-
Effective global response to climate change requires the
development and transfer of environmentally sound technologies
betweenand within countries, both for adapting to climate change as
well as for mitigating the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
This SpecialReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) provides a state-of-the-art overview of how to achieve and
enhancethis transfer. 185 eminent experts from around the world
provide accurate, unbiased, policy-relevant information on
technology trans-fer, such as capacity building, the promotion of
an enabling environment, and mechanisms for technology transfer
from developedto developing countries. The transfer of both
hardware as well as software (knowledge) is discussed, and the
importance of the involve-ment of various stakeholders is
emphasised. The report was written in response to the request of
the Subsidiary Body on Scientificand Technological Advice (SBSTA)
of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
This IPCC Special Report is the most comprehensive assessment
available on technology transfer, and provides information to
serveindustry, policy-makers, environmental organisations, and
researchers in global change, technology, engineering and
economics.
Bert Metz is Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III and Head of the
Global and European Environmental Assessment Division ofthe
National Institute of Public Health and Environment, Bilthoven, The
Netherlands.
Ogunlade R. Davidson is Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III and
Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and Professor ofMechanical
Engineering at the University of Sierra Leone.
Jan-Willem Martens is a member of the IPCC Working Group III
Technical Support Unit and works as an energy economist at
theNetherlands Energy Research Foundation, Petten/Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Sascha N. M. van Rooijen is a member of the IPCC Working Group
III Technical Support Unit and works as an environmental econ-omist
at the Netherlands Energy Research Foundation, Petten/Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Laura Van Wie McGrory was a member of the IPCC Working Group II
Technical Support Unit and currently works as a scien-tific
engineering associate at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
in Washington, DC, USA.
METHODOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES IN TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER
-
Methodological andTechnological Issues inTechnology Transfer
A Special Report of IPCC Working Group III
Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Edited by
Bert Metz
Ogunlade R. Davidson
Jan-Willem Martens
Sascha N.M. van Rooijen
Laura Van Wie McGrory
-
This report is dedicated to
John Turkson, GhanaLead Author, Chapter 4 and 5
Dr John Turkson died at the age of 46 years on a plane crash
while he was en route to establish a CDM Pilot project in Uganda.He
was a Senior Energy Economist at the UNEP Collaborating Centre for
Energy and Environment at RISØ National Laboratoryin Denmark.
Before joining RISØ, he was a lecturer at the University of Science
and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. John was oneof the few well-known
energy economists on the African continent who published
extensively in international journals, confer-ence proceedings and
books in the international fora on energy economics and climate
change. He has initiated several regionalprojects in energy and
climate change in Africa because of his belief that the climate
change debate provides an opportunity fortransforming African
economies to more sustainable development paths.
His keen sense of duty earned him respect of colleagues he had
worked with and helped him to build a network of eminent ener-gy
specialists and economists not only from Ghana, but from all over
Africa and beyond. He was married to Gifty who no doubthad to bear
the intensity with which John normally took his work. He will be
missed, but his contribution to IPCC will always beremembered by
his colleagues and friends.
PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CAMBRIDGEThe Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United
Kingdom
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESSThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2
2RU, UK www.cup.cam.ac.uk40 West 20th Street, New York, NY
10011-4211, USA www.cup.org10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne
3166, AustraliaRuiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain
©Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to
the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,no
reproduction of any part may take place withoutthe written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2000
Printed in the United States of America
A catalog record for this book is available from the British
Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data available
ISBN 0 521 80082 X hardback ISBN 0 521 80494 9 paperback
-
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .ix
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .xi
Summary for Policymakers: Methodological and Technological
Issues in Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .1
Technical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.11
Section I: Framework for Analysis: Technology Transfer to
address Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .45
1. Managing Technological Change in Support of the Climate
Change Convention: A Framework for Decision-making . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
2. Trends in Technology Transfer: Financial Resource Flows . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .673. International Agreements and Legal
Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .834.
Enabling Environments for Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .1055. Financing and Partnerships for Technology
Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143
Section II: Technology Transfer: Sectoral Analysis . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175
6. Introduction to Section II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1777. Residential,
Commercial, and Institutional Buildings Sector . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.1838. Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2019. Industry .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21910. Energy Supply . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .24111. Agricultural Sector . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.26912. Forestry Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29113. Solid
Waste Management and Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .31314. Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32915,
Coastal Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .349
Section III: Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.373
16. Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .375
Annexes:A. Section Coordinators, Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead
Authors, Contributing Authors,
Review Editors and Expert Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .445B. Glossary of Terms . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .455C. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .461D. List of Major
IPCC Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .465
-
ForewordThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
wasjointly established by the World Meteorological
Organization(WMO) and the United Nations Environment
Programme(UNEP) to asses available information on the science,
impactsand the economics of climate change and of mitigation
optionsto address it. It provides also, on request,
scientific/technical/socio-economic advice to the Conference of the
Parties (COP) tothe United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change(UNFCCC). Since its inception the IPCC has produced a
seriesof Assessment Reports, Special Reports, Technical
Papers,methodologies and other products which have become
standardworks of reference, widely used by policymakers, scientists
andother experts.
This Special Report has been prepared by IPCC Working GroupIII
in response to a request by the Subsidiary Body for Scientificand
Technological Advice (SBSTA) to the UNFCC. Innovationand enhanced
efforts to transfer environmentally sound tech-nology to limit
greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to climatechange will be
required to meet the objective of the ClimateConvention and to
reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts.The report addresses
the technology transfer problem in the con-text of climate change
while emphasizing the sustainable devel-opment perspective.
Technology transfer is defined as the broadset of processes
covering the flows of know-how, experience andequipment and is the
result of many day-to-day decisions of thedifferent stakeholders
involved. A number of social, economic,political, legal, and
technological factors influence the flow andquality of technology
transfer. Essential elements of successfultransfers include
consumer and business awareness, access toinformation, availability
of a wide range of technical, business,management and regulatory
skills locally, and sound economicpolicy and regulatory frameworks.
Technology transfers thatmeet local needs and priorities are more
likely to be successful.But there is no pre-set answer to enhancing
technology transfer.Interactions and barriers vary according to
sector, type of tech-nology and country, and recent trends in
international financialflows that drive technology transfer are
altering the relativecapacities and roles of different
stakeholders. Policy actions
therefore need to be tailored to the specific context and
interests.The report elaborates on what governments can do to
facilitateand enhance the transfer of Environmentally Sound
Technologies,but it also aims at reaching decision makers in the
private sector,lending institutions, multilateral agencies,
non-governmentalorganizations, and the interested public.
As usual in the IPCC, success in producing this report has
depend-ed first and foremost on the enthusiasm and cooperation of
sci-entists and other experts worldwide. These individuals
havedevoted enormous time and effort to producing this report and
weare extremely grateful for their commitment to the IPCC
process.
We would like to express our sincere thanks to:• Robert T.
Watson, the Chairman of the IPCC; • The Co-chairs of Working Group
III Bert Metz and
Ogunlade Davidson;• The Section Coordinators Kilaparti
Ramakrishna, Jayant
Sathaye, Youba Sokona, William Chandler, Stephen O.Andersen and
Ajay Mathur;
• The staff of the Working Group III and II TechnicalSupport
Units, including Rob Swart, Ms Sascha vanRooijen, Jan-Willem
Martens, Ms Laura VanWieMcGrory, Ms Flo Ormond and Marlies
Kamp;
• N. Sundararaman, Secretary of the IPCC, Renate Christ,Deputy
Secretary of the IPCC and the staff of the IPCCSecretariat Rudie
Bourgeois, Chantal Ettori and AnnieCourtin.
G.O.P. Obasi
Secretary-GeneralWorld Meteorological Organisation
K. Töpfer
Executive DirectorUnited Nations EnviromentProgrammeand
Director-GeneralUnited Nations Office in Nairobi
-
PrefaceThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
wasestablished jointly by the World Meteorological
Organisation(WMO) and the United Nations Environment
Programme(UNEP) to assess periodically the science, impacts and
socioe-conomics of climate change and of adaptation and
mitigationoptions. The IPCC provides, on request, scientific and
technicaladvice to the Conference of Parties (CoP) to the United
NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and
itssubsidiary bodies. The CoP at its first session in Berlin
1995requested the IPCC to include in its assessments an
elaborationof the terms under which transfer of environmentally
sound tech-nologies and know-how could take place.
