**2. Studies on barriers in technology diffusion in the developing countries**

Understanding barriers in technology diffusion lead to important lessons in designing policy instruments and institutions for diffusing clean energy technologies in the developing countries. With this understanding, researching about barriers has been part of the tasks under the UNFCCC as well as United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) (UNFCCC 2011; UNEP Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development 2011). Painuly indicates that there are several levels to explore and analyze such barriers. Painuly adds that the first level is a broad category of barriers and the lower levels include more detail and specific barriers (Painuly 2001). Section 2.1 illustrates barriers at the first level. Section 2.2 lists case studies that address barriers at a lower level that are more technology specific. Section 2.3 presents an analysis of the barriers through a comparison of the results of the case studies.

#### **2.1. Barriers commonly observed among the developing countries**

The barriers at the first level are the barriers that are commonly observed among the devel‐ oping countries. There are substantial amounts of research projects that have attempted to identify the barriers at this level including Painuly (2001), OECD/IEA (2001), Painuly and Fenhann (2002) and Raddy and Painuly (2004). Table 1 summaries key barriers identified through these and other research. The barriers are classified into technological, financial and institutional barriers2,3:

<sup>2</sup> It is not possible to clearly distinguish barriers into the three classifications. Many barriers relate to more than two classifications. Under the circumstances, the paper attempts to fit each barrier into the most appropriate classification.

<sup>3</sup>Table 1 includes some technology-specific barriers as well as country/region-specific barriers. It is also noted that the table contains selected major barriers only.

conducted to uncover technology-specific barriers in diffusing clean energy technologies in Asia. These case studies include both technologies for industrial use such as wind, bio-energy and building energy efficiency and technologies for individual use such as LED (Light Emitting Diode) and Photovoltaic (PV) panels. It also contains technologies at the innovation stage such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Section 2.3 presents an analysis of the barriers through a comparison of the results of the case

The second part of the paper explores roles of institutions to overcome identified barriers in diffusing clear energy technologies in Asia (Section 3). It addresses theoretical discussions on functions (or roles) of international and national institutions in technology innovation. It then attempts to match the barriers in technology diffusion identified in Section 2 with the functions of national and international institutions. The results of matching indicate that there are important roles of institutions both at the early and advanced stages of technological devel‐ opment to encourage R&D cooperation from the public site (early stage) and enhance the

**2. Studies on barriers in technology diffusion in the developing countries**

Understanding barriers in technology diffusion lead to important lessons in designing policy instruments and institutions for diffusing clean energy technologies in the developing countries. With this understanding, researching about barriers has been part of the tasks under the UNFCCC as well as United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) (UNFCCC 2011; UNEP Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development 2011). Painuly indicates that there are several levels to explore and analyze such barriers. Painuly adds that the first level is a broad category of barriers and the lower levels include more detail and specific barriers (Painuly 2001). Section 2.1 illustrates barriers at the first level. Section 2.2 lists case studies that address barriers at a lower level that are more technology specific. Section 2.3 presents an analysis of the barriers through a comparison of the results of the case studies.

The barriers at the first level are the barriers that are commonly observed among the devel‐ oping countries. There are substantial amounts of research projects that have attempted to identify the barriers at this level including Painuly (2001), OECD/IEA (2001), Painuly and Fenhann (2002) and Raddy and Painuly (2004). Table 1 summaries key barriers identified through these and other research. The barriers are classified into technological, financial and

2 It is not possible to clearly distinguish barriers into the three classifications. Many barriers relate to more than two classifications. Under the circumstances, the paper attempts to fit each barrier into the most appropriate classification. 3Table 1 includes some technology-specific barriers as well as country/region-specific barriers. It is also noted that the

enabling environment and facilitate finance for the technologies (advanced stage).

**2.1. Barriers commonly observed among the developing countries**

institutional barriers2,3:

table contains selected major barriers only.

studies.

