Climate friendly technology transfer in the energy sector: A case studyof Iran

Alireza Talaei a,n, Mohammad Sadegh Ahadi b, Soroush Maghsoudy c

a Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlandsb National Climate Change Office, Department of Environment, Tehran, Iranc School of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

H I G H L I G H T S

� We examined the process of technology transfer in the energy sector of Iran.� Multi Criteria Decision Analysis techniques are used to prioritise the technological needs of the country.� Transportation, electricity and oil and gas sectors are found as recipients of new technologies.� A policy package was designed for facilitating technology transfer in the energy sector.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 October 2012Received in revised form1 September 2013Accepted 7 September 2013Available online 11 October 2013

Keywords:Low-carbon technology transferTechnology needs assessmentPolicy analysisSWOT analysisMCDMEnergy system

a b s t r a c t

The energy sector is the biggest contributor of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases into theatmosphere in Iran. However, abundant potential for implementing low-carbon technologies offersconsiderable emissions mitigation potential in this sector, and technology transfer is expected to play animportant role in the widespread roll-out of these technologies. In the current work, globally existinglow-carbon energy technologies that are compatible with the energy sector of Iran are identified andthen prioritised against different criteria (i.e. Multi Criteria Decision Analysis). Results of technologyprioritisation and a comprehensive literature review were then applied to conduct a SWOT analysis anddevelop a policy package aiming at facilitating the transfer of low carbon technologies to the country.Results of technology prioritisation suggest that the transport, oil and gas and electricity sectors are thehighest priority sectors from technological needs perspective. In the policy package, while fuel pricereform and environmental regulations are categorised as high priority policies, information campaignsand development of human resources are considered to have moderate effects on the process oftechnology transfer.

& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Due to the increasing share of developing countries in globalgreenhouse gas emissions (IEA, 2009) they are expected to play anundeniable role in the global campaign against climate change(IPCC, 2007). Results of several studies highlight the importance oflow-carbon technology transfer in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions in these countries (Schneider et al., 2008; Freeman,1992; Karakosta et al., 2009, 2010b; Worrell et al., 2001); andthe United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) requires Parties “to promote and cooperate in thedevelopment, application, diffusion, including transfer of technol-ogies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent

anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases” (UNFCCC, 1992(Article 4.1.c))

“Technology Transfer (TT) is a broad set of processes coveringthe flows of know-how, experience and equipment -for mitigatingand adapting to climate change- amongst different stakeholderssuch as governments, private sector entities, financial institutions,non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and research/educationinstitutions” (Adam, 2009). Technology Transfer involves theassessment, agreement, implementation, evaluation, adaptationand repetition (Worrell et al., 2001) within which expertise orknowledge related to some aspect of technology is passed fromone user to another (Schnepp et al., 1990).

For the case of Iran the energy sector contributes to more than90% of the country's total CO2 emissions1 (SNC, 2010). This, in

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Energy Policy

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.050

n Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 30 253 7600; fax: +31 30 253 7601.E-mail address: talaei@ualberta.ca (A. Talaei). 1 Equivalent to 77% of total GHGs emissions.

Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363

combination with the substantial potential for utilising the abundantRenewable Energy Sources2 (RES) and implementation of EnergyEfficiency (EE) measures, (Atabi, 2004; Bagheri Moghaddam et al.,2011; Ghorashi and Rahimi, 2011; World-Bank, 2009) offers aconsiderable potential for mitigating GHG emissions in the energysector of Iran (i.e. 69% less GHG emissions compared to Business asUsual Scenario in 2050) (SNC, 2010).

Furthermore, although the country does not yet have anyemission reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (KP),the impacts of emission reduction policies and measures imple-mented in industrial countries will directly and indirectlyinfluence the country's economic prosperity. The so-called“Response Measures” that Annex B countries adopt to reduce theiremissions affect the economic prosperity of the country. Forexample, articles 4.8 and 4.10 of the Convention are particularlyrelevant to the case of Iran as an oil exporting country. The articlesspecify that the “Annex I parties of the Convention, in theimplementation of their commitments, shall give full considera-tion to countries whose economies are highly dependent onincome generated from the production, processing and export offossil fuels” (INC, 2003).

These factors, among others, stress the importance of Technol-ogy Transfer in Iran's energy sector. However, due to severalbarriers, the rate of technology transfer in the country is reportedto be relatively slow compared to pioneering countries in this area(e.g. China, Brazil and Mexico) (Dechezleprêtre et al., 2009).Experience of these countries highlights the fact that there is nosilver bullet for promoting technology transfer and a combinationof measures and policies are necessary for eliminating the barriersand facilitating technology transfer (Enttrans, 2008). The successof TT is dependent to a large extent on the compatibility of thescheme with the host country's priorities and related conditions(Karakosta et al., 2008, 2010b). Hence, developing a countryspecific policy package will facilitate technology transfer in thehost country.

The objectives of the current study is to analyse technologytransfer in Iran's energy sector in terms of identifying the sectorswhere this is most needed and the technologies with the highestpotential for transfer (Section 2). In addition, a policy package forfacilitating the transfer of the identified technologies is proposed(Section 3) and Section 4 presents the discussion.

2. Technology Needs Assessment (TNA) within Iran's energysector

Identifying the technologies which are compatible with thehost country's priorities is a critical step toward successfulimplementation of a TT scheme (Karakosta et al., 2009). As notedby Adhikari et al. (2008), selection of the most suitable energytechnologies for implementation is a problem that decisionmakers often face. For solving such a problem, multiple conflictingcriteria have to be considered. Multi Criteria Decision Making(MCDM) is a powerful tool to account for such complexity.

MCDM techniques are among the most common tools that areused in energy and environmental planning (Karakosta et al., 2009;Doukas et al., 2009, 2006; Greening and Bernow, 2004, Jacquet-Lagrèze and Siskos, 2001; Pohekar and Ramachandran, 2004);Analytical Hierarchy Process3 (AHP) is used in this study in orderto prioritise the technological needs of the country in the energysector. The applied software is Expert choice version 11.1.3236.

The technology needs assessment in this study consists of twostages: first, identifying the state of the art operational energytechnologies existing worldwide and selecting the ones compa-tible with the energy system of Iran (Section 2.1) and second,prioritising the selected technologies based on different criteria(Sections 2.2 and 2.3).

2.1. Technologies

Among all commercially viable technologies worldwide, 35technologies are identified to be compatible with the current/near-future energy system of Iran. Technologies that are currentlyunder research and development, pre-commercialisation, com-mercialisation and demonstration phases were excluded from theanalysis.4 This was done in order to identify the most suitabletechnologies readily available where they are needed most(Karakosta et al., 2010b). These technologies are selected basedon the results of both a desk study analysis (i.e. registered and/orin-pipeline CDM projects5 (RISO, 2010)) and expert judgment. Forexpert judgment, several meetings were held in Iran's Departmentof Environment between 2008 and 2010. In these meetings,participants from governmental bodies (e.g. Ministry of Energy,Ministry of Oil, Ministry of Industries and Mines, Ministry of Roadand Urban Development), industries (e.g. oil refineries, powergeneration and distribution companies, city councils) and inter-national entities (including UNDP and Japan International Coop-eration Agency (JICA)) were asked to identify the technologicalneeds of Iran in their relevant work sectors. The selected technol-ogies are classified in five different categories as shown in Table 1.

