Bridges Trade BioRes Review • Volume 2 • Number 4 • December 2008

Technology development and transfer in Poznań: A brief overview of proposals to date

by María Julia Oliva

Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

Promoting technology development and transfer has proved an important yet elusive topic in the climate context, as in many other international discussions. It is clear that addressing climate change will require technological innovation and the rapid and widespread transfer of clean technologies. The transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries also has an important role in reflecting the common but differentiated responsibilities between countries with respect to this global challenge.

The Bali Action Plan, which charts the course for current negotiations on climate change, recognises that enhanced action on technology development and transfer will be central to the full, effective, and sustained implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) up to and beyond 2012. Yet meetings of the ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) have seen few proposals and limited debate on the specific features of a framework for enhanced action on technology.

G77 and China proposal: An essential reference

Discussions are set to get more focussed, however, during the upcoming session of the AWG-LCA, which will take place in Poznań from the 1-12 December. A G77 and China proposal, put forth on the last day of the previous AWG-LCA session, provides detailed suggestions for a new UNFCCC structure charged with accelerating the development and transfer of technology. The proposal addresses the rationale, guiding criteria and institutional arrangements that would coordinate all aspects of cooperation on technology research, development, diffusion, and transfer.

These concrete propositions, as well as its significant political support, will make the G77 and China proposal an essential reference - if not the basis - for the negotiations on technology development and transfer. Nevertheless, the focus on institutional mechanisms has shown to be controversial, and other countries have fundamentally different approaches to the issue of technology, as evidenced by previous discussions and various proposals to the AWG-LCA.

Numerous issues to cover in Poznań

The development and transfer of technology is a complex and multidimensional process, as the number of issues addressed by proposals and discussions on the topic make evident. The Bali Action Plan calls for consideration of several possible measures, including the removal of obstacles to, and provision of incentives for, the development and transfer of technology to developing country Parties and cooperation on research and development of current and new technologies.

In addition, the work of the AWG-LCA is meant to build on the range of technology-related efforts and initiatives in other UNFCCC bodies, particularly the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT). Discussions on technology development and transfer, therefore, have addressed a variety of issues, including performance indicators, enabling environments, multilateral funds, a variety of institutional mechanisms, and intellectual property rights.

Concerns of developing countries

For developing countries, a fundamental concern seems to be creating an institutional architecture that will coordinate efforts towards technology development and transfer, as well as securing the financial support needed to make these efforts successful. Ghana, in its submission on technology to the AWG-LCA, for instance, highlights “the need to establish a technology development and transfer board with a legal personality to oversee and supervise the entire cycle of technology development in all countries.” Ghana also calls for a multilateral technology fund to enable developing countries to have “direct access to funding,” as well as to be involved “during the stages of identification, definition and implementation of relevant technology development programmes or processes.”

Institutional structure and financing are also central issues in the G77 and China proposal. Indeed, the proposal involves a two-pronged mechanism, formed by an Executive Body and a Multilateral Climate Technology Fund, both operating under the Conference of the Parties. The Executive Body would be formed and supported by a Strategic Planning Committee; various Technical Panels; a Verification Group to control the financial and technological contributions; and a Secretariat.

The starting point for its work would be a Technology Action Plan, updated every three years, which would address all stages of the technology cycle and guide the financial support provided by the Multilateral Climate Technology Fund. This proposed fund would be formed by new and additional contributions by Annex II Parties, and would support, as determined by the Executive Body, activities such as capacity-building; development of manufacturing facilities for environmentally sound technologies; and procurement of low-greenhouse gas emission technologies.

Parties remain split on IP

Another prominent issue in the G77 and China proposal is intellectual property, which has been a highly controversial topic in technology discussions in the UNFCCC. The G77 and China proposal submits that the Technology Action Plan should consider technologies in the public domain, in relation to which an international cooperation system might be useful to ensure lowest cost options, as well as patented technologies, which should be made affordable “including through measures to resolve the barriers posed by intellectual property rights and addressing compulsory licensing of patented technologies.”

China, moreover, has elaborated on the issue of intellectual property rights in a later submission to the AWG-LCA, which states that “the existing [intellectual property rights] system does not match the increasing needs” for the development and deployment of climate-related technologies. In particular, China notes that compulsory licensing and other legal and regulatory measures designed to curb the “negative effects of monopoly powers” should be put in place as part of efforts to implement the UNFCCC. This later submission by China also complements its joint proposal with the G77 on institutional and financial arrangements, including for instance on the role of public private partnerships in technology transfer.

Developed countries looking for private sector involvement

Developed country submissions have generally taken a different approach, focusing more on technology collaboration and the role of enterprises as the entities ultimately responsible for technology development and dissemination. Australia, for example, emphasises the role of the private - rather than public - sector in the technology cycle, and calls for a focus on “technology cooperation” as it relates to policies that facilitate the role of the key enablers of technology diffusion.

Japan notes that efforts to accelerate international cooperation on technology must not hamper the incentives of the private sector, so that “adequate considerations have to be made for several important points including the protection of intellectual property, [and] the prevention of unintended leakage of technology.”

New Zealand agrees that “governments need to recognise the important role of the investment/business community in developing and deploying technology, and make full use of the range of policy support measures available to them.” In this regard, New Zealand suggests that the most effective policies may be those not actually discussed in the technology context, such as “the development of an effective global agreement on climate change that establishes a price on carbon to apply as broadly as possible, and sends a clear signal to the global investment community to set up and direct resources towards technology development and innovation.”

Submissions by developed countries also tend to consider the roles of both developed and developing countries in regards to promoting the development and transfer of climate-related technologies. The European Union, for example, recognises that developed countries need to do more by supporting existing and new financing instruments, but calls on developing countries to - in turn - adopt appropriate policies and measures to create enabling environments, in particular for attracting domestic and international investment. Japan acknowledges that technology-related efforts are to be undertaken primarily by developed countries as a part of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,” but notes that opportunities for international collaboration posed by innovative technology development should be grasped, including by sharing of technology development roadmaps and strengthening frameworks for cooperation.

The Australian submissions goes further, calling into question the North-South approach to technology discussions, noting that “as a rule, Australia imports wind turbines from China, and not the reverse,” and that “the three countries in the world with the highest ratio of high technology exports were the Philippines (71% of exports), Singapore (57% of exports) and Malaysia (55% of exports).”

Foundation present but long road ahead

Despite the limited discussion having taken place to date on long-term cooperation on the development and transfer of climate-related technologies, proposals to the AWG-LCA show there is a foundation for more concrete and result-oriented discussions. Indeed, several of the topics addressed by these proposals have already been identified as essential elements of an agreed outcome of technology.

In the High-level Conference on Climate Change and Technology Development and Transfer that took place in November 2008 in Beijing, China, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC noted that issues such as a new technology mechanism, increased private sector involvement, research and development, diffusion and transfer of technologies, and intellectual property will need to be considered in the post-2012 climate regime.

At the same time, the proposals that have been tabled reveal radically different approaches to technology development and transfer. Without a basis for reconciling these different positions, even if the G77 and China proposal focuses discussions in the AWG-LCA, there is still a long way to go for a successful outcome for the Poznań meeting and an agreed outcome on technology.

María Julia Oliva is Senior Programme Officer, Trade, Environment and Natural Resources at ICTSD