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

Xavier Brandao xvr.brandao at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 16:08:13 CST 2017


Dear friends,



There have been a lot of fierce discussions on the stove discussion list
lately. I think most of us are unhappy with a certain number of sector-wide
issues.



There is one thing in particular that appalled me. I read the study by Riva
et al.:

"Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis for
improved and traditional three–stone fire cookstoves"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308900170_2016_Riva_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three_-_Stone_fire_cookstoves



I am appalled that we are in 2017, and again another study shows how much
the Water Boiling Test is flawed, and is leading us in the wrong
direction(s).

I am appalled when I think that Crispin has been telling us about it all
these years (10 years now?), and his warnings have too often fallen on deaf
ears.



Radha Muthiah, the CEO of the GACC, said in her introduction of the GACC
2016 annual report: "The Alliance worked with UNHCR to develop procurement
guidelines that include evaluation of stove and fuel performance,
affordability, usability, safety, and durability. This is an example of how
organizations can adapt international standards to support their priorities
and decision-making."

Crispin mentioned that the procurement guidelines were based upon the WBT.

We are in 2017, and important decisions for thousand of stoves to refugees
are still based on the WBT, a test which does not allow us to really know
how a stove will perform. This is scary.



At the end of last year, Prakti was commissionned by the World Bank to
review the testing ecosystem in India. I had the chance to talk with many
stakeholders, especially from the U.S., and to have enlightening
discussions. Things have barely started to move it seems. A few people have
started to see the shortcomings of the WBT. But this is all too slow.



What we fail to measure are the damages.

How many tests results are probably meaningless, and so useless? How
ignorant were we about the real performance of so many stoves? Many of us
could see how different performance in the field was, compared to
performance in the lab.

How many not-at-all-improved stoves were built, promoted, and disseminated?

How many stove projects or companies failed because of a test that was
problematic in the first place?

How many efforts, how much money was lost because of poor testing?



Crispin is right, I could not agree more with him on that: before being
able to do the R&D that we need so much, we need valid metrics. There is no
way around that. This should be our first priority.



We need to act now; but, to act and get results, we must focus on what is
important, on what is central, on what is foundational. Now, we need good
testing; it is as simple as that.



The goal is not to point fingers, nor put the blame on anyone. What is done
is done, the only thing that matters now is: what do we do from here? We
need to work together constructively.

We cannot say we didn't know.



I discussed with Crispin, Adam, and a few others. I am starting an advocacy
action with this email actually.

It is very simple.

I think we need to address the GACC. Despite all the criticism, the GACC
did a lot of work for the stove sector, and, like it or not, is still
regarded as our main representative to policy makers and those with the
capital to fund meaningful change at scale. We need to be working with them.



We would ask the GACC:

·       to publicly acknowledge that the WBT has major shortcomings

·       to remove the protocol from its website, so cookstoves sector
stakeholders are not using it

·       to actively promote development and use of other, valid, protocols



There were a lot of heated discussions around the WBT in the past. Because
of that, other protocols were included in the TC 285 process. This is not
good enough.

We don't want invalid protocols to be promoted alongside valid ones. I
believe the WBT is still the most used protocol, and anyone can download it
on the web, and (mis)use it. That does a lot of harm.

Here it is, on top of the page:

http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html



Good and valid protocols do exist. They work very well, give more and
better data than the WBT. We do not have, at all, to use the WBT. Why would
we keep using it at all?



Recent articles have shown that we are losing credibility as a sector. We
cannot regain it if we keep using invalid testing. I think this sector is
comprised of good people who want to do good science and build healthy
foundations.



If you think you are one of these people, please contact me at my email
address to show your support for this initiative:

xvr.brandao at gmail.com

If you have an opinion on the matter, let's please discuss it here on the
stovelist. If you dont agree, if you think there are good scientific
grounds for the WBT as a valid protocol, or think for this or another
reason that it should still be used, please let's discuss it, in scientific
terms, on this list.



The outcomes of this discussion will be brought to the GACC, and we will
continue discussing it with them.

We have all dedicated a significant portion of our lives to this work; let
us not let bad science, or past wrong decisions undermine all that we have
accomplished, or all that we might. Can we stand together, whatever our
differences of opinion on the best stoves, or fuels, or development
practices and agree that in testing our assumptions, pseudo-science and
demonstrably flawed methods have no place in this sector?



Please join, please tell people around you about this initiative.



2017 is just starting, let's start it on the right foot.



Thanks,



Xavier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170118/b540616e/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list