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

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>