Image of Costa Rica's northern pacific coast taken from the Ocaso Festival website.
Agricultural economist and researcher working with UNEP Riso Centre
Technical University of Denmark Department of Engineering, PhD
Task Manager at UNEP Riso Centre
Senior Project Officer at UNEP DTU Partnership
Study:
Traerup and Christiansen. 2015. Adaptation technologies as drivers of social development. In Climate change adaptation and development: Transforming paradigms and practices, ed. T.H. Inderberg, S. Eriksen, K. O’Brien, and L. Sygnda. New York; London: Routledge.
Presentation:
Sidra Pierson, March 15, 2021
Technology Needs Assessment project, 2010-2013
Implemented by the United Nations Environment Programme and the UNEP DTU Partnership on behalf of the Global Environment Facility.
25 country reports compiled through consultations with stakeholders and working groups sessions
Organizations and projects frequently cited (e.g. for definitions) but not involved directly:
Do you buy this framework (hard-/soft-/orgware?)
Does it matter whether you frame social networks and institutions as technology vs beyond technology? What are the implications of either framework?
Why do you think the following were among the most commonly prioritized criteria? Does our prior reading for this course offer an explanation for why these were highly used?
Reduce vulnerability; social, economic, and environmental development; social acceptability
How can we apply spatial thinking in attempting to implement these adaptation technologies, especially soft- and orgware?
Here's a google doc with the action plan section of the TNA
"For Costa Rica, the Future of Forests Hangs in the Gender Balance" (not TNA-related but an example of applying a gender analysis for effective and equitable adaptation)
How do the main research questions and conclusions fit within the resilience - transition - transformation framework?
Most of the discussion of technology falls into a resilience framing, with some of it touching on more transitional adaptation. Orgware is an example of this, as it has to do with reorganization of social networks and/or institutions.
Discussion of enabling environment excludes any acknowledgement of the potential for transformational adaptation; it recognizes the importance of societal context without recognizing potential for regime change
What were the goals of the main climate change actors in terms of the resilience - transitions - transformation framework?
These actors’ goals mostly align with a resilience framework in desiring that technologies contribute to the continuation desired system functions with moderate change to support vulnerable populations
Discussion of “pro-poor technologies” is abstract and uncritical
Wrapping language about climate adaptation into existing sustainable development efforts (concerns about greenwashing)
In the Technology Needs Assessment, out of the 25 countries that contributed data, the most widely used criterion for prioritizing national adaptation technologies was the potential to reduce climate change vulnerability. This could be resilience or transitional, however, another widely valued criterion was ‘political and institutional stability’ which would result most in a resilience focused approach to adaptation and would stand in opposition to potential transformation or regime change.
How is geographic space and scale implicated in the outcomes of adaptation as resilience, transition, or transformation?
Implicit in discussion of technologies is the idea of diffusion––it is often assumed that technology in development projects will automatically and uniformly diffuse throughout space, which is not the case (many other factors contribute to technology adaptation)
Acknowledgement of scale in that each country identifies its own adaptation priorities, but unclear how they will be adopted at the local level