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

Tue Jan 31 03:58:30 CST 2017

Dear Nikhil, 

I notice you have one base in Norway. Could you please request Norwegian government to launch an inquiry into prudent use of its funds by GACC? 

CF: Prime’s stance on the testing/test procedures/tiers is commonly known knowledge. If anyone wants to use this as an input for an investigation or otherwise, they are free to do so. 

Another request -- do you agree with the "Tiers" paradigm and would just like more consistent and reliable tests that respond to final users' desires, or do  you suspect the paradigm itself is faulty (as I do, for "international standards")

CF: We do believe that tiers can be a useful way to distinguish between stoves and their performance. However, prior to this, test methods and procedures have to be improved so that a stove can actually be placed in a tier with a high degree of certainty, regardless of geographical differences in fuels, stove operation etc. 

Kind regards, 

Camilla

Camilla Fulland

CEO | Prime Cookstoves

 <mailto:camilla.fulland at primestoves.com> camilla.fulland at primestoves.com 

Norway: +47 48 12 05 37

Indonesia: +628 2147 600 141

Skype: camilla.fulland

 <http://www.primestoves.com> www.primestoves.com 

From: pienergy2008 at gmail.com [mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Traveller
Sent: søndag 29. januar 2017 08.22
To: camilla.fulland at primestoves.com
Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT

Camilla: 

Thank you for taking the time to write this. I know nothing about Prime or you, but this was instructive, a confirmation of my hunch about what stove retailers like you or David Stein may tell this group. 

I do nothing better than sit on the sidelines and carp, and some people do nothing better than spin tales on global health, global climate or market poverty pornography in Washington. I cannot imagine how I could sell any cookstove. 

WBT is not a matter of technical issues but vested interests. When it - or similar tests for other products - become "basis for certifying stoves under national standards, distributing donor money, or as a selection criterion for tenders", there is an inevitable potential for corruption. Hence manipulation, gaming. 

Such potential - or actual practice - is sustained by intellectual laziness (and comforts of the fine-wine-dine-and-shine game of players). 

In "big" cases, testing protocols, standards, tender specifications may be challenged in courts. But the poor suffer from mis-specification (in equations or in products) all the time. 

I notice you have one base in Norway. Could you please request Norwegian government to launch an inquiry into prudent use of its funds by GACC? 

Another request -- do you agree with the "Tiers" paradigm and would just like more consistent and reliable tests that respond to final users' desires, or do  you suspect the paradigm itself is faulty (as I do, for "international standards"). 

Regards, 

Nikhil

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

Message: 22
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:21:19 +0100
From: "Camilla Fulland" < <mailto:camilla.fulland at primestoves.com> camilla.fulland at primestoves.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
        < <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting
        the WBT
Message-ID: <00b301d278a8$a0df6700$e29e3500$@ <http://primestoves.com/> primestoves.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear all,

Thank you for all your responses and questions.

The reason why it has taken me some time to reply is not out of lack of
interest nor answers, but mainly due to Prime being a commercial company,
meaning I spend my working hours selling stoves and supporting our
distributors to make sure that our stoves are in use in the field. Rather
than spam your inbox with several responses I have tried to summarize all
responses here, although it has started to resemble one of Nikhil?s posts ;)
Forgive me.

I did not write my previous post to blame any of the test centers, nor test
center staff. They do their best within the limits of the test methods and
their available resources. Nor did I suggest that any cookstove
manufacturers are indeed gaming the testing, but wanted to highlight the
possibility of this happening under the current IWA tier system and to
provide a user perspective of testing protocols and test procedures. I am
not a stove scientist, which is why I believe my experience reflects that of
the majority of people involved in the cookstoves sector, from donors to
distributors.

To Prime, success is if our customers are willing to use their hard-earned
cash to purchase our stove, which they wouldn?t if they didn?t see the
benefit of it, and then report back to us how it has positively impacted
their lives by saving them money and/or time, and giving them the joy of a
cleaner kitchen and better health.

Our main problem with the WBT, or should I specify the IWA tiers, arises
when this classification is used as a basis for certifying stoves under
national standards, distributing donor money, or as a selection criterion
for tenders etc. Prime has not conducted WBTs at various test centers to
exploit the loopholes but because our stoves have had to be certified in
many different countries that rely on the WBT to do so to be sold in that
country.

