Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A presentation by Dr David Ockwell and Dr Rob Byrne, given at UEA in October 2013, as part of the project Pro-poor, low carbon development: Improving low carbon energy access and development benefits in Least Developed Countries (LDC). Find out more: http://steps-centre.org/project/low_carbon_development/
Citation preview
Beyond hardware financing: Pro-poor pathways to low carbon development
Dr David Ockwell & Dr Rob Byrne
October 2013 [email protected] [email protected]
www.steps-centre.org/project/low_carbon_development
3
Overview
1. Pathways to low carbon development (Stirling 2012) 2. Dominant framing: Hardware financing 3. Alternative 1: Building innovation capacities 4. Alternative 2: Socio-technical nature of change & development 5. Our Kenya study 6. Potential implications for policy and research
Multiple Pathways to “Low Carbon Development” - What? For who? How?
Multiple Pathways to “Low Carbon Development” - What? For who? How? - Multiple configurations of energy services, access, behaviour, technologies….
Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’ pathways
Social expectations, cultural norms
Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’ pathways
Historical contingency: Path dependence
Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’ pathways
Politics: Interests, power – who frames the problem?
Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’ pathways
Economics: Lock-in to inferior technologies – even in competitive markets
Dominant framing: Hardware financing
Hardware financing policies
e.g. CDM
Internalise positive externalities
(carbon mitigation) to cover additional cost of low carbon
technologies
China, 135.0, 72%
India, 22.1, 12%
Brazil, 2.0, 1%
ROW, 25.6, 13% Africa, 3.6, 2%
Key Country, USD billion, percentage
ROW: Rest of the World
Source: Authors, based on analysis of the CDM pipeline
Accumulated investment through the CDM in USD billion by selected countries and regions as at end of October 2012 (http://www.cdmpipeline.org)
1414 1413
469 459
272 234
121 79 73 69 61
35 35 33 25 22 21 17 15 14 12 7 5 2 1
Hydro Wind
Methane avoidance Biomass energy
Landfill gas EE own generation
Solar N2O
Fossil fuel switch EE industry
Coal bed/mine methane EE households EE supply side Reforestation
Fugitive HFCs
Cement Transport
Geothermal PFCs and SF6
Energy distribution Afforestation
EE service CO2 usage
Tidal
Source: Authors, based on analysis of the CDM pipeline
• 87% registered CDM projects use just six types of technology
• Only one new renewable energy technology – wind – although mature relative to other new renewables
• Solar only 2% of portfolio
Number of registered CDM projects as at end of October 2012, by project type (4908 total registered projects) (http://www.cdmpipeline.org)
Building innovation capacities
Technology suppliers
Technology importers
Technology transferred
Supplier firms’ engineering, managerial and other
technological capabilities
Capital goods, services & designs
Skills & know-how for operation &
maintenance
Knowledge & expertise behind
technology
Accumulation of innovation capacities
New production capacity
Flow A
Flow B
Flow C
Building innovation systems
Indigenous support for technological capabilities
National Innovation System
Skills & know-how for operation &
maintenance
Accumulation of innovation capacity
Knowledge & expertise behind technology
Technology transfer
New production capacity Capital goods, services
& designs
China, 135.0, 72%
India, 22.1, 12%
Brazil, 2.0, 1%
ROW, 25.6, 13% Africa, 3.6, 2%
Key Country, USD billion, percentage
ROW: Rest of the World
Source: Authors, based on analysis of the CDM pipeline
Accumulated investment through the CDM in USD billion by selected countries and regions as at end of October 2012 (http://www.cdmpipeline.org)
Socio-technical nature of change &
development
Socio-technical nature of change &
development
Socio-technical nature of change &
development
Socio-technical nature of change &
development
Research questions
Case study: • PV based electrical services in Kenya • Per capita = most successful global market for off-grid PV (?)
Research questions: What factors can explain the success of the off-grid PV market in
Kenya? • What role has hardware financing played? • What technological capacity building activities can be identified? • Can “innovation system builders” be identified? • How can this inform policy (especially Climate Innovation Centres)?
Methodology
• In-depth historical analysis • Innovation Histories Method (Douthwaite & Ashby 2005) • Stakeholder workshop + in-depth interviews • Detailed timeline of PV market development • Codified interrogation against research questions
Snap shot of time line
Date Description Others involved Significance Documents Elaborations
1978 (Henry Watitwa)
Brother used dry cell with wires to light a spot light bulb in our room
Friends and other brothers
For fun – indicates interest in, and awareness of, electricity (power was only in selected houses in town, institutions and Government buildings)
Personal memory motivation
There was no solar.
August 1982 (Enos Orongo)
Failed Coup Contextual event Stimulated Government directive to increase TV network country wide
Possible press reports?
PVMTI vs LA: An illustration from solar in Kenya
Lighting Africa:
Building indigenous technological capacities & innovation systems
Different framings
CDM:
Funding for one-off, international hardware investments
Lighting Africa:
Poor countries, poor people
Different framings: Different distribution of benefits
CDM:
Private investors,
China, India, Brazil
Different framings: Different distribution of benefits
Conclusion: Pro-poor pathways to low carbon development?
www.steps-centre.org/project/low_carbon_development
