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

Nikhil Desai pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 27 21:07:33 CDT 2017


Xavier:

People working together - in RRT - will never be defeated. 

(Rephrasing an old protest slogan from last Century.)


Nikhil 

> On Apr 28, 2017, at 2:34 AM, Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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."
>> 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, 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.  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, 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/
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170428/6e0b0873/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list