Adaptation technologies as drivers oF social development - Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Transforming Paradigms and Practices - page 111

supply of a single critical resource, whereas agriculture by its very nature entails
the management of more complex processes at the confluence of biophysical
and socio-cultural systems. For instance, installing a water-harvesting system
or deepening a well in a community faced with water shortages can 'solve' the
problem without significant knowledge transfer or changes in behaviour of the
vast majority of local water consumers, at least for the lifetime of the installed
systems. By contrast, implementing a drought-resistant cropping system or
agroforestry practices will necessarily have to involve some level of knowledge
transfer and behavioural change for all those who use and implement the
system on a daily basis (knowledge of how and when to sow seeds, how to
manage plant growth, water inputs, weeds etc.). Simply providing drought-
resistant seeds or tree seedlings to communities without further support is
unlikely to facilitate the intended adaptation benefits.
Another explanation of the observed difference in the distribution of
technology types in water and agriculture could relate to the guidance
provided in the TNA guidebooks. The TNA project has produced several
sectoral guidebooks for adaptation. These provide detailed descriptions and
guidance for various key adaptation technologies in each sector - with the
objective of providing a sound and comprehensive technical foundation for
national discussions of adaptation options and their prioritization. The extent
to which countries have based their work on the guidebooks is highly variable,
however. Some have used the guidebooks' technology lists almost directly as
input in their national prioritization exercises (as the sole technology option),
whereas others have used them more indirectly as inspiration, while also
identifying more specific national-level technology options not necessarily
in line with the format of the guidebooks. In particular, countries in the
first category were heavily influenced by the composition of the technology
portfolios outlined in the guidebooks. Interestingly, the distribution of
technology types (hard, soft, orgware) described in the guidebooks match
quite well with distribution shown in Figure 6.3 (73 per cent and 36 per
cent hardware for water and agriculture sector respectively, based on the
same classification described above). An underlying reason for this difference
in focus could be that the water guidebook was developed by a consultancy
team of (primarily) engineers from a US university, whereas the agriculture
guidebook was developed by a team of non-governmental organization (NGO)
development practitioners (primarily from social science backgrounds) from
Latin America. This is not to say that one approach is superior to the other
- simply that professional background may well influence the selection of
technology options.
A final point connected to the differences in technology approach for
the water and agriculture sector is that the two sectors and their associated
adaptation technologies are highly interrelated, as agriculture is by far the
largest consumer of fresh water in most developing countries. A large share
of the water technologies identified is fully or partly focused directly on the