technology innovation systems and technology diffusion: adoption of bio-digestion in an emerging...

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

TFS-17873; No of Pages 13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Technology innovation systems and technology diffusion: Adoption ofbio-digestion in an emerging innovation system in Rwanda

Aschalew D. Tigabu a,⁎, Frans Berkhout a, Pieter van Beukering a

a Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences (FALW), VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 20 59 98 38 13.E-mail address: [email protected] (A.D. T

0040-1625/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.011

Please cite this article as: A.D. Tigabu, et al.,an emerging..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chan

a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 16 November 2012Received in revised form 26 August 2013Accepted 7 October 2013Available online xxxx

Ensuring modern household energy services is a key focus for national governments of manydeveloping countries and of international development agencies aiming to support sustainabledevelopment issues, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. While renewable energy options areconsidered to have social and environmental benefits, and despite substantial efforts to supportthe dissemination of new and improved renewable energy technologies, rates of diffusion remainextremely low. For instance, biogas digester penetration in Rwanda accounts for just 1% ofnational potential as of 2012. This is in part due to the lack of innovation systems, which fostertechnology diffusion. This paper analyzes the development of a technological innovation system(TIS) for bio-digestion in Rwanda between 2000 and 2011. We apply the so-called ‘functionsapproach’ in analyzing the emergence of a Rwandan biogas technological innovation system. Weshow the accumulation through time of TIS functions, linking these to the weak diffusion ofbio-digesters. We argue that international development assistance should aim to support to thebuild-up of technological innovation systems in their support for energy technologies.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Technological innovation systemsInnovation system dynamicsFunctions approach to innovation systems

1. Introduction

Improving access to modern energy services in developingcountries, where over two and half billion people do not haveaccess, has been a key aspect of sustainable developmentefforts [1]. Among the measures, promotion of renewableenergy has often been considered as one of the desirable andpracticable options [2,3]. This is partly because sustainablemodern energy can be generated from locally-accessible andaffordable natural resources through the use of renewableenergy technologies [4].

Bio-digesters are among the renewable energy technologiesthat have been thought to serve as robust sources of modernenergy to households and communities of rural areas insub-Saharan Africa [5]. As a result, a range of efforts has beenmade to promote bio-digestion in the continent. Despitegrowing optimism and support for biogas use, the number ofunits installed in the region remains in the order of a few

igabu).

ll rights reserved.

Technology innovation sge (2013), http://dx.doi

thousands [6,7]. Much of the introduction and diffusion processhas beendrivenbypublic initiatives, including thedisseminationof biogas plants free of cost of investment on the part ofbeneficiaries in several African countries [5]. These programsaimed to demonstrate the benefits and the technical viability ofthe technology, with the hope that such efforts would initiate asustainable market in the long run [5]. However, this and otherpolicy approaches have fallen short of inducing widespreadadoption and a well-functioning market for biogas. Indeed,many newly installed digesters have been rapidly abandoned byusers [6,8]. In general, “…biogas initiatives in Africa failed togrow from a product-based project approach implemented by asingle actor towards a market-oriented program in whichvarious actors co-operate on the basis of institutionalarrangements” [8]. To explain this low level of market diffusion,we propose a systematic approach that takes into account thecomplex institutional context in which the technology ispromoted, diffused and adopted.

The established theoretical insight on innovation anddiffusion processes suggests that the introduction and adoptionof new technologiesare consequences of both group and

ystems and technology diffusion: Adoption of bio-digestion in.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.011

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625


2 A.D. Tigabu et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

individual efforts [9–11]. Put differently, the introduction,diffusion and use of new or improved technologies into newsocial and economic settings are results of the activities of actorswho are influenced by specific institutional characteristics, suchas government policies, market structure, user preferences,cultural values and social norms. This institutional contextaround a particular technology has been called the technologicalinnovation system (TIS) [12–14]. A TIS is believed to influencethe rate and scope of diffusion of a newly introduced technologyinto the society. More precisely, it is claimed that, a TISinfluences the absorption of a new technology by firms andother actors by fulfilling key activities and processes that oftenmeet the challenges associated with the new technology, suchas high cost, lack of legitimacy and lack of awareness by thesociety [15,16]. Such activities and processes (of a TIS), forinstance, have been suggested to provide guidance to actorstowards the use of the new technology, resources for itsdiffusion and adoption, market space that protect it from thecompetition of existing and mature alternatives, and so on [13].This is particularly relevant in developing countries where thecapacity to absorb new products and processes is often lacking[17]. Understanding the key features, activities and processes ofTISs is, therefore, a valuable basis to understand the diffusion ofnew and improved renewable energy technologies, includingbio-digesters.

Our knowledge about the characteristics and functioning ofTISs, in the sub-Saharan African context, is limited. Therefore,themain goal of this paper is to understand how a technologicalinnovation system for bio-digestion has emerged in Rwandaandhow this emergent TIS has influenced the diffusion of biogasplants. Specifically, the paper deals with four questions: Whatare the functions of the bio-digestion technological innovationsystem in Rwanda? How have these functions emerged duringthe 2000–2010 period? What are the functional strengthsand weaknesses of this innovation system? How have theseTIS functions influenced the diffusion of biogas digestiontechnologies to households and institutional users?

We begin by describing the functional dynamics of abiogas TIS over the 2000–2010 period. We observe thatnational policy and international development assistancehave played key roles in the emergence and evolution of theRwandan biogas TIS. We evaluate current strengths andweaknesses of the innovation system and identify blockagesto the functioning as it relates to diffusion of the biogastechnology. We argue that overcoming these blockages in thefunctioning of the TIS should improve the potential for biogasdiffusion in Rwanda.

The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, a conciseintroduction on the theory of the ‘functions approach to TIS’is provided. Section 3 provides an explanation on themethodological approach followed. Section 4 offers theempirical results and discussions of the case studied.Section 5 concludes by summarizing the key findings andpresenting some policy recommendations and implications.

2. Theory

The promotion of sustainable technologies in less-developed countries has long attracted the attention ofdonors, bi-lateral aid institutions and governments. Theapproaches pursued have largely seen technical and economic

Please cite this article as: A.D. Tigabu, et al., Technology innovation san emerging..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2013), http://dx.doi

characteristics of innovations as primary determinants of thepenetration of new technologies in rural areas of developingcountries [18]. Accordingly, innovations that are labor in-tensive, demand responsive, easily producible with locallyavailable and renewable resources, affordable by the majorityof rural population and easy to operate and maintain havebeen prioritized [18]. Based on this, donor sponsorship ofrural energy projects, for the most part, has been related topromoting technologies that are potentially compatible tolocal techno-economic conditions—also called ‘appropriatetechnologies’ [18,19].

However, this approach has been ineffective in terms ofdevelopment and penetration rates of technologies and theattainment of associated economic and social benefits.Innovation scholars have noted that while techno-economicaspects of an innovation are important, they only partlydetermine change and diffusion of technologies. Other factors,such as regulations, supporting actor structures and theiractivities, norms, values, preferences, market structure, canalso induce or block the development, dissemination andutilization of innovations [20]. Indeed, Murphy [21] has statedthat “many [energy] projects [in developing countries] fail notfor technological or economic reasons but because the projectdesigners either ignored or oversimplified the social andcultural relationships existing in the implementation context.”A broader approach that considers technical, institutional,social, economical and organizational factors is thereforeneeded. One perspective that can serve this purpose is theinnovation systems framework.

An innovation system can be defined as “[t]he network ofinstitutions in the public and private sectors whose activitiesand interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse newtechnologies” [22]. Having roots in institutional andevolutionaryeconomic theories, the innovation systems approach arguesthat innovation is a socially-embedded process that involvesinteractive efforts [9,11]. The generation, market introductionand adoption of a new technology are inter-related processes,which are determined by individual-level efforts as well as theaction and interaction of other market and non-market actorsand institutions [23–26].

The literature provides several innovation systemapproachesdelineated in different analytical units. For example, aninnovation system can be national innovation system (NIS)when it is bounded by a nation-state [27]. There is also sectoralinnovation system (SIS) when it is delineated for an economicsector [28]; and TIS when the actor–network and institutioncontour are drawn around a specific technology [13,16].

Bergek [29] suggested that if the goal is to comprehendthe factors that contribute to or hinder the development anddiffusion of sustainable technologies, it is the features andcharacteristics of the innovation systems that must beexamined, identified and supported or corrected.

