globalchange  > 气候变化事实与影响
DOI: doi:10.1038/nclimate2305
论文题名:
Technology transfer for adaptation
作者: Bonizella Biagini
刊名: Nature Climate Change
ISSN: 1758-1239X
EISSN: 1758-7359
出版年: 2014-07-13
卷: Volume:4, 页码:Pages:828;834 (2014)
语种: 英语
英文关键词: Climate-change policy ; Climate-change adaptation ; Developing world
英文摘要:

Technology alone will not be able to solve adaptation challenges, but it is likely to play an important role. As a result of the role of technology in adaptation and the importance of international collaboration for climate change, technology transfer for adaptation is a critical but understudied issue. Through an analysis of Global Environment Facility-managed adaptation projects, we find there is significantly more technology transfer occurring in adaptation projects than might be expected given the pessimistic rhetoric surrounding technology transfer for adaptation. Most projects focused on demonstration and early deployment/niche formation for existing technologies rather than earlier stages of innovation, which is understandable considering the pilot nature of the projects. Key challenges for the transfer process, including technology selection and appropriateness under climate change, markets and access to technology, and diffusion strategies are discussed in more detail.

Technologies that can reduce vulnerability to climate change and increase adaptive capacity, exist and are being developed throughout the world1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Technology transfer can link existing ‘knowledge to need’ and can be defined as the movement of know-how, tacit knowledge, or physical technology from one organizational setting to another6, 7, 8. The defining aspect of technology transfer is the introduction of a new process or approach in a new socio-political context. The technology does not need to be new to the world; the novelty to adopters is the critical aspect6, 9. Technology can be understood as both ‘hardware’ and ‘software’, that is, the embodied tangible technology as well as tacit knowledge about how to acquire, modify, produce, use and eventually improve on previous technology6, 7, 8, 9.

Although technology transfer for adaptation has gained prominence in the international climate agenda and several reports, including an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Technology Transfer, identify and analyse adaptation technologies for different sectors, no systematic analysis of technology transfer in adaptation projects has been conducted so far3, 5, 10. This paper addresses two research questions: How has technology transfer occurred in adaptation projects so far? What are necessary conditions for technology transfer for adaptation? We examine technology transfer for adaptation by analysing projects funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), of which two of us, B.B. and C.O., were until recently employees (see Competing financial interests statement). We then use a case study approach to examine technology transfer processes in adaptation projects in Ethiopia, Colombia and Peru.

Evaluating the success of technology transfer ultimately requires looking at the long-term impacts on adaptation, as well as the impacts on the larger systems in which technologies are embedded including markets, political systems, users, and resources8. In the cases analysed here, most transfers are too recent for such comprehensive analyses. Instead, an intermediate measure of successful technology transfer, namely technology adoption, is the main measure used and provides a useful indication of potential for broader success.

Many factors influence the adoption process, including the characteristics of the technology, characteristics of intended users, the socio-technical system in which the technology is embedded, and the design of transfer mechanisms9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Unlike models in which technologies are viewed as more or less ‘fixed’ by the demonstration phase (that is, refs 4, 17), incremental but important innovations also occur at later stages owing to feedback processes18, 19. We present a theoretical model that incorporates factors associated with technology adoption and the stages of innovation in Fig. 1. This model provides a framework for analysing which types of technology are being transferred for adaptation and where these transfers fit into the innovation process.

Figure 1: This model of technology transfer and adoption recognizes that many factors are important for technology selection, transfer and, ultimately, adoption of new technologies by users.
This model of technology transfer and adoption recognizes that many factors are important for technology selection, transfer and, ultimately, adoption of new technologies by users.

The factors included here have been identified, on the basis of the literature, as the most critical for the climate adaptation context, although additional factors may also be influential. This model recognizes that technology transfer and innovation are inherently linked and occur simultaneously, with innovation occurring throughout the transfer process, and feedback loops among all factors. The model is also neutral regarding the source of innovations, both in terms of geographic origin and actors.

Project proposals.

Most projects reviewed (74%) referenced technologies or technological practices, suggesting that technology transfer is an important component of adaptation projects, but only 11 proposals (17%) explicitly use the term ‘technology transfer.’ Historically the term ‘technology transfer’ has been interpreted narrowly (focusing on ‘hard’ technologies and north–south transfers), which may explain this discrepancy5, 20, 21, 22. Only 11% of projects approved between 2006 and 2010 explicitly referenced technology transfer, compared with 32% from 2011 onwards. This trend suggests that learning is occurring over time and the increasing prominence of technology transfer in the international climate regime is leading to greater awareness of technology transfer. For the 15 projects that did not contain references to any technology, most focused on either policy or ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation. This outcome suggests that either technology plays a lesser role or it is more difficult to conceptualize the role of technology in such projects. See Table 1 for a summary of the projects’ geographic distribution, funding sources, and implementing agencies. Further information can be found in the Supplementary Methods.

