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/

1. Beyond hardware financing: Pro-poor
pathways to low carbon development
Dr David Ockwell & Dr Rob Byrne
October 2013
D.G.Ockwell@sussex.ac.uk
R.P.Byrne@sussex.ac.uk

2. www.steps-centre.org/project/low_carbon_development

3. 3

4. 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

5. Multiple Pathways to “Low Carbon Development”
- What? For who? How?

6. Multiple Pathways to “Low Carbon Development”
- What? For who? How?
- Multiple configurations of energy services, access, behaviour, technologies….

7. Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’
pathways
Social expectations, cultural norms

8. Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’
pathways
Historical contingency: Path dependence

9. Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’
pathways
Politics: Interests, power – who frames the problem?

10. Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’
pathways
Economics: Lock-in to inferior technologies – even in
competitive markets

11. Dominant framing: Hardware financing
Internalise positive
externalities
(carbon mitigation)
to cover additional
cost of low carbon
technologies
Hardware
financing policies
e.g. CDM

12. Accumulated investment through the CDM in USD billion by
selected countries and regions as at end of October 2012
(http://www.cdmpipeline.org)
Africa, 3.6, 2%
ROW, 25.6, 13%
Brazil, 2.0, 1%
India, 22.1, 12%
Key
Country, USD billion, percentage
ROW: Rest of the World
Source: Authors, based on analysis of the CDM pipeline
China, 135.0,
72%

13. Number of registered CDM projects as at end of October 2012, by
project type (4908 total registered projects)
(http://www.cdmpipeline.org)
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
121
79
73
69
61
35
35
33
25
22
21
17
15
14
12
7
5
2
1
272
234
1414
1413
469
459
• 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
Source: Authors, based on analysis of the CDM pipeline

14. Building innovation capacities
Technology
suppliers
Supplier firms’
engineering,
managerial
and other
technological
capabilities
Technology
transferred
Flow A
Flow B
Flow C
Capital goods,
services & designs
Technology
importers
New production
capacity
Skills & know-how for
operation &
maintenance
Knowledge &
expertise behind
technology
Accumulation of
innovation
capacities

15. Building innovation systems
Technology
transfer
Capital goods, services
& designs
National Innovation System
New production capacity
Skills & know-how for
operation &
maintenance
Knowledge & expertise
behind technology
Indigenous support for
technological
capabilities
Accumulation of
innovation capacity

16. Accumulated investment through the CDM in USD billion by
selected countries and regions as at end of October 2012
(http://www.cdmpipeline.org)
Africa, 3.6, 2%
ROW, 25.6, 13%
Brazil, 2.0, 1%
India, 22.1, 12%
Key
Country, USD billion, percentage
ROW: Rest of the World
Source: Authors, based on analysis of the CDM pipeline
China, 135.0,
72%

17. Socio-technical
nature of
change &
development

18. Socio-technical
nature of
change &
development

19. Socio-technical
nature of
change &
development

20. Socio-technical
nature of
change &
development

21. 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)?

22. 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

23. Snap shot of time line
Date
1978
(Henry
Watitwa)
August
1982
(Enos
Orongo)
Description
Others involved
Significance
Documents
Brother used dry
cell with wires to
light a spot light
bulb in our room
Friends and other
brothers
For fun – indicates Personal memory
interest in, and
motivation
awareness of,
electricity (power
was only in
selected houses in
town, institutions
and Government
buildings)
Failed Coup
Contextual event
Stimulated
Government
directive to
increase TV
network country
wide
Possible press
reports?
Elaborations
There was no solar.

24. PVMTI vs LA: An illustration from solar in Kenya

25. Different framings
CDM:
Funding for one-off,
international hardware
investments
Lighting Africa:
Building indigenous technological
capacities & innovation systems

26. Different framings:
Different distribution of benefits
CDM:
Private investors,
China, India, Brazil
Lighting Africa:
Poor countries, poor people

27. Different framings:
Different distribution of benefits

28. Conclusion: Pro-poor pathways to low carbon development?
www.steps-centre.org/project/low_carbon_development