2.2. Criteria for prioritising the technologies

Technologies for mitigating and adapting to climate changeshould not only be environmentally sound but should also supportsustainable development (UNFCCC-UNDP, 2010). As noted byKarakosta et al. (2010b), knowledge is not enough for the completetransfer of the technology and several other factors, such as theavailability of manufacturing capacity, supply chain capacity, sustain-ability of the process and the social networks between them in thehost country, are among the factors which affect success of atechnology transfer process. Therefore, inline with the above-mentioned objectives; several criteria are used to prioritise theselected technologies. For this purpose, criteria suggested in theTNA handbook (UNFCCC-UNDP, 2010) and inputs from the steeringcommittee of the Climate Change Enabling Activity project (See (SNC,2010)), National Working Group on Climate Change (NWGCC)6 andacademic and industrial stakeholders are taken into consideration.The selected criteria (Table 2) directly and/or indirectly coverdifferent aspects of sustainability (i.e. environmental, social andeconomic) (UNFCCC-UNDP, 2010). For example, while the mainpurpose of low carbon technology transfer is to reduce GHG emis-sions, other environmental aspects (e.g. atmospheric, land and waterpollution) are also included in the analysis. In addition, effects onjob creation and social development as well as compatibility with

2 The estimated potential of renewable energies in Iran are as following: wind(10,000 MW), Solar (60,000), Hydro (25,000), Geothermal (5500), Biomass (54)(World-Bank, 2009; Atabi, 2004).

3 AHP is a multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) technique.

4 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is the only pre-commercialised technologyincluded in the analysis. This is because of the fact that CCS is among the toptechnological priorities of the government and considerable budget is allocatedto the technology in order to enable Iran to be the front-runner in CCScommercialisation.

5 Until recently, climate friendly technology transfer to developing countriesoccurred mainly under CDM scheme therefore the RISO CDM database is used toidentify the relevant technologies to the energy sector of Iran.

6 NWGCC is the national entity responsible for climate change studies in Iran.The working group is established under the National Rules of Procedure forimplementation of UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol (KP) and is approved by the IslamicRepublic of Iran cabinet in 2009.

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363350

long-term development plans are also included in the analysis. Byconsidering both absolute GHG mitigation potential and CO2 abate-ment cost (i.e. cost per tonne CO2), scale of the technology (i.e. large-scale vs. small scale) is accounted for. This, in addition to factors suchas capital investment and payback period, makes it possible toevaluate the relative economic performance of different technologies.

2.3. Analytical hierarchy process for technology prioritisation

AHP is an approach which facilitates decision-making byorganising perceptions, feelings, judgments and memories into amulti-level hierarchic structure that exhibits the forces which

influence a decision (Saaty, 1994). The AHP method breaks downa complex multi-criteria problem into a hierarchy and is based onpairwise comparison of different criteria and sub criteria (Saaty,2005; Forman and Selly, 2001). Principally, AHP consists of threesteps: the first step establishes a hierarchic structure (from goal(first hierarchy) through criteria and conditions (middle hierarchy)to alternatives (final hierarchy)) (Jung, 2011). The second stepcomputes the element weights of various hierarchies by means ofthree sub-steps namely establishment of a pairwise comparisonmatrix,7 computing eigenvalue and eigenvector of the pairwisecomparison matrix and performing a consistency test (De Feo andDe Gisi, 2010). Finally, the third step of the AHP method computesthe entire hierarchic weight.

In practice, AHP generates an overall ranking of the solutionsusing the comparison matrix of alternatives and the informationon the ranking of the criteria. The alternative with the highesteigenvector value is considered to be the first choice (Aryafar et al.,2013; Hsu et al., 2008; De Feo and De Gisi, 2010; Saaty and Hu,1998).

2.3.1. Weighting the criteria for assessing different technologiesIn the current study, two approaches are used for weighting the

criteria namely: Governmental Development Plans (GDP) andMillennium Development Goals (MDG). More precisely, the per-formance of different criteria (Table 2) in fulfilling the objectives ofGDP and MDG are assessed and the criteria are weighted accord-ingly. For the GDP approach, both the government's historicalattitude toward each criteria and the estimated importance ofeach criterion based on the existing national development plans(For example the 4th development plan) are accounted for. In theMDG approach, the importance of different criteria are evaluatedagainst the Millennium Development Goals for which inputs fromstakeholders from the United Nation Development Programme(UNDP), Japan International Cooperation Agency and Global Envir-onmental Facilities were included in the analysis.

For weighting the criteria, a five-point-scale questionnaire wasused and respondents were asked to rate the criteria according tothis scale. Arithmetic average was used for calculating the meanvalues of the scales that are shown in Table 3 (shaded cells).

In Table 3, importance of different criteria are indicated byindexes 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, with a relative importance of very weak,weak, moderate, strong and very strong respectively.

For calculating the weights based on the results of the survey(Table 4), Specific Vector (SV) method is used, which is reported tobe more accurate than other weighing methods such as leastsquares, logarithmic least squares and estimating methods (Saatyand Hu, 1998).

2.3.2. Weighing the technological alternatives against differentcriteria

For weighting the technological alternatives, inputs from thesteering committee of the Climate Change Enabling Activityproject (See (SNC, 2010)), National Working Group on ClimateChange (NWGCC) and academic and industrial stakeholders aretaken into consideration. A nine-point scale questionnaire wasused for weighing the alternatives (Saaty Scale) (Appendix I). Inthe next stage, an alternative pairwise comparison matrix wasdeveloped and used in the AHP calculations. The average scores(arithmetic average) were calculated as shown in Table 5.

2.3.3. Inconsistency Rate (IR)In AHP, the consistency ratio reflects the consistency of the

pairwise judgments. Generally, in order to be consistent,

Table 1Technologies considered in the analysis.

Sector Technologies

Oil and gas industries Associated gas recoveryUtilisation of excessive pressure in mainpipelineEnergy conservation in transmissionFuel upgradingPre-cleaning of departing gasesFlare facilitiesReduction of gas leakage

Electricity sector CogenerationSmall hydroWaste energyCombined cycleThermal power plantBiogas and biomass gasificationWind powerBiomass combustion and power generationSolar thermal heatGeothermalCO2 separation and recoveryPhoto Voltaic (PV)CO2 capture and storage

Transport Vehicle Information & Transport ControlSystem (VICS)Low fuel consumption technologiesPublic transport

Residential, commercialand institutional

Green lightingLighting controlEnergy saving buildingsCentral heatingHeat pumpsMicro Combined Heat and Power (CHP)Efficient cook stovesHot stove waste heat recovery devices

Industry High efficiency boilersHigh efficiency electric motorsCompressorsPumps

Table 2Criteria used for technology prioritisation.

Criterion Remarks

Environmental benefits GHG mitigation potential, other pollutants (e.g. landand water pollution)

Availability Availability of the technology in the internationalmarket (i.e. readiness of technology for export todeveloping countries)

Cost Capital Investment, payback period, CO2 abatementcost

Conditions fortechnology transfer

Local capacity and opportunities for reproducing andlocalisation of manufacturing

Effects on economicdevelopment

Effect on economic growth, job creation etc.

Compatibility Compatibility with Iran's development goals

7 In particular, a pairwise comparison is conducted for each element based onan element of the upper hierarchy that is an evaluation standard.

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363 351

judgments should be transitive. For example, if A is considered tobe more important than B and B to be more important than C, tobe consistent A should be more important than C. However, ifthe user rates A as equally important (or less important) than C,the comparison is inconsistent and the user should revise theassessment.

For calculating the inconsistency of a judgment, the principalright eigenvector method (Saaty, 1980) was used: Let C1, …, Cm bem performance factors and W¼(w1, …, wm) be their normalisedrelative importance weight vectors. Normalised importanceweight vectors are calculated based on pairwise comparisonsand satisfy the normalisation condition (Eq. (1)) (Bello-Dambattaet al., 2009):

∑m

j ¼ 1¼ 1 with wjZ0 for j¼ 1;…m ð1Þ

Pairwise comparisons among decision factors can be conducted byindexes such as importance of alternatives with regard to thedecision goal. The answers to these questions form an m�mpairwise comparison matrix similar to the following equation:

A¼ ðaijÞm�m

a11 … a1m… … …am1 … amm

0B@

1CA; ð2Þ

where aij represents a quantified judgment on wi/wj, aii¼1 andaij¼1/aji for i, j¼1,…,m. If the pairwise comparison matrix A¼(aij)m�m satisfies aij ¼aikakj for any i,j,k¼1,…,m, then A is perfectlyconsistent; otherwise, it is inconsistent. From the pairwise com-parison matrix A, the weight vector W can be determined by

Table 3Questionnaire with five-point scale to assess the importance of criteria.