As a further elaboration of the COP-1 request, IPCC was
request-ed by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
TechnologicalAdvice (SBSTA) to prepare a Technical Paper on
methodologi-cal and technological aspects of technology transfer
(seeFCCC/SBSTA/ 1996/8, Annex III). The objective of the paperwould
be to synthesise information from the Second AssessmentReport on
experiences with:
(i) types of transfer, technology evaluation, and options;(ii)
sectors targeted;(iii) role of participants (for example
governments, private
sector, IG0s, NG0s);(iv) approaches to promote co-operation;(v)
issues related to capacity building.
According to IPCC procedures, Technical Papers should bebased on
material already present in the IPCC reports. However,the Second
Assessment Report did not contain sufficient infor-mation to
prepare a Technical Paper that would address the ques-tions raised.
Therefore, the IPCC decided at its Twelfth PlenarySession in Mexico
City to prepare a Special Report onMethodological and Technological
Issues in Technology Transfer.
In order to provide structure in the wide variety of subjects,
thewriting team chose to divide the Report in three sections:
Section I provides a framework for analysis of the complex
andmulti-facetted nature of the technology transfer process,
empha-sising the sustainable development perspective. It
examinesbroad trends of technology transfer in recent years,
explores theinternational political context, discusses policy tools
for over-coming key barriers and creating enabling environments
andprovides an overview of financing and partnerships.
Section II provides a sectoral perspective on the transfer of
adap-tation and mitigation technologies. Every chapter discusses
theprevalent climate mitigation and adaptation technologies,
themagnitude of current and future transfers, technology
transferissues within and between countries and the lessons learned
in thatparticular sector.
Section III includes a wide variety of case studies to
illustrate theissues discussed in section I and II and demonstrates
the dis-tinctive problems and special opportunities that
stakeholders arelikely to encounter in dealing with technology
transfer.
In accordance with the wide scope of technology transfer,
theteam of authors put together to prepare the report represented
amultitude of disciplines and a broad geographical distribution.The
writing team consisted of 8 Section Coordinators, 24Coordinating
Lead Authors, 120 Lead Authors and 53Contributing Authors. In
accordance with the revised IPCCProcedures, 20 Review Editors were
appointed to oversee thereview process.
Over 180 Expert and Government Reviewers submitted
valuablesuggestions for improvement during the review process. All
thecomments have been afforded appropriate consideration by
thewriting team and genuine scientific controversies have
beenreflected adequately in the text of the report as confirmed in
theReview Editors report. The revised document was submitted tothe
Working Group III Plenary in Kathmandu, Nepal, that tookplace from
8 to 10 March, 2000. There, the Summary forPolicymakers was
approved in detail and the underlying reportaccepted. The IPCC
Plenary finally accepted the report and theSummary for Policy
makers during its Sixteenth Session that tookplace in Montreal,
Canada, from 1-8 May 2000.
We wish to commend all Section Coordinators, CoordinatingLead
Authors, Lead Authors, Contributing Authors and allReview Editors
for all the effort they put into the compilation ofthis Report and
deeply appreciate the commitment they haveshown.
It is with profound sadness and regret that we have to convey
themessage that three of our dear colleagues and team memberspassed
away during the writing process of this Report: KatsuoSeiki (August
1998), David Hall (August 1999) and John Turkson(January 2000).
They were highly appreciated members of theteam, John Turkson as
Lead Author of Chapter 4 and 5 andDavid Hall as review editor of
Chapter 12. Katsuo Seiki wasenvisaged CLA of then Chapter 18 and
showed as a Vice-Chairof IPCC much interest in the issue of
technology transfer. We willremember their excellent work and
enjoyable personalities.
We are grateful to:• The Tata Energy Research Institute in New
Delhi, India,
and in particular Dr. Pachauri, the Director and vice chairof
IPCC for hosting the first Lead Authors meeting;
• The United Kingdom Climate Impact Programme of
theEnvironmental Change Unit at the University of Oxford,United
Kingdom, for hosting the second Lead Authorsmeeting with the
support of the United KingdomDepartment of Environment, Transport
and the Regions;
• The Department of Hydrology and Meteorology of the
-
Government of Nepal, for hosting the Fifth Plenary of theIPCC
Working Group III from 8 to 10 March, 2000,where the Summary for
Policymakers was approved lineby line and the underlying Report
accepted.
We would finally like to express our gratitude to the three
suc-cessive Report Co-ordinators at the Technical Support
Units:Laura van Wie-McGrory (TSU WG II), and Sascha van Rooijenand
Jan-Willem Martens (TSU WG III) for their never endingdedication to
get the report in its current shape. We thank FloOrmond of the
Technical Support Unit of Working Group II andMarlies Kamp of the
Technical Support Unit of Working GroupIII for their invaluable
support throughout the preparation of theReport. Also other members
of the Technical Support Units ofWorking Group II and III have
provided much appreciated assis-tance, including Rob Swart, Anita
Meier, Jiahua Pan, RemkoYbema and Dave Dokken. Dr. N. Sundararaman,
Secretary of theIPCC, and the staff of the IPCC Secretariat in
Geneva ensured theessential services of providing government
liaison and travel ofexperts from the developing and transitional
economy countriesas well as making the arrangements with the
Government ofNepal. We are also grateful to Renate Christ, Deputy
Secretary ofthe IPCC, for her substantive inputs on various
occasions duringthe preparation of the Report.
We would like to encourage the readers, which include
policy-makers, scientists, managers, professionals and academics,
toevaluate the contents of this work, adjust it to their own
conditionsand ensure a rapid and widespread replication of its
lessonsacross the world. We sincerely hope that this Report will
thus con-tribute to the widespread use of environmentally sound
tech-nologies and assist in achieving the objectives of the
ClimateConvention.
Ogunlade Davidson, Co-chair of Working Group IIIBert Metz,
Co-chair of Working Group III
-
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS
METHODOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES INTECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER
A Special Report of Working Group IIIof the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
Based on a draft prepared by:
Stephen O. Andersen (USA), William Chandler (USA), Renate Christ
(Austria), Ogunlade Davidson (Sierra Leone),Sukumar Devotta
(India), Michael Grubb (UK), Joyeeta Gupta (The Netherlands),
Thomas C. Heller (USA) Maithili Iyer (India), Daniel M. Kammen
(USA), Richard J.T. Klein (The Netherlands/Germany), Dina Kruger
(USA), Ritu Kumar (India), Mark Levine (USA), Lin Erda (China),
Patricia Iturregui (Peru), Merylyn McKenzie Hedger (UK),Anthony
McMichael (UK), Mark Mansley (UK), Jan-Willem Martens (The
Netherlands), Eric Martinot (USA), Ajay Mathur (India), Bert Metz
(The Netherlands), John Millhone (USA), Jose Roberto Moreira
(Brazil), Tongroj Onchan (Thailand), Mark Radka (USA), Kilaparti
Ramakrishna (India), N.H. Ravindranath (India), Sascha van Rooijen
(The Netherlands), Jayant Sathaye (USA), Youba Sokona (Mali),
Sergio C. Trindade (Brazil), David Wallace (UK), Ernst Worrell (The
Netherlands)
-
1. Introduction
BackgroundArticle 4.5 of the United Nations Framework Convention
onClimate Change (UNFCCC) states that developed country Partiesand
other developed Parties included in Annex II “shall take
allpracticable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as
appropri-ate, the transfer of, or access to, environmentally sound
tech-nologies and know-how to other Parties, particularly
developingcountry Parties, to enable them to implement the
provisions of theConvention.” The Subsidiary Body for Scientific
andTechnological Advice (SBSTA) identified at its first session a
listof areas in which it could draw upon the assistance of the
IPCC.This Special Report was prepared in response to this request.
Itaddresses the technology transfer problem in the context of all
rel-evant UNFCCC provisions, including decisions of the
Conferenceof Parties (CoP), and Chapter 34 in Agenda 21. It
attempts torespond to recent development in the UNFCCC debate on
tech-nology transfer, by providing available scientific and
technicalinformation to enable Parties to address issues and
questionsidentified in Decision 4/CP.4 adopted by CoP4.
The role of technology transfer in addressing climate
changeAchieving the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC, as
formulat-ed in Article 21, will require technological innovation
and the rapidand widespread transfer and implementation of
technologies,including know-how for mitigation of greenhouse gas
emis-sions. Transfer of technology for adaptation to climate change
isalso an important element of reducing vulnerability to
climatechange.
This technological innovation must occur fast enough and
con-tinue over a period of time to allow greenhouse gas
concentrationsto stabilise and reduce vulnerability to climate
change.Technology for mitigating and adapting to climate change
shouldbe environmentally sound technology (EST) and should sup-port
sustainable development.