To examine an innovation system, it is first important tospecify the right level of analysis. Carlsson et al. [30] statedthat this decision “… matters, for example, whether we areinterested in a certain technology, product, set of relatedproducts, a competence bloc, a particular cluster of activitiesor firms, or the science and technology base generally—andfor what geographic area, as well as for what time period.”

There have also been concerns applying innovationsystems approaches for empirical and policy purposes. For



1 Additional notes on how this coding is conducted are included inSection 4.2.1 for better clarity.

3A.D. Tigabu et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

example, the national innovation system (NIS) frameworkhas been questioned for assuming that innovation systemsare purely national in an increasingly integrated world interms of trade connectivity and knowledge flows [13,31].Conversely, the vast number of actors and institutions makesit complex to analyze the emergence and dynamics ofnational systems [13]. As a result, Carlsson et al. [30] andBalzat & Hanusch [32] noted, most studies that investigatedNIS are static, resulting in limited insights in theirevolutionary features. Hekkert et al. [13] and Balzat andHanusch [32] have suggested that since insights in thedynamics of innovation processes are needed, a variant ofthe innovation system framework that allows for a dynamicanalysis is preferred. A technology-based system hasrelatively fewer actors, institutions and relationships, sinceit is built around a particular technology. This is especiallytrue when the focal technology is being introduced to a newsetting.

A TIS is defined by Carlsson and Stankiewicz [12] as:

[…] network(s) of agents interacting in a specificeconomic/industrial area under a particular institutionalinfrastructure or set of infrastructures and involved in thegeneration, diffusion, and utilization of technology.

From this definition, it is apparent that a TIS has threestructural elements—actors, networks and institutions. Actorsare public or private, governmental or non-governmentalorganizations involved in the development, disseminationand adoption of a particular technology [33]. Networks arecommunication channels that facilitate the exchange ofinformation and knowledge among actors [34]. Institutionsare formal and informal rules that guide the actions andinteractions of actors within the innovation system [35].

A fundamental insight within the TIS perspective ofconceptualizing innovation processes is that a technologicalchoice is determined by market and technical factors, as well asfeatures of the institutional setting in which actors are operating[34].

A key theoretical development in the last decade or so isthat a TIS performs certain functions, which are essential forachieving its ultimate goal, i.e. development, diffusion andutilization of a technology [10,25,26]. These system functions,simply termed as ‘functions’, are defined as “contributions”made by a structural constituent or set of constituents of a TISso as to achieve its overall goal [25,26]. Scholars have arguedthat TIS functions can be mapped, described and analyzed,and by doing so insights on how TISs create the enablingenvironment can be generated [10,25,26]. The approach hasbeen applied in a series of academic studies to reveal eitherthe current status of innovation systems or their historicaldynamics and their role on the development and diffusion ofsustainable technologies in the western countries; see forexample [14,15]. Example functions include: knowledgedevelopment, resource mobilization, guidance of search,and so on (see Hekkert et al. [13] and Bergek et al. [16] forlists of seven functions recently developed based onextensive review of existing innovation system literature).Existing functions have been applied and validated byempirical studies in Western countries. However, it is notclear whether similar or different set of functions are servedby TIS in least-developed country contexts.


Functions are claimed to be interdependent. Their interactioncan be circular, setting inmotion of virtuous feedback loops, alsocalled cumulative causations [10]. This leads to rapid buildup ofTIS. Insights into the importance of cumulative causation haveled researchers to focus empirical studies on identifyingtypologies of such interactions and mechanisms that lead to thedevelopment of positive interactions among functions in therecent years (see e.g. [36,37]).

In this study, wemap and analyze the dynamics of the biogasTIS in Rwanda by applying the functions approach to innovationsystems. This is an attempt to apply the theory in the context of aleast-developed country with the purpose of identifying thefunctions the biogas TIS serves, assessing the intensity of thesefunctions and their influence on the diffusion of the technologyas well as the determinants of the functioning of TIS. Ultimately,our aim is to generate insights into policy measures that can betaken to improve the diffusion of biogas in Rwanda (and somepolicy implications to less-developed countries in general) fromthe innovation systems perspective.

3. Methodology

This study explores the functional evolution of thebio-digestion TIS in Rwanda by mapping the activities andprocesses related to the key players, their collaborations andinstitutions with a historical perspective. To achieve this, alongitudinal methodology—the so-called ‘process analysis’—isemployed [38–40]. This methodology has been extensivelyapplied to analyze TISs; see for an overview [36,37,41]. Centralto process analysis is explaining social and economic processesand outcomes through the temporal sequence of activities andprocesses or events [38–40]. We gathered event data employingtwo strategies. The first was collecting primary data throughinterviews. We conducted interviews in two phases. The firstphase involved a total of 31 key informants. The informantsincluded actors, experts and decision makers of bio-digestion inRwanda (see Table A2 in the Appendix for the number andcategories of actors interviewed). We asked the informants tocite major historical activities that were undertaken bystakeholders (actors) and institutional changes around biogastechnology in Rwanda. In addition to interviews, we collectedand revieweddocuments, such as reports, case studies andpolicypapers related to biogas promotion in Rwanda. Our aim was tocollect activity or process data related to the emerging TIS andthe adoption of bio-digesters. We sought to develop a completepicture of the major activities and processes contributed byactors and institutions involved in biogas in Rwanda. The datacollection, for the most part, was an iterative process and it wasendedwhen nomore new relevant information on activities andprocesses became apparent. The data collected from varioussources were compared (triangulated) to ensure reliability.

Finally, the collected data were organized and refinedbased on which a historical description or narrative ofactivities and processes was generated. Subsequently, thechronological events were coded to TIS functions.1

Once the TIS functions were identified, second-phaseinterviews were carried out to map the perceived intensity of




the functions and their blockages. This involved interviewswith 11 experts.2

4. Results and discussion

This section provides the results of the TIS case forbio-digestion in Rwanda. We begin with a technical overviewof biogas technology and then provide a functional analysis ofthe biogas TIS. Finally, we present the results and discussionsof the functional strengths and weaknesses of the TIS.

4.1. The bio-digester technology

A biogas plant (bio-digester), in the Rwandan context, is atechnology largely made from cement, brick, stone, sand andpipe structures that are buried under the ground. Inside thisstructure, wet organic matter is fermented in the absence ofoxygen at a temperature greater than 35 °C. A bio-digester is,thus, an air-free chamber that creates an environment conducivefor microbes to ferment organic materials, such as cattle dungand pig manure and, in that manner, produce a combustible gascalled biogas [42,43]. Biogas is mainly composed of a methanegas [44].

Biogas can be used for cooking and lightning purposes,which is cleaner, more flexible and of higher quality ascompared to traditional fuel alternatives, such as firewoodand charcoal. The ultimate waste from biogas productioncalled the bio-slurry can also be used as a high quality organicfertilizer to enhance agricultural productivity [42].

4.2. A functional analysis of the Rwandan biogas TIS

In the following, a historical overview of biogas promotionin Rwanda is given. The descriptions reflect themajor activitiesand processes in relation to the diffusion of biogas from 2000–2011.

4.2.1. Early functioning of the TIS and emergence of institutionaldirection

The formal introduction of biogas in Rwanda was made bythe Centre for Innovation and Technology Transfer (CITT) of theKigali Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) in the late1990s as ameans of improving the daunting hygiene conditionsof Rwandan prisons [45–47]. Overcrowded prisons were anoutcome of 1994 Rwandan genocide [47].

In the early 2000, CITT was the only major actor contractingand installing large units of institutional bio-digesters. Later onCITT began training medium-sized private companies thatwere mainly involved in the building sector as part of thegovernment's effort to introduce biogas technology to otherpotential sectors, such as schools. CITT trained companies whoacted as sub-contractors, under close supervision of the institute[45,48].

Alongwith these private companies, the CITT began installinglarge biogas systems in schools and, as a result, new andadditional links with other sectors and public organizations,such as the Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) began emerging[49]. The government's investment in institutional digesters

2 Additional clarifications are also included in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 to makethe presentation clear. It is omitted here to avoid redundancy.


construction at schoolswasmainly undertaken to develop publicawareness about biogas.