Table 1: Projects in the Global Environment Facility adaptation funds.
Full table

We find that significantly more technology transfer is occurring in adaptation projects than might be expected on the basis of the pessimistic rhetoric regarding technology transfer for adaptation3, 10, 20. However, it is likely that significantly higher levels of technology transfer are still needed to address adaptation priorities, especially as most of the projects reviewed focused on demonstration and early deployment/niche formation activities, and more widespread investments will be necessary to build on these activities to strengthen market formation and diffusion processes. For example, significant challenges remain regarding technology selection, more attention needs to be paid to market conditions, and clear diffusion strategies are essential for widespread adoption. Of course, this focus is consistent with the pilot nature of the GEF funds, and it is possible that other sources of funding and investments are more appropriate for addressing other aspects of the transfer and diffusion process. With limited resources available for adaptation, it is important to ensure that funds are used as effectively as possible, and lessons from existing projects are passed on to new projects. Although adaptation projects will probably face unique challenges for technology transfer, it is important to draw on lessons from past technology transfer attempts in the context of international development. Our analysis of these projects is an early effort to determine the factors that facilitate as well as barriers to successful technology transfer, but additional case studies and empirical analyses are needed to build more robust conclusions.

An interesting domain for further exploration is the difference between technology transfers for adaptation and mitigation. So far, it seems that rather than focusing on emerging or ‘radical’ technologies, adaptation projects tend to focus on existing technologies. The pattern of transfers also differs. Climate mitigation technology transfer tends to consist of north–south flows of technology (although increasingly there are south–north and south–south transfers), and technology transfer for adaptation in these early projects often consisted of domestic diffusion of existing localized technologies. Absorptive capacity, market formation strategies, and an enabling policy environment are crucial for both mitigation and adaptation. Identifying additional similarities and differences will be helpful for policymaking, especially as many climate technology transfer policies are based on the understanding of mitigation processes, which may or may not be applicable to adaptation technology transfer.

Another area for further research concerns the role of uncertainty in technology adoption. Although technology adoption always involves uncertainty, there are additional sources of uncertainty associated with adaptation that may complicate the adoption process including uncertainty regarding: local climate impacts, suitability of technologies to local circumstances, economic consequences of climate impacts (for example, prices for crops), and lack of correlation between past and future conditions16, 48. At the same time, many technologies are designed to reduce climate risk and uncertainty, either by reducing the risk of a specific climate impact or by increasing overall resilience to shocks, and may increase incentives for adoption. Balancing these competing sources of uncertainty and risk is of central importance to successful technology transfer for adaptation.

We conducted a content analysis of funded project proposals and three case studies of adaptation projects under implementation. The content analysis of project proposals allowed us to gain insight into the types of technology being incorporated into projects, as well as the discourse on technology transfer at the time when projects were designed. The three case studies allowed us to study how and why adaptation technologies were transferred.

We analysed projects funded through the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) administered by the GEF. Projects funded through the LDCF and SCCF were chosen as the sample for analysis because the funds are global in scope and cover a wide range of sectors, providing representative coverage of global adaptation projects, and because the funds are the only active official funds for adaptation mandated by the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, apart from the Adaptation Fund, which was still too immature for analysis at the time of research. Also, the GEF portfolio is relatively mature and includes some of the earliest on-the-ground adaptation projects globally. Adaptation is being addressed by many actors at different scales, and funding sources for adaptation are quite diverse34, 35, 45, 49. This analysis does not purport to be representative of all adaptation efforts globally, but rather to analyse the activities under these prominent funds.

Proposal analysis.

For the proposal analysis, a total of 66 projects were analysed, including all projects in the LDCF and SCCF that had been approved by the LDCF/SCCF Council by the end of 2011 and for which project documents were available at the time of analysis. The projects covered a wide range of sectors including agriculture and food security, water management, coastal zone management, disaster risk reduction and early warning systems, health, ecosystem management and climate-resilient infrastructure (see Table 1 and the Supplementary Methods for further details).

We conducted a content analysis of all project proposals and identified references to the following terms and associated concepts in each: technology, technology transfer, adoption, innovation, and demonstration. We also identified all references to specific technologies or technical practices. Content relating to these terms was compiled into a database (Supplementary Methods). We analysed trends across projects in terms of sectors, regions, and implementation dates, and the variables we considered included actions related to innovation tasks (R&D, technology selection, demonstration, early deployment/niche formation, market formation, diffusion), types of technology, and the geography of transfer (local, north–south, south–south). A summary of the analysis of projects in terms of innovation tasks is presented in Table 2.