Sustainable development on a global scale will require
radicaltechnological and related changes in both developed and
devel-oping countries. Economic development is most rapid in
devel-oping countries, but it will not be sustainable if these
countries fol-low the historic greenhouse gas emission trends of
developedcountries. Development with modern knowledge offers
manyopportunities to avoid past unsustainable practices and
movemore rapidly towards better technologies, techniques and
asso-
ciated institutions. The literature indicates that to achieve
thisdeveloping countries require assistance with developing
humancapacity (knowledge, techniques and management skills),
devel-oping appropriate institutions and networks, and with
acquiringand adapting specific hardware. Technology transfer, in
particu-lar from developed countries to developing countries, must
there-fore operate on a broad front covering these software and
hard-ware challenges, and ideally within a framework of helping to
findnew sustainable paths for economies as a whole. There is,
how-ever, no simple definition of a “sustainable development
agenda”for developing countries. Sustainable development is a
contextdriven concept and each society may define it differently,
basedon Agenda 21. Technologies that may be suitable in each of
suchcontexts may differ considerably. This makes it important
toensure that transferred technologies meet local needs and
prior-ities, thus increasing the likelihood that they will be
successful,and that there is an appropriate enabling environment
for pro-moting environmentally sound technologies (ESTs).
The Report analyses the special challenges of transferring
ESTsto address climate change in the context of sustainable
develop-ment. The literature provides ample evidence of the many
prob-lems in current processes of technology transfer which makes
itvery unlikely to meet this challenge without additional actions
forthe transfer of mitigation and adaptation technologies.
What do we mean by technology transfer?The Report defines the
term “technology transfer” as a broad setof processes covering the
flows of know-how, experience andequipment for mitigating and
adapting to climate change amongstdifferent stakeholders such as
governments, private sector enti-ties, financial institutions, NGOs
and research/education insti-tutions. Therefore, the treatment of
technology transfer in thisReport is much broader than that in the
UNFCCC or of any par-ticular Article of that Convention. The broad
and inclusive term“transfer” encompasses diffusion of technologies
and technolo-gy cooperation across and within countries. It covers
technolo-gy transfer processes between developed countries,
developingcountries and countries with economies in transition,
amongstdeveloped countries, amongst developing countries and
amongstcountries with economies in transition. It comprises the
processof learning to understand, utilise and replicate2 the
technology,including the capacity to choose it and adapt it to
local conditionsand integrate it with indigenous technologies.
The Report generally makes a distinction between developed
anddeveloping countries. Although economies in transition
areincluded as developed countries under the UNFCCC, they mayhave
characteristics in common with both developed and devel-oping
countries.
3Summary for Policymakers
2. The final stage of the five basic stages of technology
transfer(assessment, agreement, implementation, evaluation and
adjustment,replication) as defined in the Report as a combination
of actions thatlead to the deployment of a given technology, once
transferred, tomeet a new demand elsewhere.
1. "The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related
legalinstruments that the Conference of Parties may adopt is to
achieve, inaccordance with the relevant provisions of the
Convention, stabilisa-tion of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at such alevel that would prevent dangerous interference
with the climate sys-tem. Such a level should be achieved within a
timeframe sufficient toallow ecosystems to adapt naturally to
climate change, to ensure thatfood production is not threatened and
to enable economic develop-ment to proceed in a sustainable
manner."
-
adapt to new circumstances and to acquire new skills.
Thisapplies both for mitigation and adaptation
technologies.Comparatively little consideration has been given in a
systematicway to what capacity building is required for adaptation
to climatechange.
Human capacityAdequate human capacity is essential at every
stage of everytransfer process. The transfer of many ESTs demands a
widerange of technical, business, management and regulatory
skills.The availability of these skills locally can enhance the
flow ofinternational capital, helping to promote technology
transfer.
Developed country governments, in particular, can ensure
thattraining and capacity building programmes they sponsor
considerthe full range of information, financial, legal, and
business consultingand engineering services that technology
transfer requires, as wellas the local conditions under which these
may be provided. Thisrequires cooperation with local governments,
institutions and stake-holders, commercial organisations and
consumers/ users.
Developing country governments can build local capacities togear
them for technology transfer. Training and human
resourcedevelopment have been popular development assistance
activi-ties. Future approaches can be more effective by better
stressingthe integration of a total package of technology transfer,
focus-ing less exclusively on developing technical skills and more
oncreating improved and accessible competence in associated
ser-vices, organisational know-how, and regulatory management.
Organisational capacityIt is important to recognise the need for
participatory approach-es and to strengthen the networks in which
diverse organisa-tions contribute to technology transfer. In
technology intensiveeconomies, technology increasingly flows
through private net-works of information and assessment services,
management con-sultants, financial firms, lawyers and accountants,
and technicalspecialist groups. Local government agencies, consumer
groups,industry associations and NGOs may ensure that
technologymeets local needs and demand. This organisational
infrastructurecan help reduce but will not eliminate risks arising
from defi-ciencies in legal systems. Although many actions that
facilitatethe growth of such networks are already underway,
initiatives ofparticular importance to EST transfer include:
• Expansion of opportunities to develop firms for man-agement
consulting, accounting, energy service, law,investment and product
rating, trade, publishing and pro-vision for communication, access
to and transfer of infor-mation, such as Internet services;
• Encouragement of industry associations,
professionalassociations and user/consumer organisations;
• Participatory approaches to enable private actors,
publicagencies, NGOs and grassroots organisations to engageat all
levels of environmental policy-making and projectformulation;
• Where appropriate, decentralisation of
governmentaldecision-making and authority, in relation to
technologytransfer, to effectively meet community needs.
Information assessment and monitoring capacityInformation access
and assessment are essential to technologytransfer. However,
focussing too narrowly on information bar-riers while ignoring the
later stages of the transfer process can beless productive. The
roles of governments and private actors intechnology assessment are
changing. Private information net-works are proliferating through
specialised consulting and eval-uation services and over the
Internet. Increasing FDI alsodemonstrates that many ESTs can
diffuse rapidly without directgovernment action. Governments in
developing countries, devel-oped countries, and countries with
economies in transition maywish to consider:
• Developing improved indicators and collecting data
onavailability, quality and flows of ESTs to improve mon-itoring of
implementation;
• Developing technology performance benchmarks forESTs to
indicate the potential for technological improve-ments;
• Improving information systems and linking them to
inter-national or regional networks, through well-defined clear-ing
houses (such as energy efficiency and renewableenergy centres),
information speciality firms, trade pub-lications, electronic
media, or NGOs and communitygroups.
Enabling environment and extra effort to enhance technol-ogy
transferGovernments, through inter alia sound economic policy and
reg-ulatory frameworks, transparency and political stability, can
cre-ate an enabling environment for private and public sector
tech-nology transfers. Although many ESTs are in common use
andcould be diffused through commercial channels, their spread
ishampered by risks such as those arising from weak legal
protec-tion and inadequate regulation in developed countries,
develop-ing countries and countries with economies in transition.
Butmany technologies that can mitigate emissions or contribute
toadaptation to climate change are not as yet commercially
viable.Beyond an enabling environment, it will take extra efforts
todevelop and enhance the transfer of those potentially viableESTs.
The following actions could increase the flow of ESTs andimprove
its quality.
All governments may therefore wish to consider:• Enacting
measures, including well-enforced regulations,
taxes, codes, standards and removal of subsidies, to
inter-nalise the externalities to capture the environmental
andsocial costs, and assist the replication of ESTs;
• Reforming legal systems. Uncertain, slow and expen-sive
enforcement of contracts by national courts or inter-national
arbitration and insecure property rights can dis-courage
investment. Reforming administrative law to
5Summary for Policymakers
Trends of technology transferIt is difficult to quantify how
much climate-relevant hardware issuccessfully transferred annually.
When software elements suchas education, training and other
capacity building activities areincluded, the task of
quantification is further complicated.Financial flows, often used
as proxies, allow only a limited com-parison of technology transfer
trends over time. The 1990s haveseen broad changes in the types and
magnitudes of the interna-tional financial flows that drive
technology transfer.
Official Development Assistance (ODA) experienced a down-ward
trend in the period of 1993 to 1997, both in absolute termsand as a
percentage of funding for projects with significantimpact on
technology flows to developing countries. However,in 1998 there was
an increase in ODA funding. ODA is stillimportant for those parts
of the world and sectors where privatesector flows are
comparatively low, like agriculture, forestry,human health and
coastal zone management. Moreover, it cansupport the creation of
enabling conditions, which may leveragelarger flows of private
finance into ESTs in the context of over-all sustainable
development goals in the recipient countries.
