Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

January 23, 2009 |  5 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Action On Climate Change Requires Global Technology Transfer

Sam Vanderslott: Successful technology transfer is at the heart of finding a viable solution to the climate change challenge. Powerful private sector interests must be overcome in order to allow co-operation between developed and developing nations.

By 2020 progress will have been made in the global governance arrangements that address climate change through the promotion of climate-related technology-transfer. Promoting technology-transfer involves sharing technological knowledge to make it easier for a country to deploy technologies from other countries or to develop their own. There are already early indications of cooperation between countries in the management of intellectual property for climate-related technologies. This can be seen in the challenge being mounted to current multilateral agreements. International institutions and the multilateral agreements that they espouse are influential in shaping the "rules of play" in a particular global governance issue area.

The central institution in setting the international rules for technology-transfer is The World Trade Organisation (WTO). The WTO is responsible for overseeing the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) which has placed limitations on the free flow of technological knowledge through universally standardized patent protection across its 140 members. TRIPS, however, is beginning to be challenged in the context of climate change. Exemptions from patentability and exceptions to patent rights and compulsory licences are available through the "TRIPS flexibilities" clause in the agreement. The notable example of these flexibilities being used is the Doha Declaration in 2001, where WTO members stated that TRIPS should be supportive of public health goals and not prevent access to medicine.

The prospect of flexibilities being applied to the context of climate change technology was indicated at the 2007 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference in Bali. The Brazilian Foreign Minister proposed that a "similar statement to the Doha Declaration... be considered in the climate change context." The European Parliament has also recommended looking at amendments to TRIPS allowing compulsory licensing of "environmentally necessary technologies".

However, it is the major actors -- developed countries and multinational corporations (MNC) -- who will determine how far cooperation in climate-related technology will go. Climate change affects all countries and thus requires cooperation from all in order to be possible. Despite this, at the UNFCC some parties were concerned that "flexibilities may be insufficient to ensure the rapid and widespread transfer of technology." Despite persuasive incentives for countries to cooperate, powerful private sector interests demand protection of intellectual property.

Climate-related technology is big business. The key trends for the climate change sector are wind and solar power, and both markets are growing rapidly. The World Bank has described the wind power market in their International Trade and Climate Change report, published this year, as being dominated by "large equipment manufacturers like GE and Siemens." Similarly, the global manufacturers of solar PV technologies are MNCs such as Sharp, Kyocera, and BP Solar are based in developed countries.

What should be happening is even growth in the production and deployment of such technologies in developed and developing countries so that climate change can be addressed on a global basis. At the moment there is still a lot of ground to catch up on, with China being the only developing country to have become a major player in these industries. When committing to climate change targets, the danger is that developed countries will try to transfer the cost of this burden to developing countries and expropriate the benefits of new business opportunities. Powerful companies can lobby their governments to protect their business interests through intellectual property protection. Such an outcome must be avoided in up-and-coming international climate change agreements in Copenhagen in 2009 in order to challenge TRIPS and offer new arrangements for cooperation.

Developing country negotiators need to be fully informed and equipped in order to pursue their interests. International institutions can assist by regulating the unequal lobbying power of powerful MNCs in the climate change arena. This requires the setting of a fair agenda, resources for developing countries and steering so that business interests do not dictate the proceedings.

Sam Vanderslott is a Masters student in Global Governance and Diplomacy at the University of Oxford. Her research interests include intellectual property, business regulation and public-private partnerships.

This article has been shortlisted for the Atlantic Community's "Global Governance in 2020" student competition.


The Atlantic Community's World Economic Forum Focus Week (Jan 22 - Jan 28)

This article is part of the Atlantic Community's World Economic Forum Focus Week in a 5 day run-up to the WEF Davos Conference (conference begins Wed 28 January). We are focusing on two of the most pressing aspects of the conference: the Global Economy and Climate Change.

