[Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala

[Nikhil Desai]

Crispin:

You say "Everyone could go further, of course, by consistently requiring
that any proposed evaluation method be expertly reviewed to ensure they are
as reasonable as possible. "

I suppose this can be done in "public expenditure" framework - i.e.,
procurement rules of individual government agency or its contractor
(universities, NGOs) bound by government procurement provisions. It is a
matter of "standards of procurement", not just cookstove standards.

All said and done, the race to build savior stoves is the race for grant
monies, public or private. If contracting parties - two governments, or
publicly accountable entities, or any combination thereof - agree that
disbursement of money is contingent on "consistently requiring" expert
validation, and the procurement process be public after the selection of
contractors, then there may be some progress.

Ultimately it is money that matters. Protocols for exchanging monies are at
least as important as protocols for wearing safety glasses. Unless some
private savior comes in.

There is a short-cut, of course - stuffing the decision-making committees
with fellow group-thinkers, the kind who approve your papers for
publication. YOU find it unacceptable that, "What happens instead is that a
method is ‘validated’ by reporting it has been used by others who used it
because some other organisation used it because someone else used it
because it was there."

Yup. The CDM Board and the Gold Standard Foundation seniors need to be
alerted that there are fundamental weaknesses in their procedures which
risk their reputations (if there is any after the monies have exchanged
hands.)

Nikhil






------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*


On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Tom
>
>
>
> I would like to point out that Xavier’s call, and mine if you look back
> far enough, is not to reject ‘current methods’, but one in particular that
> has caused and continues to cause so much loss and disappointment,
> recognised or not.
>
>
>
> I appreciate your efforts and tolerance in providing a platform for
> discussions to take place. That robust presentations are made indicates
> your success at gaining recognition that this is the place to present news,
> ideas and research.
>
>
>
> I approve of Xavier’s initiative to have the WBT tests declared
> unreliable, and that the results should not be used to inform policy nor to
> trade money (as such trading is being done presently through/by the Gold
> Standard).  There are sound reasons for making this call, principal among
> them the fact that the WBT 4.x does not report the fuel consumption, but
> continues to be used, and defended in certain quarters, by claims that
> either it does, or that it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t.
>
>
>
> Clearly it has its defenders. It has been defended for 15 years by those
> with a vested interest(s). Appealing as it might be, I do not see a
> graceful way out of this. The graceful path was the 2008-9 initiative to
> create a new WBT through the ETHOS technical committee established for that
> purpose. The result was a response that favoured a request from Berkeley,
> to the Chair, not to change the calculations so much that the performance
> reported would conflict with, invalidate, earlier tests conducted using WBT
> 3.1. This created a conflict of interest, as the WBT4 calculations were
> planned to correct numerous, serious error in the core of the WBT 3.1.
>
>
>
> What happened, following the realisation that some members of the
> ETHOS-constituted technical committee would not accept retention of the
> core defects, was that the conversation was taken off-line (the discussion
> was taking place another channel on Bioenergylists) and some of the members
> isolated from the process without informing them they were being cut out.
> The result was WBT 4.0, then 4.1, which retain nearly all the core errors
> of WBT 3.1. If Berkeley had not intervened to protect their earlier works,
> we might not have this current situation.
>
>
>
> Having wasted the graceful opportunity, we are now faced with large
> projects trading and expending major funds based on indefensible ratings.
> It is no longer enough to ‘correct’ matters within the testing community.
> There are organisations administratively locked into WBT-rooted assessments
> and the only way to get their attention is to have this community declare
> them unreliable, and recommend other methods to be used.
>
>
>
> Historically, USA-based institutions, Shell and GIZ have led on this count
> (developing and promoting methods). If these institutions are not willing
> to publicly and cooperatively correct or replace the WBT, they could help
> those who are willing to do so, by publicly washing their hands of the WBT
> and its results. Everyone could go further, of course, by consistently
> requiring that any proposed evaluation method be expertly reviewed to
> ensure they are as reasonable as possible. Instead of ignoring published
> expert critiques, they should be welcomed, as with any scientific endeavour.
>
>
>
> It is remarkable that one cannot spend $10,000 on a health project without
> referencing the methods to be used and cite why that method is valid for
> that particular purpose in a population of that type. In the world of
> stoves one might spend $50m on a project without demonstrating anything at
> all about why that method is valid for any purpose. What happens instead is
> that a method is ‘validated’ by reporting it has been used by others who
> used it because some other organisation used it because someone else used
> it because it was there.
>
>
>
> It is unacceptable situation and must be corrected.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_
> lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170904/333f1d18/attachment.html>