MDG GDP

Environmental benefits 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1Availability 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1Cost 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1Conditions for technology transfer 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1Effects on economic development 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1Compatibility 9 7 5 3 1 9 7 5 3 1

Table 4Pairwise comparison matrix and final weights for criteria.

Criteria A B C D E F Finalweight

Millennium development goalEnvironmental benefits (A) 1 9∕7 9∕5 9∕5 9∕9 9∕3 0.236Availability (B) 7/9 1 7∕5 7∕5 7/9 7∕3 0.184Cost (C) 5/9 5/7 1 5∕5 5/9 5∕3 0.131Conditions for TT (D) 5/9 5/7 5∕5§ 1 5/9 5∕3 0.131Effects on econ. dev. (E) 9∕9 9∕7 9∕5 9∕5 1 9∕3 0.236Compatibility (F) 3∕9 3/7 3/5 3/5 3∕9 1 0.078

Governmental development programmesEnvironmental benefits (A) 1 5∕9 5∕7 5∕5 5∕7 5∕3 0.141Availability (B) 9∕5 1 9∕7 9∕5 9∕7 9∕3 0.254Cost (C) 7∕5 7∕9 1 7∕5 7∕7 7∕3 0.197Conditions for TT (D) 5∕5 5∕9 5∕7 1 5∕7 5∕3 0.141Effects on econ. dev. (E) 7∕5 7∕9 7∕7 7∕5 1 7∕3 0.180Compatibility (F) 3∕5 3∕9 3∕7 3∕5 3∕7 1 0.084

Table 5Average scores based on the results of the nine-point scale questionnaire.

Sector Alternative Environmentalbenefit

Availability Cost Conditionsfor TT

Effects onecon. dev.

Compatibility

Transport sector VICS 9 7 9 8 7 9Low fuel consumption technologies 8 9 8 9 7 9Public transport 9 9 7 9 7 8

Industry High efficiency boilers 9 9 7 8 3 7High efficiency electric motors 7 9 5 8 3 7Compressors 8 7 8 7 5 7Pumps 7 7 8 7 5 7

Electricity sector Wind power 9 9 3 5 3 7Small hydro 7 9 5 7 3 7Geothermal 7 5 8 7 6 8Solar PV 7 8 6 8 7 7Solar thermal heat 7 4 6 5 6 6Biomass combustion and power generation 9 5 3 4 3 6Biogas and biomass gasification 9 7 5 6 5 7Waste energy 9 8 7 7 8 5Cogeneration 7 7 8 6 7 6CO2 separation and recovery 7 7 6 6 5 6CO2 capture and storage 7 7 7 6 8 8Thermal power plant 5 6 4 5 6 4Combined cycle 5 3 3 3 2 3

Residential andcommercial

Green lighting 5 8 7 8 8 8Lighting control 7 7 7 7 6 9Energy saving building 8 8 8 9 5 9Central heating 9 6 6 8 3 7Hot stove waste heat recovery devices 7 4 4 8 7 8Efficient cook stoves 6 4 5 7 6 5Heat pumps 8 2 3 7 7 3Micro Combined Heat and Power (CHP) 7 3 6 6 3 5

Oil and gas Associated gas recovery 9 7 5 8 9 9Energy conservation in transmission 8 8 7 9 8 8Reduction of gas leakage 9 8 8 8 7 9Utilisation of excessive pressure in main pipeline 9 8 7 8 7 6Precleaning of departing gases 7 8 7 8 6 4Flare facilities 5 8 5 8 5 5Fuel upgrading 8 6 4 6 9 7

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363352

solving the following equation:

AW ¼ λmaxw ð3Þwhere λmax is the maximum eigenvalue of A (Bernasconi et al.,2011). The Consistency Ratio is calculated as

CR¼ ðλmax�nÞ=ðn�1ÞRI

ð4Þ

In Eq. (4), RI is the average of the resulting consistency indexwhich is based on the order of the matrix (Ying et al., 2007).Table 6 shows the value of RIs for different numbers of criteria in apairwise comparison matrix.

If CRr0.1, the pairwise comparison matrix is considered tohave an acceptable consistency; otherwise, it is required to berevised (Saaty, 1980; Hsu et al., 2008).

In the current study, the inconsistency rate is found to be zero.The small IR is the result of the methodology that is used forweighting the criteria and the alternatives. More precisely, asdiscussed in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 participants in the surveyfilled out questionnaires instead of pairwise comparison forms.Results of the questionnaire were then used for generating thepairwise comparison matrix. Since the pairwise comparisonmatrix is generated from the results of the questionnaire, theinconsistency rate is calculated to be zero and therefore thepairwise comparison matrix is absolutely consistent.

2.4. Results of the Technology Needs Assessment (TNA)

The result of the technological needs prioritisation, accordingto the long-term vision of the government (i.e. GovernmentalDevelopment Plans) and the MDG are shown in Figs. 1 and 2respectively. The priorities in Figs. 1 and 2 are normalised andshow the importance of different technology in the unit scale.

2.4.1. GDP approach resultsThe overall ranking and the sectoral ranking of all the technol-

ogies in different energy sub-sectors is shown in Fig. 1.As shown in Fig. 1, the results indicate that high priority

technologies are mainly within the transport and oil and gassectors. For the transport sector, considerable potential fordiffusion of new and low emitting technologies and relativelylow cost (both capital cost and CO2 abatement cost) of thetechnologies makes this sector appear on the top of the list. Inaddition, the technologies in the transport sector are notgenerally regarded as high-tech and thus are not affected bythe international sanctions that prevent transfer of suchtechnologies to Iran.

The important role that the oil and gas sector plays in theeconomic development of Iran, as underlined in all GDP docu-ments, describes the reasons for the classification of these tech-nologies as high priority technologies. In addition, relatively oldexisting technologies in this sector, increasing domestic demandfor oil, gas and petrochemical products (and therefore need forfurther production) and exploration of new oil and gas fields suchas South Pars/North Dome gas field8 results in the technologies inthis sector falling among the high priority group of technologies.

On the other hand, renewable energy is categorised as the oneof the least important groups of technologies from technologicalneeds perspective. This is despite the considerable potential ofrenewable energy in Iran. This might be due to the high capitalinvestment needed for these technologies compared to conven-tional energy conservation and recovery techniques. The low priceof fossil fuel in the country makes this hypothesis more under-standable. In addition, a large roll out of renewable technologies inthe medium to long term can only be expected if these options areexplicitly considered in Iran's national development plans. To date,there exist no legally binding legislation for promoting the large-scale use of renewable energies in the country.

2.4.2. MDG approach resultsAt first glance, prioritising the technological needs of Iran

according to GDP rather than MDGs appears more realistic.However, in lieu of possible future international climate changeregulation and upcoming financial support for mitigation efforts(e.g. Green Climate Fund) it is important to also consider theinternational context in which Iran operates. The results of thetechnological prioritisation according to the MDGs are shown inFig. 2.

In Fig. 2, technological priorities using the MDGs criteria canbe classified in three different categories: high, medium and lowpriority technologies. Similar to the results of applying GDPapproach, technologies in the transport and oil and gas sectorsare found to be of the highest priority when analysing with theMDGs approach. More precisely, considering the overall rank-ing, technologies such as public transport, Vehicle Information& Transport Control System (VICS), energy efficiency measures,associated gas recovery, energy conservation in transmissionand utilisation of excessive pressure in transmission are classi-fied as the most needed technologies in the country. On theother hand, technologies such as geothermal, solar PV, solarthermal, CO2 capture and storage/recovery, heat pumps andmicro Combined Heat and Power (CHP) received the lowestpriority ranking. The relatively higher normalised priority of thepower sector technologies in the MDG approach compared tothe GDP approach could be the result of the high importance ofpoverty alleviation and economic development (e.g. throughelectrification of rural areas) in the MDG approach.

In general, using both the GDP and MDG approaches leads tocomparable results in terms of technology prioritisation (i.e. high,medium and low). Overall compatibility of the results of TNA usingboth GDP and MDG weighting approaches indicates that thegovernment's plans for the energy sector development are in linewith those of the MDG. In other words, from the technologicalneeds assessment perspective, it is clear from the results that thecountry's development plans in energy sector will also fulfil theMGDs objectives of sustainable development.