Other articles in our series on WEF:

From the discussion on the community page we will generate a special Atlantic Memo that will be distributed to WEF organizers and to decision makers worldwide at the start of the conference. Please share your comments on the recommendations and issues raised in this article. We want to know how you think the WEF Davos Conference should approach the climate change challenge.

- Do private sector interests in climate change techonology need to controlled?

- What can the WEF do to facilitate cooperation on climate change? How can the imbalance between developed and developing states be addressed?

 

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Member deleted

January 27, 2009

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Free Energy Technology. Hmmm. Then how about free oil and coal also? After all isn’t it about energy? I am just joking of course. The point is each country is trying to find its niche market, contributing to the human and other species and making a set income to keep their own country stable economically. The tough question: Why should energy technology be free when oil and coal prices can be raised and lowered at anytime for any reason?

How are the contributing countries affected?
Education
The foundation is education. Say you need engineers to build all your ecology friendly technology and the technology countries agree to train your engineers. Popular Science magazine (Oct or Nov 2008 issue) said 60% of USA engineering PhD college degrees are awarded to visiting students from countries around the world. This will have a devastating Dumbing Down affect on future US engineering projects. What assurances are you going to give to correct these effects to technology countries in the next 10 years?

Experience
Engineers in these jobs acquire more experience the longer they are in the job. If you take their job by building your own technology after having been given the knowhow and equipment, many of these people lose their jobs. All evolution theorists believe to some extent that the more you practice something the better you get and the more you understand. Taking these jobs away will take experience away from that country. What plans do you have to keep the experience for these technology countries?

Economic Incentive
Sort term survival requires having some kind of pay check, even though many people enjoy many aspects of their job. Also the most expensive part of some technologies is the research and development. Research and testing of new technologies is sometimes a long process which requires nurturing. Individuals and groups love to contribute in some way to sustain or improve the world because it makes us feel we are a part of something bigger than ourselves. It is instinctive and applies to any endeavor which helps ensure the long term survival of the species. Strangely enough, it is the short term survival (a steady income) which must be insured, or we will not get to the long term survival. However if we ignore the long term survival, then our long term future may be in question.

I agree with climate management concepts. I just want to see a balanced solution for both aspects of the problem, because both have long term implications.
 
Markus  Drake

January 28, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
As a response to Jeff's comments:

Engineering: Non-US-engineers are being educated in the US. So what? I thought your universities charge for the services they provide. As long as a free market sorts out the cost-distribution, there shouldn't be a problem? Now, for many European universities, where the state is heavily subsidizing or even paying for the education fully, this hasn't seemed to be a topic of concern.

Experience: You seem to expect that the renewables' market will be stable, employing only a set amount of engineers, whereas many business analysts expect massive growth in this sector. Growth means more jobs, and the challenge should rather be the quick dispersal of experience in order to meet the needs, rather than limit the distribution of it.

Economic Incentive: Sweden, which is one of the market leaders in the field, is massively pushing for supported and subsidized transferral of renewable energy and energy saving technologies. Why? Aren't they afraid of losing out, based on all the reasons you give? No, because they actually meet the UN-recommended 0,7% of the national product to be used for development aid, as one of VERY few countries. So they do not mind a part of this being used to actually subsidize and, in a tough economic climate, even save small, still-vulnerable innovation-companies in the energy sector. Also, why look at energy technologies as a product, and not a service? What you need is a relationship to small producers now, in order to build up monetized long-term service solutions. Set up education initiatives in one poor country, train trainers who spread the capacity for low-tech innovative energy saving measures in rural areas, and fund the whole thing with a minimal amount of development aid, giving the tech away for free. Once those rural areas have experienced a minimum of development thanks to new industrialization, cash and/or time saving or even lessened child mortality thanks to the innovations you gave them, who do you think they will come to in order to spend their new excess wealth? Maybe you have a business opportunity right there, it just happens to be one that takes 10 to 15 years to mature, so is too sustainable and slow for today's capitalism... Good that Sweden has some business sense!
 