Following the “positive experiences” of the institutionalbiogas installations [46], governmental and non-governmentalorganizations began to consider biogas as an alternativemodern cooking and lightning fuel that could be promoted inrural areas. As a result, biogas began to be reflected in keydevelopment plans of the country [46,50]. In 2002, the PovertyReduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), for instance, highlightedbiogas promotion in the country as among the priorityactivities in Rwanda [49]. Additionally, the Rwandan EnergyPolicy Framework-2004 pointed out that the promotion ofalternative fuels and efficient end-use energy technologies andindigenous innovations was vital for minimizing the rapiddepletion of natural resources in the country [51]. This was inline with the ‘Vision 2020’ target of reducing the rate of thenationalwood energy use from94% of the total population as of2000 to 50% of the total population by the year 2020 [51]. Acabinet retreat in December 2004 also suggested that findingalternative ways of addressing the fuel-wood crisis in thecountry, by promoting alternative solutions, such as biogas,was crucial for sustainable development [49].

As a result of these developments, interest in developing alarge-scale biogas program in the country, which not only metinstitutional demands but also household energy challenges,emerged. For instance, in December 2004, Sam Nkusi, theMinister of State for Energy and Communications, announcedhis country's desire to expand biogas use at the conferenceof ‘Energy for Development’ in Noordwijk, the Netherlands.This interest was also followed by Albert Butare, the Ministerof State, who requested development assistance by clearlyindicating the government's willingness and commitment tosupport biogas use in Rwanda [49]. This was in line with theincreasing emphasis placed by the government on environ-mental protection and clean energy use. With respect to this,Dekelver et al. [49] stated that “… according to the Organic Lawdetermining the modalities of protection, conservation andpromotion of the environment in Rwanda (law N° 4/2005of 08/04/2005), the State is obliged to promote the use ofrenewable energy and to discourage wastage of sources ofenergy in general and particularly that derived from wood.”The government's ‘zero grazing’ and ‘strict tree cuttingmonitoring’ policies and agricultural development programswere taken as basic foundations on which a large-scale biogasprogram can be implemented [52,53].

Because of the continued attention biogas was gettingfrom the government, two technical training sessions wereorganized in Kigali, where Chinese experts offered technicalcourses. In total, 34 trainees participated and two biogassystems were installed [49].

At the same time, the institutional biogas installations inprisons and schools won the 2005 Global Ashden EnvironmentAward as a result of its impressive outcomes in terms ofreducing the firewood bills of prisons (by 30 to 50% over aperiod of roughly 2000 to 2004) and its role in tackling theprominent waste challenge of overcrowded prisons [46,47].

4.2.2. Research activities on the feasibility of promoting biogasto households

Following the Ashden award, a short fact finding missionwas carried out by the Netherlands Development Organization




(SNV) in February, 2005 upon the request of the RwandanGovernment. The mission investigated the possibilities for alarge-scale biogas project and recommended a detailedfeasibility study on undertaking a national biogas promotionprogram be carried out [54].

Consequently, the Ministry of Infrastructure (MININFRA)conducted a feasibility assessment in March 2005 with thesupport of SNV. The assessment focused on the opportunities,constraints, potential and viability of a market-orienteddomestic biogas program development in Rwanda [55] Theresults of the study suggested that about 110,000 householdscould potentially adopt biogas technology [56]. It also confirmedthat other infrastructures and institutional capacities arereasonably mature [50].

The feasibility study results led to a memorandum ofunderstanding to be signed in October, 2005 between theMININFRA of the Republic of Rwanda (ROR) and the SNV, andthe launch of a National Domestic Biogas Program (NDBP) in2006 [55,57]. The program aimed at developing a commercialbiogas sectorwith a target of installing 15,000 units of domesticdigesters by the end of 2010 [49,56]. Existing developmentprograms, such as the ‘one cow per family’ and ‘send a cow’

presented an environment conducive for the development andimplementation of the program [53]. Whereas this programtargeted domestic users, a significant number of institutionalbiogas systems were also planned to be installed in schools,prisons, hospitals and military bases [52].

Subsequently, an implementation plan was developed forthe execution of NDBP and endorsed in September 2006 [58].Following the endorsement of the implementation plan,MININFRA made available US $272,277 for the constructionof 150 demonstration biogas plants in four potential districts[55]. In this pilot phase, training of masons, technicians andsupervisors was conducted by a team of experts supported bythe Biogas Sector Partnership Nepal (BSP-Nepal) and SNVadvisors [48,52], and a number of demonstration digesterswere constructed by CITT with technical and advisoryassistance from SNV [56,59]. As part of its experience inbiogas development in developing countries, SNV continuedproviding capacity development services to NDBP and to thepartnering actors [60].

The pilot phase experiments with digesters were wellreceived by households and gained attention from otherpotential actors, including banks, donors, civil societies andthe private sector [56]. It also saw a growth of requests forbiogas installations by households, which in turn, triggeredthe enthusiasm of other actors, such as private companieswho could build and maintain digesters [56].

4.2.3. Functional boom of the TIS—more activities to enhancebiogas take up

A special momentum for the countrywide biogas programwas generated by the renewed inspiration gained during the“Biogas for Life” conference held in Kenya. The conferenceclaimed that there is untapped potential for biogas developmentin the region and confirmed the rising interest in many Africancountries to take advantage of this resource [8].

In 2008, in addition to Rwandan government's finance,funding from the Netherlands Directorate-General of Develop-ment Cooperation (DGIS) was made available through themanagement of GTZ-Rwanda [48,52]. Public campaigns were


made using television and radio spots, signposts, billboards,handouts, posters, meetings with local authorities, and face-to-face discussions with households by field technicians andagricultural field extension officers [61]. These promotionactivities led to the entry of a number of companies into thebiogas business with high expectations of market benefits[62–64]. Training of masons was executed with the support ofSNV/Rwanda and Rwanda Workforce Development Authority(WDA) at Integrated Polytechnic Region Center (IPRC) in Kigali[52] and a number of field technicians were mobilized to workat local levels (districts) [43]. The trainings have mainly focusedon the theoretical and technical aspects of bio-digester con-struction and maintenance, and the social and economic aspectsof marketing, awareness rising and after-sales services [65].Similarly, training of trainers (TOT) on the construction ofbio-digesters was conducted at Tumba College of Technology(TCT) in collaboration with MININFRA [66]. ‘Biogas Programmeand Technology Promotion’ workshops were also organized bythe District Biogas Programme Offices (DBPOs) [49].

By the end of 2008, over 390 domestic biogas systems hadbeen installed through the help of the subsidies channeled fromthe DGIS/EnDev funding, managed in-country by GTZ [52].

Since the aim of the program was establishing a viablemarket for construction companies who are engaged inbiogas installation in the long run, efforts were geared atstrengthening the capacity of construction firms and guidingthem to perform formal business activities through legalcertification formalities. Companies were offered offices in thedistricts for their convenience. They were also encouraged toperform promotion activities. To do so, NDBP designed aninnovative scheme of incentives named ‘promotion bonus’where additionalmoney is paid for companies that persuaded alarger number of households to install digesters [56,67].

In September 2008, the government began the formulationof a comprehensive biomass energy strategy (BEST) with theobjective of “…increasing the sustainable supply of wood fuels;increasing energy use efficiency; promoting the production ofalternative fuels; and developing institutional capacity to dealwith biomass crisis in the short and medium term” [65]. Thedevelopment of this strategy provided a profound legitimacy tobiogas promotion in Rwanda, with the biogas program viewedas contributing to meeting the goals of the BEST [65].

Then again, as part of the efforts in adapting the technologyto local conditions, the Rwandan Institut de RechercheScientifique et Technologique (IRST) conducted experimentsfor developing new designs andmodifying existingmodels. Theinstitute built an experimental ‘fixed dome’ plant in whichvarious feed materials were tested and research on the use ofbio-slurry was carried out. This was in line with ‘the Republic ofRwanda's Policy on Science, Technology and Innovation’ onenergy that includes specific strategies, such as undertaking “…

research and analysis of waste and recycling options” for energyproduction [68]. The institute also constructed small-scaledigesters in schools for the purpose of awareness buildingamong school communities and spreading information to thelarger public [49]. Besides the development andmodifications ofcomplementary appliances, such as biogas burners, marketassessments and analysis of the impact of biogas use on theenvironment were carried out [47].

In March 2009, a forum of biogas companies was formed inan effort to advocate the challenges faced by the biogas



Table 1Identified major activities and processes of the biogas innovation system andcorresponding system functions.

