Improving technology transfer through national systems of innovation: climate relevant innovation-system builders (CRIBs)

The Technology Executive Committee (TEC) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recently convened a workshop seeking to understand how strengthening national systems of innovation (NSIs) might help to foster the transfer of climate technologies to developing countries. This article reviews insights from the literatures on Innovation Studies and Socio-Technical Transitions to demonstrate why this focus on fostering innovation systems has potential to be more transformative as an international policy mechanism for climate technology transfer than anything the UNFCCC has considered to date. Based on insights from empirical research, the article also articulates how the existing architecture of the UNFCCC Technology Mechanism could be usefully extended by supporting the establishment of CRIBs (climate relevant innovation-system builders) in developing countries – key institutions focused on nurturing the climate-relevant innovation systems and building technological capabilities that form the bedrock of transformative, climate-compatible technological change and development

External sources of clean technology: evidence from the clean development mechanism

New technology is fundamental to sustainable development. However, inventors from industrialized countries often refuse technology transfer because they worry about reverse-engineering. When can clean technology transfer succeed? We develop a formal model of the political economy of North–South technology transfer. According to the model, technology transfer is possible if (1) the technology in focus has limited global commercial potential or (2) the host developing country does not have the capacity to absorb new technologies for commercial use. If both conditions fail, inventors from industrialized countries worry about the adverse competitiveness effects of reverse-engineering, so technology transfer fails. Data analysis of technology transfer in 4,894 projects implemented under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism during the 2004–2010 period provides evidence in support of the model

Decarbonisation and its discontents: a critical energy justice perspective on four low-carbon transitions

Low carbon transitions are often assumed as normative goods, because they supposedly reduce carbon emissions, yet without vigilance there is evidence that they can in fact create new injustices and vulnerabilities, while also failing to address pre-existing structural drivers of injustice in energy markets and the wider socio-economy. With this in mind, we examine four European low-carbon transitions from an unusual normative perspective: that of energy justice. Because a multitude of studies looks at the co-benefits renewable energy, low-carbon mobility, or climate change mitigation, we instead ask in this paper: what are the types of injustices associated with low-carbon transitions? Relatedly, in what ways do low-carbon transitions worsen social risks or vulnerabilities? Lastly, what policies might be deployed to make these transitions more just? We answer these questions by first elaborating an “energy justice” framework consisting of four distinct dimensions—distributive justice (costs and benefits), procedural justice (due process), cosmopolitan justice (global externalities), and recognition justice (vulnerable groups). We then examine four European low-carbon transitions—nuclear power in France, smart meters in Great Britain, electric vehicles in Norway, and solar energy in Germany—through this critical justice lens. In doing so, we draw from original data collected from 64 semi-structured interviews with expert partisans as well as five public focus groups and the monitoring of twelve internet forums. We document 120 distinct energy injustices across these four transitions, including 19 commonly recurring injustices. We aim to show how when low-carbon transitions unfold, deeper injustices related to equity, distribution, and fairness invariably arise

Enhancing Developing Country Access to Eco-Innovation: The Case of Technology Transfer and Climate Change in a Post-2012 Policy Framework

The deployment of eco-innovations in developing countries is a key driver of their contribution to efficiently addressing global environmental challenges. It is also a key driver of markets for eco-innovation and sustainable economic development. This report explores the barriers developing countries face in accessing markets for eco-innovation. It outlines the key considerations policy needs to address to overcome these barriers and discusses the extent to which selected existing policy mechanisms and organisation have achieved this. The key finding of the report is that the majority of existing policy mechanisms fails to recognise the critical importance of developing indigenous eco-innovation capabilities amongst developing country firms. Indigenous eco-innovation capabilities are essential to facilitating both the diffusion of existing ecoinnovations within developing countries and sustainable economic development based on the adoption, adaption and development of environmentally sound technologies that fit with the bespoke conditions faced by developing countries. Building up eco-innovation capabilities in developing countries requires a shift away from the current focus on large project based approaches which emphasise the transfer of the hardware aspects of clean technologies, towards approaches that emphasise flows of codified knowledge (know-how and know-why) and tacit knowledge. Policy also needs to be improved to better respond to the context-specific technological and cultural requirements which vary inter- and intra-nationally

Healthy people with nature in mind

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: The global disease burden resulting from climate change is likely to be substantial and will put further strain on public health systems that are already struggling to cope with demand. An up- stream solution, that of preventing climate change and associated adverse health effects, is a promising approach, which would create win-win-situations where both the environment and human health benefit. One such solution would be to apply methods of behaviour change to prompt pro-environmentalism, which in turn benefits health and wellbeing. DISCUSSION: Based on evidence from the behavioural sciences, we suggest that, like many social behaviours, pro- environmental behaviour can be automatically induced by internal or external stimuli. A potential trigger for such automatic pro-environmental behaviour would be natural environments themselves. Previous research has demonstrated that natural environments evoke specific psychological and physiological reactions, as demonstrated by self-reports, epidemiological studies, brain imaging techniques, and various biomarkers. This suggests that exposure to natural environments could have automatic behavioural effects, potentially in a pro-environmental direction, mediated by physiological reactions. Providing access and fostering exposure to natural environments could then serve as a public health tool, together with other measures, by mitigating climate change and achieving sustainable health in sustainable ecosystems. However, before such actions are implemented basic research is required to elucidate the mechanisms involved, and applied investigations are needed to explore real world impacts and effect magnitudes. As environmental research is still not sufficiently integrated within medical or public health studies there is an urgent need to promote interdisciplinary methods and investigations in this critical field. Health risks posed by anthropogenic climate change are large, unevenly distributed, and unpredictable. To ameliorate negative impacts, pro-environmental behaviours should be fostered. Potentially this could be achieved automatically through exposure to favourable natural environments, with an opportunity for cost-efficient nature-based solutions that provide benefits for both the environment and public health

Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development : What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study

Gross Domestic Product is often used as a proxy for societal well-being in the context of policy development. Its shortcomings in this context are, however, well documented, and numerous alternative indicator sets have been developed. Despite this, there is limited evidence of widespread use of these alternative indicator sets by people working in policy areas relevant to societal wellbeing. Civil servants are an important group of indicator end-users. Better understanding their views concerning measuring societal wellbeing can support wider discussions about what factors determine indicator use and influence in policy decision-making. Taking the UK as a case study, we ask what views exist among civil servants in the UK about measuring societal well-being? To answer this question, we used a bootstrapped Q methodology, interviewing 20 civil servants to elicit their views about measuring societal well-being. Three distinct discourses emerged from our analysis: one that was concerned about the consequences of ignoring natural, social and human capital in decision making; one that emphasised opportunity and autonomy as key determinants of well-being; and one that focused on the technical aspects of measuring societal well-being. Each of these discourses has direct implications for the way that we integrate societal wellbeing into policy making and highlights the potential benefits of including end-users in indicator development and strategy

Report on options to facilitate collaborative technology research and development

The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), at its thirtysecond session, endorsed the terms of reference for a report by the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) on options to facilitate collaborative technology research and development (R&D).1 The SBSTA requested the EGTT, in preparing this report, to focus on collaborative technology R&D to enhance action on mitigation and adaptation under the Convention, and how collaborative technology R&D activities outside of the Convention can support this action. Accordingly, the main objective of this document is to identify options for facilitating collaborative R&D, paying attention to activities both under and outside of the Convention. The document uses literature review, a practitioner survey, case studies and an illustrative inventory of international R&D collaborations to arrive at the options