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

Tue Jan 24 10:19:37 CST 2017

YES!

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of cec1863 at gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:56 PM
To: Xavier Brandao; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Cc: Yuguang Zhou; Laurent Durix; Nikhil Desai; Samer Abdelnour; Crispin Pembert-Pigott
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT

‎Dear fellow cookstove enthusiasts and frustrati,

As an over the hill  back slide applied social anthropologist‎ I whole heartedly agree it is time for the stovers of the world to unite and give the WBT a belated burial. 

Why? Because the WBT is beginning to stink. The  accumulating human, economic, environmental  and societal costs to prolong the life of the WBT can not be justified. I vote we pull the plug on the life support sophistry and permit the various versions of  a fundamentally defective stove performance test for efficiency to exit the public arena once and for all.

Why? The costs and complexities of prolonging it's existence now far outweigh the benefits of WBTesting to identify  candidate stoves that qualify for inclusion in or exclusion from the category of stoves good enough for gov't subsidies, big orders from UNHCR, and investor financing,  It is time for stovers of the world to unite and stop our fiddling while the stoves of Rome continue to burn and emit dangerous smoke! 

‎Fortunately we now have alternative ways to assess the performance of traditional and innovative candidate stoves that are culturally, environmentally, and economically contextualized.  Surely it is time for the "united stover's of the world" to return to a more eclectic and open minded phase of small stove R&D where we allow ourselves the space we need to continue experimenting with stoves as combustion technologies, as heating devices, and as tools for cooking culturally variable foods, and carrying out many different tasks such as small scale agri-processing and commercial food preparation.

 As an anthropologist I tend to focus on the stove operators role and skills, the fuels available and used, the economics of production, etc and how these components combine holistically into a dynamic system that also includes the fabricators and marketing agents. My preference is to step back and to allow traditional and innovative stove technologies, elements, behaviors, and cultures to creatively interact and evolve toward new optima with the smallest possible interventions and costs. 

If we "stovers of the world" actually unite, listen to each other and get better at learning from our cantankerously different approaches it should be possible for us to gradually grow an inclusive eclectic approach to stove assessment that will allow us to select those tests and observations which document and compare the different stove/fuel/culture realities. Some time back Crispin referred to a tool kit of different metrics. 

So my vote is to retire the WBT as an adequate indicator of a stove's efficency. If we had a plebiscite on this list, what are our choices? What do we replace the WBT with after it is dead and buried? RIP!

Lastly I believe we are collectively learning about the negative consequences ‎of allowing wanna be global authorities to PREMATURELY impose universal metrics to rank the performance of stoves that are ripped out of their various meaning giving contexts. 

So let's do the Roman thing and hold a plebiscite on "to WBT or not to WBT"....that is the question. 

Cecil 

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

From: Xavier Brandao

Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 5:08 PM

To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves

Subject: Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT

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> 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:

 <mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com> 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/20170124/c37391ec/attachment.html>