<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">Dear Ranyee,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">It seems neither you nor anyone at the
GACC wish to reply to the questions I sent in my previous emails. It is a shame,
because I think these are simple, straightforward questions, and they are
simple to answer.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">I understood the GACC was committed to
the highest standards of transparency and accountability.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">But there exist little to no information
about the round robin testing, nor how the GACC plans to address the many
issues related to stove testing, issues raised by numerous studies. I read the
ETHOS presentation about the round robin testing, it leaves most of my
questions unanswered.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">There is an urgent need to talk about
these issues, work on solutions, and again, this has to be done in other spaces
than just the ISO TC 285. There is a need for a strong effort, and we are
waiting for the GACC voice on that.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">Given what is at stake, policies for 3
billion people, openness is crucial.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">This is exactly what is very well said by
a recently published article of Nature:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"><a href="http://www.nature.com/news/energy-scientists-must-show-their-workings-1.21517"><span>http://www.nature.com/news/energy-scientists-must-show-their-workings-1.21517</span></a><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span>"Closed systems
hide and perpetuate mistakes." it says.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span>WBT mistakes have
been perpetuated for years.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">In other sectors, things are moving. The
mayors of Paris and London are pushing for new evaluation systems allowing for
reliable information on car emissions, so we avoid something like what happened
with Volkswagen:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/paris-london-seoul-grade-cars-based-emissions">http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/paris-london-seoul-grade-cars-based-emissions</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">The ETHOS presentation about the round
robin testing is here:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"><a href="http://ethoscon.com/pdf/ETHOS/ETHOS2017/Penumetcha.pdf">http://ethoscon.com/pdf/ETHOS/ETHOS2017/Penumetcha.pdf</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">According to this presentation, the
objectives of the RRT are to:</p>
<ul><li>"Facilitate collaboration to establish high
quality testing and quality assurance procedures</li><li>Ensure consistent and reliable methods and
results</li><li>Provide resources and tools to diagnose and
troubleshoot issues in the future</li><li>Demonstrate potential for high-quality testing
and evaluation services"
</li></ul><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">We are not sure how exactly these goals
will be achieved. We don't know where the RRT is starting from, where it is
going to. Just like the previous communications about the ISO TC 285: we have
an idea of how things are organized, but no idea of the actual content, of what
is actually being discussed, and decided for the sector. This is a remark I
made to you Ranyee, I don't know if you remember, long ago, about the GACC
webinar on the TC 285, it might have been June 2015, I think.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The
goal of the RRT is to "Strengthen the sector (not focused on individual
testing centers, products, etc.)".</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">The GACC is acting for and on behalf of the stove sector, but
I think the sector could have been more involved.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">I
understand that the GACC is working with its 22 Regional Knowledge Testing
Centers (RKTCs), but what I mean by involvement of the sector does not mean
only being asked to provide data. I am talking about being truly consulted and involved
in shaping the methodology of the study. To be involved in the decision-making
process. It is about bringing different views about state-of-the-art testing,
addressing real issues, and involving the top researchers on the matters, like
the ones who wrote the studies I quoted earlier.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify">I
feel that instead of working on the issues brought by the studies, the GACC is
working on something else.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">Correct me if I am wrong in my analysis
or if I am missing something. But I am not sure how actually the RRT will help
solve the questions we have. 22 RKTCs all around the globe will do Water
Boiling Tests for 3 different types of cookstoves. A lot of data will be
generated. But given the very high variability and uncertainty of WBT results,
and the differences likely to occur in the way testing is conducted from one testing center to another (plus
the data collected from other actors), how reliable will be the data collected?
Is it comparable at all? Is it usable at all?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">And what about other test protocols?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt;text-align:justify">Since there is obviously very little will
from the GACC to talk openly or to support legitimate and collaborative efforts
to move forward, we will continue to discuss the matter, here and in other
spaces. We will do so directly with the manufacturers, project implementers, large NGOs, researchers,
testing centers, humanitarian agencies, funders, and various partners. We will
keep openly critiquing testing, collecting scientific work on this matter, and
will keep encouraging collaborative work. Anyone is welcome to join, anytime.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">Best
regards,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt">Xavier</p>
</div>