Dear Paul and all,
Thanks for your message and your suggestions. Since your message is organized nicely into a list, I'll address things from the Global Alliance's perspective one by one. In general, these issues are on the agenda, but they also take effort and time so they are still in progress. As we gather in 8 days in Cambodia for the GACC Forum, and with all of the Testing Centers represented there, here are some questions (and comments and requests) that I hope are addressed. In short, stove testing issues are not just about protocols. It is also about the realities of getting tests done. Agreed! We have a number of different types of activities focused beyond protocols. The recent Request for Proposals was to support testing centers to improve their ability to get tests done. Also, we recently organized a training workshop focused on laboratory setup, management, and quality assurance at the EPA Cookstoves Testing Center, issues that are relevant regardless of whatever protocol is used. Here's a summary<http://www.cleancookstoves.org/blog/bonding-over-barbeque.html> of this workshop, and we plan to continue these training/discussion workshops. And I think most importantly, one of our top goals for the immediate future is to help bring producers and testing center staff together to discuss how to improve the partnerships. For those of you at the Clean Cooking Forum in Cambodia, I encourage you to join the session on Wednesday morning - Roundtable for Producers and Regional Testing and Knowledge Centers<http://www.cleancooking2013.org/event/where-can-i-have-stoves-and-fuels-tested-roundtable-for-producers-and-regional-testing-and-knowledge-centers/>. The goal of this session will be to discuss many of the issues that have been raised here. We will also be capturing notes from that discussion to share with others who will not be able to join in person. 0. Preface: Let's start with positive recognition of the GACC and the associated Testing Centers and their leaders for all of the hard work that is being done about stove testing. THANK YOU!!! We know that many issues remain un-resolved. But perhaps the questions below can be answered. We've been able to do so much because it is a collaborative team effort with partners of the Global Alliance. We are taking things one step at a time, so I think we all agree that the hard work will have to continue! 1. Please provide a full listing of ALL of the Test Centers, with indication of what testing (efficiencies, CO, PM, safety, etc) each one actually can conduct. It is hard to imagine that this does not already exist, so really I am asking for a URL link if it exists. But this is just the starting point. 2. What is the cost (the price, the charges) for having each of those tests done at each Testing Center? Estimates and ranges of fees are accepted information. These Centers are to be independent of the companies that make stoves, and they are financially assisted by the GACC. So who charges what prices? Is there competitive bidding? Or are prices fixed by whom? The listing of the Regional Testing and Knowledge Centers that were selected through the Global Alliance Request for Proposals is prepared and is in the queue to be posted on our website (http://www.cleancookstoves.org/funding-opportunities/awardees.html). Another item in the queue to is a larger listing of testing centers that will be in a dedicated Standards and Testing section of the website. We are in the middle of staffing changes for website development, so we appreciate your patience on this. But these items are on the way. These lists will link to partner profiles in the online directory<http://community.cleancookstoves.org/partner-directory>, and thanks for your feedback on the types of information that are useful to include here. The Global Alliance is working with the centers so that they can communicate their available services and fee structure with organizations and potential clients. Right now, we are focusing on ramping up capacity and getting feedback from these organizations about what services are needed (for example, at the Wednesday morning discussion at the Forum). And the testing centers are developing and updating their services menu and fees based on this feedback, and I'm sure they will be happy to share this information with potential clients. 3. [ ALSO it would be interesting to know how many tests of which types are actually conducted at each Center in 1 month or 6 months or yearly, but that is perhaps prying too much into the operations of the Centers. Maybe one or two centers could give us those numbers. But I suspect that the GACC that is financing these Centers should require at least that much accountability from each Center. If so, then perhaps some averages or ranges of numbers could be shared, without naming the Centers. ] As part of the annual partner reporting (the online form will be released at the Forum), all testing centers will be asked to submit this type of information. Each type of partner organization will have questions tailored to the work that they are focused on, and the Alliance will be sharing the aggregate data. 4. And what arrangements are possible to have financial assistance to those of us who would like to have stoves "tested" informally (to learn about how to improve the stove) and formally (to have results that can be published.)?? Without financial assistance (as in a subsidy via the Testing Center that has GACC assistance), the little guys will not afford the test costs, and the big operations (and recipients of grants) will. We are eventually aiming for a sustainable testing market, with clients receiving services that add value to their organization and testing centers being supported for their work. We have been able to support some testing centers so that they are able to reduce their costs, which will translate into lower fees for clients, especially in the shorter term. There may be some other donor organizations or investors who will be interested in supporting testing. But with the overall aim of having a sustainable testing market, our major focus is on making sure that testing centers are providing services that will be of value to clients (improving product, marketing to investors or consumer, etc). 5. Because of the appropriate objectives of independent testing, and the need for replication testing in multiple Test Centers, the costs will escalate. What assistance is being arranged for this? NOTE: Everyone wants his/her stove tested by Jim Jetter of the EPA. This is becoming the "diamond standard". Great. But only if the stove gets accepted into the group to be tested, and then the results take 1 to 2 years to be released because it is such a massive task for one place to accomplish. ... One of the goals of the network of testing centers is to build up the quality and reliability of testing at multiple centers and also ensure that results are comparable from center to center. We are in the middle of working on this goal, and we eventually hope to have multiple testing centers where each one can provide quality and trusted results. 6. Meanwhile, where are any results from the other Testing Centers? Very few and far between. Why? Partly because when a person or company pays to have a stove tested (seems to be in most cases except via Jim Jetter and sometimes via CSU with funding for testing), the stove owner controls the results. And it seems that almost all of the owners are not sharing their results. We can say "That's business." But were is the progress? So if the GACC financially assists (supports) the Testing Centers, and especially if "subsidized testing" can be offered, then there could be requirements that the Testing Centers could release some or all of those results. Perhaps the stove name and the maker name are not released. But at least we could know about Rockets and TLUDs and charcoal and "fan-forced" and simple bucket-stoves and etc. Perhaps with some further subdivisions so that, for example, poor charcoal stoves and the advanced/improved charcoal stoves are not lumped into one category. And encourage the stove maker to agree to have the actual stove named if the stove is somewhat reasonable or representative. For an organization that is testing as part of the product development process, we're going with the standard practice for those results to be kept confidential if that is what the organization prefers. I think we have a fair amount of agreement that if an organization would like to report IWA tiers for their technology, that the testing results are shared publicly. We can't change the IWA, but we are building on it<http://community.cleancookstoves.org/discussions/viewtopic/22/92> to ensure that the sector has consistent, independent, and verified reporting, and these discussions will also continue through formal standards discussions. We see the Stove Performance Inventory<http://www.cleancookstoves.org/blog/alliance-releases-stove-performance-inventory.html> as the place to consolidate and share testing results. We are making plans for an online user-friendly version of this Inventory, and we are also developing plans to add new testing data. We are considering the option of anonymized data, but we still need to work out as a community what manufacturers might be willing to share and what level of data is useful for the sector. For those of you heading to Phnom Penh, see you there! And for others, we'll keep you updated about the progress that we make! Cheers, Ranyee
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] 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://www.bioenergylists.org/
