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

Camilla has confirmed inconsistent results from 5 testing centers. 

GACC has announced the “round robin” of testing the same stoves at different testing centers.   GACC needs to present about those results at the ETHOS meeting.   Ranyee will be there.  

Note:  The comparative testing is NOT just to make sure that testing centers are doing tests correctly.   The results can be used to comment on the tests that are being used.  Are there other results such as what Camilla has presented?  

The GACC has paid for these round robin test results, and it would be beneficial to give out that data, and not just say “it was helpful” or something else like that.  

Certainly at ETHOS we should hear about this.

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD  Email:  psanders@ilstu.edu  Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072  Website:  www.drtlud.com

00df01d27644$0c83bea0$258b3be0$@primestoves.com” type=”cite”>

Dear all,

It is not very often I do participate in the discussion on this list. I do, however, follow it closely. I am writing now to give my support to Xavier and his call to stop the use of the WBT. Being a user of test centres and highly dependent on having valid results for our stoves, I must say I’m deeply concerned about the use of the WBT. Prime has so far tested the same stove in five various test centres recommended by GACC and the results are not just different each time, in some cases they are even the opposite of each other. So how can we as a producer say anything about the efficiency or emissions of our stoves to our donors or potential customers? Basically I can ask, what are you after? A clean stove or an efficient stove? And then I select the report that is suitable for the purpose. To me, the WBT and ranking of stoves using this is a joke and a danger to the credibility of the entire stove industry. Moreover, we are sick of having spent thousands of dollars on test results that mean nothing!

 

The only protocol we do support is the CSI Indonesia protocol as this seems to produce relatively “true” results backed by field results.

 

I raised our concerns about the WBT with the GACC and the Gold Standard in 2015 but no progress for the users of such tests seems to have happened since then. This is highly worrying as millions of dollars are paid out based on manipulated test results “verified and approved” by the GACC as they are the main promoters of this testing method giving it credibility towards other “non-stove” donors.  

 

Camilla

 

Camilla Fulland

CEO | Prime Cookstoves

 

camilla.fulland@primestoves.com

Norway: +47 48 12 05 37

Indonesia: +628 2147 600 141

Skype: camilla.fulland

www.primestoves.com

 

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Xavier Brandao
Sent: onsdag 18. januar 2017 23.08
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org&gt;
Subject: [Stoves] 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

 

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:

xvr.brandao@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

_______________________________________________  Stoves mailing list    to Send a Message to the list, use the email address  stoves@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/