The market for clean cookstoves is still underdeveloped and in many cases
some extra stimulation in the form of incentives is needed to get the market
going. One way of structuring such an incentives system is Results Based
Financing (RBF). Prime participates in such programs in both Indonesia (the
CSI Indonesia by the World Bank) and the Stove Auction Cambodia by SNV. Both
have conducted their own testing, the CSI protocol being used in Indonesia,
and a CCT for the Stove Auction. Prime recently also qualified for the RBF
program in Kenya, where the center for national standards tested the stove
using the WBT. As only a tier 2 is needed to join the program, we have no
problem to participate based on this as we have never had a test saying that
the stove in question is less than a Tier 2.

The problem of gaming due to the variability of test results from one test
facility to another arises when large amounts of funds are involved and test
and qualification criteria are very specific, like in the recent UNHCR call.
The variability of the test results of the same stove from different test
facilities then becomes a large problem. Until test results using the WBT,
either from changing the protocol, the procedure of how stoves are tested,
or the parameters that are reported, can be replicated at various test
centers with at least 90% certainty of a tier placement, we believe that it
is premature to 1) Allow for so many test centers to be approved, 2) Have
such stringent tier demands in a call or a tender process, as this can
stimulate gaming at least indirectly.

I have now gone through most of our test data. This is time consuming, as
the testing has happened over three years and several of the spreadsheets
have inadequate naming/description of the stove model and fuels tested. From
this I deduct that we have at least three reasonably comparable results
where the same model, with only superficial changes, and the same fuel was
used. This goes for both our stove models, cylindrical and square.

To give some examples of the variability and ?opposite? results, one of our
stove models has achieved thermal efficiency scores from 30% to 56%. For low
power PM2.5 emissions, another stove model has in one test been given a Tier
4, whilst in another test been given a Tier 2, both tests conducted using
wood pellets. We do understand that the difference in fuels will affect the
result, but we cannot support a system that cannot safely place a stove in a
specific tier, particularly not if funds are to be paid out on this basis.

And we know we are not the only ones. I have recently heard of a Tier 3
emissions stove being tested at Tier 0 for exactly the same stove, and I
have also seen the test results of a now Tier 4 efficiency stove, previously
only achieving Tier 2 (As I only saw the outside of the stove, this could be
due to technical improvements but it seemed unlikely as the tests were
conducted very close in time), in addition to the other manufacturers that
have been vocal here. As for the variability between different tests
conducted by the same test center, I will leave that up to the experts that
looks at our data to look closer into. My point is, that until we can safely
and with certainty place a stove in a tier, the tier system should be
abandoned. It could potentially be replaced by a minimum requirement
standard until we have a new and reliable consensus rolled out. If people
like myself, although not a technical stove expert but I do work with
cookstoves on a daily basis, find the test results impossible to comprehend,
how do you think donors, NGOs and the general public can make rational
decisions regarding stove performance?

Prime has no problem sharing all our test results and the underlying data,
which in many cases has proved very difficult for us as a test center
customer to obtain. We prefer to share this data on a confidential basis to
a limited group both for and against the WBT out of respect for the test
centers and the people working there. As I said before, we are not
interested in blaming anyone, we are solely seeking to make some sense of
all of this. If it can help move the sector in the right direction we may
also allow for the conclusion of the analysis conducted by the experts
(which certainly is not me) to be presented at ETHOS.

What we ask for, as a user of the WBT and test facilities, is that the
results, at least the tiers that our stove is placed in, should be the same
regardless of which GACC accredited test facility we choose to use.
Moreover, we insist that the test parameter ?Thermal efficiency? is clearer
defined, as investors, donors and non-stovers alike believe that thermal
efficiency in the WBT equals trees saved, which we all know it does not.

I really hope that the ?round robin? by the GACC has decreased the
variability between test centers and that there is full transparency of the
process, findings and results of this, ideally presented at ETHOS and shared
on this list.

As for your request that Prof. Nurhuda joins the discussion, I will leave
that up to him. Some of his engagements in Indonesia sometimes prevents him
from taking part in public discussions like this. I trust him to respond if
he feels he can.

As for myself I hope you understand that I want to help this process but
that my main mission is to get our stoves to the users. Hence, I cannot take
too much of an active role in this discussion other than what I have
promised above.

Camilla

Camilla Fulland
CEO | Prime Cookstoves

 <mailto:camilla.fulland at primestoves.com> camilla.fulland at primestoves.com
Norway: +47 48 12 05 37
Indonesia: +628 2147 600?141
Skype: camilla.fulland
 <http://www.primestoves.com/> www.primestoves.com

--------- 

(India +91) 909 995 2080

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170131/85414f33/attachment.html>