The document summarizes a 2010 MSc thesis that studied mechanisms to promote the development and transfer of climate-friendly agricultural technologies to developing countries. It aimed to identify technologies that could benefit from innovation funding and analyzed options like prizes, public-private partnerships, and barrier removal. Through stakeholder interviews, the thesis developed criteria to select adaptation technologies for funding and analyzed potential conflicts and synergies between adaptation and mitigation strategies. It recommends a developing country-oriented climate technology innovation strategy and greater use of public-private partnerships.

1. “Promoting innovation and development of
climate-friendly technologies in developing
countries:
Case Study of Agricultural Adaptation”
H. Wright, September 2010, MSc Thesis
Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College, London

2. Aims and Objectives
 Original Rationale: Research the possibility for ‘innovation
prizes’ for climate technology and aim to scope out
possible technologies that could benefit from innovation
funding.
 Broadened the scope to the full range of mechanisms that
could be used promote technology transfer; such as
public-private partnerships and barrier removal.
 Focused on adaptation of agriculture to climate change; of
particular importance to developing countries and the rural
poor.
 Establish a list of criteria that could be used to identify and
select adaptation technologies for public funding, which
could then potentially be used in a 'multi-criteria analysis'
(MCA) of technologies.

3. Background
 History of the ‘technology transfer’ debate in the
UNFCCC; the need to develop local capacity for
innovation. Cannady (2009) argues innovation is
not a ‘one-way flow’.
 Climate Technology Program and plans for 30
CICs (Climate Innovation Centres) to encourage
R&D collaboration.
 CGIAR (Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research) could arguably offer a
useful example of effective international R&D
collaboration (Correa, 2009).

4. Stakeholder Interviews
NGOs/Civil Society Policy-Makers, Industry/ Developing Country
Scientists and Experts Companies NGOs/ Community
Leaders
GVEP (Global Village DFID AdapCC Manager, CEO, Green Enviro-
Energy Partnership) CafeDirect, UK Watch, Zambia
Tomorrow's Company Author of GEO, UNEP M-PESA Product Beyond Boundaries,
(UK) (DEWA) Manager, Vodafone Nepal
Head of Climate Change, Dr Saleemal Huq (IIED) Director, Imperial Indian Youth Climate
Conservation International Innovations, UK Network
(US)
IFOAM (International Sir Gordon Conway Founder, Onergy,
Federation of Organic (Imperial College) Sunderbans region of
Agriculture Movements) India
Practical Action, UK Crop Scientist, Australia
Chief Executive, IDE-UK Dr Thomas Downing,
(International Stockholm Environment
Development Enterprises) Institute (Oxford)

5. The Innovation Chain
Grubb (2004) identifies three main categories of
international mechanisms to promote innovation
and development:-
• Funded international RD&D Programmes
• International public-private partnerships for
incubation and acceleration
• International agreements on strategic deployment
and barrier removal.

6. Climate Adaptation – E.g. use of
mobile phone technologies
 MPESA, mobile banking project with Vodafone,
increased resilience because...“Kenya had massive
drought last year... it enabled a support network”
(Vodafone, Pers. Comm, 2010).
 Increased access to microfinance.
 Piloting ‘microinsurance’ in Kenya, allowing farmers in
insure seeds and fertilisers.
 Enables emergency response and access to weather
forecasts.

7. Agricultural Adaptation
 Seed varieties, irrigation, improved farming
techniques (agricultural development).
 Avoid ‘maladaptation’ e.g. over-irrigation
 Participatory process; “ownership” is key (CafeDirect,
Pers. Comm, 2010).
 Conservation farming techniques have synergies with
mitigation; SOC.
 Organic farming? Peak oil and peak phosphate in the
next 50 years.
 Food security and equity issues: access to food