186 Environmental Change and Sustainability



**Barriers Barriers Explanations Source(s)**

effect on competition and efficiency. (Painuly pp.79) • Small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) above all lack the finances for cleaner technologies, but also contact with larger technology manufacturers and formal information channels. (UNFCCC

(Ravindranath and Balachandra pp.1010)

2003, p.12)

2001, pp.6-7)

p.3)

Financial Potential lack of

188 Environmental Change and Sustainability

Institutional Uncertain

commercial viability

Lack of financial institutions to support renewable energy technologies, lack of instruments

governmental policies

accentuated by the rigid lending procedures that limited access to financing even when financing is available on standard norms.

(UNFCCC 2003) (Worell et al. 2001) (Jagadeesh 2000) (IPCC 2000)(Thorne 2008)

(Karakosta et al, 2010)

(Painuly 2001) (Jagadeesh 2000)

(Redd and Painuly 2004) (Painuly 2001) (Worell et al. 2001) (Schneider and Hoffman 2008) (Doukas et al. 2009) (Karakosta et al. 2010) (OECD/IEA 2001)

• Capital costs may go up due to increased risk perception. Adverse

• Limited capital availability will lead to high hurdle rates for energy efficiency investments because capital is used for competing investment priorities...High inflation rates in developing countries and CEITs, lack of suffcient infrastructure increase the risks for domestic and foreign investors and limit the availability of capital (Worrell et al

• International public finance is no longer going into energy (electricity) infrastructure, which is now seen as of interest to the private sector under the neo-liberal or privatization agenda (Thorne,

• In general, technology imported from industrialized countries is more efficient but also more expensive than technology manufactured locally, and it therefore requires higher initial investment costs. This is of particular importance for the transfer of environmentally sound technologies. Furthermore, as a result of their typically early commercialization stage, environmentally sound technologies are often considered riskier than existing commercial

• Adverse effect on competition and efficiency. (Painuly pp.79) • Under-developed capital markets, restricted entry to capital markets,

• Many of the renewable energy technologies in India are still in the development stage. There are no sufficient governmental regulations/ incentives to stimulate the adoption of renewable energy technologies by business and industries. They include: (a) lack of explicit national policy for renewable energy at end-use level; (b) incomplete transition to cost-based electric tariffs for most residential and some industrial customers; (c) poor availability of credit to the purchase of renewable energy technologies in the economy; and (d) lack of application of modern management skills in energy development agencies. (Reddy and Painuly pp.1436)

instruments unfavorable regulations. (Painuly pp.83)

technologies (Karakosta et al., p.1551)



**Table 1.** Barriers (technological, financial and institutional) observed among the developing countries

Technological barriers include not only limited access to the international technology market but also limited capacity to assess, adopt, adapt and absorb technological options (Ravindra‐ nath and Balachandra 2009; Painuly 2001). As the table indicates, lack of knowledge of technology operation and management as well as lack of skilled personnel/training facilities can be a major barrier for successful diffusion of clean energy technologies (Doukas et al. 2009; Luken and Rompaey 2008; Painuly 2001; Usha and Ravindranath 2002; Jagadeesh 2000; IPCC 2000; Guerin 2001; Worrell et al. 2001; Flamos et al. 2008; OECD and IEA 2001). Lack of standard and codes and certification can be a barrier too since product quality and product acceptability is affected (Painuly 2001).

A lack of financing is a major part of the financial barriers (Ravindranath and Balachandra 2009; Painuly 2001; UNFCCC 2003; Worell et al. 2001; Jagadeesh 2000; IPCC 2000; Thorne 2008). Ravindranath and Balachandra (2009) states that "high first costs and investments associated with mass manufacturing remain as barriers. Both the users and the manufactures have very low capital. This problem is further accentuated by the rigid lending procedures that limited access to financing even when financing is available on standard norms." At this point, Karakosta et al. (2010) further elaborates that "in general, technology imported from industrialized countries is more efficient but also more expensive than technology manufac‐ tured locally, and it therefore requires higher initial investment costs. This is of particular importance for the transfer of environmentally sound technologies." Lack of financial institu‐ tions to support renewable energy technologies as well as lack of financial instruments is also highlighted as part of the financial barriers (Painuly 2001; Jagadeesh 2000).