Levels of foreign direct investment (FDI), commercial
lending,and equity investment all increased greatly in recent
years. Theseare the dominant means by which the private sector
makes tech-nology-based investments in developing countries and
economiesin transition, often in the industry, energy supply and
trans-portation sectors. However, private sector investment in the
formof FDI in developing countries has favoured East and SouthEast
Asia, and Latin America.
These trends are altering the relative capacities and roles of
dif-ferent stakeholders. The importance of the private sector
hasincreased substantially. However, there is a definite role for
gov-ernments both in providing an enabling environment for
thetechnology transfer process as well as participating directly in
it.Many NGOs support technology transfer activities.
Stakeholders, pathways, stages and barriers Technology transfer
results from actions taken by various stake-holders. Key
stakeholders include developers; owners; suppliers,buyers,
recipients and users of technology (such as private firms,state
enterprises, and individual consumers); financiers anddonors;
governments; international institutions; NGOs and com-munity
groups. Some technology is transferred directly betweengovernment
agencies or wholly within vertically integrated firms,but
increasingly technology flows depend also on the coordina-tion of
multiple organisations such as networks of information ser-vice
providers, business consultants and financial firms.
Althoughstakeholders play different roles, there is a need for
partnershipsamong stakeholders to create successful transfers.
Governmentscan facilitate such partnerships.
There is a large number of pathways through which
stakeholderscan interact to transfer technologies. They vary
depending on sec-tors, country circumstances and type of
technology. Pathways
may be different for “close to market” technologies and for
tech-nology innovations still in the development phase.
Commonpathways include government assistance programmes,
directpurchases, licensing, foreign direct investment, joint
ventures,cooperative research arrangements and co-production
agree-ments, education and training, and government direct
invest-ment.
While technology transfer processes can be complex and
inter-twined, certain stages can be identified. These may include
theidentification of needs, choice of technology, assessment of
con-ditions of transfer, agreement and implementation. Evaluation
andadjustment to local conditions, and replication2 are other
impor-tant stages.
Barriers to the transfer of ESTs may arise at each stage of
theprocess. These vary according to the specific context, for
examplefrom sector to sector, and can manifest themselves
differently indeveloped countries, developing countries and
countries witheconomies in transition. These barriers range from
lack of infor-mation; insufficient human capabilities; political
and economic bar-riers such as lack of capital, high transaction
costs, lack of full costpricing, and trade and policy barriers;
lack of understanding of localneeds; business limitations, such as
risk aversion in financial insti-tutions; and institutional
limitations such as insufficient legal pro-tection, and inadequate
environmental codes and standards.3
There is no pre-set answer to enhancing technology transfer.The
identification, analysis and prioritisation of barriers shouldbe
country based. It is important to tailor action to the specific
bar-riers, interests and influences of different stakeholders in
order todevelop effective policy tools.
2. Increase the Flow; Improve the Quality
Government actions can transform the conditions under
whichtechnology transfer takes place. The spread of proven ESTs
thatwould diffuse through commercial transactions may be
limitedbecause of the barriers listed above.
The three major dimensions of making technology transfer
moreeffective are capacity building, an enabling environment
andmechanisms for technology transfer, all of which are discussedin
more detail in the subsections below.
Building capacity Capacity building is required at all stages in
the process of tech-nology transfer. Social structures and personal
values evolvewith a society’s physical infrastructure,
institutions, and the tech-nologies embodied within them. New
technological trajectoriesfor an economy therefore imply new social
challenges. Thisrequires a capacity of people and organisations to
continuously
Summary for Policymakers4
3. See Technical Summary and Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the main
report.
-
• Market intermediary organisations such as Energy
ServiceCompanies.
Official Development Assistance (ODA)Official Development
Assistance (ODA) is still significant fordeveloping countries and
successful transfers of ESTs. ODAcan also assist the improvement of
policy frameworks and takeon long-term capacity building. There is
increasing recognitionthat ODA can best be focused on mobilising
and multiplying addi-tional financial resources.
Global Environment FacilityThe Global Environment Facility, an
operating entity of theUNFCCC Financial Mechanism, is a key
multilateral institu-tion for transfers of ESTs. Compared to the
magnitude of the tech-nology transfer challenge, these efforts are
of modest scale, evenwhen added to the contributions from bilateral
developmentassistance. The GEF currently targets incremental,
one-timeinvestments in mitigation projects that test and
demonstrate a vari-ety of financing and institutional models for
promoting tech-nology diffusion, thus contributing to a host
country’s ability tounderstand, absorb and diffuse technologies.
GEF also supportscapacity building projects for adaptation
consistent with limita-tions currently imposed by Convention
guidance. Continuedeffectiveness of GEF project funding for
technology transfermay depend on factors such as:
• Sustainability of market development and policy
impactsachieved through GEF projects;
• Duplication of successful technology transfer models;•
Enhanced links with multilateral-bank and other financ-
ing of ESTs;• Funding for development and licensing of ESTs;•
Coordination with other activities that support national
systems of innovation and international technology
part-nerships;
• Attention to technology transfer among developing
countries.
Multilateral Development BanksGovernments may use their leverage
to direct the activities ofmultilateral development banks (MDBs)
through their respectiveBoards and Councils in order to:
• Strengthen MDB programmes to account for the envi-ronmental
consequences of their lending;
• Develop programmatic approaches to lending that
removeinstitutional barriers and create enabling environments
forprivate technology transfers;
• Encourage MDBs to participate in NSI partnerships.
The Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms and the UNFCCCThe analysis of the
literature on the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms,based on the
preliminary stage of development of the rules forthese, suggests
that if they are implemented, the Mechanisms mayhave potential to
affect the transfer of ESTs.
The extent to which Article 4.5 of the UNFCCC has been
imple-mented is being reviewed by the UNFCCC. Given this
evolvingprocess, the IPCC has not been able to assess this
matter.
3. Sectoral Actions
The key actions for the transfer of mitigation and adaptation
technolo-gies vary across sectors. Governments, private actors and
communityorganisations are all involved in technology transfer in
each sector,although their roles and the extent of their
involvement differ within andacross sectors. It is important to
note the special characteristics ofadaptation technologies.
Adaptation in anticipation of future climatechange is faced with
uncertainty about location, rate and magnitude ofclimate change
impacts. Adaptation technologies often address site-spe-cific
issues and their benefits are primarily local, which could
hamperlarge scale replication. On the other hand, they could reduce
vulnera-bility not only to anticipated impacts of climate change
but also to con-temporary hazards associated with climate
variability.
Central lessons learned through the sectoral studies are: (1)
net-working among stakeholders is essential for effective
technologytransfer, and (2) most effective technology transfers
focus on productsand techniques with multiple benefits. Actions
that have been effec-tive in technology transfer in the sectors
evaluated in the Report, are:
Buildings World-wide, the mix of relevant ESTs will vary,
depending upon theclimate; rural-urban distribution, and historical
context. The effec-tive actions for the transfer of ESTs may
include, (1) governmentfinancing for incentives for the
construction of more energy efficientand environmentally-friendly
homes, (2) building codes and guide-lines, and equipment standards
developed in consultation withindustry to minimise adverse impacts
on manufacturers; (3) ener-gy and environmental performance labels
on consumer products; (4)government programmes for more energy
efficient and environ-mentally-friendly buildings, office
appliances and other equip-ment, (5) demand-side management
programmes to promote ener-gy-efficient lighting and equipment, and
(6) R&D to developproducts in the building sector that meet
community priorities.
TransportTechnological options - improved technology design and
main-tenance, alternative or improved fuels, vehicle use change,
andmodal shifts - as well as non-technical options, transport
demandreduction, and improved management systems can reduce
GHGemissions significantly. There are also non-transport
optionssuch as urban planning and transport demand substitution,
suchas telematics and improved telecommunications. Resource
avail-ability, technical know-how, and institutional capacity are
amongthe factors that affect the cost and transfer of these
options.
Government policies can promote cooperative technology
agree-ments among companies of different countries, joint R&D,
jointinformation networks, improved technical and managementskills,
and specialized training programmes. Adoption of appro-priate
standards and regulations can stimulate and facilitate tech-nology
transfer within and among countries. Partnership betweengovernment
and the private sector and among countries can alsohelp promote
technology transfer within and among countries.