8. Potential Conflicts and Synergies of Adaptation and Mitigation:
Strategies in Positive for Adaptation (+) Negative for Adaptation (-)
Agriculture:
Positive for -Mitigation that sequesters carbon and prepares for drought -Mitigation in usage of biomass or
Mitigation (+) (IPCC, 2007), e.g. low tillage. biofuel, or hydro power, that is
sensitive to climate extremes (IPCC,
-Mitigation e.g. multi-purpose trees, or mangrove planting, that
2007).
increase resilience to flooding and provide income.
-Mitigation in biofuel production (or
-Adaptation that returns residue to fields to improve “water-
holding capacity that also sequesters carbon” (IPCC, 2007) e.g. biochar) that may compete with food
composting, biogas digesters.
production (or displace indigenous
-Adaptation with irrigation or fertilisation that increases
biomass cover may increase carbon-sequestration. populations).
-Water efficiency or harvesting; also reduces impact of -Mitigation in large-scale agroforestry
flooding/drought. to generate C-credits, that may
compete with food production (or
-Small-scale energy generation from local biomass/solar; frees
displace indigenous populations).
people from dependence on kerosine fuel/grid electricity which -Use of alternative buildings materials
instead of cement that are not resistant
“exhibit volatile prices and can be cut off by extreme weather
to flooding.
events” (IIED, 2009).
Negative for -Adaptation that increases use of N-fertiliser but increases N20 -Increased dependence on fossil-fuel
Mitigation (-) emissions (IPCC, 2007). intensive inputs that are unsustainable
over the long term/vulnerable to price
-Adaptation with increased animal husbandry may increase
fluctuations.
emissions (except where dung used for inorganic farming).
-Building of energy-intensive cement infrastructure to protect
against flooding.
Other potential -GM crops increase yields but monoculture may increase use of -Irrigation that is poorly managed
negative herbicide, promote ‘rogue’ weeds, and kill soil bacteria leading to falling water tables or
(Guardian 2004). salinisation (DFID, 2004).
externalities (-) -Agroforestry/biofuel plantation that destroys a wildlife
sanctuary (Pers. Comm., TC)

9. Case Study: Treadle vs Diesel Pumps
Advantages of treadle pumps: - Possible to claim carbon credits
(displacing diesel); - Not dependent on fluctuating fuel prices; - Less
chance of over-irrigation of groundwater;
Disadvantages of treadle pumps: - Requires 4 hours of manual labour per
day (usually women), so farmer cannot apply their labour elsewhere; -
Goes to a depth of 7-9 metres compared to 20+ metres for diesel pump
(groundwater may be below this depth); - Farmers can rent the diesel
motorised pump to neighbours.
•IDE-UK explained this is why “people
are jumping to diesel” (Pers. Comm,
2010).
•The Chief Executive of IDE-UK
believed an innovation prize for a low-
cost SOLAR pump would be an
excellent idea; “put a rocket up some of
our engineers” (Pers. Comm, 2010).

10. Prioritisation of Criteria by Stakeholders
“From the following list; which priorities/criteria do you think should guide
the identification of technologies for adaptation to target with funding?”
Order of Prioritisation for Criteria:-
Social impact, i.e. pro-poor;
Environmental impact (general sustainability);
General applicability of the technology (scalability
and replicability);
Number of people or countries affected by the
climate impact;
Financial self-sustainability and implementation
strategy/business plan;
Economic efficiency; or cost-effectiveness;
Likelihood of climate impact;
Economic development (livelihood) impact; i.e.
job creation;
Level of capacity/experience of the applicant;
Secondary benefits other than climate change
adaptation; 'no regret' measures;
Genuine ‘innovative’ element/degree of
innovation;
Carbon neutrality;

11. Stakeholder comments on potential
conflicts of adaptation and mitigation
“...it is difficult to finance adaptation projects with the credits for
mitigation” (GVEP, Pers. Comm, 2010).
“For poor communities adaptation is a greater priority... Making everything
carbon-neutral is unjustifiable” (Practical Action, Pers. Comm)
“Where adaptation is for poor vulnerable communities the emissions are so
small they are not worth worrying about” (Saleemal Huq, Pers. Comm,’10).
“...if you’re talking about a developing country that is really vulnerable and
adaptation involves some emissions – it’s very hypocritical to ask for no
emissions” (Conservation International, Pers. Comm)
“If there is a synergy between adaptation/mitigation we should exploit it but
there's an equity issue” (O’Sullivan).
“In Africa... you need to help people adapt, whereas in China they are
going up that growth curve... so you need a different focus... it depends
which geographical area you are looking at” (Bahns, Pers. Comm, ‘10)