3. Policy design

As discussed in Section 1, a combination of measures andpolicies are necessary for accelerating the transfer of technology todeveloping countries (Enttrans, 2008). A literature review is usedto identify the globally known barriers facing technology transferto developing countries (Section 3.1) and the strategies for

Table 6Random consistency indices (RIs) (Saaty,1980).

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.59

8 The largest gas field in the world.

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363 353

eliminating these barriers (Section 3.2). Results of the literaturereview were presented in the workshop among different stake-holders. Based on the feedbacks from the participants in theworkshop, a Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

(SWOT) analysis was conducted to evaluate Iran's specific situation(Section 3.3) and designing a national policy package that aims atfacilitating the transfer of the identified technologies in TNA (i.e.Section 3.4).

0.044

0.041

0.044

0.035

0.036

0.034

0.038

0.029

0.027

0.027

0.026

0.024

0.023

0.021

0.021

0.019

0.016

0.015

0.014

0.009

0.06

0.056

0.064

0.037

0.025

0.023

0.02

0.014

0.018

0.023

0.024

0.024

0.023

0.02

0.022

Associated gas recovery

Utilization of excessive pressure in main pipeline

Energy conservation in transmission

Fuel upgrading

Pre-cleaning of departing gases

Flare facilities

Reduction of gas leakage

Cogeneration

Small hydro

Waste energy

Combined cycle

Thermal power plant

Biogas and biomass gasification

Wind power

Biomass combustion and power generation

Solar thermal heat

Geothermal

Co2 separation and recovery

Photo Voltaic (PV)

Co2 capture and storage

Vehicle Information & Transport Control System (VICS)

Low fuel consumption technologies

Public transportation

Green lightning

Lightning control

Energy saving building

Central heating

Heat pumps

Micro CHP

High efficiency cook stoves

Hot stove waste heat recovery devices

High efficiency boilers

High efficiency electric motors

Compressors

Pumps

noitatr

ops

narT

rotce

Sre

wo

Ps eir ts

ud

n Isa

Gd

nali

OR

esid

enti

al, C

om

mer

cial

an

d

Inst

itu

tion

al

Ind

ust

ry

Normalised Priorities

Tec

hn

olo

gie

s

Fig. 1. Overall technology ranking in Iran's energy sector (GDP Weighing Approach).

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363354

3.1. Identifying the barriers facing technology transfer in developingcountries

Within the economic and policy literature, several barriers areidentified to hinder the process of technology transfer in devel-oping countries, chief among them are lack of information

(Dechezleprêtre et al., 2008, 2009; Doukas et al., 2009; Wilkins,2012), insufficient human capabilities (Karakosta et al., 2010b)limited existing capacity, lack of access to capital and hightransaction costs (Metz and Turkson, 2000), inappropriateregulatory framework (van der Gaast et al., 2009; Schneideret al., 2008; Karakosta et al., 2010b), institutional barriers, absence

0.048

0.041

0.041

0.041

0.034

0.03

0.037

0.027

0.026

0.026

0.025

0.022

0.024

0.021

0.023

0.02

0.018

0.016

0.016

0.009

0.064

0.057

0.064

0.033

0.023

0.024

0.021

0.02

0.017

0.024

0.025

0.023

0.02

0.02

0.02

Associated gas recovery

Utilization of excessive pressure in main pipeline

Energy conservation in transmission

Fuel upgrading

Pre-cleaning of departing gases

Flare facilities

Reduction of gas leakage

Cogeneration

Small hydro

Waste energy

Combined cycle

Thermal power plant

Biogas and biomass gasification

Wind power

Biomass combustion and power generation

Solar thermal heat

Geothermal

Co2 separation and recovery

Photo Voltaic (PV)

Co2 capture and storage

Vehicle Information & Transport Control System (VICS)

Low fuel consumption technologies

Public transportation

Green lightning

Lightning control

Energy saving building

Central heating

Heat pumps

Micro CHP

High efficiency cook stoves

Hot stove waste heat recovery devices

High efficiency boilers

High efficiency electric motors

Compressors

Pumps

noitatr

ops

n arT

ro tce

Sre

wo

Psei rts

ud

nIsa

Gd

nal i

OR

esid

enti

al, C

om

mer

cial

and

Inst

ituti

onal

In

dust

ry

Normalised Priorities

Tec

hn

olo

gie

s

Fig. 2. Overall technology ranking in the energy sector (MDG Weighing Approach).

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363 355

of long-term energy policies and issues related to intellectual propertyrights in the host country (Wilkins, 2012; Worrell et al., 2001).

3.1.1. Lack of informationIn many developing countries public capacity for information

dissemination is lacking and is seen as a major barrier fortechnology transfer (TERI, 2000). Lack of information impacts theefficiency of the technology transfer process in two ways: lack ofinformation from the consumer's side9 (Doukas et al., 2009;Schneider et al., 2008; Worrell et al., 2001) and from technologyprovider's side10 (Dechezleprêtre et al., 2008).

3.1.2. Limited capacity and lack of access to capitalIn order to benefit from a higher technological content,

recipient countries must have sufficient financial (i.e. long-termfinance) and technical background (capacity to innovate andpromote domestic technical capacity) to adopt foreign technolo-gies (Less and Mcmillan, 2005; Schneider et al., 2008; IPCC, 2000;Gboney, 2009). For instance, in the case of energy efficiency (EE),despite the considerable longer-term cost savings potential, highupfront costs of purchasing energy efficient technologies is foundto result in limited uptake of EE technologies for small andmedium enterprises (Van Berkel and Bouma, 1999). In terms oftechnological and supply side capacity, the majority of CDMprojects are implemented in countries which already have existingcapacities and thus do not need capacity building for absorbingnew technologies (Dechezleprêtre et al., 2009).

3.1.3. Regulatory and standardsInstitutional barriers are not only identified to inherently

hindering the process of technology transfer11 (Ellis and Kamel,2012; Gboney, 2009), they also affect the efficiency of the processby indirectly intensifying the impacts of other barriers. Forexample, trade restrictions through tariffs and non-tariff barriersaffect a technology's commercial viability (WWF, 1996). Access tocapital is more restricted if investors are worried about politicalrisks and consider enforcement of the regulatory framework asweak (IPCC, 2000).

3.1.4. Energy and environmental policiesInadequate environmental policies and the absence of all

inclusive energy policies in developing countries will reduce thedemand for environmentally sound technologies (Worrell et al.,2001) and therefore decrease the adoption rate of renewable andenergy efficient technologies (Gboney, 2009). From the marketperspective, inappropriate environmental policies (e.g. Subsidisedenergy fossil fuel prices) will result in a lack of incentives toacquire green (but usually more expensive) technologies especiallyin short term (Ockwell et al., 2008; Wilkins, 2002).

3.1.5. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)In developing countries a lack of protection of intellectual

property rights may exist, which is seen as a barrier by technologysuppliers. In other words, technology providers are reluctant toexport their technologies to the countries where IPR is not arestrictive measure in order to avoid imitation (UN, 1998 cited in(Worrell et al., 2001), (IPCC, 2000)). Although limited empiricalevidence indicates that the effects of IPR regimes on transfer ofenergy technologies is a key barrier (Stern, 2007), technology

licensing-procedures may be time consuming, leading to hightransaction costs.

3.1.6. Cultural barriersTechnologies in the energy sector are not vulnerable to issues

related to cultural acceptability in recipient countries. However,issues such as overestimated self sufficiency might decelerate thetransfer of more efficient technologies to developing countries(Kedia and Bhagat, 1988). In addition, cultural differences mightslow down the immigration of foreign experts to the host country.

3.2. Removing the barriers facing technology transfer in developingcountries

Appropriate policies for removing the barriers facing technol-ogy transfer in a specific system is considered to be vital foraccelerating this process (Enttrans, 2008). The following policiesare reported in the literature to be effective in removing thebarriers discussed in Section 3.1.

