Technology Transfer Flashcards
What is technology transfer?
Technology transfer refers to the flow of knowledge, equipment, and skills between actors (governments, firms, NGOs) to mitigate and adapt to environmental challenges like climate change.
UNFCCC (Article 4.7) obliges developed countries to support tech transfer to developing countries.
The Paris Agreement (Art. 10.5, 10.6) emphasizes accelerating innovation and cooperation at all stages of the tech cycle.
Pandey et al. (2022) define tech transfer as essential but insufficient alone for SDGs; they advocate broader innovation cooperation.
Forsyth (1999) distinguishes between vertical transfer (foreign-led, top-down) and horizontal transfer (local embedding and capacity-building).
Axelrod et al. (2015) highlight technology transfer as a core part of global environmental regimes but note the challenges in scaling and tailoring it to local needs.
What are the international disputes regarding technology transfers?
Pandey et al. (2022) note that Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are a major barrier—essential for incentives, but they limit access for poorer regions.
Forsyth (1999) explains how disputes arise between Annex I (developed) and Non-Annex I (developing) countries over financial responsibilities and IP ownership.
Disagreements center around whether technology should be commercial or concessional.
TRIPS (WTO) vs. CBDR (UNFCCC): Trade rules protect IP; climate justice frameworks demand equity in access.
Forsyth warns that developed countries use flexible mechanisms like CDM to shift burdens while retaining control over tech.
Developing countries argue that technologies developed with public funding should be treated as global public goods.
What are the problems with technology transfer?
Pandey et al. (2022) argue that current ITT efforts have failed because they overlook:
Local absorptive capacity (training, institutions),
Context-specific needs, and
Equity in implementation.
Forsyth (1999) adds that traditional government-to-government transfers are slow, ineffective, and often ignore market incentives.
Many CDM projects, while transferring technology, failed to build local innovation capacity.
Axelrod et al. (2015) highlight that vague obligations and lack of monitoring hinder tech transfer effectiveness.
Local technologies are often incompatible with transferred solutions, or undermined by poorly designed foreign-led projects.
What are some successes regarding technology transfers?
Pandey et al. (2022) praise:
CGIAR (agriculture): Boosted yields and resilience in the Global South.
PDPs (health): Successful vaccine and drug collaborations between NGOs, firms, and donors.
CTCN (UNFCCC): Technical support for clean energy innovation.
Forsyth (1999) acknowledges that horizontal transfer, though less frequent, is more likely to support sustainable development by building domestic innovation ecosystems.
Some CDM projects enabled renewable energy access, though unevenly.
The GEF, while criticized, has supported important pilot efforts for tech adoption.
Key lesson: When local partners are involved, and training is provided, tech transfer is more likely to succeed.
Rethinking technology transfer?
Pandey et al. (2022) argue for a paradigm shift:
From transactional transfers to collaborative innovation ecosystems.
Focus on co-production of knowledge, joint problem-solving, and training.
Emphasize local adaptation, not one-size-fits-all solutions.
Innovation cooperation should support South-South partnerships, not just North-to-South models.
Forsyth (1999) proposes:
Using differentiated credit systems (e.g. higher carbon credits for projects with stronger local benefits).
Rewarding horizontal transfer within CDM and similar mechanisms.
Stronger governance and local intermediaries to avoid market failures.
Axelrod et al. (2015) reinforce that the success of tech transfer depends on treaty design—with clear obligations, financing, and transparent monitoring frameworks.
