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

[Xavier Brandao]

Sorry, the previous email was sent by mistake!
Here's the full email.

Dear Nikhil,

 1. I didn't want to spend time delving in the past to see who did what,
    how much the GACC promoted the WBT. The GACC was among the parties
    who was, I believe, pushing for an agreement at the IWA meeting. In
    the agreement, the writers wrote the sentence: "the WBT is not the
    only valid protocol". I don't know who said the WBT was valid in the
    first place. It has never been reviewed, as far as I know. But we
    were given this agreement to agree upon. I think the GACC has most
    often communicated about the WBT than other protocols, but that
    would be understandable, the WBT is quite convenient to use, and
    quite easy to learn. It was one of the main protocols, with the CCT
    and KPT, that was taught to the Regional Testing and Knowledge
    Centers (RTKC), an initiative of the GACC. But testers usually don't
    do so many CCTs, it is too costly, too many efforts to organize and
    it takes too much time. I believe it was mostly the VITA WBT, but I
    believe the GACC promoted also other protocols.
      * The abstract Tom sent us is really interesting on how the WBT is
        commonly viewed: "as per the world standard protocol WBT 4.2.3"
      * I think the GACC was supporting and promoting the updating of
        the WBT:
          * http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/02-28-2013-new-version-of-the-water-boiling-test-released-at-ethos-conference.html
          * http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/03-25-2014-stove-testing-update-release-of-water-boiling-test-protocol-4-2-3.html
          * It is said here: "The Alliance and partners have been
            working over the last few months to finalize updates to the
            Water Boiling Test (WBT) to address comments from a public
            comment period on the WBT 4.1.2."
          * Was there the same support for development of other protocols?
 2. I don't know, but I don't believe so. I think the Aprovecho
    equipment was often the only suggested option, I don't know of other
    supplier of testing equipment. Maybe the Setar?

Another point: some people think the WBT is still good as a tool to 
develop stoves. I don't believe that is the case, and additionally I 
would like to remind everyone that the WBT has been used for years, and 
is still used to _certify_ stoves, not only to help the first phases of 
their development. The WBT would say if a stove is clean or not, if it's 
good or not, regardless of the fuel and regardless of the cultural context.
The website of the Aprovecho Research Center says:

"For $3,000 ARC will test your cook stove in our Oregon lab and provide 
an ISO certificate of Tier performance ratings. The same tests results 
can be submitted to the Gold Standard as part of the carbon credit 
requirements."

I didn't know we could get ISO certificates for a stove tested.

As I said, what is the past is the past. What counts is what the GACC 
and us all do from now on.

Best,

Xavier




On 2/19/17 14:00, Xavier Brandao wrote:
> Dear Nikhil,
>
>  1. I didn't want to spend time delving in the past to see who did
>     what, how much the GACC promoted the WBT. The GACC was among the
>     parties who was, I believe, pushing for an agreement at the IWA
>     meeting. In the agreement, the writers wrote the sentence: "the
>     WBT is not the only valid protocol". I don't know who said the WBT
>     was valid in the first place. It has never been reviewed, as far
>     as I know. But we were given this agreement to agree upon. I think
>     the GACC has most often communicated about the WBT than other
>     protocols, but that would be understandable, the WBT is quite
>     convenient to use, and quite easy to learn. It was one of the main
>     protocols, with the CCT and KPT, that was taught to the Regional
>     Testing and Knowledge Centers (RTKC), an initiative of the GACC.
>     But testers usually don't do so many CCTs, it is too costly, too
>     many efforts to organize and it takes too much time. I believe it
>     was mostly the VITA WBT, but I believe the GACC promoted also
>     other protocols.
>  2. I think the GACC was supporting the updating of the WBT:
>
>  1. I don't know, but I don't believe so. I think the Aprovecho
>     equipment was often the only suggested option, I don't know of
>     other suppliers of testing equipment. Maybe the Setar?
>
> Another
> As I said, what is the past is the past.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170219/9c39b2b1/attachment.html>