Identified activities/processes

Description of theshared theme of theactivities and processes

Systemfunction

Entry of firms Activities that involvecommercial practices, startups or market exit aroundbiogas

EntrepreneurialactivitiesWithdrawal of firms

Constructingbio-digesters

Conducting feasibilitystudies/marketassessments/pilots

Activities and processes thatinvolve learning andgenerating knowledge aboutthe socio-economic andtechnical aspects of biogas

Knowledgedevelopment

Conducting impactassessments

Developing newdesigns/prototypes

Adapting ormodifying existingmodels

Developingcomplementarytechnologies

Training (ofentrepreneurs,technicians, andso on)

Activities and processes thatdiffuse information andknowledge about biogas

Knowledgediffusion

Conductingawarenesscampaigns

Organizingconferences/workshops/seminars/meetings

DemonstrationsSetting targets Processes and activities that

guide the expectations ofactors about the future ofbiogas

Guidance of thesearchDesigning favorable

regulations andpolicies

Providing awardsProviding directions/showing interest

Publicizing feasibilitystudies and pilots

Sharing the cost ofinvestment(subsidies)

Activities that create marketfor biogas by enhancing itscompetitiveness withexisting alternatives

Marketformation

Public procurementRegulatory reformStandardizationProviding financialincentives, grants

Activities related tomobilizing financial, humanand physical resourcesneeded for biogasdevelopment and promotion

Resourcemobilization

Mobilizing humanresources

Providing creditservices

Funding diffusion


construction companies. The key objectives of this forum wereundertaking advocacy about biogas, expanding linkages amongthe bio-energy actors, creating a platformwhere challenges arecollectively advocated to the government and to the NDBPorganizers [69]. The forum along with the program partnerslobbied important sectors to contribute to the introduction anddiffusion process. For instance, they approached Cimenterie duRwanda (CIMERWA) requesting a fair price of cement forhousehold clients wishing to install digesters. Similarly, theynegotiated with SONATUBE, a gas pipe supplier, to cooperatewith adopting farmers [65]. As such, the biogas forumwas ableto attain a 20% discount on the price of biogas accessories [69].

Though significantly delayed, inMay2009, Banque Populairedu Rwanda (BPR) began providing loans3 to households whowished to adopt a biogas plant, while meeting the eligibilityrequirements set by the bank and NDBP [52,56,65,70]. “This hascreated the opportunity for a substantial portion of householdsto be able and willing to invest in the [biogas] technology” [49].

By the mid 2009, the number of certified and operatingconstruction companies had increased from the initial 10 to 36[59]. However, some companies by then had also abandonedtheir construction works due to unmet expectations and therising cost of construction raw materials [71].

Whereas the progress of the biogas programdid not achieveplanned levels, the government continued to support theintroduction process [72,73]. The midterm review undertakenin 2009 by a team of SNV, GTZ and independent evaluatorsconfirmed this by stating the program “… is guided by adedicated government” [73]. This increasing enthusiasm of thegovernment towards biogas influenced district authorities toinclude biogas targets in their annual performance contractswith the Government [60,62,65]. As part of the districtperformance agreement, about 1170 biogas installations wereplanned for 2009 [52]. This was also related to the enforcementof the ‘strict tree cutting andmonitoring’ policy. This policywasamong the driving forces for biogas use in Rwanda [60].

Lutheran World Federation (LWF)4 and Vi-Life5 wereactively cooperating with NDBP and provided additionalbiogas subsidies amounting to RWF 300,000 and RWF200,000, respectively, to their project beneficiaries [74,75].As such, about 100 domestic digesters were constructedthrough the financial support of the LWF [72]. Vi-life alsoinstalled two demonstration plants in each sector6—for atotal of 24 sectors—where it is operating [76].

By the end of 2010, the rate of installation of biogasdigesters was significantly lower than the desired level dueto the continued withdrawal of construction companies fromthe market after taking some part of their contractual money.

3 The loan disbursed by BPR for biogas was the money deposited by theNetherlands Development Finance Company (FMO) (about 400 million Euros)based on the agreement reached between FMO and PBR [70].

4 The LWF is a global communion of Lutheran Christian churches. In 2009,the LWF signed an agreement with the Rwandan government to supportfinancially the construction of 100 biogas systems in rural areas [74].

5 Vi-Life is a Swedish funded cooperative organization. In Rwanda, it ismainly involved in agro-forestry with the goal of improving the livelihood ofsmall-scale farmers. It also provides financial support to households, whichhave adopted its agro-forestry technologies, to install domestic biogasdigesters [75].

6 Rwanda has administrative divisions of five provinces (as of 2011). Theprovinces are further subdivided into 30 districts and the provinces into 416sectors.

programsConducting advocacyactivities/providinglegitimacy(lobbying)

Activities that increase thelegitimacy of biogas by theeyes of key actors and henceencourage them to supportthe promotion activities

Creation ofLegitimacy/Advocacy


This also caused challenges in providing sufficient promotionand after-sales services to biogas plant owners [43,77].

4.2.4. The diffusion of bio-digestersThough early feasibility studies suggested that there were

over 110,000 Rwandan households as potential adopters




[49,78], only 1200 households had installed bio-digesters inFebruary 2011 [60]. The NDBP target of installing 15,000 unitsby the end of 2010 had not beenmet. Additionally, by February2011, 10 prisons (out of the 14 prisons in Rwanda) and over 25schools were equipped with institutional bio-digesters—all forprocessing human waste [46,47]. Interviewed experts wereasked to rate the level of diffusion as ‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’ and‘very high’. 99% of the experts scored the diffusion of biogasplants in Rwanda as ‘low’ and ‘medium’.

4.2.5. The key functions of the TISFrom the historical description provided above, key

activities and processes over the 2000 to 2011 period wereidentified. The subsequent analytic procedure followed was toaggregate the activities and processes into common thematiccategories. This was achieved by collecting related activitiesand processes into categories and generating a definitionrepresenting the shared theme for each category. For instance‘entry of firms’, ‘withdrawal of firms’ and ‘constructing bio-digesters’ were categorized under the theme defined as“activities that involve commercial practices, start ups orwithdrawals around biogas” (Table 1). The next step wasascribing the categorical themes to the seven TIS functions. Wefound that the thematic categories, which aggregated observedactivities and processes involved in the introduction andpromotion of biogas in Rwanda matched well with the sevenfunctions of TIS documented in the TIS literature; see Hekkertet al. [13]. These functions are entrepreneurial activities,knowledge development, and knowledge diffusion, guidanceof the search, market formation, resource mobilization andcreation of legitimacy/advocacy.

4.2.6. The accumulation of TIS functionsAscribing the key activities and processes of the TIS to

the key functions (based on the analysis presented above)over time reveals the emergence of functional patterns

Table 2Evolution of functions in the Rwandan biogas TIS: 2000–2011.

Key

Guidance of search

Entrepreneurial activities

Knowledge diffusion

Knowledge development

Creation of legitimacy

Resource mobilisation

Market formation

Around 2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Events/year

1

2 to 3

4 to 5


(see also Table A1 in the Appendix for the analysis). Forsimplicity, we assume that a TIS function has emerged whena single activity or process corresponding to that function isobserved.

The Rwandan biogas TIS began functioning by serving threekey functions: entrepreneurial activity, knowledge diffusionand guidance of search (Table 2). New functionswere added inthe period 2000 to 2008, showing an evolutionary build-upof the Rwandan biogas TIS. The function appearing mostconsistently through time is guidance of search, to whichalmost continuous attention was paid, with greater attentionin the middle period of our observations (2004 to 2005).Knowledge diffusion, followed in time quite quickly byknowledge development shows moderate occurrence. Mostentrepreneurial activities occur towards the end of the period,and correspond with the emergence of resource mobilizationand market creation functions. A more or less complete set offunctions can be observed by 2008. Their existence does notmean that they were mature and effective.

4.3. Functional strengths and weaknesses of the TIS

Having described the emergence of TIS functions, we needto develop further insight into the functional strengths andweaknesses of the innovation system. That is how well thefunctions have been fulfilled so that they are creatingincentives for biogas adoption and market development.This will help to identify the weak areas or gaps of theinnovation system that may need policy attention. To do thiswe asked 11 experts in Rwanda to score the intensity of eachTIS function (1 = low or weak, 2 = medium or fair, 3 =high or strong), using proxy for each function. The analyzeddata is provided in Table 3. The table shows that guidance ofsearch is viewed as the most ‘strongly’ fulfilled function—confirming our analysis of functions above—whereas theknowledge diffusion and resource mobilization functions are

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Years withevent

8

4

3

2

2

2

1



Table 3Functional intensity of the biogas TIS in Rwanda based on experts' evaluation.

