1. 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

2. 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

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

4. 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 *

5. 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 *

6. 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 *

7. 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 *

8. 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 *

9. 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 *

10. ···················· 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

11. 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 *

12. 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 *

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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 *

19. 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 *