3.2.1. Capacity buildingIf technology transfer is to be effective in reducing carbon emis-

sions in the long term, it needs to form part of a broader process oftechnological change (Ockwell et al., 2008) which itself occurs througheither incremental or radical innovations or a combination thereof(Freeman, 1992). Capacity building and technological change will notonly help facilitate the TT process but is also a prerequisite for enablingfuture innovation and ensuring long-term adoption of low carbontechnologies (Dechezleprêtre et al., 2009).

Capacity building can take place in two forms: first, identifyingthe existing potential for adoption and implementation of newtechnologies; and second, constructing new capacities. Capacitiescould be in the form of equipment or the knowledge necessary forinnovation (i.e. hardware and software). Capacity building isachievable through information campaigns, appropriate legislationand regulation and application of proper standards. For example,by conducting two case studies in India, Ockwell et al. (2008)suggest that local and national regulation would help capacitybuilding and in developing a market for new technologies.

3.2.2. Information campaignsInformation campaigns help not only capacity building in the

recipient country but also technology providers to recognise theopportunities for low-risk investment. More precisely, informationcampaigns helps facilitating technology transfer through:

(a) Identifying and prioritising the technological needs of the country.(b) Informing stakeholders and policy makers of the existing

capacities and technological needs of the country.(c) Demonstrating the role of new technologies in helping the

host country reach its primary objective (i.e. economic devel-opment in developing countries) (IEA, 2007).

(d) Informing the policy makers in recipient countries of theexisting/required measures that are needed to facilitate tech-nology transfer (Doukas et al., 2009).

Climate innovation centres12 lead to awareness raising in bothhost countries and for technology providers (through identifyingthe country's technological needs and communicating these totechnology providers) (Gboney, 2009). The notion of innovationand regulatory workshops which has been adopted by (van derGaast et al., 2009), is expected to result in awareness raising of

9 e.g. lack of information about technological needs and effects of technologicalchange on fulfilling the country's development goals.

10 i.e. identifying recipients' local needs and technological capabilities.11 In all phases of initiation, implementation and roll-out of technologies.

12 e.g. Uganda Carbon Forum in Africa and Teta Energy Research Institute(TERI) in Asia.

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363356

different stakeholders and policy makers. Moreover, forging con-nections between academia, industry and policy making bodies isan effective measure for achieving the same results in the long-term (Gboney and Ghana, 2008).

3.2.3. Regulation and standardsWhile relatively low priced conventional fuels and non-

efficient technologies are low-cost enough for the stakeholdersto stick to the existing technologies, more restrict regulations andstandards (R&S) will motivate the introduction of new andefficient technologies (Sturm et al., 1997). Generally, the imple-mented policies for promoting low carbon technologies are classi-fied in two different categories: supply-push and demand-pullstrategies. While supply-push measures try to push technologiesinto the market through direct subsidies, demand-pull mechan-isms primarily focus on the market to create the demand and pullthe technologies into the energy system (Table 7) (Sovacool, 2010).

Regulatory measures are either technology-based or target-based. For example, while the California Zero Emission VehicleScheme aims at promoting vehicles with minimum tailpipe emis-sions (e.g. electric vehicles) (Collantes, 2006), the EU 20:20:20scheme sets targets of 20% emission reduction, 20% share ofrenewables in the energy sector and 20% energy efficiency13

without putting emphasis on any specific technology (Böhringeret al., 2009; EU, 2013).

Due to the inherent similarities in capacity building for adop-tion of new technologies in developed and developing countries,the pioneering countries' experience in promoting new technolo-gies14 could be used as a guideline for capacity building for newtechnologies in developing countries. It should be noted thatrestrictive standards are required to not only facilitate the replace-ment of the existing technologies but also to slow down thetransfer of second hand (and usually not efficient) technologiesfrom developed to developing countries.

3.2.4. Institutional framework and attracting international financeThe existence of a clear and robust institutional framework

affects the rate of technology transfer through:

(a) Facilitating the absorption of capital from internationally existingfunds such as the Green Climate Fund and GEF15 (Chadwick,2006; Michaelowa and Jotzo, 2005; Karakosta et al., 2010a).

(b) Removing the barriers such as lack of information (e.g.through CDM database (for example see RISO. (2010)) byproviding necessary data about technological needs of thecountry to potential investors or about other countries' rev-enue of CDM projects to local policy makers.

(c) Helping the country playing a role in international climate/policy negotiations for absorbing finance.

3.3. SWOT analysis

SWOT analysis is a structured planning method used to evaluatethe strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats involved in aprocess. SWOTanalysis has been applied to awide range of issues suchas environmental assessment (Kurttila et al., 2000; Lozano and Vallés,2007; Paliwal, 2006), sustainable development, regional energy plan-ning and renewable energy schemes (Chiu and Yong, 2004; Terradoset al., 2007). In order to conduct the SWOT analysis, a workshop washeld in Iran's Department of Environment in 2011. The results of theliterature review on the barriers and potential policies in the area oftechnology transfer (Sections 3.1 and 3.2) were presented to theparticipants (50 stakeholders from different energy subsectors ascategorised in Table 1). Questioners asked the participants theiropinion about the process of technology transfer in the specific energysub-sector of their interest (see Appendix II). 33 out of the 50questioners were answered by experts from academia and policymaking bodies. The number of participants was large enough for astatistical analysis to be meaningful. The questions asked from theparticipants are presented in Appendix II.

The outcome of the survey among participating stakeholders inthe workshop and the results of the technology needs assessmentare applied for conducting the SWOT analysis and identifying themost relevant strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats inthe area of technology transfer. The results of the SWOT analysisare presented in Table 8.

3.4. Policy package

Results of both the Technology Needs Assessment and theSWOT analysis are applied for designing a country specific policypackage which aims at facilitating the transfer of the technologicalneeds in the energy sector.

The results of the SWOT analysis suggest that in the transportsector a lack of information about both existing capacities and thestate of the art technologies in this sector, the low price of fuel andlack of robust legislation and standards are the most relevantdirect/indirect barriers that have led to limited technology transferto date. On the other hand, the ongoing energy pricing reform andthe emerging comprehensive studies to support policy making arefound as the opportunities for facilitating the transfer of moresustainable technologies in this sector.

Therefore, information campaigns for familiarising the nationalpolicy makers with modern transport technologies on one handand technology providers on the other hand is found as one of thepolicy priorities in transport sector. Moreover, introducing effec-tive legislation and standards16 is an effective tool for promoting

Table 7Different policy measures for promoting renewable energies in the energy system.

Supply push mechanisms Demand push mechanisms

� Research, development and demonstration� Building prototype facilities� Having the government procure large amount of an experimental technology� Investors tax credit

� Production tax credits� Rate-based or purchase-based incentivesa

� Promoting technologies through training or information and awareness campaigns

a E.g. higher rate of return or tariffs.

13 In the European Union by 2020.14 For example: biofuel cars in Brazil, wind in Germany and Spain, Smart

Metering in UK etc.15 Existence of appropriate national regulatory measures could reduce both the

transaction cost and the time needed for implementing a TT project and make theTT projects more attractive for investment.

16 e.g. through governmental and nongovernmental bodies such as Institute ofStandard and Industrial Research of Iran and Department of Environment.

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363 357

the transfer of both efficient transport technologies and modernmanufacturing technologies to different car manufacturing com-panies. This legislation will also help the transfer of knowledgerelated to each technology and therefore facilitate the transfer ofthe soft aspects of technology. Another important policy measureis the need to support the newly introduced energy-pricingscheme in the country. According to the Ministry of Oil, theconsumption of gasoline in the transport sector has reduceddramatically since the introduction of the new energy-pricingscheme (Shana, 2010). This has occurred despite the increase inthe number of cars. Therefore, it can be concluded that the pricereform has either changed individuals' attitude toward using moresustainable modes of transport (e.g. using public transport) or hasencouraged the use of more energy efficient transport means (i.e.more efficient private vehicles). The latter is the result of eitherefficiency improvements in locally manufactured automobiles orthe importing of more efficient cars from overseas, both of whichare classified as technological changes.

