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

Xavier Brandao xvr.brandao at gmail.com
Wed Feb 15 12:02:43 CST 2017


Dear all,

I concur with what Tami said.

As far as I remember, at the IWA meeting in the Hague, it was repeated 
that we needed to reach an agreement before the end of the workshop. 
What was conveyed was that progress on the protocols depended on an 
agreement. Maybe it did, I don't know. But for sure this idea was 
strongly conveyed. The discussions went strong until the end, but didn't 
really reach their conclusions: so we decided that we would all agree. 
That agreement made a first step: "there are other valid protocols than 
the WBT". We had already come a long way.

This is what often happens in diplomatic talks going over a few days. 
The last day discussions go late in the night, and the parties are so 
exhausted that they just want to sign anything, even if not perfect, to 
go to sleep, and make progress later. Ours was not late in the night, 
but people had to fly back home.

Ron, basically, the thought was that, it is either unanimous agreement, 
it is either the 90 people agreeing, or nothing. So for me and for a 
number of others, I think it was OK to say yes, only at the condition 
that we would collectively work on assessing and improving the testing 
protocols. Many, a bit like me, were not strongly opinionated, and just 
wanted to see continued work and progress.

It would not be true to say: "90 agreed, that means the 90 were happy."

We all know that a sign at the end of a document does not mean that all 
parties are completely happy. It means that we agreed on a list of 
points. Maybe it is a compromise, maybe we met half way. Often a first 
signed agreement calls for more, better agreements.

I am sure it was the same thing for the Lima consensus in 2011. The 
agreement was not perfect, but it was made to keep things moving forward.

I got the feeling there was the same state of mind at the ISO TC 285, 
from the members of the WG I interviewed at the end of 2016. I was told 
that it was needed to agree on standards, to move forward, as soon as 
possible. To be done with it.

So, back in February 2012, there were a lot of questions pending, I 
agreed so we could keep working on these questions. I don't regret that. 
Maybe that was the right thing to do. But, what really matters, is what 
happened next. It's been 5 years, I haven't seen answer to the 
questions, nor tentatives to answer the questions, at least not on this 
List. It seems the ISO WG has recently been making progress, to be seen.


Dear Frank,

/"The WBT worked well for the research Dean and others did when 
establishing gaps and air flow etc."/

Maybe it did. Maybe other protocols would have allowed better stoves to 
be developed, faster.

/"It only became a problem when the intent was changed to determine the 
‘best’ stove for all uses and places."/

This intent has always existed, still exists.

/"The problem with ‘contextual’ studies ... //This will work but not a 
workable solution to the problem. More years about to be wasted."/

I disagree. Contextual studies are both necessary, and a great 
investment. They allow as well to find commonalities between regions. 
There are stoves models that are appropriate across few different 
geographic areas. I believe this is the case in India for example, in 
Africa with charcoal stoves. Years are (have been) wasted developing 
stoves in a lab without trying them, and without improving them on the 
field.

/"They are valid for the original intent (stove development) but not for 
extended the usefulness to outside the lab where new variables 
(uncontrolled) exist."/
I would agree with Crispin's answer.

/"Thermodynamics will never work in these small combustion chambers."/
Well, at one point, I think they'll have to. We'll have to understand 
the inner workings, isolate trends and truths. And so we can make 
progress on fundamental and applied stove science.

/"eliminate them and they are answered."/
Eliminating questions when they are relevant is not a good idea. 
Sweeping problems under the carpet does not make them go away. If 
ignored, they'll come back to hit us with full force. It is our 
responsability to work collectively on answering every question, solving 
every problem.

Best,


Xavier

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170215/4df9dca9/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list