12. R&D and Global Subsidies
Global R&D expenditure for renewable energy amounted to $1,755m in
2008, while $1,658m was spent on R&D related to fossil fuels (of which CCS
made up $218m) (IEA, 2010)
Fossil fuel consumption subsidies worldwide were $342Bn USD in
2007 and $557Bn in 2008... In addition, subsidies provided to producers
were in the order of $100Bn per year; total fossil fuel subsidies were
almost $700Bn per year, or 1% of global GDP (IEA, 2010).
That far exceeds the level of subsidies that go towards renewable energy
internationally, which are about $27Bn per year (GSI, 2010).
Agricultural subsidies in OECD countries were about $400Bn in
2008 (IEA, 2010)... this subsidy amounts to 1.3% of GDP in OECD
countries which is roughly six times the value of all official
development aid (WRI, 2006).
“Treadle pumps cost $100 in Africa but $25 in India... due to huge tariffs on
steel imports...it is a historic policy issue” (IDE, Pers Comm).

13. Fossil fuel subsidies compared

14. AMCs and Innovation Prizes
Almost all respondents agreed the private sector needs to play a
greater role in developing climate-friendly technology; but many
respondents recognised the crucial need for government to push the
private sector with “regulations and subsidies” (IDE, Pers. Comm ‘10)
Stakeholder response to AMCs: “right up our street... a private
sector model that would fit us well” (IDE, Pers. Comm, 2010)
... But “requires capacity already there at market-defining scale”
(Downing, Pers. Comm, 2010)
• 63% of respondents felt an ‘innovation prize’ would “definitely” or
“probably” be an effective way to support innovation in climate-friendly
technology. Yet all 3 industry respondents felt an innovation prize was
“probably not” an effective way to support innovation.
• “it is not so much about inventing them but deploying them at scale
– scaling up existing technologies” (Pers. Comm, 2010).

15. Additional issues – Adaptation finance
Loans for Adaptation:
“the farmer gets inputs on loan – then the rainy season causes floods
and crops to get submerged; there is nothing the farmer can create –
how does he pay back the loan?” (Musumali, Pers. Comm, 2010).
“outrageous... there is no justification for even concessional
loans for countries that are extremely vulnerable” (NGO,
Pers. Comm, 2010)
“there is a difference between micro-finance (recycling money to
expand the activity) compared to loans where the activity is expected
to generate money to pay back – which by definition takes away from
the core activity” (Pers. Comm, 2010).
Additionality to ODA (overseas development assistance):
“historical responsibility is not being fulfilled” (NGO, Pers. Comm, 2010).
“difficulty about where the line is because there's a gradation from
development to adaptation” (Conway, Pers. Comm, 2010)

16. Recommendations and Wider Implications
• A developing-country orientated 'Climate Change Technology
Innovation Strategy' should be introduced, building upon pilot CICs,
including addressing IP rights. CGIAR could provide a useful model
for international collaboration on R&D for climate-friendly technology.
• Public-private partnerships (PPPs) could be utilised for incubation
and commercialisation of technology, including with AMCs (Advanced
Market Commitments) such as prizes. PPPs could be introduced
where there are mutual interests, such as building resilience of
companies’ supply chains.
• There is urgent need for progress in the WTO Doha Development
Round to include consideration of climate issues and the potential
effect of agricultural subsidies and tariff imports upon developing
countries adaptive capacities.
• DFID may need to further consider the potential conflicts of
adaptation and mitigation in some areas, where adaptation for the
poorest should be prioritised, as well as enabling potential synergies.