[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT
Xavier Brandao
xvr.brandao at gmail.com
Thu Apr 27 16:04:02 CDT 2017
Dear Ranyee,
Thank you for taking the time to answer each of my questions. It is
clearer now.
/"a third party organization to analyze the data and provide
recommendations."/
What is that organization?
Best regards,
Xavier
On 4/25/17 02:53, Ranyee Chiang wrote:
>
> * what is the budget of the Round Robin Testing?
>
> The budget covered preparation of stoves and fuels, shipping, and a
> third party organization to analyze the data and provide recommendations.
>
> * is there a document, like a report, which presents and describes
> the Round Robin Testing (other than the ETHOS presentation)?
>
> The report is being shared with participating testing centers, as
> agreed to with the RRT plan.
>
> * when did the RRT start, and when do you expect it to finish?
>
> RRT is an ongoing process, since there are always opportunities for
> improvement. RTKCs launched the RRT in 2013 at a training workshop in
> Honduras. If additional RTKCs have additional data, that will still
> be helpful.
>
> * 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?
>
> There is a modified water-boiling-based test that is based on the
> latest best practice.
>
> * "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?
>
> I was unclear in my original message. The plans and data are shared
> with participating testing centers. The original agreement was that
> the data will be anonymized when sharing across different
> participating testing centers.
>
> * when you say /"protocols have already been changed and updated
> from the WBT"/, which protocols are you talking about?
>
> The ISO Technical committed 285 has over 40 countries working together
> to share and combine best practices and address weaknesses identified
> across all testing and to address trade-offs in testing.
>
> * 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".
>
> All protocols have flaws and trade-offs that address different
> priorities. My personal decision is that there is room for every
> person, every testing center, and all protocols to improve, and that’s
> why my focus has been on facilitating collaboration and moving forward.
>
> 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.
>
> If there are other testing resources that were developed through
> collaboration across multiple organizations and countries, please let
> me us know by contacting the e-mail address listed on the website for
> providing updates to the website. For example, the WBT underwent
> several rounds of public comment periods in 2012 and earlier. When
> other protocols are completed, we will publish those as well.
>
> */
> /*
> */"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.
>
> If anyone has any questions, please contact me directly. The listserv
> is not a good place for specific questions to specific people.
>
>
> */"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?
>
> This information is outlined in the plan and instructions for RRT
> which has been shared with all RTKCs who have volunteered to
> participate in the RRT.
>
>
>
> */"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?*/
>
> /*
>
> This can happen by additional testing centers reviewing the plan and
> instructions for RRT, following the protocols and submitting their data.
>
> *//*
>
> */
> /**/"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)?
>
> The way RTKCs operate includes improving the protocols. And I’ve
> already mentioned that people are working together to improve protocols.
>
>
> 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>
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Cc:* Ranyee Chiang <rchiang at cleancookstoves.org>
> <mailto:rchiang at cleancookstoves.org>; Leslie Cordes
> <lcordes at cleancookstoves.org>
> <mailto:lcordes at cleancookstoves.org>; Neeraja Penumetcha
> <npenumetcha at cleancookstoves.org>
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170427/50b7d971/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list