7Summary for Policymakers
reduce regulatory risk and ensuring that public regulationis
accessible to stakeholders and subject to independentreview;
• Protecting intellectual property rights and licenses insuch a
way that innovation is fostered, while avoidingmisapplication,
which may impede diffusion of ESTs;
• Encouraging financial reforms, competitive and opennational
capital markets, and international capital flowsthat support
foreign direct investment. Governments canexpand financial lending
for ESTs through regulationthat allows the design of specialised
credit instruments,capital pools, and energy service companies;
• Simplifying and making transparent programme and pro-ject
approval procedures and public procurement require-ments;
• Promoting competitive and open markets for ESTs;• Stimulating
national markets for ESTs to facilitate econ-
omy of scale and other cost reducing practices;• Encouraging
multinational companies to show leadership
and use the same standards for environmental perfor-mance
wherever they operate;
• Creating awareness about products, processes and ser-vices
that use ESTs through means such as eco-labelling,product
standards, industry codes, and community edu-cation;
• Using legislation, enhancing transparency, and
increasingparticipation by civil society to reduce corruption in
con-formity with international conventions.
Governments of developed countries and countries witheconomies
in transitions may wish to consider:
• Stimulating fair competition in EST markets by discour-aging
restrictive business practices;
• Reforming export credit, political risk insurance andother
subsidies for the export of products or productionprocesses to
encourage foreign direct investment in ESTs;
• Developing environmental guidelines for export creditagencies
to avoid a bias against, and promote the trans-fer of ESTs, and
discourage the transfer of obsolete tech-nologies;
• Reducing the use, as trade policy measures applied toESTs, of
tied aid;
• Developing modalities and/or policies to improve thetransfer
of ESTs that are in the public domain;
• Increasing public funding for R&D in cleaner technolo-gies
to reflect the high rate of social return, and wherev-er possible,
enhancing the flows of ESTs arising fromtheir publicly funded
R&D programmes by entering intocooperation with developing
countries in R&D partner-ships and international research
institutions;
• Increasing flows of national and multilateral
assistance,including funding, especially in programmes targeted
toenvironmental technologies, including patent licensing ofESTs
where appropriate. Attention should also be paid tosupporting
pathways for transfer of ESTs among devel-oping countries.
Governments of developing countries may wish to consider:•
Ensuring assessment of local technology needs and social
impact of technologies so that transfer of and investmentin ESTs
meet local demands;
• Expanding R&D programmes, aiming at the develop-ment of
ESTs particularly appropriate in developingcountries and adjustment
to local conditions; promotingcomplementary policies for ESTs;
• Improving pathways for technology transfer amongdeveloping
countries through information regarding theperformance of ESTs in
developing countries, joint R&D,demonstration programmes, and
opening markets forESTs;
• Developing physical and communications infrastructure
tosupport private investments in ESTs and the operations
ofintermediary organisations providing information services;
• Improving the identification of specific barriers, needs
andsteps towards introduction of ESTs by consulting with pri-ority
stakeholders;
• Continuing to improve macro-economic stability to facil-itate
ESTs to be transferred.
Mechanisms for technology transferNational Systems of
InnovationThe literature shows that National Systems of Innovation
(NSIs)which integrate the elements of capacity building, access
toinformation and an enabling environment into
comprehensiveapproaches to EST transfer add up to more than the
individualcomponents and support the creation of an innovation
culture.Subsystems and the quality of interconnections within them
cansuccessfully influence technology transfer. The concept of
NSIscan be enhanced through partnerships with international
consortia.Partnerships would be system oriented, encompass all
stages ofthe transfer process, and ensure the participation of
private andpublic stakeholders, including business, legal,
financial and otherservice providers from developed and developing
countries.
NSI activities may include:• Targeted capacity building,
information access, and train-
ing for public and private stakeholders and support forproject
preparation;
• Strengthening scientific and technical educational
insti-tutions in the context of technology needs;
• Collection and assessment of specific technical, com-mercial,
financial and legal information;
• Identification and development of solutions to techni-cal,
financial, legal, policy and other barriers to widedeployment of
ESTs;
• Technology assessment, promotion of prototypes, demon-stration
projects and extension services through linkagesbetween
manufacturers, producers and end users;
• Innovative financial mechanisms such as public/privatesector
partnerships and specialised credit facilities;
• Local and regional partnerships between different
stake-holders for the transfer, evaluation and adjustment tolocal
conditions of ESTs;
Summary for Policymakers6
-
is driven by governments. Fragmented organisational and
insti-tutional relationships, and lack of access to financial means
aremajor barriers to the transfer of coastal adaptation
technologies.Coastal adaptation programmes, based on strong
partnershipbetween existing institutions, can provide an effective
response.
9Summary for Policymakers
Industry New processes, efficient energy and resource use,
substitution ofmaterials, changes in design and manufacture of
products result-ing in less material use, and increased recycling,
can substantiallyreduce GHG emissions. Environmental legislation,
regulation andvoluntary agreements between government and industry
canstimulate the development of efficient technologies and can
leadto increased use of ESTs. Public technology assessment
capa-bilities are important to provide information and capabilities
tosuccessfully transfer ESTs. Wel-defined clearinghouses can
beuseful in disseminating information to improve energy
efficien-cy, especially with respect to small and medium-sized
enterpris-es that often do not have the resources to assess
technologies.Long term support for capacity building is essential,
stressing theneed for the cooperation of equipment and software
suppliers andusers. Experience has shown that investment in
developing localcapability to undertake adjustment to indigenous
conditions is cru-cial to the success of industrial EST
transfer.
Energy Supply In general, the private sector plays a strong role
in the transfer ofenergy supply technologies based in oil and gas
sources andtechnology transfer mechanisms have been established for
sometime. Restructuring of the electricity sector world-wide is
rapid-ly changing the direction of investments in the power
sectorwith growing participation of the private sector. At the
sametime, the transfer of energy supply technologies for some
otherconventional and renewable sources, which often depend on
thegovernment to preserve or increase their presence in the
market,is restricted due to institutional and socio-economic
barriers.Nevertheless, the role of the government and multilateral
banksare important in every sector to foster and ensure conditions
forinternational financing, establishing appropriate regulatory
frame-works and create conditions to couple new energy
investments,environmentally sound projects and sustainable
development.Enabling actions by governments to promote energy
options,including renewable resources, that are assisting to
mitigate cli-mate change, can be crucial to mobilise private
capital for ESTsand raise increased attention to energy
efficiency.
AgricultureDevelopment of appropriate information bases on inter
aliaimproved crop species and varieties, irrigation facilities,
differenttillage and crop management systems, and livestock manure
treat-ment, including biogas recovery systems, can facilitate and
promotethe transfer of adaptation and mitigation technologies
within andacross countries and integration with indigenous
solutions.Governments can create incentives for the transfer of
ESTs byimproving national agricultural information systems to
disseminateinformation on ESTs, and expanding credit and savings
schemesto assist farmers to manage the increased variability in
their envi-ronment. The existing Consultative Group on
InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR) system may be one
possiblemodel for an R&D network among countries to build such
aninformation base. Capacities to deal with climate change
tech-
nologies and national agricultural research systems including
thosethat investigate carbon storage, and early warning systems,
areimportant elements. Efforts by developed countries and
multilat-eral agencies can be improved to enhance this R&D
system.
ForestryGovernment, community, and international organisations,
includ-ing conservation organisations, have dominated technology
trans-fer in the forestry sector. More recently, private
establishmentshave been making inroads. Transfer of practices such
as sus-tainable forest management (including reduced-impact
logging,certification techniques and silvicultural practices),
recycling, bio-energy technologies and agroforestry can contribute
to the mit-igation of carbon dioxide emissions. Establishing clear
proper-ty rights, participatory forest management, use of
financialincentives and disincentives, optimal use of regulations,
andstrengthening of monitoring and evaluating institutions are
gov-ernment actions that can promote their transfer.
Waste ManagementMitigation technologies are available and can be
readily deployed.Roles of governments, private sector, and other
organisations arechanging. National governments can act as
facilitators of munic-ipal, private sector, and community-based
initiatives. The privatesector plays an increasing role, because
meeting future waste man-agement needs depends on expanded private
investment. Theinvolvement of community organisations is also
increasing as thelink between community support and project
sustainability hasbecome clear. It is important that projects
emphasise the deploy-ment of locally-appropriate technologies, and
minimise the devel-opment of conventional large, integrated waste
management sys-tems in situations where lower cost, simpler
alternatives can be usedwithout compromising public health and
environmental standards.
Human HealthAn effective health system can help to address the
adverse healthimpacts of climate change. Transfer of existing
health technolo-gies within and across countries can assist in
achieving thisobjective. Raising public awareness of likely health
impacts,close monitoring of health outcomes and training of health
pro-fessionals are suitable actions. Thus, in terms of
technologytransfer there is a need to ensure that technologies are
availableat national and local levels for coping with any changes
in the bur-den of disease that might be associated with climate
change.