Case studies.

The criteria for selection of the case studies were that they began in 2007 or earlier (owing to the pilot nature of the funds, only the earliest projects had advanced enough in implementation to assess technology adoption), contained a significant technology component, and represented different geographic regions and sectors. Five projects began in 2007 or earlier, one of which included no reference to technology. Of the remaining four, two were located in Latin America and two in Africa (Fig. 2). We selected the ‘Coping with Drought and Climate Change’ project in Ethiopia, and the ‘Design and Implementation of Pilot Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the Andean Region’ project in Peru, which was part of a regional project in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia to maximize our geographic and sectoral variation. In addition, a project in Colombia entitled ‘Integrated National Adaptation Plan’ was selected because it was the first on-the-ground adaptation project funded by the GEF (this project was funded through the Strategic Priority on Adaptation, which was a window under the GEF General Trust Funds and served as a pilot for the SCCF and LDCF). For a detailed description of the cases, see the Supplementary Methods.

Figure 2: One case selected from the Strategic Priority on Adaptation fund.
One case selected from the Strategic Priority on Adaptation fund.

As this fund served as a pilot for the development of the Least Developed Country Fund (LDCF) and Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), lessons learned from these experiences were critical to subsequent projects. Of the 24 projects funded under the Strategic Priority on Adaptation (SPA), the Colombian INAP project was the first that included on-the-ground implementation of adaptation measures, and therefore holds a unique place among adaptation projects, particularly in terms of its demonstration role. From among the 66 projects in the LDCF and SCCF, several criteria were used to select cases. Projects needed to have started in 2007 or earlier and include a technology component. Among the projects that matched these criteria, we aimed for geographic and sectoral diversity. The projects in Ethiopia and Mozambique were both entitled ‘Coping with Drought and Climate Change’ and were based on a multi-country design. Owing to language barriers, Ethiopia was selected. In Latin America, both Peru and Guyana were possibilities. Peru was selected owing to the greater sectoral diversity covered in the project.

  1. Tessa, B. & Kurukulasuriya, P. Technologies for climate change adaptation: Emerging lessons from developing countries supported by UNDP. J. Int. Aff. 64, 17–31 (2010).
  2. Lybbert, T. & Sumner, T. Agricultural technologies for climate change in developing countries: Policy options for innovation and technology diffusion. Food Policy 37, 114–123 (2012).
  3. IPCC Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Metz, B., Davidson, O., Martens, J., Van Rooijen, S. & Van Wie Mcgrory, L.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
  4. Klein, R. J. T. et al. Application of Environmentally Sound Technologies for Adaptation to Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2006).
  5. Olhoff, A. Adaptation in the context of technology development and transfer. Clim. Policy (in the press, 2014)
  6. Brooks, H. Marshalling Technology for Development 83–96 (National Academies Press, 1995).
  7. Grubler, A. Technology and Global Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998).
  8. Bozeman, B. Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Res. Policy 29, 627–655 (2000).
  9. Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations (Free Press, 1995).
  10. Sharma, S. & Moehner, A. in Technologies for Adaptation: Perspectives and Practical Experiences (eds Christiansen, L., Olhoff, A. & Traerup, S.) 3–17 (UNEP Risoe Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development, 2011).
  11. Hayami, Y. & Ruttan, V. Agricultural Development: An International Perspective (John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1985).
  12. Feder, G., Just, R. & Zilberman, D. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 33, 255–298 (1985). URL:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2305.html
Citation statistics:
资源类型: 期刊论文
标识符: http://119.78.100.158/handle/2HF3EXSE/5063
Appears in Collections:气候变化事实与影响
科学计划与规划
气候变化与战略

Files in This Item:
File Name/ File Size Content Type Version Access License
nclimate2305.pdf（891KB）期刊论文作者接受稿开放获取
CC BY-NC-SA
View Download

Recommended Citation:
Bonizella Biagini. Technology transfer for adaptation[J]. Nature Climate Change,2014-07-13,Volume:4:Pages:828;834 (2014).
Service
Recommend this item
Sava as my favorate item
Show this item's statistics
Export Endnote File
Google Scholar
Similar articles in Google Scholar
[Bonizella Biagini]'s Articles
百度学术
Similar articles in Baidu Scholar
[Bonizella Biagini]'s Articles
CSDL cross search
Similar articles in CSDL Cross Search
[Bonizella Biagini]‘s Articles
Related Copyright Policies
Null
收藏/分享
文件名： nclimate2305.pdf
格式： Adobe PDF
此文件暂不支持浏览
所有评论 (0)
暂无评论
 

Items in IR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.