Institutional barriers include lack of explicit forms of institutions such as goals, policies, regulations and incentive programs as well as lack of implicit form of institutions such as information, awareness, social acceptance, and conditions of the surrounding environment. As for explicit forms of institutions, Painuly (2001) points out uncertainty in policies, unsupportive policies, inadequately equipped governmental agency, red tape, lack of govern‐ mental faith in renewable energy technologies, lack of policies to integrate renewable energy technologies products with the global market, inadequately equipped governmental agency to handle the product. Lack of infrastructure is another aspect of institutional barriers, pointed out by Painuly (2001), that is, problems related to availability of infrastructure such as roads, connectivity to grid, communications, and other logistics. As for implicit form of institutions, Painuly (2001) points out lack/low level of awareness, inadequate information on product, technology, costs, benefits and potential of the renewable energy technologies, O&M costs, financing sources. Flamos et al. (2008) addresses lack of customer acceptance as an institutional barrier. It points out that "many potential users of sustainable energy technologies have no or little experience with their application and the assistance provided in the development of such technologies is insufficient" (Flamos et al. 2008).

Section 2.1 addressed barriers that are commonly observed among the developing countries. Section 2.2 illustrates case studies addressing technology-specific barriers.

### **2.2. Case studies addressing technology-specific barriers**

**Barriers Barriers Explanations Source(s)**

• Adoption of renewable energy technologies are generally influenced by consumer perceptions of the quality and usefulness of these items when compared to conventional technologies. Renewable energy technologies are often perceived to be used with discomfort or sacrifice rather than as providing equivalent services with less energy and cost. Also, while purchasing a technology, consumers take the advice of their friends rather than obtaining information from the experts and take decisions which may not be economically rationale. (Reddy and Painuly pp.1436-1437) • Unknown product, aesthetic considerations, products lacks appeal, resistance to change, cultural reasons, high discount rates of consumers, inadequate information. (Painuly pp.84)

(Reddy and Painuly 2004) (Painuly 2001) (Flamos et al. 2008)

• Many potential users of sustainable energy technologies have no or little experience with their application and the assistance provided in the development of such technologies is insufficient. Moreover, dissemination of EU experience sustainable energy technology implementation to other countries in the world has been limited

(Flamos, p.5)

**Table 1.** Barriers (technological, financial and institutional) observed among the developing countries

Technological barriers include not only limited access to the international technology market but also limited capacity to assess, adopt, adapt and absorb technological options (Ravindra‐ nath and Balachandra 2009; Painuly 2001). As the table indicates, lack of knowledge of technology operation and management as well as lack of skilled personnel/training facilities can be a major barrier for successful diffusion of clean energy technologies (Doukas et al. 2009; Luken and Rompaey 2008; Painuly 2001; Usha and Ravindranath 2002; Jagadeesh 2000; IPCC 2000; Guerin 2001; Worrell et al. 2001; Flamos et al. 2008; OECD and IEA 2001). Lack of standard and codes and certification can be a barrier too since product quality and product

A lack of financing is a major part of the financial barriers (Ravindranath and Balachandra 2009; Painuly 2001; UNFCCC 2003; Worell et al. 2001; Jagadeesh 2000; IPCC 2000; Thorne 2008). Ravindranath and Balachandra (2009) states that "high first costs and investments associated with mass manufacturing remain as barriers. Both the users and the manufactures have very low capital. This problem is further accentuated by the rigid lending procedures that limited access to financing even when financing is available on standard norms." At this point, Karakosta et al. (2010) further elaborates that "in general, technology imported from industrialized countries is more efficient but also more expensive than technology manufac‐ tured locally, and it therefore requires higher initial investment costs. This is of particular importance for the transfer of environmentally sound technologies." Lack of financial institu‐ tions to support renewable energy technologies as well as lack of financial instruments is also

highlighted as part of the financial barriers (Painuly 2001; Jagadeesh 2000).

Institutional Lack of consumer

190 Environmental Change and Sustainability

acceptance

acceptability is affected (Painuly 2001).

There are a number of research initiatives that have attempted to identify barriers through the case study approach. The advantage of the case study approach is that it helps to uncover technology-specific barriers, while other studies looking at the developing countries or clean energy as a whole may overlook these barriers. Table 2 lists the case studies that are reviewed in this paper4 :


<sup>4</sup> This paper looks into key case studies in Asia only, although there are case studies being conducted in other parts including South America and Africa.