Donald  Stadler

January 28, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Hmmm, I think the author overlooks an important fact - that 'appropriate technology' is almost by definition local, and that transfer of knowledge absolutely requires the active cooperation of those who 'know' with those recieving the 'technology transfer'.

This knowledge resides in the brains of those who develop the technology; an effort to detach those who developed the knowledge from the fruits of their labors is almost certainly doomed to failure because they will have no incentive to ensure that the knowledge now 'freed' from it's creators by judicial fiat actually works for the people it has been gifted to.

Under current international law such cooperation cannot be compelled because slavery is illegal everywhere.

Cooperation therefore must be paid for somehow to engender the neccssary cooperation. One senses that if those advocating such transfers possessed more experience in the fields of R&D and engineering they might have a better grasp of why such forcible transfers do not work very well.
 
Unregistered User

January 29, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Great article.
I think the point that both production and deployment must be emphasised across both developed and developing nations is an important one. The power of learning-by-doing is compelling, particularly where the 'appropriateness' of technology is concerned. Where developing countries have largely fallen outside of both the production and deployment of new energy technologies, these spillover benefits cannot accrue. Any agreement at the international level could usefully seek to redress this imbalance by support technology 'transfer', capacity building and financial mechanisms to accelerate deployment worldwide.

Better access to cutting edge technology, combined with the local capacity to adopt, adapt and deploy said technologies is vital for developing countries to contribute to the global emission reduction burden. 'Technology-transfer' defined as patent exceptions or 'flexibilities' plus international support to cover patent license cost may be an important part of the story.

However this should be balanced by the need for continued innovation alongside expansion in production on a huge scale. Consider that we have not yet arrived at any single technology that can deliver the scale of emission reductions required, the need for a dynamic energy sector is more pressing than ever. Any action that could undermine this effort run the risk of more deployment today at the expense of better technology tomorrow.

This point can be over-emphasised however. IP protection traditionally protects the incentives to innovate by ensuring limited monopolies in rare and costly breakthroughs (think pharmaceuticals, where monopoly rents to cover R&D costs form the bulk of end-use prices). In the case of renewable technologies however large expensive demonstration projects, subsequent frequent incremental improvements in design combined with continual tweaking of production processes and materials characterise much of the innovation process. Here the monopoly patent rents form a small part of the total end-use cost of the technology, and the nature of support for such innovation may take a different form (think public-private financed demo projects, strategic deployment trough feed-in-tariffs etc)

Global negotiations should certainly look carefully at the role of patent protection in accelerating or slowing efforts to stabilise the climate. However the true challenge is how to balance these competing forces- how to get appropriate technologies developed and deployed across the world at low cost without compromising the pace of innovation.

 
Donald  Stadler

January 29, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I think the devil is in the details of how such transfers are implemented, because I doubt that many would disagree with the ultimate goal, that important new technologies should in time be used as widely as they are useful.

One example is the new technology of 'brewing' fuel from biological waste or crops which can be raised on poor land. When (and if) this works out it will initially be first used in the developed countries and adapted to local feedstocks and conditions. A lot will be learned in the course of building effective fuel brewries in the various regions of the US and Europe, but then the technology will have to be adapted to be useful in poorer countries, and some of the inhabitants will have to be trained in how to maintain and feed the bewing vats.

That will have to be paid for somehow because people with such expertise do not work for free. Simply sending blueprints to the poorest nations would be bootless, and shipping them equipment and expecting them to set it up without help almost equally pointless. Ideally western companies will go out and help get it running, doing knowledge transfer in the process. Equally ideally local experts will contribute input as to the kinds of biological feedstocks available locally which will allow the equipment to be as self-sustaining locally as possible.

It's easy and cheap to express idealistic principals that technology should be transferred, but effective knowledge transfer which doesn't break down when the western experts leave is difficult and expensive. There is no magic wand to be waved to make the thing spring into being, not even the power of the state.
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Raban Daniel Fuhrmann
Raban Daniel Fuhrmann
"Es gibt immer einen Weg!"

Poll