System function Measurement proxy Intensity average(standard deviation)

Guidance of search Expectations on biogas business growth 2.73(0.47)Entrepreneurial activities Entrepreneurial intensity 1.36(0.5)Knowledge diffusion Intensity of promotion 1.91(0.3)Knowledge development Intensity of research and development 1.27(0.47)Creation of legitimacy/advocacy Intensity of advocacy activities 1.27(0.47)Resource mobilization Availability of resources needed for biogas promotion 2.00(0.45)Market formation Sufficiency of market forming incentives 1.55(0.69)


‘fairly’ well served. The results also clearly show that otherfunctions are ‘weakly’ served in relation to biogas promotionin Rwanda.

The empirical observations documented in the scientificliterature suggest that a well-functioning TIS is necessary for anewly introduced technology to be well diffused and adopted[14,15]. Thus, one can deduce that the TIS for biogas in Rwandahas an acceptable strength in serving the guidance ofsearch and fairly fulfilling knowledge diffusion and resourcemobilization functions, whereas it exhibits weaknesses in thefunctions knowledge development, creation of legitimacy,market formation, and entrepreneurial activities.

We argue that these functional weaknesses partly explainthe failure of NDBP to achieve its target of installing 15,000biogas units at the end of 2010. This means that even though afunctional boost was observed from 2007 onwards as part of thenational biogas program, NDBP's diffusion target was tooambitious as compared to the observed functioning level of theinnovation system. Important here is to explain these functionalweaknesses and suggest ways for (future) interventions so thatthe diffusion of the technology would be improved.

Table 4The key blockages of the functions of biogas TIS in Rwanda.

System functions Blockages

Entrepreneurialactivities

•Low level of entrepreneurial skill and attitude•Expectation crisis•Presence of other profitable and competitiveindustries•Limited amount of incentive, e.g. low profit margin•Lack of road infrastructure


•Lack of sufficient trained man power/low leveltechnical capacity of research institutes•Limited financial budget for research anddevelopment•Limited linkage between the private sector andpublic agencies•Strict monitoring in favor of a single modelpromotion

Knowledgediffusion

•Lack of sufficient number of promotion experts•Lack of road and telecommunication infrastructure

Market formation •Resource limitation of the government andpartners (for increased subsidies)•Excessive focus at market and sense of ownershipdevelopment


•Strict bank procedures (of BPR)

Advocacy •Lack of strong unity among companies•Lack of flexibility of NDBP•Resource limitations of advocacy groups


4.4. Blockages to TIS functions

Another key objective of this paper is to identify theobstacles to the functioning of the TIS that may beresponsible for insufficiently developed functions. Table 4presents the list of such blockages identified through areview of the literature on technology, innovation and policyin Rwanda, and through interviews with experts. In thefollowing, some substantiation on the blockages of thefunctions is provided.

The entrepreneurial activities function is blocked by at leastfour key factors. First, it is blocked by the low level ofentrepreneurial skill and attitude prevailing in Rwanda [79].In line with this, the interviewed actors repeatedly mentionedthe fact that college graduates in Rwanda often seekwhite-collar jobs in government rather than seeking businessopportunities for themselves. Second, this function has beencompromised by the crisis of expectations in constructioncompanies and burner producers alike. The ‘unmanaged’promotion efforts of biogas program organizers (2004–6)resulted in the entry of enthusiastic masonry companies withhigh expectations of market benefits. Since the actual marketdid not meet expectations, many companies quickly withdrawfrom the market again. A third blocking element cited is thepresence of other profitable and competitive industries, such asthe housing construction sector, particularly for highly-qualified construction companies. This is also related to thefourth blockage, i.e. the limited market benefit or profit fromthe business. A forth blockage for entrepreneurial activitiesfunction is lack of road infrastructure in rural areas. Because ofthis, delivery and construction of the biogas plants in remoteareas have been difficult.

The knowledge development function appears to be blockedby four leading factors. First, it is blocked by the lack of sufficienttrained personnel, which led technology research institutes,such as CITT, IRST, to have low technical capacity for high-levelresearch around biogas. Second, knowledge development isobstructed by limited budgets (from governmental andnon-governmental organizations). For example, the fundingfrom the key donor, DGIS, for the most part, is used to supportdirectly the running of the national biogas program, which aimsat specific biogas plant installation targets, rather than fundingresearch initiatives that can tailor the biogas system to localneeds and conditions. Third, the build-up of knowledgecapabilities is blocked by the limited linkage between theprivate sector and public agencies. In Rwanda, technologyresearch centers and training institutes are marginal partners



7 ARED is an association of over 50 private energy companies with the aimof educating, advocating and promoting renewable energy and energyefficiency especially in rural areas of Rwanda. BCF is a platform where bio-digester construction companies exchange information pertaining to biogasbusiness in Rwanda. It is organized with the objective of advocating businesschallenges as well as strengthening partnership between governmental andnon-governmental actors in solving these challenges.


of the biogas program. As noted above, the programhas focusedat fund acquisition and for this reason international donorsand non-government organizations are considered as keystakeholders. Finally, the knowledge development function isblocked by the strict stance of the National Domestic BiogasProgramme in favor of promotion of a single model of biogasdigester. NDBP has adopted the Modified GGC Model fromNepal to be installed by construction companies without anymodifications. This has reportedly affected possible tailoringand development activities on the part of companies.

The knowledge diffusion function is also blocked by lack ofsufficient number of promotion experts that could reachgrassroots level. Indeed, due to the lack of sufficient expertise,field technicians reported that they are overburdened bypromotion activities in addition to their formal duties, whichare controlling and monitoring the quality of installeddigesters. Knowledge diffusion is also blocked by inadequateroad and telecommunication infrastructure. One of the keychallenges for biogas business, revealed by constructioncompanies, was a lack of key infrastructures, such as roadnetworks. As such, it has blocked the campaigning effort ofcompanies aiming at persuading remote clients who arelocated deep within villages.

Themarket formation function is blocked by two key factors.First, this function is blocked by resource limitations of theprogram for increasing subsidies, which is the major requestfrom construction companies. The second blockage is the majorfocus of the program on the market and a sense of ownershipdevelopment, which, in turn, limits the amount of subsidy perdigester. According to program experts, increased subsidies arethought to compromise the key goal of the project, which isdeveloping a viable market sector in the long run. As such,subsidies are needed to be systematically limited and ultimatelyremoved. Additionally, since continued management andsupervision as well as operation and maintenance are neededfor the sustainable functionality of installed digesters, theprogram intends to develop the sense of ownership bybeneficiaries by limiting the subsidy provided and increasingthe bearing of risk and participation of households

The resource mobilization function is reported to beblocked by the strict procedures of the major lender, theBPR, which is characterized by complicated and lengthy loanprocessing. According to the banking rule of BPR, its 101sub-branches in the country, where biogas loan clients aremainly clustered, cannot issue a loan of above RWF 100,000.Applications of eligible clients are processed by sub-branchesand forwarded to main branches for decisions to be made.This takes a substantial amount of time and causes confusionand impatience on the part of households. Because of this, theamount of credit mobilized has not been at the level desiredby NDBP [70].

Finally, the creation of legitimacy/advocacy function hasbeen weakened by the lack of strong unity among companies.Many biogas company managers reported that disagreementson the advocacy agenda and misunderstandings are commonamong member company owners. This has inhibited theemergence of a common voice. Additionally, this function isblocked by lack of flexibility from the part of NDBP. The biogascompanies' forum (BCF) does not have a legal status because ofthe NDBP's stance that it should be organized as a cooperativesociety rather than a forum. The Rwanda Association for


Sustainable Energy (ARED)7 is attempting to raise some of thekey challenges that compromise biogas business with thegovernment, academia, banks, NGOs and so on. However, suchefforts are restricted by human and financial resourcelimitations.

In the previous sections, the functional strengths andweaknesses of the TIS were reviewed. This section has furtherattempted to identify and assess some of the possible factorsthat explain the weaknesses in the emerging Rwandan biogasTIS. Relative to the established theoretical insights, ourempirical observations suggest that in order to ensure theproper functioning and healthy development of the TIS forbio-digestion in Rwanda, policy measures should be targetedat strengthening the weak functions by eliminating theblockages.

