Dr. Peter Pembleton Project Manager Experience from Capacity Building & Technology Needs Assessments for Industry: Africa & Asia Dr. Peter Pembleton Project Manager Project 22/02/2019

Points of presentation What are the key challenges? Who should be involved? Who should carry out TNAs? Who should be consulted How to prioritize? Existing procedures? How successful? Criteria of success? Barriers & actions EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002

Project EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002

Key challenges Must be country/demand-driven * 07/16/96 Key challenges Must be country/demand-driven Require a dedicated effort Must be sector-specific but part of an integrated review Appropriate vs. novel/advanced Start at the right point with the right people! Should fit within national development plans Need public-private sector participatory approach Can there be a single methodology? Challenge is bring out actual technology needs Government bodies/UNFCCC FPs are not necessarily the best placed to pose or answer questions on specific/sectoral technology needs. Neither are general agencies (UNEP, UNDP) the right ones to support TNAs as they do not have the technical mandate required to examine specific sectoral issues. A national process should therefore start with determining which sectors are most relevant to the CC process and then leaving the sub-sectoral work to specialists from and related to/interested in those sectors. If the needs are identified through a donor/sponsor-driven process they may not reflect real needs. Again, donor/sponsor–driven may not be appropriate for the country or the sector. E.g. Industry needs must be identified together with industry practitioners. Cannot undertake a generic TNA as needs vary from sector-to-sector & cannot be compared across sectors. E.g. how would you prioritize between a technology needed to upgrade a food processing facility with one for preventing sea-level rise? Must have the support of top managers & appropriately qualified staff/experts allocated duties Will one size fit all or should we be thinking of a framework/set of pointers? In some cases, the most suitable technology may come from the South. Not all advanced ‘Northern’ technologies may be applicable/desirable EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002 *

Who’s involved? Technology experts Beneficiaries (host & investor) * 07/16/96 Who’s involved? Technology experts Beneficiaries (host & investor) Economists Project developers Policy makers Financiers The public Can come from various economic groupings (private sector, academia, consultancies, government bodies) 6) Sometimes, the local inhabitants and NGOs may object to certain technologies &, if not consulted, might cause problems later on. EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002 *

Who does it? A team of appropriate experts * 07/16/96 Who does it? A team of appropriate experts Those who are involved and able E.g. do not let a non-technical administrator review industrial technologies Local technology experts can do TNAs with the assistance/advice of impartial international experts. Obtaining supportive technology information/data requires international support. Must undertake cost-benefit analyses and technical comparisons, sourcing & screening of solutions & eventual technical support to implementation + O&M EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002 *

Who’s consulted? Those that need the technologies * 07/16/96 Who’s consulted? Those that need the technologies The facilitators of technology transfer Relevant stakeholders Sources of information Sounds simplistic, but national TNAs have been undertaken with often the sole involvement of UNFCCC FPs or those associated with their activities (IVAM & UNITAR survey), rarely with the full involvement of of those that will receive and implement the technologies. National support system institutions that will ‘enable’ the efficient transfer (policy bodies [trade, duties and taxes], technical bodies [R&D, sectoral associations, consultants], financial bodies [banks, investment agencies]) Current practices MUST be compared with available options and analyses undertaken to find the most suitable one. This requires access to sources of information as well as use of suitable DS tools. EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002 *

How to prioritize? ABILITY Suitability Technical viability * 07/16/96 How to prioritize? ABILITY Suitability Technical viability Economic/commercial viability Workability Adaptability Equitability Sustainability True ability to obtain, use, operate and maintain the technology: it must also fit within the host environment (country, geo, and sector/facility). Should be a clear commercial interest to drive the investment phase. What will work is not necessarily the most interesting. What is ‘needed’ will be irrelevant if there is no ‘driver’ in place (incentives, investors etc.). Some technologies may displace other national objectives (e.g. job creation) Can the technology be readily adapted to local environment & can it be built upon through national systems of innovation? In general, is the technology sustainable; does it fit into national developmental & environmental priority areas? EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002 *

Ranking Experience has shown this to be a difficult exercise * 07/16/96 Ranking Experience has shown this to be a difficult exercise focus was determining priority of capacity building needs Different economic groupings & persons with different educational backgrounds & social standing will have different perspectives. Reconciling these may prove difficult. Allocation of priority markers (e.g. most important, less important; high-, medium- or low-priority) did not work as most needs ended upon in the high/most important categories; equally, allocating a matrix approach to HML with urgency, complexity, chances of implementation & speed of implementation did not help much. Thought was given to a numerical matrix ranking approach(next slide) EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002 *

···················· More objective Less objective Very important Less important 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4 6 8 10 9 12 15 16 20 25 ······················ EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002

TNA procedures? Remote questionnaires * 07/16/96 TNA procedures? Remote questionnaires Questionnaires + limited interviews Training / roundtables Extensive multi-stakeholder dialogue Decision-support tools IVAM & UNITAR Ditto CTI UNIDO IDENTIFY, COMFAR—must be able to build scenarios and change parameters to model technical/economic aspects of different options. EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002 *

TNA successes? Questionnaires * 07/16/96 TNA successes? Questionnaires Are a quick and relatively cost-effective means to obtain general ideas but Danger of wrong recipient & insufficient contact with technical experts Many questions cannot be answered with simple box checking Danger that response rate may be low or not sufficiently representative Generalized conclusions might be interesting for ‘global’ consideration of issues but are not readily put into practice Questionnaires usually following the traditional ‘path’ (UNFCCC FPs) that have mostly failed to mobilize additional, suitable national stakeholders. Therefore, the answers do not reflect these additional views (e.g. industry). EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002 *

TNA successes? Questionnaires + limited interviews Slightly more resource-intensive Helps the respondents to focus answers better Allows for more flexibility in answers Promotes additional questions through dialogue Does not help with determining details of specific needs EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002

TNA successes? Training / roundtables Much more resource intensive (travel costs) Infrequent but effective means of examining issues in detail Only representatives of economic groups who do not necessarily speak for/report back to others (individuals or groups) EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002

TNA successes? Extensive multi-stakeholder dialogue Most expensive and time consuming but A country-driven & bottom-up process Mobilizes private sector & local capacity Brings different stakeholders together & includes their views Allows for balancing of opinions and setting of priorities EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002

TNA successes? Decision-support tools Costly to purchase & time-consuming to learn but Essential if specific options will be reviewed and compared One-time investment & experience can be replicated EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002

Criteria Broad criteria Increased flows of FDI Commissioned technology National capacity enhanced Matches national development goals Environmentally sound EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002

Barriers Back to key challenges + * 07/16/96 Barriers Back to key challenges + Inadequate/insufficient human & institutional resources for technology review/selection Inefficient networking Inadequate systems & tools for research + data access & manipulation Complexity of some of the technologies Lack of a database on new/clean technologies Lack of instrumentation and monitoring/auditing systems and practices EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002 *

Actions Funding Develop national systems of support What next? * 07/16/96 Actions Funding Detailed TNAs take time and resources Develop national systems of support Local technology centres, expertise & networks Resource & service providers for technical & economic studies What next? Back to ability After having identified the technologies needed—if there is no driver for implementation? EGM on Methodologies for Technology Needs Assessments, Seoul, April 2002 *