**Table 2.** List of case studies reviewed in this paper

The Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU) at University of Sussex and TERI in India jointly conducted a research project looking into barriers through several case studies in India including wind power, IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle), LED (Light Emitting Diode), biomass, hybrid vehicles and photovoltaic (PV) panels (Case Study 1-6) (Ockwell, D., J. Watson et al. 2007; Ockwell, D., J. Watson et al. 2009). This is the most comprehensive research project thus far looking into barriers through the case study approach. The IIIEE at Lund University in Sweden conducted several case studies including Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and building energy efficiency (Case Study 7 and 8) (Dalhammar, C. et al. 2009). In addition, there are a number of case studies that are conducted on the individual basis (Case Study 9-13).

It is observed that many of these case studies are conducted in China and India. This is probably relating to the fact that these two countries have the largest potentials in diffusing clean energy technologies among the developing countries. Another point to note among these case studies is that two popular targets for a case study are wind power and bio-energy (including biomass/ biogas). This is possibly due to the fact that these two technologies are at the stage where they are successfully implemented in some cases but there are still facing barriers to point out for further diffusion. On the other hand, Table 2 also indicates that there are a variety of research interests with respect to the targeted technologies for analysis. Some research interests are geared toward to the technologies at the innovation stage such as IGCC and CCS. Some research interests are directed to the products for individual use rather than industrial use such as hybrid vehicles, LEDs, and PV. The diversity in the targeted technologies for analysis may lead to interesting finding about barriers.

#### **2.3. Comparative study on technology-specific barriers**

**Research organization/individuals**

India

India

India

India

International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE) at Lund University

Case study 8 IIIEE at Lund University Developing

Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)

Lewis J.

Mizuno E. (on a publication by UNEP Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development)

(Ravindranath and Rao on a publication by UNEP Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development)

Suzuki, M., Okazaki B., and Jain K. Thailand Biogas

The Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU) at University of Sussex and TERI in India jointly conducted a research project looking into barriers through several case studies in India including wind power, IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle), LED (Light Emitting

Case study 3 SPRU at University of Sussex and TERI in

192 Environmental Change and Sustainability

Case study 4 SPRU at University of Sussex and TERI in

Case study 5 SPRU at University of Sussex and TERI in

Case study 6 SPRU at University of Sussex and TERI in

Case study 9 United Nations Department of

**Table 2.** List of case studies reviewed in this paper

Case study 7

Case study 10

Case study 11

Case study 12

Case study 13

**Information on each case study**

**Country Technology**

India Biomass

India Hybrid

LED (Light Emitting Diode)

vehicles

Photovoltaic (PV) panels

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

> Building energy Efficiency

China Wind power United Nations, DESA

China Wind power A:Lewis, J., (2007a)

India Wind power Mizuno. (2011)

India Bioenergy Ravindranath and Rao (2011)

India

India

Developing countries

countries

India and

**Sources**

Ockwell, D., J. Watson et al. (2007)

Ockwell, D., J. Watson et al. (2007)

A: Ockwell, D., J. Watson et al. (2007) B: Ockwell, D., J. Watson et al. (2009)

Ockwell, D., J. Watson et al. (2009)

Dalhammar, C. et al. (2009)

Dalhammar, C. et al. (2009)

B:Lewis, J., (2007b)

A: Suzuki, M., Okazaki B., and Jain K. (2010) B: Jain K., Okazaki B., Suzuki, M. (2011)

Section 2.3 compares the results of the case studies identified in Section 2.2. Table 3 summarizes the results of the studies:



**Research organizations/ individuals**

194 Environmental Change and Sustainability

Case study 2

Case study 3 SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research) at University of Sussex and TERI in India

SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research) at University of Sussex and TERI in India

India IGCC

India LED (Light

Emitting Diode)

(Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle)

**Information on case study Barriers**

• Limited amount of testing of IGCC that has been done with Indian grade coal. All IGCC demonstration plants to date have been based on coals with different characteristics to Indian coal, especially ash content and ash fusion temperature.(A:p.58) • The long-term success of technology transfer in technologies such as gasification relies on building technological capacity within recipient countries. (A:p.58)

• Although the technical competency in India exists in the fields of material science, engineering, control electronics and other relevant fields, they have to be nurtured in the context of LED technology.(p.72) • Indigenous capacity is to be developed quickly

**Country Technology Technological barriers Financial barriers Institutional barriers**

• The two key risks associated with IGCC are high capital costs and the lack of reliable operational history. The risks associated with high capital cost are amplified by the limited operational history and the new nature of this particular application of gasification. (A:p.