5. Conclusions and policy implications

This paper has provided an in-depth investigation of thedevelopment of a bio-digestion innovation system in Rwandaby focusing on four major questions: What are the functions ofthe bio-digestion technological innovation system in Rwanda?How have these functions emerged during the 2000–2010period? What are the functional strengths and weaknessesof this innovation system? How have these TIS functionsinfluenced the diffusion of biogas digestion technologies tohouseholds and institutional users? By doing so, it has revealed adynamic and complex picture of an emergent innovation systemin a less-developed country context, and identified weaknessesand gaps where systematic policy interventions may be neededto shape, strengthen and ensure effective functioning of theinnovation system. Such steps are important preconditionsfor achieving widespread diffusion of bio-digesters in Rwandaand perhaps in (similar) other sub-Saharan African countries.Additionally, the paper has shown that the TIS approach asapplied here is a promising analytical tool for analyzing theinnovation processes of renewable energy technologies indeveloping countries. This becomes relevant when consideringthe fact that the approach has had a limited practical applicationin the global south so far.

The historical development of the innovation systembegan with the introduction of bio-digestion to Rwandanprisons in the late 1990s in response to a mounting humanwaste crisis. Positive experiences from institutional digestersled governmental and non-governmental organizations tointroduce domestic digesters to improve energy access,especially in rural areas. The historical overview of thesephenomena over a period of a decade reveals that a largenumber of key activities and processes were fulfilled by theemergent network of actors and institutions around biogasthat include: entry of companies, conducting baseline surveys,training entrepreneurs, conducting awareness campaigns,providing subsidies, and so on. Our analysis of these activitiesand processes suggests that all of them can be ascribed to




the seven system functions identified in the TIS literature.Additionally, we identified a particular pattern in whichfunctions emerged that is characterized by consistent activityaround the guidance of search and gradual accumulationof other functions.

The pattern of accumulation of TIS functions raises anumber of fundamental questions. How has the diffusion ofbiogas plants been influenced by the historical pattern ofaccumulation, phasing and balance of TIS functions reportedhere? Is the sequence in which functions emerged in theRwandan biogas case in some senses ‘natural’ or is it specific?Is the rate of accumulation of functions and their balancethrough time specific to Rwanda and biogas, or do fixedpatterns occur? Does knowledge diffusion generally comebefore the creation of innovation capabilities throughknowledge development and entrepreneurial activities? Wefind that the emergence of TIS functions related to Rwandanbiogas was greatly influenced by national public policy, byinternational development assistance and transnationalflows of knowledge. We also observed that there is aninteraction between the emergence of TIS functions andthe emergence of policy. For instance, the CITT's earlydevelopment of biogas plants in prisons led to politicalawareness and the development of early national policies todiffuse biogas more broadly. Could policy have developeddifferently and so influenced the emergence of TIS functionsin a different way, or is there always a unique historicalpattern of interaction at play? Perhaps more importantly forour purposes, what is the relationship between the pattern ofemergence of TIS functions and the pattern of technologydiffusion? Would a different pattern of accumulation of TISfunctions have resulted in a slower or faster diffusion ofbiogas in Rwanda? While it is clear that institutional factorshad an important role in influencing awareness andincentives around the adoption of biogas digesters inRwanda, we are unable on the basis of a single case study toanswer these more fundamental questions.

Moreover, each case has a unique history in whichserendipity and emergence of unexpected processes play a role.Finally, one may speculate that there is a ‘natural’ order for theemergence of different TIS functions in developing countries. Butthere are also patterns that are suggestive of opportunities forpolicymakers to intervene in the accumulation of the TIS. Forinstance, the apparent correlation that can be seen betweenentrepreneurial activities, resource mobilization and marketcreation suggests such an opportunity.

The subsequent focus was on determining the strengthsand weaknesses of the innovation system on the basis of theintensity of the functions it fulfils. Our analysis shows thatthe guidance of search function is a well addressed function,followed by knowledge diffusion and resource mobilizationfunctions. Others were found to be least-well served.

The final issue was to identify the blockages, which areresponsible for the weakness of functions. Our analysis showsthat most of the functions served by the biogas innovationsystem face obstacles. Based on this, we suggested that theidentified blockages of each function need to be appropriatelytackled through policy interventions to ensure that theinnovation system becomes stronger and more effective inachieving technology diffusion. However, addressing blockagesof every weak function simultaneously may not be feasible.


Thus, we recommend that priorities need to be set, addressingespecially the blockages of the entrepreneurial activities andthe market formation functions. This is because these areamong the functions that play a pivotal role in the buildup andpositive functional dynamics of an innovation system in itsearly stage of development [41]. Recent efforts, such asestablishment of Business Development Centers by theRwanda Development Board (RDB) to encourage businessstart ups and the launching of a new institutewithin the KIST—Technology and Business Incubation Facility (TBIF)—canbe seen as examples of policy interventions to enhanceentrepreneurial activities. On the other hand, prematurewithdrawal of firms may be avoided by reducing unnecessaryexpectations of firms. This can be done by providing betterinformation on the benefits, costs and risks in a new sector.The blockages that hinder the market formation functionalso warrant early attention. Thus, avoiding the blockagesfor current market-forming arrangements and creating moreinnovative incentives are necessary to ensure the developmentof a self-sustained and fully functioningmarket for bio-digestionin Rwanda.

More generally, however, the TIS framework as applied inthis article has several implications for policymaking withrespect to supporting the deployment and diffusion ofsustainable technologies in less-developed countries. Wehighlight two of the most important points. First, it implies thatsystematic and focused support targeting on the determinants ofinnovation goes well beyond addressing the often-stressedtechnological and economic factors of past approaches.Determinants of diffusion and adoption of new technologiesalso include organizational, institutional and social elements thatblock the development of powerful activities, processes andinstitutional structures. This is important since themajor barriersof adoption of technologies in less-developed countries arerelated to lack of enabling business environment and these canbe addressed by multi-dimensional functions proposed by thefunctions approach to TIS. Second, it implies that a systemic andevolutionary perspective that captures the complexities ofinnovation processes and activities is more beneficial than thelinear interventions and conceptualizations of innovationprocesses prevalent in less-developed countries. The systemicconceptualization allows going beyond identifying technologiesrelevant to local users' contexts by development agents to acollaborative approach where the focus is empowering andcapacitating market actors to make their own choices anddecisions with regard to new technologies and ultimately enablethem to influence institutional environments in favor of them.Therefore, development assistance to the promotion ofsustainable technologies in less-developed countries needs tobe redirected to focus on addressing weak functions and theirblockages and, by doing so, facilitate the buildup of TISs, whichnurture the diffusion of new technologies.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymousreviewers for useful comments, which have significantlyimproved the quality of this paper. We are also grateful forthe financial support from the Department of Research andCommunication (DCO) of the Ministry of DevelopmentCooperation (DGIS).



Table A1 (continued)


Appendix A

able A1

Year Incident Function

2008 Funding from the DGIS was made available. Resourcemobilization
T
Events and corresponding functions of the Rwandan TIS based on thehistorical description provided in Section 4.2 and the analysis made inSection 4.2.1.

Year Incident Function

Around2000

Companies were trained by CITT. Knowledgediffusion

2000 Vision 2020 targeted at reducing the rate ofthe national wood energy use from 94 to50% by the year 2020.

Guidance ofsearch

Around2000

CITT and companies installed biogas systemsin schools.


Around2000

Installations at schools served asdemonstration plants.

Knowledgediffusion

2002 The PRSP reflected biogas as among thealternatives that are need to be promoted inRwanda.

Guidance ofsearch

2004 Rwandan Energy Policy Frameworkreflected the need for promoting alternativeenergy sources, including biogas, as meansof lowering biomass resource depletion.

Guidance ofsearch

2004 A cabinet retreat suggested the need fortackling the fuel-wood crisis by promotingalternative solutions, such as biogas.

Guidance ofsearch

2004 Mr. Sam Nkusi, the former Minister of Statefor Energy and Communications, explainedRwanda's desire for large-scale biogasintroduction in Noordwijk, the Netherlands.

Guidance ofsearch

2004 Mr. Albert Butare, the Minister of State,explained government's willingness andcommitment to promote biogas use inRwanda.