Coastal Adaptation Technology transfer should focus on proven
technologies forcoastal adaptation, including indigenous solutions.
Wetlandrestoration and preservation are examples of such proven
adap-tation technologies. Effective transfers of adaptation
technologiesare part of integrated coastal-management plans or
programmes,that utilises local expertise. Because coastal
management is pre-dominantly a public activity, technology transfer
in coastal zones
Summary for Policymakers8
-
TECHNICAL SUMMARY
Authors:
Stephen O. Andersen (USA), Earle N. Buckley (USA), William
Chandler (USA), Renate Christ (Austria), Ogunlade Davidson (Sierra
Leone), Sukumar Devotta (India), Michael Grubb (UK), Joyeeta Gupta
(The Netherlands),Thomas C. Heller (USA), Maithili Iyer (India),
Daniel M. Kammen (USA), Richard J.T. Klein (The
Netherlands/Germany), Dina Kruger (USA), Ritu Kumar (India), Mark
Levine (USA), Lin Erda (China), Patricia Iterregui (Peru), Merylyn
McKenzie Hedger (UK), Anthony McMichael (UK), Mark Mansley (UK),
Jan-Willem Martens (The Netherlands), Eric Martinot (USA), Ajay
Mathur (India), Bert Metz (The Netherlands), John Millhone (USA),
Jose Roberto Moreira (Brazil), Tongroj Onchan (Thailand), Mark
Radka (USA), Kilaparti Ramakrishna (India), N.H. Ravindranath
(India), Jayant Sathaye (USA), Youba Sokona (Mali), Sergio C.
Trindade (Brazil), David Wallace (UK), Ernst Worrell (The
Netherlands)
-
1. Background 151.1 The role of technology transfer in
addressing
climate change 151.2 What do we mean by technology transfer?
151.3 Stakeholders, pathways and stages 161.4 Trends in technology
transfer 171.5 Barriers to the transfer of Environmentally
Sound Technologies 19
2. Increase the flow, improve the quality 192.1 Building
capacity 212.2 Enabling environment and extra efforts
to enhance technology transfer 222.2.1 Actions for all
governments 232.2.2 Actions for developed countries and coun-
tries with economies in transition 252.2.3 Developing countries
actions 27
2.3 Mechanisms for technology transfer 272.3.1 National systems
of innovation 272.3.2 ODA 282.3.3 GEF 282.3.4 Multilateral
Development Banks 292.3.5 Kyoto Protocol mechanisms 30
3. Technology Transfer: A Sectoral Analysis 313.1 Residential,
Commercial, and Institutional
Buildings Sector 323.2 Transport 333.3 Industry 343.4 Energy
Supply 343.5 Agriculture 363.6 Forestry Sector 373.7 Solid Waste
Management and Wastewater
Treatment 393.8 Human Health 403.9 Coastal Adaptation 41
CONTENTS
This introductory Chapter sets out the landscape for the
discus-sion, throughout the Special Report, of the multitude of
facets ofmanaging technological change in support of the Climate
ChangeConvention and its Protocols. The framework proposed for
deci-sion-making by government policymakers, and other
relevantstakeholders, emphasises the sustainable development
perspec-tive, while exploring the national and international
political set-tings, trends in finance and trade, the
organisational and institu-tional context, and the meanings of
technology transfer and of theinnovation system. A model of the
latter and of pathways intechnology transfer is presented to help
understand the nature,motivations, barriers to the process, and
possible options to pro-mote sustainable development in the face of
the climate changechallenge.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
1. Background
Article 4.5 of the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate
Change (UNFCCC) states that developed country Partiesand other
developed Parties included in Annex II to take "all prac-ticable
steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate,
thetransfer of, or access to, environmentally sound technologiesand
know-how to other Parties, particularly developing countryParties",
and to "support the development and enhancement ofendogenous
capacities and technologies of developing countryParties", and
calls on other Parties and organisations to assist infacilitating
the transfer of such technologies.
The Subsidiary Body for Scientific Technological Advice(SBSTA)
identified at its first session a list of areas in which itcould
draw upon the assistance of the IPCC. "Development andassessment of
methodological and technological aspects of trans-fer of
technology" was included in this list as an important ele-ment of
the Third Assessment Report and an issue that may beappropriate for
an interim or special report.
This Special Report was prepared in response to this request.
Itaddresses the "technology transfer" problem in the context of
allrelevant UNFCCC provisions, including decisions of theConference
of Parties (CoP), and Chapter 34 in Agenda 21. Itattempts to
respond to recent developments in the UNFCCCdebate on technology
transfer, by providing available scientificand technical
information to enable Parties to address issues andquestions
identified in Decision 4/CP.4 adopted by COP-4 (seeBox TS 1). The
focus of the Report is on the technology transferprocess rather
than on the assessment of technologies, whichhave been addressed in
earlier IPCC Technical Papers andReports.
1.1 The role of technology transfer in addressing cli-mate
change
Global economic growth is currently leading to increased
con-sumption of raw materials, loss of natural habitats, energy use
andproduction of waste. Achieving the ultimate objective of
theUNFCCC, as formulated in Article 21, will require
technologicalinnovation and the rapid and widespread transfer and
imple-mentation of technologies and know-how for mitigation of
green-house gas emissions. Transfer of technology for adaptation to
cli-mate change is also an important element of
reducingvulnerability to climate change.
1.“The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related
legalinstruments that the Conference of Parties may adopt to
achieve, inaccordance with the relevant provisions of the
Convention, stabilisa-tion of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at such alevel that would prevent dangerous interference
with the climate sys-tem. Such a level should be achieved within a
timeframe sufficient toallow ecosystems to adopt naturally to
climate change, to ensure thatfood production is not threatened and
to enable economic develop-ment to proceed in a sustainable
manner”
Technology transfer has successfully contributed to the
solutionof a variety of local and global environmental problems.
Casestudies included in the Report document this experience
andprovide valuable lessons for climate protection. These case
stud-ies include, to varying degrees, essential elements of
successfultechnology transfer including consumer and business
aware-ness, access to information, capacity building, investment
financ-ing, relaxation of trade barriers, and a strong regulatory
frame-work.
This technological innovation must occur fast enough and
continueover a period of time to allow greenhouse gas
concentrations to sta-bilise and reduce vulnerability to climate
change. Technologyfor mitigating and adapting to climate change
should be environ-mentally sound technology and should support
sustainable devel-opment. Sustainable development on a global scale
will requireradical technological and related changes in both
developed anddeveloping countries. Economic development is most
rapid indeveloping countries, but it will not be sustainable if
these coun-tries simply follow the historic greenhouse gas emission
trends ofdeveloped countries. Development with modern knowledge
offersmany opportunities to avoid past unsustainable practices
andmove more rapidly towards better technologies, techniques
andassociated institutions. The literature indicates that to
achievethis, developing countries require assistance with
developinghuman capacity (knowledge, techniques and management
skills),developing appropriate institutions and networks, and with
acquir-ing and adapting specific hardware. Technology transfer, in
par-ticular from developed to developing countries, must
thereforeoperate on a broad front covering these software and
hardwarechallenges, and ideally within a framework of helping to
findnew sustainable paths for economies as a whole.
There is, however, no simple definition of a "sustainable
devel-opment agenda" for developing countries. Sustainable
develop-ment is a context driven concept and each society may
define itdifferently, based on Agenda 21. Technologies that may be
suit-able in each of such contexts may differ considerably. This
makesit important to ensure that transferred technologies meet
localneeds and priorities, thus increasing the likelihood that they
willbe successful, and that there is an appropriate enabling
environ-ment for promoting Environmentally Sound Technologies
(ESTs).
The Report analyses the special challenges of transferring
ESTsto address climate change in the context of sustainable
develop-ment. The literature provides ample evidence of the many
prob-lems in current processes of technology transfer which makes
itvery unlikely to meet this challenge without additional actions
forthe transfer of mitigation and adaptation technologies.
1.2 What do we mean by technology transfer?
The Report defines the term "technology transfer" as a broad
setof processes covering the flows of know-how, experience
andequipment for mitigating and adapting to climate change
amongst
15Technical Summary
-
different stakeholders such as governments, private sector
enti-ties, financial institutions, NGOs and research/education
insti-tutions. Therefore, the treatment of technology transfer in
thisReport is much broader than that in the UNFCCC or of any
par-ticular Article of that Convention. The broad and inclusive
term"transfer" encompasses diffusion of technologies and
technolo-gy cooperation across and within countries. It covers
technolo-gy transfer processes between developed countries,
developingcountries and countries with economies in transition,
amongstdeveloped countries, amongst developing countries and
amongstcountries with economies in transition. It comprises the
processof learning to understand, utilise and replicate the
technology,including the capacity to choose and adapt to local
conditions andintegrate it with indigenous technologies.
