[Stoves] Stove testing by GACC - Questions at ETHOS

[Traveller]

A. GACC <http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/reports/2016progress.html>
claims "based
on results reported by partners this year and careful analyses of the
trends in available data, an estimated 20.6 million stoves and fuels were
distributed in 2015, of which 13 million (63%) were clean and/or efficient.
Cumulatively, an estimated 82 million stoves and fuels, including 53
million clean and/or efficient, have been distributed since 2010."

As Paul pointed out, GACC claimed "For this report, stoves and fuels that
meet Tier 2 for efficiency are considered efficient and those that meet
Tier 3 for indoor emissions are considered clean for health. "

*Question*: *How many of these "82 million stoves and fuels" were tested in
lab and/or field to get GACC's Tier ratings? Which test protocols were
used? And doesn't GACC have a conflict of interest in both controlling WBT,
controlling the IWA process along the lines of WHO IAQ Guidelines Tiers,
and inflating ratings? What nonsense is "fuels were distributed"? *

B. GACC has spent   <https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-203036>more
than 7.5 million British pounds of an 8.8 million pounds of DfID grant
<https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-203036> on various research
in the last three  years to produce evidence base for health, climate,
livelihoods and women's empowerment or on ISO standards.

In the 2014 original Business Case
<https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1-203036/documents> for the
EBCC (Evidence Base to catalyse a global market for Clean Cookstoves)
project, it promised DfID to develop the following by 2017:

Objective 1:Gender, livelihoods and health impacts on women and girls

-  *Evidence across major combustion risk factors (active smoking, second
hand smoking, household air pollution, and ambient air pollution*).

-  *Modelling of greenhouse gas emissions and short-lived climate pollutant
reductions from clean cookstove and fuel interventions*.

Objective 3: Innovative technology, standards and developing technological
inter-linkages

*Comparative in-field performance testing of a range of improved cookstove
solutions and fuels, as they are really used in people’s homes, not ideal
laboratory conditions, in particular *

-  *Develop and pilot laboratory and field testing methodology, tools, and
sensors to evaluate stove performance (emissions and fuel use and including
carbon emissions in the field) in homes, usage, and integrate these aspects
with the level of impact, including climate, covering a range of stove and
fuel types and usage conditions. Conduct studies on the impact of clean
cookstoves on curbing environmental degradation and climate change.*

-  Enhance capacity of regional testing and knowledge centres to perform
high quality *laboratory and field testing of cookstoves and fuels
including impacts on climate. Updates to the Clean Cooking Catalog.*

-  Research, development, and pilots to improve technologies with increased
performance, quality, affordability, manufacturability (including
environment and social impacts) *to address user needs, cultural contexts
(including humanitarian settings) and aspirational goals.*

*- Convene ISO working groups to establish standardized methodologies,
indicators, and levels for cookstove and fuel performance and quality and
standardized methodologies for evaluating adoption and a range of impacts*

Objective 4: Monitoring and evaluation tools assessing the impact of
cleaner cookstoves

Disseminate WHO Indoor Air Quality guidelines *and ISO standards* to
support policies to reduce the burden of disease from HAP.

-------------

The March 2016 at Annual Review
<http://iati.dfid.gov.uk/iati_documents/5368271.odt>  reported only this

Output Area 1 on improved cookstoves and on the links between gender,
livelihoods, health and climate change impacts

·         The biomass work reported in Nature Climate Change10 demonstrated
both the need for high quality data to help donors and investors gauge
where best to put their resources for maximum mitigation of greenhouse
gases, and the value of targeting high-profile and peer reviewed
publications for maximum impact. The Alliance needs to be realistic in its
expectations of timing of acceptance for peer-reviewed manuscripts.

·         Calls for proposals and contracting take longer than expected for
southern global research institutions. The Alliance needs to recognise this
in its calls.

·         The Alliance can be very successful in working with high level
academic and intellectual organisations. These include working with major
certifying agencies like Gold Standard Foundation on the carbon work, or
International Centre for Research on Women (ICRW) on the development of an
independent evaluation of gender impacts. The credibility and experience of
the Alliance allows it to influence and push research into practice at
major institutions such as the World Bank, Energia, and others. The
Alliance can further utilise the  gender impact work to inform other
programmes and initiatives, including those funded by DFID.

 Output Area 3 on technology and standards

·         Setting up the contracts with the RTKCs took longer than the
Alliance had planned due to delays in contract review and approval in
country. The Alliance needs to recognise partner approval timelines.

·         Once prepared, draft International Standards Organisation (ISO)
standards can take up to 2 years to receive endorsement and approval
through the ISO system. Nevertheless  the benefits of working through an
internationally recognised institution like the ISO are invaluable.

·         Demand for testing services is still limited, due to the gap
between the cost of such services and the willingness and ability of
enterprises and governments to pay for stove testing.

Output Area 4 on monitoring and evaluation tools



Annual results reporting processes need to be efficient and streamlined to
minimize partner ‘fatigue’"

-----------------------------------------------


*Questions*: *1) What does GACC now expect to achieve over the next
year,compared to the original targets in 2014? 2) What experience of of the
Alliance allows it to influence and push research into practice at the
World Bank? What does it have to say about the CSI project and the testing
protocols  used there - that it cannot influence or push the World Bank? 3)
Does GACC control testing methods in any research sponsored by it and if
so, did it dictate WBT in lab and test for "baseline" and "intervention"
stoves? Does it intend to make public the stove test results for all
activities of its partners that it takes credit for influencing or
causing? *

*I do not understand how even DfID recognizes UNF as a UN "commission,
agency or fund*.

I wonder if it is time for UN foundation to shut down its shows. When
audiences stop coming and critics pan the musical whose choreography is
fabulous but the cast nothing to speak of, what do the financiers do?

Nikhil


---------
(India +91) 909 995 2080
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170128/f9cf92fe/attachment.html>