head of the page is
the link to the WBT, that has been proved to be by far the most flawed
of all protocols. This is a concern.*/
/*
*/"In particular, my suggestions for how to help improve testing
protocols are to 1) join the ISO working groups
<http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/standards/how-to-participate.html>,
review the current drafts, and propose specific changes"
/*I haven't been able to join so far. I had not answer from the AFNOR,
and wrote to them again, so I can join the TC 285.
*/"The most helpful thing for others would be to try out the RRT
instructions and add your data to strengthen the analysis."/*
But before being involved in a project, we need to know what the project
is about, what is the methodology, and what it tries to achieve. We have
almost no information on the RRT project now. What is the methodology?
What will the GACC do with the data collected? How can this data help us
learn anything on how to improve stove protocols, or the way we do testing?
*/"In particular, my suggestions for how to help improve testing
protocols are to contribute data to the Round Robin Testing exercise."
/*How do you expect this to happen? How does the data from the RRT will
help improving the protocols at large?*/
/* */"the agreement was that people would share data within this group
as a way to help this group to improve. So that is our primary focus."
/*So you mean the main goal of the round robin testing is mainly to
improve the way the RKTCs operate, rather than to improve the protocols
(this is what Frank seems to think)?
Best regards,
Xavier
On 4/14/17 06:23, Ranyee Chiang wrote:
>
> Dear Xavier and all,
>
> I thought that I had answered the questions already in my previous
> e-mails, but happy to clarify. I’m including the text of a message
> that I sent previously, with additional clarifications. I think it
> will also be helpful for everyone to remember we all agree that there
> is important work to do, so hopefully that can collaborative tone can
> come through in how we all communicate together.
>
> “We all recognize that there is room to improve, and that is already
> the starting motivation for ongoing work by many people. There are
> protocol improvements that are in progress and in discussion, which
> will be published as soon as they are complete.” */This means that we
> are not promoting any particular protocol. In fact, we provide links
> to multiple testing-related resources from many organizations
> <http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html>.
> As soon as new protocols are completed, we will add those to the
> website list. And we know that all protocols can be improved,
> harmonized, and that this needs to be a group effort. And that is
> happening. The ongoing ISO process is designed to bring together
> experts with different perspectives into one discussion, and that has
> already led to quite a few updates that those not participating may
> not be aware of./*
>
> “Many RTKCs also participated in a recent round robin testing
> exercise, with the results supporting how we improve testing
> methodology and how testing centers establish quality assurance
> plans. Thanks to the dozens of people who have been contributing
> their time and expertise over the last few years.” */The biggest
> challenge now is that there isn’t enough data to make many
> conclusions. That’s a limiting factor and also why there’s such little
> detail in the presentation from ETHOS. When RTKCs came together to
> develop the Round Robin Testing plan, the agreement was that people
> would share data within this group as a way to help this group to
> improve. So that is our primary focus. There are ongoing discussions
> amongst the participating testing centers about the details of the
> results and implications. We are also still getting data from
> additional testing centers. The most helpful thing for others would
> be to try out the RRT instructions and add your data to strengthen the
> analysis./*
>
> “We will continue to work with RTKCs to improve methods, testing, and
> data sharing. For those people who have not been as active in this
> global collaboration, we continue to invite people to contribute to
> the ISO discussions, to contribute data to the Round Robin Testing
> effort, and to contribute data to the Clean Cooking Catalog so that we
> can continue our analyses on the strengths and areas for improvement.”
> */If anyone would like to join the ongoing collaborations to improve
> protocols or using the protocols at testing centers, please contact me
> directly and separately from the listserv. Because there are so many
> conversations on the listserv and they’re meant as group messages,
> it’s easier to track personal e-mails that are sent to individuals.
> In particular, my suggestions for how to help improve testing
> protocols are to 1) join the ISO working groups
> <http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/standards/how-to-participate.html>,
> review the current drafts, and propose specific changes and 2)
> contribute data to the Round Robin Testing exercise. /*
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ranyee
>
> *From:*Xavier Brandao [mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 12:19 PM
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Cc:* Ranyee Chiang <rchiang at cleancookstoves.org>; Leslie Cordes
> <lcordes at cleancookstoves.org>; Neeraja Penumetcha
> <npenumetcha at cleancookstoves.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop
> promoting the WBT
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170420/754a5ae5/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list