58)

72)

• No clear indication about the type of market that exists for LED. (p.69) • The leading players worldwide are not considering India as a potential region for investment as they do not see any market in India at present. (p.

• It is very important to develop the indigenous capacity for technology development and manufacturing. Equally important would be to incentivize innovations from the viewpoint of national priority. (p.120)

• Premature to comment on IPR issues related to IGCC, since this technology is not considered to be commercial

globally. (B:p.110)

• It is a highly protected technology. As there are various processes involved in manufacturing LED chips, each process is patented and requires huge investment. At present the cost of investing in both chip manufacturing and resolving the IPR issues is substantially high compared to importing the chips. Therefore in India, the chips are imported



**Research organizations/ individuals**

196 Environmental Change and Sustainability

Case study 5 SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research) at University of Sussex and TERI in India

**Information on case study Barriers**

agricultural waste products. (p.80) • In the early days of biomass briquetting, Indian machines experienced more breakdowns and required more maintenance than anticipated. Indian entrepreneurs are experiencing high maintenance costs even with ram and die machines. (p.80)

India Hybrid vehicles • It is as much a concern

for governments in developed countries to encourage the

development and uptake of this low carbon technology as it is for governments in developing countries. At present, however, all of the companies owning commercially viable hybrid technologies are based in developed countries. (A: p.89) • If foreign firms supplying hybrid technology maintain a high level of integration in their approach to transferring the technology this could make it more difficult for knowledge regarding the technology to diffuse

**Country Technology Technological barriers Financial barriers Institutional barriers**

(p.80)

reputation and been labeled as an irresponsible undertaking. Most stakeholders interviewed felt that subsidies are not the answer for the briquetting industry and that briquetting ventures will have to stand on their own.

misleading....Competing uses for rice husk, coffee waste, bagasse, mustard stalks, and many other kinds of waste have caused the prices to rise dramatically. (p.79) • The lack of networking and information sharing among the manufacturers. (pp. 81-82)

• Host country companies may

technological capacity through involvement in supplying parts for, or maintenance services for vehicles fitted with imported hybrid technology. Even so, there may be IPR issues associated with imitating patented hybrid drive trains. A better understanding of the extent to which IPRs might limit the development of new hybrid drive trains by developing country based manufacturers is an important issue that warrants further investigation.(A: p.95) • IPRs are dominated by a concentrated set of foreign companies rather than domestic players in India. Patents exist in a number of areas, including batteries, electric motors and power electronics, engines and system

be able to develop



What Are the Roles of National and International Institutions to Overcome Barriers in Diffusing Clean Energy ... http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54124 199

**Research organizations/ individuals**

198 Environmental Change and Sustainability

Case study 8 International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE) at Lund University Developing countries

Building energy efficiency

**Information on case study Barriers**

(p.69)

92)

• Uncertain energy savings from equipment due to the influence of users behavior. (p.92) • A lack of formal training and capacity building among construction workers makes it difficult to introduce new techniques and innovation in

92)

construction work. (p.93) • Lack of awareness of the potential and

• A fragmented and complex construction process, with an inherent split incentives dilemma: Building markets prefer low initial costs, and get no benefits from life cycle energy savings, whereas users may be willing to pay a high upfront cost if significant economic benefits are possible during the use phase. (p.

market mature and does not have any commercial examples in operation, this report cannot address CCS system transfer. Rather, one example of an incipient technology transfer framework is noted here there are two transfer projects within its remit.