In the oil and gas sector the following issues are amongthe factors hindering technology transfer: lack of financial supportfrom international bodies, the low price of fossil fuels, the high priceof technologies in this sector, lack of appropriate legislation/stan-dards and human resources. In addition, international sanctions and

non-availability of technologies that are considered high-tech couldbe considered as important factors that have resulted in limitedtechnology transfer in this sector.

Therefore, similar to transport sector, information campaigns,fuel price reform, appropriate legislation and development ofhuman resources are among the factors that will acceleratetechnology transfer in the oil and gas industries. In addition,appropriate measures for absorbing international finance andidentifying alternative technologies which are less vulnerable tosanctions are among the top policy priorities in this section.

In the electricity sector, the most important hindering factor isconsidered to be the government ownership of the system. Thenon-liberalised electricity market in the country has resulted intechnological lock-in that prevents the implementation of energyefficient measures. Through the participation of the private sectorand elimination of existing subsidies, the price of electricity wouldreflect its real cost. It is possible that the efficiency of theelectricity sector would therefore improve due to the rationalbehind the economic market. Similar to the oil and gas sector, alack of information about existing capacities, lack of documentedplans for attracting investment, lack of standards and humanresources are among the factors postponing the transfer andadoption of more efficient technologies in this sector. In addition,

Table 8Results of the SWOT analysis.

Strength � Existence of mid-term (5 years) development plans� Considerable potential for attracting investments through schemes such as Green Climate Fund� Legislation about necessity of producing renewable energies (i.e. 1% of countries total or 20,000 MW renewable energy by 2025) by the end of 4th

economic social development plana (Bagheri Moghaddam et al., 2011)� Existence of institutions such as Iran's Industrial Scientific Organisation, Energy Research Institute, Energy Technology Development Centre,

Environmental Energy Research Centre, SUNAb, SABAc and DNAd.� Considerable potential for implementation of renewable energy technologiese (Ghorashi and Rahimi, 2011)� High energy intensity and considerable potential for utilisation of energy efficiency measures (SNC, 2010)� Existence of national standards for energy consumption in large industries (e.g. cement industry)� Existence of special tariffs for renewable electricity generation (e.g. guaranteed purchase of wind power equal to 1300 IRRf/Kwh at peak and average

hours and 900 IRR/Kwh at off-peak hours)� Plans for providing distributed generated electricity to 5000 villages (1% of total residents) in rural areas who currently do not have access to national

grid (Ghorashi and Rahimi, 2011)� 13 registered CDM projects (as of August 2013) which is expected help capacity building and absorbing finance from sources such as Green

Climate Fund

Weaknesses � Lack of a national willingness to use renewable energies because of the abundance of fossil energy resources and issues related to technology lock-in.� Lack of information and documented data about existing capacities (i.e. Organised technology needs assessment)� Low price of energy� Institutional barriers (e.g. for absorbing international finance)� Cultural barriers (e.g. overestimated self sufficiency)� Lack of structural methods for absorbing financial helps and unstable foreign exchange policies� Lack of standards to support technological development� Lack of regulation and incentives to adopt energy efficient measures� Issues related to intellectual property rights� Lack of knowledge and expert human resources (e.g. for local manufacturing of renewable energy technologies)� Governmental ownership of most sectors which are in need of technological change

Opportunities � Ongoing energy pricing reform (started in 2010) (resulting in economic comparability of alternative fuel technologies)� The existing academic potential in the country and the recently established links between academia and industry (resulting in capacity building and

identification of existing capacities)� The potential for new technological capacities as the result of globalisation and information transfer to the country� Limitation in recoverable fossil fuel resources and the opportunity to be the pioneering country in Middle East in utilising renewable resources� Creation of market for raw material (i.e. diversifying the economy) to be used in renewable energies industries (Bagheri Moghaddam et al., 2011)� Preventing the outflow of currency

Threats � Long and complex procedures for import and use of energy technologies� Political risks and their intensifying effects on institutional barriers� International sanctions

a As discussed in Section 2.4 these legislations are not legally binding.b Persian abbreviation for Renewable Energy Organisation of Iran.c Persian abbreviation for Iran Energy Efficiency Organisation.d Designated National Authority.e Including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and biomass. For more details about implementation potential see (Ghorashi and Rahimi, 2011 and Bagheri Moghaddam

et al., 2011).f Iranian Rial.

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363358

an appropriate fuel-pricing scheme is expected to help theeconomic feasibility of alternative fuels in this sector and even-tually to promote the adoption of technologies such as renewables.On the other hand, the existence of institutes such as SANA(Renewable Energy Organisation of Iran) and SUBA (Iran EnergyEfficiency Organisation) would help capacity building (both hard-ware and software) and facilitate the process of technologytransfer if supported by stakeholders.

The sector-specific barriers which face technology transfer andthe policy instruments that help removing these barriers in thetransport, oil and gas and electricity sectors are summarised inTable 9.

The policy measures proposed in Table 9 can be classified inthree different categories: policies with high, medium and lowpriority. This overall classification is based on the relative impor-tance of individual policies in promoting technology transfer intransport, oil and gas and electricity sectors.

All the participants in the survey highlighted the low price ofenergy as the most important hindering factor facing technologytransfer in Iran's energy sector. The low price of fuel makesstakeholders hesitant in adopting more efficient (but usually moreexpensive) technologies. More precisely, due to the low price ofenergy, the difference between the operating cost of an efficientand a non-efficient technology is negligible compared to thedifference in the capital investment needed for each and thereforemore efficient technologies are not economically comparable toless efficient ones. In addition, the effects of the newly introducedfuel-pricing scheme on technology reform in the transport sectorare reported to be substantial and similar results are expectable inother sectors. Therefore, fuel price reform is ranked as the highestpriority policy action for promoting technology transfer in thecountry's energy sector. In addition, developing appropriate legis-lation and standards for both environmental performance and fuelconsumption in different sectors is expected to play a comple-mentary role and will intensify the effects of fuel pricing inpromoting technology transfer.

The results of Table 9 suggest that in addition to fuel pricingand standardisation, there exist some other mutual factors thathinder the process of technology transfer. First, despite consider-able capacity for adoption of low-carbon technologies in thesesectors, lack of information about existing capacities has resultedin limited knowledge of technology providers about the existingcapacities. In addition, lack of expert human resources slows downthe use and expansion of existing capacities and also the process ofbuilding new capacities. Although human resource developmentand information campaigns are identified to be effective in theprocess of TT in all of the investigated sectors, their effects are

indirect and they are therefore classified as medium priority policymeasures.

Developing structural plans and methodologies for absorbinginvestment and market liberalisation and their effects on TT areexpected to be limited to specific sectors. While the impacts of theformer in enabling Iran to overcome international sanctions isuncertain, the latter is classified as the medium priority policybecause liberalisation in the energy sector is not expected to takeplace in the country in the near future.

Policy measures such as eliminating institutional barriersfacing TT, joining international agreements such as those support-ing Intellectual Property Right, eliminating the cultural barriers,privatisation and establishment of links between academia andindustry are considered to be low-priority policy measuresbecause their effect of TT process are expected to be minimal inthe short to medium term.

4. Discussion and implications for policy making

Considering the substantial GHG mitigation potential in Iran'senergy sector (INC, 2003; SNC, 2010), the primary focus of thecurrent study was on technology transfer in the energy sector. Ananalytical hierarchy process was applied to assess the technologi-cal needs of Iran in the different energy sub-sectors namely,electricity, oil and gas, residential and commercial, transport andindustry. The technological needs of the country were prioritisedby assessing their performance against different sustainable devel-opment criteria (i.e. environmental, economic and social). Theresults of the TNA classify the transport, oil and gas and electricitysectors as the sectors with high priority in terms of technologicalneeds. It was also found that large-scale deployment of renew-ables in the energy sector is not among the top priorities of thecountry from a technological needs perspective. This is due to therelatively high cost of renewables, restrictions in the availability oftechnology for import and the fact that there exist no nationallegally binding regulations for promoting renewables in thecountry. This result is valid using both GDP and MDG weighingapproaches which leads to the conclusion that the governmentaldevelopment plans are inline with the objectives of MillenniumDevelopment Goals.