Guidance ofsearch

2005 The State was obliged to promote the use ofrenewable energy and to discouragewastage of sources of energy in general andparticularly that derived from wood by thelaw N° 4/2005 of 08/04/2005.

Guidance ofsearch

Around2005

Technical trainings were offered by Chineseexperts.

Knowledgediffusion

2005 Institutional installations won the 2005global Ashden environment award.

Guidance ofsearch

2005 SNV conducted a fact finding mission ondomestic biogas introduction


2005 MININFRA and SNV conducted feasibilityassessment for domestic digesterspromotion.


2005 Results of feasibility study indicated thepresence of 110,000 households that canpotentially buy domestic biogas plants.

Guidance ofsearch

2005 15,000 units of digesters were targeted to beinstalled by NDBP.

Guidance ofsearch

2005 A significant number of institutionaldigesters were planned to be installed.

Guidance ofsearch

2006 MININFRA made available US $272,277 forconstructing 150 demonstration biogasplants in four districts.


2006 Masons and supervisors were trained byexperts from BSP-Nepal.

Knowledgediffusion

2006 A number of demonstration digesters wereconstructed.

Knowledgediffusion

2006 Rwanda's Policy on Science, Technology andInnovation' on energy included strategies,such as undertaking “research and analysisof waste and recycling options” for energyproduction that includes biogas.

Guidance ofsearch

2007 Pilot phase experimentations gainedattention from potential actors, such asdonors.

Guidance ofsearch

2008 Public campaigning using mass mediaoutlets began to be undertaken

Knowledgediffusion

2008 A number of companies joined the business. Entrepreneurialactivity

2008 Technicians were mobilized. Resourcemobilizations

2008 Biogas Programme and TechnologyPromotion' workshops were organized.

Knowledgediffusion

2008 Subsidies were channeled. Marketformation

2008 Promotion bonus was also arranged toencourage companies persuade morenumber of households.

Marketformation

2008 BEST began to be formulated. Guidance ofsearch

2008 IRST conducted experiments of developingnew designs of digesters.


2008 IRST conducted experimentations onmodifying existing designs.


2008 IRST installed demonstration digesters atschools.

Knowledgediffusion

2008 IRST conducted research on developmentand modification of complimentaryappliances.


2008 Market assessments pertaining to biogaswere carried out.


2008 Impact assessments on biogas use werecarried out.


2009 Biogas forum attained 20% discount on theprice of biogas accessories through lobbying.

Advocacy

2009 BPR began providing biogas loans tohouseholds.


2009 Companies entered and their numberincreased from 10 to 36.


2009 Companies began withdrawing. Entrepreneurialactivities

2009 District authorities began to include biogasinstallation targets within their performancecontracts.

Guidance ofsearch

2009 WLF and Vi-Life provided additionalsubsidies to their project beneficiaries.


2010 Construction companies continuewithdrawing after receiving part of theircontractual money.


Table A.2Number of interviewees under key categories of actors within the Rwandanbio-digestion innovation system.

Actor category Number of interviewees

Government agency 6Non-governmental organization 4Academic and research institute 2Financial institute 1Enterprise (company) 12Technology user 6Total 31

Please cite this article as: A.D. Tigabu, et al., Technology innovation systems and technology diffusion: Adoption of bio-digestion inan emerging..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.011



References

[1] T. Takama, F. Lambe, F. Johnson, A. Arvidson, B. Atanassov, M. Debebe, L.Nilsson, P. Tella, S. Tsephel, Will African consumers buy cleaner fuels andstoves? A household energy economic analysis model for the marketintroduction of bio-ethanol cooking stoves in Ethiopia, Tanzania andMozambique, research report, Stockholm Environmental Institute, 2011.

[2] M. Qurashi, T. Hussain, Renewable Energy Technologies for DevelopingCountries Now to 2030, Publications of the Islamic Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organization –ISESCO, 2005. (1426 A.H./2005A.D).

[3] A. Chaurey, M. Ranganathan, P. Mohanty, Electricity access forgeographically disadvantaged rural communities—technology andpolicy insights, Energy Policy 32 (2004) 1693–1705.

[4] REN21, Energy for Development: The Potential Role of RenewableEnergy in Meeting the Millennium Development Goals, 2010.

[5] J. Rogers, R. Hansen, S. Graham, Innovation in Rural Energy Delivery:Accelerating Energy Access Through SMEs, Report, Navigant Consultingand Soluz USA, Massachusetts, 2011.

[6] Africa Biogas Initiative, Potential for Growth and Models forCommercialization: Annotated Bibliography, Winrock International,2007.

[7] A. Mshandete, W. Parawira, Biogas technology research in selectedsub-Saharan African countries—a review, Afr. J. Biotechnol. 8 (2009)116–125.

[8] W. Nes, T. Nhete, Biogas for Better Life, An African initiative, Report, 2007.[9] A. Saxenian, Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley

and Route 128, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994.[10] S. Jacobsson, A. Bergek, Transforming the energy sector: the evolution

of technological systems in renewable energy technology, Ind. Corp.Chang. 13 (5) (2004) 815–849.

[11] C. Edquist, B. Johnson, Institutions and organizations in systems ofinnovation, in: C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of Innovation—Technologies,Institutions and Organizations Institutions and Organizations inSystems of Innovation, Pinter, London, 1997.

[12] B. Carlsson, R. Stankiewicz, On the nature, function, and composition oftechnological systems, J. Evol. Econ. 1 (1991) 93–118.

[13] M.P. Hekkert, R.A.A. Suurs, S.O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, R.E.H.M. Smits,Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analyzingtechnological change, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 74 (4) (2007) 413–432.

[14] S.O. Negro, M.P. Hekkert, R.E. Smits, Explaining the failure of the Dutchinnovation system for biomass digestion—a functional analysis, EnergyPolicy 35 (2) (2007) 925–938.

[15] S.O. Negro, R.A.A. Suurs, M.P. Hekkert, The bumpy road of biomassgasification in theNetherlands: explaining the rise and fall of an emerginginnovation system, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 75 (1) (2008) 57–77.

[16] A. Bergek, S. Jacobsson, B. Carlsson, S. Lindmark, A. Rickne, Analyzingthe functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a schemeof analysis, Res. Policy 37 (3) (2008) 407–429.

[17] R. Nelson, H. Pack, The Asian miracle and modern growth theory, Econ.J. 109 (1999) 416–436.

[18] A. Akubue, Appropriate technology for socioeconomic development inthird world countries, J. Technol. Stud. 26 (1) (2000) 33–43.

[19] E. Martinot, A. Chaurey, D. Lew, J.R. Moreira, N. Wamukonya,Renewable energy markets in developing countries, Annu. Rev. EnergyEnviron. 27 (1) (2002) 309–348.

[20] F. Geels, Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfigurationprocesses: a multi level perspective and a case study, Res. Policy 31(2002) 1257–1274.

[21] J.T. Murphy, Making the energy transition in rural east Africa: isleapfrogging an alternative? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 68 (2)(2001) 173–193.

[22] C. Freeman, Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons fromJapan, Pinter, London, 1987.

[23] S. Jacobsson, A. Johnson, The diffusion of renewable energy technology:an analytical framework and key issues for research, Energy Policy 28(2000) 625–640.

[24] C. Edquist, Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges, in: J.Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, R.R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook ofInnovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.

[25] A. Johnson, Functions in innovation system approaches, UnpublishedWorking Paper, Department of Industrial Dynamics, Chalmers Universityof Technology, Goteborg, 1998.

[26] S. Jacobsson, The emergence and troubled growth of a “biopower”innovation system in Sweden, Energy Policy 36 (4) (2008) 1491–1508.

[27] B.-Å. Lundvall, B. Johnson, E.S. Andersen, B. Dalum, National systems ofproduction, innovation and competence building, Res. Policy 31 (2)(2002) 213–231.

[28] S. Breslchi, F. Malerba, Sectoral innovation systems: technologicalregimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial Boundaries, in: C.


Edquist (Ed.), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions andOrganizations, Pinter Publishers, London, 1997, pp. 130–156.

[29] A. Bergek, Shaping and Exploiting Technological Opportunities: TheCase of Renewable Energy Technology in Sweden, Department ofIndustrial Dynamics, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg,Sweden, 2002.