**Country Technology Technological barriers Financial barriers Institutional barriers**

• High initial costs for energy efficient and renewable energy equipment. This means that payback periods are long (up to 30 years) for many investments. (p.92) • The limited importance of energy expenditures as compared other household improvement or financial concerns. (p. • A lack of awareness and information of the opportunities, technologies and low cost of installing energy saving features. (p.92) • The lack of government interest in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and insufficient enforcement of existing policies also present barriers to energy saving in the

building sector.

• Poor enforcement of building codes and other mandatory standards, even among frontrunner countries. (p.92) • Poor market surveillance and/or certification measures mean that low- quality products can enter the market and destroy consumer confidence in the technology. • Building codes tend to be less effective, due to insufficient implementation and enforcement, and corruption f or instance, in China the compliance rate is much higher



**Research organizations/ individuals**

200 Environmental Change and Sustainability

**Information on case study Barriers**

national and

capacity.

• Suzlon's growth model particularly highlights an increasingly popular model of innovation practices for

transnational firms…Its expansive international innovation networks allow it to stay abreast of wind technology innovations around the world so that it can then incorporate into its own designs through its extensive research and development facilities. (B)

within the constraints of

international intellectual property law, and primarily through the acquisition of technology licenses or via the purchasing of smaller wind technology companies. While both companies pursued similar licensing arrangements to acquire basic technical knowledge, Goldwind's technology development model lacks Suzlon's network of strategically positioned global subsidiaries contributing to its base of industry knowledge and technical

**Country Technology Technological barriers Financial barriers Institutional barriers**

structures for wind power. In the early years of wind development in China and India, difficulties also resulted from a lack of good wind resource data, and a lack of information about technology performance stemming from little or no national certification and testing. • Policy reforms in the electric power sectors of both countries…has led to a series of regional renewable energy development targets in India, national targets in China, and additional financial support mechanisms for wind in particular. There are two key differences in the policy support mechanisms currently used in China and India: (1) China's recent reliance on local content requirements to encourage locally sourced wind turbines, which does not exist in India, and (2) India's use of a fixed tariff price for wind power, versus China's reliance on competitive bidding to set the price for most of its wind projects. (B)



**Research organizations/ individuals**

202 Environmental Change and Sustainability

Ravindranath and Rao (on a publication by UNEP Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development)

India Bio-energy

(including biomass gasification, biomass combustion, biogas, efficient cook stoves)

Case study 12

**Information on case study Barriers**

137)

(p.137)

• Uncertainty and distrust in the source of information (p.137) • Inadequate training, capacity-building and user-education programs.

• Gas cleaning systems are still not robust and hence high in terms of maintenance (p.136) • Poor understanding of managing moisture content (p.136) • Biomass drying techniques are not well established (p.136) • Lack of knowledge (p.

**Country Technology Technological barriers Financial barriers Institutional barriers**

• Dual fuel systems do not seem economically feasible, and hence the focus is on producer gas. But 100% producer gas engines still are not very common, not readily available at all capacities (p.136) • The high initial costs of bio-energy technologies are perceived by many as a key barrier to the penetration of bioenergy technologies vis-à-vis conventional technologies. The principal capital cost of biomass power projects includes the costs of the gasifier, the engine generator, civil construction, biomass preparation unit, electricity distribution network and electrical and piping connections to the site of gasifier installation and need subsidization (p.138). • Mainstream financial institutions have been reluctant to take risks in lending due to a long history of poor

• The abundance of biomass was initially the push [by the government] needed to promote bio energy technologies. There was therefore little or no interaction with rural communities in formulating the technologies. (p.135) • The institutional framework in India currently lacks a viable strategy to empower local communities. Community organizations and institutions are rarely involved in the planning, implementation and management of, say, the rural electrification program through biomass gasifiers. The failure of a large number of small village systems, such as biogas plants, and stand-alone gasifiers is to a large extent related to the fact that there is no coordinated local, institutional and government

support. (p.137)

• A critical problem has been overcoming issues arising out of bureaucracy...Many developers have mentioned the significant periods of delay in obtaining technical approvals.(p.137)

• Climate change is not being seen an immediate threat or priority for rural communities.

