Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
where an identified criterion was very broad, such as 'environmental impacts',
assessing technologies against this could prove difficult, even though the
dimension of environmental impacts would be regarded as important. Because
of this need for specific criteria, some of them were grouped or clustered into
a few broad categories that involve separate and distinguishable dimensions
of the overall objective for the prioritization exercise. Each of the criteria in a
cluster was referred to as a sub-criterion. These sub-criteria should each address
a single component of the overall problem. For the TNA project, this could
mean grouping sub-criteria for adaptation technologies for dealing with the
problem of unsustainable water use and management within the agricultural
sector under the criterion of 'water management'.
Stakeholder consultations and working group sessions in each country used
Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) to assign a weighting for each of the criteria,
identifying criteria for prioritizing the sectors and technologies. Information on
which criteria the various countries applied in their TNAs was collected from
the 25 national TNA reports available. Although different groups may have
had different perceptions of the exact meaning of some criteria, which could
affect comparability, the data still provide a reasonable foundation for drawing
comparisons and experiences as to the priorities of countries in making TNAs.
Classiication of technologies
The technologies identified by the countries were classified into the categories
of hardware, software and orgware, as described earlier. In practice, however,
technologies often contain elements of more than one category, so a system of
proportional weights was applied in the classification exercise. Each country
prioritized between one and three sectors, and for each of the sectors two to five
technologies were selected, yielding a total of 192 technologies from 25 countries.
Here it should be noted that the actual categorization of individual technologies
based on the general categories presented above was necessarily a somewhat
subjective exercise, which, beyond categorization based on technology titles,
also included a detailed review of the technology description in the individual
country reports. Thus, the same type of technology (e.g. 'Irrigation' or 'Drought-
resistant crops') might involve several different activities aimed at overcoming
barriers in the individual country, which in turn might push the balance towards
hardware, or software. Lacking a formal methodology for quantifying the weights
of technology types in the individual technology, this qualitative classification is
currently the only possible approach for analysing the TNA data. Examples of
technologies and how they were classified are shown in Table 6.2 .
Identifying pro-poor technologies
With the objective of identifying the share of technologies prioritized for
the TNA project, which would go into the category of being pro-poor, the
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search