The results of the current technology prioritisation are compar-able with the national mitigation plan in Iran's energy sector,which was proposed based on energy system modelling (Talaei,2009). That study concluded that energy efficiency in the oil andgas sectors, introduction of modern technologies in the transportsector and technologies for reducing network losses in the

Table 9Sector specific barriers and policy measures for removing them.

Sector Barriers Policy measures

Transport � Low fuel price� Lack of legislation and standards� Lack of Information

� Fuel price reforms� Information campaigns� Legislation and standards

Oil and gas � Restriction in financial support� Low fuel price� Lack of legislation and standards� International sanctions� Lack of expert human resources

� Comprehensive development plans� Human resource development� Information campaigns and absorbing financial support� Fuel price reform� Legislation and standards

Electricity � Governmental ownership of the industry� Low fuel price� Lack of legislation and standards� Lack of expert human resources

� Information campaigns� Fuel price reform� Legislation and Standards� Human resource development

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363 359

electricity sector are among the top GHGs mitigation options inthe country.

In the next stage, a comprehensive literature review wasconducted to identify the policy instruments that pioneeringcountries have used for facilitating the transfer of energy technol-ogies. The results of both the literature review and TNA analysisare presented to local policy makers and stakeholders who thenparticipated in the survey about technology transfer. The outcomeof the survey was used to conduct a SWOT analysis for technologytransfer in the country's energy sector. The identified strengths,weaknesses, opportunities and threats were used to develop asector specific policy packages for facilitating technology transfer.

In developing the policy package, different policy measures areclassified as high, medium and low priority policies based on theireffects on facilitating technology transfer in different energy sub-sectors. While fuel price reform and energy/environmental regulationsare categorised as high priority policies, information campaigns and

development of human resources are considered as medium prioritypolicies. Policy measures such as eliminating institutional barriers,joining international agreements such as those supporting intellectualproperty rights, eliminating cultural barriers, privatisation and estab-lishment of links between academia and industry are considered to below-priority policy measures.

Acknowledgement

The present work benefited from the inputs of Hilda Galt,technical consultant at Climate Focus, who provided valuablecomments to the writing of the research summarised here.

Appendix I

See Table A1.

Table A1Questionnaire with nine-point scale (Saaty Scale) to assess the importance of alternatives against different criteria.

Sector Alternative Environmental Benefits

Availability

Cost

Transportation

VICS 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Low fuel consumption technologies 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Public Transportation 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Industry

High efficiency boilers 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

High efficiency electric motors 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Hot stove waste heat recovery devices 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

High efficiency cook stoves 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Compressors 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Pumps 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Electricity Sector

Wind power 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Small hydro 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Geothermal 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

PV 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Solar Thermal heat 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Biomass combustion and power

generation 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Biogas and biomass gasification 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Waste energy 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Cogeneration 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Co2 separation and recovery 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Co2 capture and storage 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Thermal power plant 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Combined cycle 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Residential and

commercial

Green lightning 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Lightning control 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Energy saving building 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Central heating 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Heat pumps 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Micro CHP 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Oil and Gas

Associated gas recovery 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Energy conservation in transmission 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Reduction of gas leakage 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Utilization of excessive pressure in

main pipeline 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

precleaing of departing gases 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Flare facilities 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Fuel upgrading 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363360

Appendix II. Questioner

1. How do you define technology transfer?2. Does enough information exist about modern technologies

among decision makers in your sector?� They are totally aware of the state of the art technologies exist

in the sector.� It is limited to R&D section.� State of the art technologies are already being used in the

sector.3. In your sector, are you familiar with how to absorb both

technology and financial support?4. Does enough capacity exist for adoption of new technologies or

renovating the existing ones?

� How do you assess the existing capacity� Is there any plans for expanding this capacity� How effective do you think these plans are in capacity

building?5. Does any regulatory/Standard exist in your sector which

hinders/promotes the use of more efficient technologies? (e.g.makes it easier or more difficult to compete with firms whichuse non-efficient technologies)

� How effective do you think these measures are?� Do you have any recommendation to eliminate the obstacles

facing adoption of new technologies?6. Does enough long-term policy exist in your sector which makes

it safe for investment?7. How important do you think technology transfer is in your sector?

Table A1 (continued )

Sector Alternative Conditions for TT

Effects on Econ. Dev.

Compatibility

Transportation

VICS 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Low fuel consumption

technologies 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Public Transportation 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Industry

High efficiency boilers 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

High efficiency electric motors 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Hot stove waste heat recovery

devices 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

High efficiency cook stoves 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Compressors 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Pumps 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Electricity

Sector

Wind power 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Small hydro 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Geothermal 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

PV 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Solar Thermal heat 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Biomass combustion and

power generation 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Biogas and biomass

gasification 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Waste energy 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Cogeneration 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Co2 separation and recovery 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Co2 capture and storage 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Thermal power plant 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Combined cycle 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Residential and

commercial

Green lightning 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Lightning control 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Energy saving building 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Central heating 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Heat pumps 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Micro CHP 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Oil and Gas

Associated gas recovery 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Energy conservation in

transmission 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Reduction of gas leakage 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Utilization of excessive

pressure in main pipeline 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

precleaing of departing gases 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Flare facilities 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Fuel upgrading 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363 361

� Very important.� Fairly important.� Not important at all.

And why do you think so?

References

Adam, A., 2009. Technology transfer to combat climate change: opportunities andobligations under TRIPS and Kyoto. Journal of High Technology Law 9, 1.

Aryafar, A., Yousefi, S., Ardejani, F.D., 2013. The weight of interaction of miningactivities: groundwater in environmental impact assessment using fuzzyanalytical hierarchy process (FAHP). Environmental Earth Sciences, 1–12.

Atabi, F., 2004. Renewable energy in Iran: challenges and opportunities forsustainable development. International Journal of Environmental Science &Technology 1, 69–80.

Bagheri Moghaddam, N., Mousavi, S.M., Nasiri, M., Moallemi, E.A., Yousefdehi, H.,2011. Wind energy status of Iran: evaluating Iran's technological capability inmanufacturing wind turbines. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15,4200–4211.

Bello-Dambatta, A., Farmani, R., Javadi, A.A., Evans, B., 2009. The analyticalhierarchy process for contaminated land management. Advanced EngineeringInformatics 23, 433–441.

Bernasconi, M., Choirat, C., Seri, R., 2011. A re-examination of the algebraicproperties of the AHP as a ratio-scaling technique. Journal of MathematicalPsychology 55, 152–165.

Böhringer, C., Rutherford, T.F., Tol, R.S., 2009. The EU 20/20/2020 targets: anoverview of the EMF22 assessment. Energy Economics 31, S268–S273.

Chadwick, B.P., 2006. Transaction costs and the clean development mechanism.Natural Resources Forum. Wiley Online Library, pp. 256–271.

Chiu, A.S., Yong, G., 2004. On the industrial ecology potential in Asian developingcountries. Journal of Cleaner Production 12, 1037–1045.

Collantes, G.O., 2006. The California zero-emission vehicle mandate. A Study of thePolicy Process, 1990–2004.

De Feo, G., De Gisi, S., 2010. Using an innovative criteria weighting tool forstakeholders involvement to rank MSW facility sites with the AHP. WasteManagement 30, 2370–2382.

Dechezleprêtre, A., Glachant, M., Ménière, Y., 2008. The clean developmentmechanism and the international diffusion of technologies: an empirical study.Energy Policy 36, 1273–1283.

Dechezleprêtre, A., Glachant, M., Ménière, Y., 2009. Technology transfer by CDMprojects: a comparison of Brazil, China, India and Mexico. Energy Policy 37,703–711.

Doukas, H., Karakosta, C., Psarras, J., 2009. RES technology transfer within the newclimate regime: a “helicopter” view under the CDM. Renewable and SustainableEnergy Reviews 13, 1138–1143.