The Report generally makes a distinction between developed
anddeveloping countries. Although economies in transition
areincluded as developed countries in the UNFCCC, they may
havecharacteristics in common with both developed and
developingcountries.
1.3 Stakeholders, pathways and stages
Technology transfer results from actions taken by various
stake-holders. Key stakeholders include developers, owners,
suppliers,buyers, recipients and users of technology such as
private firms,state enterprises, and individual consumers,
financiers and donors,governments, international institutions, NGOs
and community groups.Some technology is transferred directly
between government agen-cies or wholly within vertically integrated
firms, but increasingly tech-nology flows depend also on the
co-ordination of multiple organisa-tions such as networks of
information service providers, businessconsultants and financial
firms. Although stakeholders play differentroles there is a need
for partnerships among stakeholders to create suc-cessful
transfers. Governments can facilitate such partnerships. Therate of
technology transfer is affected both by motivations that inducemore
rapid adoption of new techniques and by barriers that impedesuch
transfers. Both types of factors can be influenced by policy(see
Table TS 1).
The theme of technology transfer is highly interdisciplinary and
hasbeen approached from a variety of perspectives, including
business,law, finance, microeconomics, international trade,
international polit-ical economy, environment, geography,
anthropology, education,
Technical Summary16
1. How should Parties promote theremoval of barriers to
technology trans-fer? Which barriers are a priority andwhat
practical steps should be taken?
2. How should Annex II Parties promote thetransfer of
publicly-owned technologies?
3. What additional bilateral and multilater-al efforts to
promote technology co-operation to facilitate technology trans-fer
should be initiated? What should bethe priority?
4. Are existing multilateral mechanismssufficient? Are new
mechanisms neededfor technology transfer? If so, what
areappropriate mechanisms for the transferof technologies among
Parties in pur-suance of article 4.5 of the Convention?
5. What should be the objective of collab-oration with relevant
multilateral institu-tions to promote technology transferand what
practical steps should betaken?
6. What additional guidance should begiven to the financial
mechanism?
7. What sort of information is needed andhow can this best be
done?
8. How could access to emerging tech-nologies be
facilitated?
9. What role is the private sector playing intechnology
transfer? What additional rolecan the private sector play? What
barri-ers prevent their greater participation?
10. What technical advice on technologytransfer is needed?
11. What areas should be the focus of capac-ity building and how
should it be undertak-en, e.g. what kind of activities, pro-grammes
and institutional arrangements?
12. How, to whom and in what formatshould developing country
Parties maketheir requests for assistance to assessrequired
technologies?
13. What technical, legal and economicinformation is needed?
What practicalsteps should be taken to promote andenhance access to
such information bynational and regional centres?
14. What type of process is needed todevelop a consensus on
practical nextsteps to improve existing technologycentres and
networks in order to accel-erate the diffusion of clean
technolo-gies in non-Annex I Party markets.What type of arrangement
is needed tomonitor progress?
15. What measures, programmes and
activities can best help to create anappropriate enabling
environment forprivate sector investment?
16. How should the Convention oversee theexchange of information
among Partiesand other interested organisations orinnovative
technology cooperationapproaches, and the assessment andsynthesis
of such information?
17. How should information be compiledand synthesised on
innovative technol-ogy cooperation approaches? Whenshould
recommendations on suchapproaches be forwarded to theConference of
Parties?
18. How and when should information on pro-jects and programmes
of technology co-operation which Parties believe can serveas models
for improving the diffusion andimplementation of clean
technologiesinternationally under the Convention beprovided to the
secretariat?
19. Can specific technology transfer goals be set?20. Can we
develop indicators and
accounting systems to track progresson technology transfer?
21. Are particular institutional arrange-ments needed to monitor
progress?
BOX TS1 QUESTIONS INCLUDED IN ANNEX TO DECISION 4/CP.4 OF THE
CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE UNFCCC THAT ARETO BE CONSIDERED IN
THE CONSULTATIVE PROCESS SET UP BY THIS DECISION.
communication, and labour studies. Although there are
numerousframeworks and models put forth to cover different aspects
of tech-nology transfer, there are no corresponding overarching
theories.However, the literature reveals a large number of pathways
throughwhich stakeholders can interact to transfer technologies.
They varydepending on sectors, country circumstances and type of
technology.Pathways may be different for "close to market"
technologies and fortechnology innovations still in the development
phase. The role ofstakeholders is dependent on the pathway
followed. Common path-ways include government assistance
programmes, direct purchases,trade, licensing, foreign direct
investment, joint ventures, cooperativeresearch arrangements and
co-production agreements, education andtraining, and government
direct investment.
While technology transfer processes can be complex and
intertwinedcertain stages can be identified. These may include the
identificationof needs, choice of technology, assessment of
conditions of transfer,agreement and implementation. Evaluation and
adjustment to localconditions, and replication are other important
stages. In order to eval-uate whether technology transfer can be
considered effective, differentcriteria can be applied. The
criteria can be grouped into four categories,namely, (i) greenhouse
gas (GHG) and environmentally related; (ii)economic and socially
related; (iii) administrative, institutional andpolitically
related; and (iv) process-related.
1.4 Trends in technology transfer
Little is known about how much climate-relevant hardware is
suc-cessfully "transferred" annually. When software elements such
aseducation, training and other capacity building activities
areincluded, the task of quantification is further
complicated.Financial flows, often used as proxies, allow only a
limited com-parison of technology transfer trends over time.
The 1990s have seen broad changes in the types and magni-tudes
of the international financial flows that drive technologytransfer,
at least that occurring between countries (see Figure TS1).
Official Development Assistance (ODA) experienced a down-ward trend
in the period of 1993 to 1997, both in absolute termsand as a
percentage of funding for projects with a significantimpact on
technology flows to developing countries. However,in 1998 there was
an increase in ODA funding. ODA has becomerelatively less important
to many developing countries giventhe dramatic increase in
opportunities for obtaining private sec-tor financing for
technology acquisition.
Sources and amounts of development finance, some portion ofwhich
goes for technology transfer, vary widely from region toregion.
Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa received in 1997 anaverage of some
US$27 per capita of foreign aid and US$3 percapita of foreign
direct investment. By contrast, countries inLatin America and the
Caribbean received US$13 per capita ofaid and US$62 per capita of
foreign direct investment. Recent ini-tiatives to spur development
progress in Africa aim to respond tothese disparities.
Levels of foreign direct investment (FDI), commercial
lending,and equity investment all increased dramatically during
the1990s. As a result, by 1997 private flows supplied more than
threefourths of the total net resource flows from OECD
membercountries to developing countries compared to one third in
1990.Probable causes for this shift, and what it means for
govern-ments and the private sector, are described in detail in the
Report.FDI, loans, and equity are the dominant means by which the
pri-vate sector makes technology-based investments in
developingcountries and economies in transition, often in the
industry, ener-gy supply and transportation sectors. Private sector
investment inthe form of FDI in developing countries has favoured
East andSouth East Asia, and Latin America.
Total private flows to developing countries peaked in the first
halfof 1997 and then fell significantly in the wake of the
globalfinancial crisis that started in Asia during the middle of
that year.Most of the decline was due to reduced bank lending by
the pri-vate sector, although this remained robust to Latin
America.Foreign direct investment in developing countries is
estimated tohave increased slightly during 1998 and 1999.