• Social behavior and expectations.(p.137)

(p.137)



**Table 3.** Results of case studies

#### *2.3.1. Barriers for technologies for industrial use: Wind, bio-energy, and energy efficient building*

Starting from wind power, the results of Case Study 1 and 11 suggest that there are institutional and technological barriers for diffusion in India and China. According to Case Study 1, the cost of IPR acquisition is a major barrier in India. Case Study 1 points out that "the [Indian] companies had to depend on their European counterparts for all technical aspects and even operation and maintenance issues." Case Study 11 addresses a similar view that technologi‐ cally, the wind power in India still hinges upon the external development of the industry. It states that "external factors such as the rapidly increasing high-tech characteristics of wind energy technology systems and the fast structural transformations of the industry at the frontier made it difficult for India to cope with the various changes." On the other hand, Case Study 10 provides a positive evaluation on the development of local wind power production in India and China. It observes that "it took China and India less than 10 years to go from having companies with no wind turbine manufacturing experience to companies capable of manufacturing complete wind turbine systems, with almost all components produced locally." The results of these case studies on wind in India and China indicate that although there is a great level of success in producing indigenous local power technologies, there are still technological as well as institutional barriers for further diffusion in these countries.

Bio-energy is similar with wind power with respect to its successful implementation in the developing countries. On the other hand, the results of the case studies on bio-energy suggest that it faces different types of barriers for further diffusion. According to Case Study 12, implementations of bio-energy projects in India have met both technological and institutional barriers in the operational phase such as poor understanding of managing moisture content, lack of knowledge, uncertainty and distrust in the source of information and inadequate training, capacity-building and user education programs. The case study on biogas power generation in Thailand comes to a similar conclusion (Case Study 13). It recognizes the "no centralized information and orientation regarding biogas technologies and the equipments" as well as the lack of understanding and awareness as the major barriers for successful implementation of the technologies. The results of these case studies suggest capacity building and knowledge development play an important role in the successful implementation of bioenergy technologies.

**Research organizations/ individuals**

204 Environmental Change and Sustainability

**Table 3.** Results of case studies

**Information on case study Barriers**

(A: p.22)

*2.3.1. Barriers for technologies for industrial use: Wind, bio-energy, and energy efficient building*

technological as well as institutional barriers for further diffusion in these countries.

Starting from wind power, the results of Case Study 1 and 11 suggest that there are institutional and technological barriers for diffusion in India and China. According to Case Study 1, the cost of IPR acquisition is a major barrier in India. Case Study 1 points out that "the [Indian] companies had to depend on their European counterparts for all technical aspects and even operation and maintenance issues." Case Study 11 addresses a similar view that technologi‐ cally, the wind power in India still hinges upon the external development of the industry. It states that "external factors such as the rapidly increasing high-tech characteristics of wind energy technology systems and the fast structural transformations of the industry at the frontier made it difficult for India to cope with the various changes." On the other hand, Case Study 10 provides a positive evaluation on the development of local wind power production in India and China. It observes that "it took China and India less than 10 years to go from having companies with no wind turbine manufacturing experience to companies capable of manufacturing complete wind turbine systems, with almost all components produced locally." The results of these case studies on wind in India and China indicate that although there is a great level of success in producing indigenous local power technologies, there are still

technology provider. In order to remain focused on the core production process, or to save costs, often the managers do not provide adequate or appropriate training for the operators on the new wastewater/ biogas processes and systems.

**Country Technology Technological barriers Financial barriers Institutional barriers**

structure. In addition, biogas production is not considered as important as the core business. Thus, on many occasions the operators are not motivated to perform due to a lack of a company

performance reward policy or due to a different remuneration compared to his coworkers in the core production business.

(A: p.21)

The case study on building energy efficiency also suggests that the technological barriers such as lack of knowledge and awareness as well as the institutional barriers such as lack of information on available technologies are major barriers in this case too (Case Study 8). The results of Case Study 8 highlights, as the technological barriers, uncertain energy savings from equipment due to the influence of users behavior, a lack of formal training and capacity building among construction workers, lack of awareness of the potential and importance of energy efficiency measures, lack of financing, and lack of qualified personnel. In the case of building energy efficiency, lack of institutional support is another area of institutional barrier. It points out the lack of government interest in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and insufficient enforcement of existing policies, poor enforcement of building codes and other mandatory standards as major institutional barriers.