Doukas, H., Patlitzianas, K.D., Psarras, J., 2006. Supporting sustainable electricitytechnologies in Greece using MCDM. Resources Policy 31, 129–136.

Ellis, J., Kamel, S., 2012. Overcoming barriers to clean development mechanismprojects. OECD Papers 7, 1–50.

Enttrans. 2008. Promoting Sustainable Energy Technology Transfers Through theCDM: Converting From a Theoretical Concept to Practical Action (Online).Groningen, The Netherlands. 2011.

Eu. 2013. The EU Climate and Energy Package (Online). Available from: ⟨http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm⟩.

Forman, E.H., Selly, M.A., 2001. Decision by objectives: how to convince others thatyou are right. World Scientific, Singapore.

Freeman, C., 1992. The Economics of Hope: Essays on Technical Change, EconomicGrowth and the Environment. Pinter, London.

Gboney, W., 2009. Promoting Technology Transfer and Deployment for RenewableEnergy and Energy Efficiency in Ghana. Climate Strategies, Cambaridge, UK.

Gboney, W., 2008. Policy and Regulatory Framework for Renewable Energyand Energy Efficiency Development in Ghana. University of Cambridge, Cam-bridge, UK.

Ghorashi, A.H., Rahimi, A., 2011. Renewable and non-renewable energy status inIran: art of know-how and technology-gaps. Renewable and Sustainable EnergyReviews 15, 729–736.

Greening, L.A., Bernow, S., 2004. Design of coordinated energy and environmentalpolicies: use of multi-criteria decision-making. Energy Policy 32, 721–735.

Hsu, P.-F., Wu, C.-R., Li, Y.-T., 2008. Selection of infectious medical waste disposalfirms by using the analytic hierarchy process and sensitivity analysis. WasteManagement 28, 1386–1394.

IEA,, 2007. Energy Security and Climate Policy-Assessing Interactions. OECDPublishing, Paris, France.

IEA,, 2009. World Energy Outlook. International Energy Agency, Paris, France.INC,, 2003. Iran Initial Communication to UNFCCC. Iran Department of Environ-

ment, Tehran, Iran.IPCC,, 2000. Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working

Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment. Geneva, Switzerland.Jacquet-Lagrèze, E., Siskos, Y., 2001. Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA

experience. European Journal of Operational Research 130, 233–245.

Jung, H., 2011. A fuzzy AHP–GP approach for integrated production-planningconsidering manufacturing partners. Expert systems with Applications 38,5833–5840.

Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., John, P., 2010a. EU–MENA energy technology transferunder the CDM: Israel as a frontrunner? Energy Policy 38, 2455–2462.

Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., Psarras, J., 2008. A decision support approach for thesustainable transfer of energy technologies under the Kyoto Protocol. AmericanJournal of Applied Sciences 5, 1720–1729.

Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., Psarras, J., 2009. Directing clean development mechanismtowards developing countries' sustainable development priorities. Energy forSustainable Development 13, 77–84.

Karakosta, C., Doukas, H., Psarras, J., 2010b. Technology transfer through climatechange: setting a sustainable energy pattern. Renewable and SustainableEnergy Reviews 14, 1546–1557.

Kedia, B.L., Bhagat, R.S., 1988. Cultural constraints on transfer of technology acrossnations: implications for research in international and comparative manage-ment. Academy of Management Review 13, 559–571.

Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M., 2000. Utilising the analytichierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis—a hybrid method and its applicationto a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 41–52.

Less, C.T., Mcmillan, S., 2005. Achieving the successful transfer of environmentallysound technologies: Trade-related aspects. OECD Publishing Paris, France.

Lozano, M., Vallés, J., 2007. An analysis of the implementation of an environmentalmanagement system in a local public administration. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 82, 495–511.

Metz, B., Turkson, J.K., 2000. Methodological and Technological Issues in Technol-ogy Transfer: A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Michaelowa, A., Jotzo, F., 2005. Transaction costs, institutional rigidities and the sizeof the clean development mechanism. Energy Policy 33, 511–523.

Ockwell, D.G., Watson, J., Mackerron, G., Pal, P., Yamin, F., 2008. Key policyconsiderations for facilitating low carbon technology transfer to developingcountries. Energy Policy 36, 4104–4115.

Paliwal, R., 2006. EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis.Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26, 492–510.

Pohekar, S.D., Ramachandran, M., 2004. Application of multi-criteria decisionmaking to sustainable energy planning—A review. Renewable and SustainableEnergy Reviews 8, 365–381.

RISO, 2010. CDM/JI pipeline analysis and database (Online) UNEP RISO center.Available from: http://www.cdmpipeline.org/.

Saaty, T.L., 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York.Saaty, T.L., 1994. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces

24, 19–43.Saaty, T.L. 2005. Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision

making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks, RWS publications,Pittsburgh, USA.

Saaty, T.L., Hu, G., 1998. Ranking by eigenvector versus other methods in theanalytic hierarchy process. Applied Mathematics Letters 11, 121–125.

Schneider, M., Holzer, A., Hoffmann, V.H., 2008. Understanding the CDM's con-tribution to technology transfer. Energy Policy 36, 2930–2938.

Schnepp, O., Yong Von Glinow, M., Bhambri, 1990. United States-China TechnologyTransfer. Prentice Hall, NJ, United States.

Shana. 2010. Fuel price restructring schme: effects on the trend of gasolineconsumption (Online). Available from: ⟨http://www.shana.ir/163896-fa.html⟩2011.

SNC, 2010. Iran Second Communication to UNFCCC. Iran Department of Environ-ment, Tehran, Iran.

Sovacool, B.K., 2010. A Comparative Analysis of Renewable Electricity SupportMechanisms for Southeast Asia. Energy 35, 1779–1793.

Stern, N.N.H., 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Sturm, R., Opheim, K., Kelly-Detwiler, P., 1997. The Problem of Second-HandIndustrial Equipment: Reclaiming a Missed Opportunity. International Institutefor Energy Conservation, Washington, DC, USA.

Talaei, A., 2009. Assessment of the GHGs Mitigation Potential in Energy Sector ofIran. MSc, Sharif University of Technology.

TERI, 2000. Some lessons from case studies of technology transfer of climatetechnologies in the Asian region. In: Proceedings of the 2nd CTI/Industry JointSeminar on Technology Diffusion in Asia. Cebu, Phillippine.

Terrados, J., Almonacid, G., Hontoria, L., 2007. Regional energy planning throughSWOT analysis and strategic planning tools: impact on renewables develop-ment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11, 1275–1287.

UNFCCC-UNDP, 2010. Handbook for conducting technology needs assessment forclimate change. United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change andUnited Nation Development Programme.

Van Berkel, R., Bouma, J., 1999. Promoting cleaner production investments indeveloping countries: A status report on key issues and potential strategies.United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, France.

van der Gaast, W., Begg, K., Flamos, A., 2009. Promoting sustainable energytechnology transfers to developing countries through the CDM. Applied Energy86, 230–236.

Wilkins, G., 2002. Technology Transfer for Renewable Energy Overcoming Barriersin Developing Countries. Earthscan, London, UK.

Wilkins, G., 2012. Technology Transfer for Renewable Energy. CRC Press, London, UK.World-Bank, 2009. Strategy Development for Renewable Energy in Iran (Draft). The

World Bank, Tehran, Iran.

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363362

Worrell, E., Van Berkel, R., Fengqi, Z., Menke, C., Schaeffer, R., Williams, R., 2001.Technology transfer of energy efficient technologies in industry: a review oftrends and policy issues. Energy Policy 29, 29–43.

WWF, 1996. World Wildlife Fund, 1996. Sustainable energy technology in theSouth, a report to WWF. World Wildlife Fund, New Delhi, India.

Ying, X., Zeng, G.-M., Chen, G.-Q., Tang, L., Wang, K.-L., Huang, D.-Y., 2007.Combining AHP with GIS in synthetic evaluation of eco-environmentquality—A case study of Hunan Province, China. Ecological Modelling 209,97–109.

A. Talaei et al. / Energy Policy 64 (2014) 349–363 363