|
12.4 Technology Transfer within Countries
Climate mitigation projects under the bilateral and multilateral arrangements
in the forestry sector could in some cases involve only transfer of funds from
donor to host countries and agencies, without any external transfer of technology.
Thus, diffusion of technology within countries becomes important, particularly
in countries with large mitigation potential such as China, India, Indonesia
(Sathaye and Ravindranath, 1998), Brazil (Fearnside, 1999) and Russia. The existing
and emerging arrangements within countries need to be strengthened and reoriented.
The current level of technology transfer in the forestry sector, particularly
in developing countries, is marginal due to limitations of infrastructure and
barriers in dissemination of R&D outputs. This has not led to enhanced productivity
in either the state-managed or farmer-managed plantation forestry systems (Ravindranath
and Hall, 1995). Forestry needs to be more productive and profitable to be attractive
to private investors under some of the climate change mitigation programmes.
Technology transfer within countries is very crucial in the forestry sector.
The sources of technology or management practices for in-country technology
transfer could be:
- Forest departments;
- Research institutions and university laboratories;
- Industry; paper and pulp, timber logging, and plantation companies;
- Indigenous communities.
The main drivers or incentives for diffusing technologies, the key stakeholders,
the potential barriers, and measures to overcome the barriers vary with technologies
and some examples are listed in Table 12.3.
| Table 12.3 Potential Drivers, Stakeholders,
Pathways for Technology Transfer, Barriers to Transfer and Policies and
Measures for Promoting Technology Transfer |
| CARBON CONSERVATION MEASURES |
| Drivers or incentives |
Biodiversity conservation, watershed protection (national)
Access to forest products, eco-tourism, rural job (individual)
Carbon conservation, credits and financial rewards (global) |
| Stakeholders |
Indigenous communities
National governments
Conservation groups |
| Barriers |
Inadequate understanding of deforestation causes to propose effective
counter measures
Potential loss of revenue for the government and timber logging companies
Lack of institutions for enabling community participation Inadequate skills
for managing
Protected Area and SFM practices
Inadequate financial incentives for forest conservation |
| Policies and measures |
Financial support for compensating loss to the government, particularly
to local communities
Institutions for implementing policies for decreasing deforestation
Institutions to facilitate community participation and management
Training and capacity building for forest management, sustainable logging
techniques.
Protected Area management
Education and awareness |
| CARBON SEQUESTRATION |
| Incentives and driver |
Income generation from agroforestry and reforestation (non timber products)
Watershed protection - if degraded lands used
Potential financial rewards for carbon credits |
| Stakeholders |
Governments, Farmers and Companies, local communities, |
| Barriers |
Lack of funding and high cost of credit
Regulations on land use
Lack of technology for high growth rate
Lack of policies to ensure sustainability of C sequestered
Opportunity cost of land and current product flows |
| Policies and measures |
Financial support and mechanisms to compensate for opportunity lost
Financial rewards for carbon sink creation
Land tenure policies for sustaining carbon sink in selected categories of
land |
| SUBSTITUTION OF FOSSIL FUELS AND NON-SUSTAINABLY EXTRACTED
TIMBER |
| Incentives and drivers |
Profit motive from sale of wood to bioenergy utility and timber companies
Potential financial rewards for pollution abatement and carbon credits
Reclamation of degraded lands and meeting biomass needs |
| Stakeholders |
Farmers, bioenergy utility, plantation owners, paper mills and NGOs |
| Barriers |
Absence of policies to promote sustainable bioenergy or timber plantations
Subsidies to companies to extract timber from natural forests and to use
fossil fuel energy
Lack of finance and financing institutions
Lack of access to technology; bioenergy and high yielding silvicultural
practices and quality seedling |
| Policies and measures |
Financial incentives to sustainable timber producers and bioenergy utilities
Sale of technology
Level playing field for bioenergy and sustainable timber |
The categories of technologies likely to be involved in technology transfer
within countries are: a) silvicultural practices for high yields, b) improved
genetic stock for planting, c) practices for sustainable forest management and
Protected Area Management, d) monitoring and verification of C flows in forestry
projects, e) efficiency improvements, f) utilisation and management of secondary
forests, and g) traditional forest management practices adopted by indigenous
communities. The policies and measures required for promoting technology transfer
within Annex I and non-Annex I countries are given in Tables
12.3. and 12.4.
| Table 12.4 Technology Transfer Within Countries:
Pathways, Policies, Programmes, and Measures |
| POLICIES AND MEASURES |
| GOVERNMENT INITIATED |
Financial incentives for companies importing sustainable timber
Financial incentives and tax rebates to promote recycling
Regulations restricting deforestation and policy changes reducing motivation
for deforestation
Regulations on timber extraction companies for adopting sustainable logging
practices
Awareness programmes regarding forest conservation
Financial incentives for adopting sustainable forest management and reduced
impact logging practices
Capacity-building programmes for monitoring of carbon flows Funding capacity
building in R&D institutions
Promoting research to understand causes of deforestation
Training in sustainable logging and management practices for forest department
and timber logging companies
Strengthening forest extension service
Formation of Protected Areas
Framework for policies on land and product tenures to promote community
participation
Linkage between research institutions and forest departments |
| PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATED |
Timber certification
Investment in forestry R&D
Joint ventures between industry and forest departments for technology transfer
Farmer and industry partnership
Financial incentives; tax incentives, low cost credit to farmers for raising
commercial wood in low carbon density lands
Industry providing technology as a package for farmers will ensure flow
of modern technology |
| COMMUNITY INITIATED |
Consumer interest groups/NGOs to ensure enforcement of regulations; paper
recycling, marketing of sustainable timber
Public awareness to promote use of sustainably logged timber
NGOs to promote community participation for adopting forest conservation
measures
Community awareness on forest conservation |
In many developing countries, logging of natural forests constitutes an important
economic activity within the forestry sector (Masera, 1995). There is significant
transfer of "hardware" at the timber processing stages, usually from
industrialised countries. Barriers for sustainable logging include:
- Regulations that encourage short-term profit maximisation without taking
into consideration long-term effects;
- Lack of appropriate forest management systems, which cause unwanted changes
in species composition and reduction in the inventories of commercial species;
- Inadequate institutions and lack of funding for forestry services;
- Excessive regulation of local communities without taking into account the
needs and traditional rights of local communities that leads to clandestine
logging,
- Poor training of forest owners in technical aspects, and lack of financial
resources to invest in basic infrastructure and detailed forest inventories,
and
- Higher opportunity costs of alternative uses of the land (Klooster, 1996;
Merino, 1996; Masera et al., 1997a).
Policies and measures include increased access to funding for investment in
basic infrastructure, technical and administrative training of local communities,
and internalisation of "environmental services" to compete with alternative
land uses.
|