[30] B. Carlsson, S. Jacobsson, M. Holmén, A. Rickne, Innovation systems:analytical and methodological issues, Res. Policy 31 (2002) 233–245.

[31] L. Soete, B. Verspagen, B. ter Weel, Systems of Innovation, CPBDiscussion Paper, 2010.

[32] M. Balzat, H. Hanusch, Recent trends in the research on nationalinnovation systems, J. Evol. Econ. 14 (2) (2004) 197–210.

[33] R.A.A. Suurs, Motors of Sustainable Innovation: Towards a Theory onthe Dynamics of Technological Innovation Systems, Utrecht University,Utrecht, 2008.

[34] S. Jacobsson, A. Bergek, A Framework for Guiding Policy MakersIntervening in Emerging Innovation Systems in “Catching Up”Countries, RIDE/IMIT Working Paper No 84426-013, 2005, p. 84426.

[35] D. North, Institutions, J. Econ. Perspect. 5 (1991) 97–112.[36] R.A.A. Suurs, M.P. Hekkert, R.E.H.M. Smits, Understanding the build-up

of a technological innovation system around hydrogen and fuel celltechnologies, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 34 (24) (2009) 9639–9654.

[37] R.A.A. Suurs, M.P. Hekkert, Cumulative causation in the formation of atechnological innovation system: the case of biofuels in the Netherlands,Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76 (8) (2009) 1003–1020.

[38] A.H. Van de Ven, M.S. Poole, Methods for studying innovationdevelopment in the Minnesota Innovation Research Program, Organ.Sci. 1 (1990) 313–335.

[39] A. Abbot, Sequence analysis: new methods for old ideas, Annu. Rev.Soc. 21 (1995) 93–113.

[40] A.H. Van de Ven, G.P. Huber, Longitudinal field research methods forstudying processes of organizational change, Organ. Sci. 1 (1991)213–219.

[41] M.P. Hekkert, S.O. Negro, Functions of innovation systems as aframework to understand sustainable technological change: empiricalevidence for earlier claims, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76 (4) (2009)584–594.

[42] NDBP (National Domestic Biogas Programme), Modified GGC ModelBiogas Plant for Rwanda, Construction Manual, Kigali, Rwanda, 2007.

[43] C. Murinda, Interviewwith CyimanaMurinda, Senior Biogas Technician,MININFRA, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[44] A. Karki, J. Shrestha, S. Bajgain, Biogas: as Renewable Source of Energyin Nepal Theory and Development, BSP-Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal,2005.

[45] A. Munyehirwe, P. Kabanda, Performance Assessment of InstitutionalBiogas Systems in Rwanda, Report, Kigali, Rwanda, 2008.

[46] J. Uwizeye, Interview with Jean Claude Uwizeye, Head of InstitutionalBiogas, MININFRA, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[47] A. Rwigema, Interview with Dr. Anastase Rwigema, Board of DeputyDirector Center for Innovation and Technology transfer (CITT), KIST,Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[48] A. Ndahimana, D. Dekelver, The Rwandan National Domestic BiogasProgramme: Creating a Cheaper, Eco-Friendly Energy Source, SNVRwanda Biogas Case, Kigali, Rwanda, 2007.

[49] G. Dekelver, A. Ndahimana, S. Ruzigana, Implementation Plan: NationalProgramme on Domestic Biogas in Rwanda, SNV/Rwanda, Kigali,Rwanda, 2006.

[50] S. Ruzigana, Interview with Silas Ruzigna, Energy Expert in Charge ofBiomass and Alternatives and Member of National Steering on ClimateChange, MININFRA, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[51] ROR (Republic of Rwanda), Energy Policy, Ministry of Infrastructure,Republic of Rwanda (ROR), Kigali, Rwanda, 2004.

[52] NDBP (National Domestic Biogas Programme), Rwanda NationalDomestic Biogas Programme, Midterm review, Kigali, Rwanda, 2009.

[53] D. Owekisa, Financing Domestic Biogas in Rwanda, SNV-Rwanda,Kigali, Rwanda, 2008.

[54] J. Lam, Report on the First Biogas Visit SNV, 2005.[55] W. Nes, Investigation on the National Domestic Biogas Programme in

Rwanda, Final report, Kigali, Rwanda, 2007.[56] SNV (Netherlands Development Organization), Rwanda, Financing

Domestic Biogas in Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.[57] MININFRA (Ministry of Infrastructure), GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft f

für Technische Zusammenarbeit), National Domestic ProgrammeRwanda Baseline Study Report, 2007.

[58] MININFRA (Ministry of Infrastructure), Endorsement of the imple-mentation plan of the National Domestic Biogas Plan in RwandaMinister of State in Charge of Energy and Communications, Kigali,Rwanda, 2006.

[59] O. Kibazohi, Validation of baseline and methodology, and verificationof the completed digesters in 2008–2009 of the National Domestic


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0040-1625(13)00269-2/rf0005




























































































































































Biogas Programme (NDBP) of Rwanda, Final report, Department ofChemical and Process Engineering University of Dar es Salaam,Tanzania, 2010.

[60] A. Ndahimana, Interview with Anaclet Ndahimana, Renewable EnergyAdvisor, SNV Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[61] GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit), SNV(Netherlands Development Organization), Current Status of theNational Domestic Biogas Programme, Presented to the GTZ/SNVevaluation mission, 2010.

[62] N. Pierre, Interview with Nzaramba Jean Pierre, Manager, RCC, BiogasCompany, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[63] M. Theogene, Interview with Musoni Theogene, Manager, REC, BiogasCompany, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[64] B. Innocent, Interview Bizimungu Innocent, Manager, ECOBI, BiogasCompany, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[65] SNV (NetherlandsDevelopmentOrganization), SNVPractices:DevelopingCapacities in Rwanda, Case studies, 2009.

[66] MININFRA (Ministry of Infrastructure), Bi-Annual Report, Kigali,Rwanda, 2008.

[67] B. Emmanuel, Interview with Bizimana Ruti Emmanuel, Owner of MPSBiogas Company, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[68] UNU-IAS, MSTSR (Republic of Rwanda'sMinistry of Science, Technologyand Scientific Research), The Republic of Rwanda Policy on Science,Technology and Innovation, The Republic of Rwanda Ministry in thePresident's Office in Charge of Science, Technology and ScientificResearch, Kigali, Rwanda2006.

[69] E. Shingiro, Interview with Ehudi Shingiro, Chairman of BiogasCompanies Forum (BCF) andManaging Director of ACSES International,Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[70] E. Mutabazi, Interview with Elie Mutabazi, Biogas Programme LendingManager, BPR, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[71] K. Timothy, Interview with Kayumba Timothy, Coordinator of NDBP,MININFRA, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.


[72] MININFRA (Ministry of Infrastructure), Bi-Annual Report, Kigali,Rwanda, 2009.

[73] SNV (Netherlands Development Organization), Domestic BiogasNewsletter: Issue, 22010.

[74] F. Heegde, A. Michel, M. Raats, National Domestic Biogas Programme(NDBP) Mission report, Kigali, 2010.

[75] F. Rwamuhizi, Interview with Faustin Rwamuhizi, Dpr. and Head ofEnvironment and Climate change, Vi-Life, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[76] J. Ntahompasaze, Interviewwith Jean Baptiste Ntahompasaze, SustainableLand Management and Energy Officer, Vi-Life, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[77] U. Naila, Interview with Umubyeyi Naila, Ag. Head, Department ofTechnology Transfer, Center for Innovation and Technology Transfer(CITT), KIST, Kigali, Rwanda, 2011.

[78] D. Nkezabahizi, Principaux résultats du module agricole attaché aurecensement general de la population et de l’habitat, MINAGRI, Kigali,Rwanda, 2002.

[79] R. Aggarwal, Director, Center for Innovation and Technology transfer(CITT), Kigali Institute for Science and Technology (KIST), Personalcommunication, 2011.

Aschalew Demeke Tigabu is a PhD student studying innovation systemsof renewable energy technologies in East Africa at the Institute forEnvironmental Studies (IVM) of the VU University in Amsterdam, TheNetherlands.

Frans Berkhout is a Professor of Innovation and Sustainability, and Directorof the Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) and the Amsterdam GlobalChange Institute, both at the VU University in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Pieter van Beukering is an Associate Professor at the Institute forenvironmental Studies (IVM), VU University in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.




















































technology innovation systems and technology diffusion: adoption of bio-digestion in an emerging...

Documents