Overall, FDI still represents a relatively small share of
totalinvestment in developing countries, both in absolute values
andas a share of all developing country inflows. FDI exceeded 10
percent of gross fixed capital formation in only eight countries,
and
17Technical Summary
Table TS1 Principal stakeholders and their decisions or policies
in technology transfer
STAKEHOLDERS MOTIVATIONS DECISIONS OR POLICIES THAT INFLUENCE
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Governments Development goals Tax policies (including investment
tax policy)• national/federal Environmental goals Import/export
policies• regional/provincial Competitive advantage Innovation
policies• local/municipal Energy security Education and
capacity-building policies Regulations and institutional
development Direct credit provisionPrivate-sector business Profits
Technology R&D/commercialisation decisions• transnational
Market share Marketing decisions• national Return on investment
Capital investment decisions• local/microenterprise
Skills/capabilities development policies Structure for acquiring
outside information(including producers, users, Decision to
transfer technologydistributors, and financiers Choice of
technology transfer pathwayof technology) Lending/credit policies
(producers, financiers)
Technology selection (distributors, users)Donors Development
goals Project selection and design criteria• multilateral banks
Environmental goals Investment decisions• GEF Return on investment
Technical assistance design and delivery• bilateral aid agencies
Procurement requirements Conditional reform
requirementsInternational institutions Development goals Policy and
technology focus• WTO Environmental goals Selection of participants
in forums• UNCSD Policy formulation Choice of modes of information
dissemination• OECD International dialogueResearch/extension Basic
knowledge Research agenda• research centres/labs Applied research
Technology R&D/commercialisation decisions• universities
Teaching Decision to transfer technology• extension services
Knowledge transfer Choice of pathway to transfer technology
Perceived credibilityMedia/public groups Information distribution
Acceptance of advertising• TV, radio, newspaper Education Promotion
of selected technologies• Schools Collective decisions Educational
curricula• Community groups Collective welfare• NGOs Lobbying for
technology-related policiesIndividual consumers Welfare Purchase
decisions• urban/core Utility Decision to learn more about a
technology• rural/periphery Expense minimisation Selection of
learning/information channels
Ratings of information credibility by source
-
in most it is much less than seven per cent of the total.
Despite thesmall size of inflows, FDI is still important for many
of theseeconomies. Foreign direct investors are often manufacturers
thatoccupy a dominant position in the supply chain and that play
amajor part in the industrial sectors in which they operate. In
thebest circumstances they bring to the host country, and the
firmswith whom they work, state-of-the-art technologies and
highstandards for environment, health and safety, and quality
assur-ance. International financial statistics, however, indicate
onlythe quantity, and not the quality, of FDI. Table TS 2 shows
theincrease in net private capital flows (of which FDI is a
compo-nent) to low and middle income countries by country group
andregion during the period 1990-1996. Notable is the low
sharereceived by countries in Africa.
Grants by NGOs to developing countries have stayed fairly
con-stant during the last decade, ranging between US$5 billion
andUS$6 billion per year since 1990. Despite their relatively
mod-est amounts, many of these are directed at least developed
coun-tries and at capacity building efforts.
The general increase in the importance of private sector
invest-ment in developing countries does not reduce the role of
ODA.First and as noted above, private sector investment has
beenvery selective (see Table TS 2 and also Figures TS 2 and TS 3
inthe Industry section). While almost all countries have
benefitedto some degree, a handful of countries (East Asia and
LatinAmerica) have received most of the attention. ODA is still
crit-ical for the poorest countries, particularly when it is aimed
atdeveloping basic capacities to acquire, adapt, and use
foreigntechnologies. Second, ODA is still important for those
sectorswhere private sector flows are comparatively low, like
agriculture,forestry, human health and coastal zone management.
Moreoverit can be essential for certain activities including the
leveragingof funds for capacity building activities and supporting
the cre-ation of enabling conditions which may leverage larger
flows ofprivate sector finance into ESTs. Third, private
investment, mostnotably foreign portfolio equity investment and
commerciallending, is volatile. Many developing countries have
found to theirdistress that private investment can quickly dry up
if investors per-ceive more attractive––or less
risky––opportunities elsewhere.
Technical Summary18
Other private flow
Total bond lending
Foreign DirectInvestment
Other official Development Finance
Official Development Assistance
International ban lending
Figure TS1. Total Net Resource Flows to Aid Recipient Countries;
OECD, 1999c.
Table TS2 Net private capital flows to low and middle income
countries by country group (US$ billion) (Source: World Bank.)
COUNTRY GROUPAll countries
Sub-Saharan AfricaEast Asia and the PacificSouth AsiaEurope and
Central AsiaLatin America and CaribbeanMiddle East and North
Africa
IncomegroupLow income countriesExcluding China and IndiaChina
and IndiaMiddle income countries
199044.40.3
19.32.29.5
12.50.6
1.4
10.032.0
199156.60.8
20.81.97.9
22.92.2
3.0
9.144.0
199290.6-0.336.92.921.828.70.5
2.4
23.064.8
1993157.1-0.562.46.025.659.83.9
5.8
44.2107.1
1994161.3
5.271.08.517.253.65.8
6.3
50.8104.2
1995184.2
9.184.15.230.154.31.4
5.5
47.9130.7
1996243.811.8
108.710.731.274.376.9
7.1
60.0176.7
Measuring Technology Transfer of ESTBecause of the limited
comparison of trends in technology trans-fer on the basis of
financial flows, better indicators and data toquantify the level
and flows of climate-relevant EST are neededto give governments
better information on which to base their pol-icy. In addition,
technology performance benchmarks for differ-ent sectors could be
compiled to give an indication about the realdegree of
implementation of EST and the potential for techno-logical
improvements. It would be useful to have simple andagreed upon
criteria for measuring the transfer of ESTs.
1.5 Barriers to the transfer of Environmentally
SoundTechnologies
The spread of proven ESTs that would diffuse through com-mercial
transactions may be limited because of existing barri-ers. Barriers
to the transfer of ESTs arise at each stage of theprocess.
Thesevary according to the specific context, for exam-ple from
sector to sector, and can manifest themselves differ-ently in
developed countries, developing countries and coun-tries with
economies in transition. The Report provides anextensive overview
of the most important barriers in developed,developing and
transition economies that could impede thetransfer of ESTs to
mitigate and adapt to climate change (seeTable TS 3 and TS 4 for
further reference). Governments canpromote technology transfer by
reducing the barriers that areassociated with each of these
elements of an enabling envi-ronment.
• Lack of full-cost pricing, which internalises environ-mental
and social costs;
• Poor macroeconomic conditions, which could
includeunderdeveloped financial sector, high import duties, highor
uncertain inflation or interest rates, uncertain stabili-ty of tax
and tariff policies, investment risk;
• Low private sector involvement because of lack of accessto
capital, in particular inadequate financial strength ofsmaller
firms;
• Lack of financial institutions or systems to ensure
initialinvestments for the utilisation and extended use of
trans-ferred technologies;
• Low, often subsidised conventional energy prices result-ing in
negative incentives to adopt energy saving mea-sures and renewable
energy technologies;
• Lack of markets for ESTs because of lack of confidencein
economic, commercial or technical viability, lack ofmanufacturers,
lack of consumer awareness and accep-tance of technologies;
• Lack of supporting legal institutions and frameworks,including
codes and standards for the evaluation andimplementation of
environmentally sound technologies;
• Lack of understanding of the role of developed and devel-oping
countries and international institutions in the fail-ures and
successes of past technology cooperation.;
• General lack of support for an open and transparent
inter-national banking and trading system;
• Institutional corruption in both developed and develop-ing
countries;
• Reluctance to identify and make available ESTs that arein the
public domain;
• Insufficient human and institutional capabilities;• Inadequate
vision about and understanding of local needs
and demands;• Inability to assess, select, import, develop and
adapt
appropriate technologies;• Lack of data, information, knowledge
and awareness,
especially on "emerging" technologies; • Lack of confidence in
unproven technologies;• Risk aversion and business practices that
favour large pro-
jects in financial institutions including MDBs; • Lack of
science, engineering and technical knowledge
available to private industry;• Insufficient R&D because of
lack of investments in R&D
and inadequate science and educational infrastructure;•
Inadequate resources for project implementation;• High transaction
costs;• Lack of access to relevant and credible information on
potential partners to allow for the timely formation ofeffective
relationships which could enhance the spread ofESTs.
There is no pre-set answer to enhancing technology transfer.The
identification, analysis and prioritisation of barriers shouldbe
country based. It is important to tailor action to the specific
bar-riers, interests and influences of different stakeholders in
order todevelop effective policy tools.
2. Increase the flow, improve the quality
The challenge of successfully transferring ESTs should be seenin
the context of sustainable development. Sustainable develop-ment
needs not restrict growth but can stimulate the emergenceof a
vibrant. industrial economy, a process in which technologytransfer
is likely to play a major role. Sustainable industrialisa-tion is
especially a challenge for developing countries, becausetheir low
initial level of development provides them with anopportunity to
follow a technological trajectory which can becleaner and more
efficient than the path OECD countries have fol-lowed.
To enhance the sustainability of the development process,
gov-ernment actions can transform the conditions under which
tech-nology transfer takes place. The spread of proven ESTs
thatwould diffuse through commercial transactions may be
limitedbecause of the barriers listed above. Governments can
playimportant roles in facilitating the private transfer of ESTs
byencouraging private sector trade and investment of
environ-mentally sound technologies. Capacity building
programmesand enabling environments that reduce the risks and
restrictionsassociated with the transfer of ESTs will