India calls for Global Enterprise for Mitigation Technologies (GEM) Kapil Sibal sets the tone for Tech-Transfer Round Table discussions at BALI

Union Minister for Science and Technology and Earth Sciences, Shri Kapil Sibal, leading the Indian Delegation at the 13th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali, practically set the Agenda Tone for the Round Table (RT) discussions on Technology Transfer in the context of climate change and global warming. The appeal of the Minister to create a GEM (Global Enterprise for Mitigation Technologies) drew maximum attention and acclaim.

He said, technology is a mixed blessing – while it is often the source of our problems, it also holds the promise of enduring solutions. In our move towards a low-carbon economy, technology has a vital role to play, and therefore it is quite right that mitigation technologies engage significantly the attention of policy-makers and scientists.

Shri Sibal said that India believes that the three major elements: appropriate funding modalities and approaches; a facilitative IPR environment and enhancing the absorptive capacity within developing countries. The G-77+China have already put forward a proposal for the creation of a new multilateral technology cooperation fund that would finance the development, deployment, diffusion and transfer of technologies for both mitigation and adaptation to developing countries. Shri Sibal emphasized its centrality for future action.

Observing that one of the main barriers to technology adoption lies in the poor absorptive capacities of developing countries, the Minister said that technology diffusion cannot be forced through the harmonization of standards. Standards and norms must reflect the development levels of where they are being deployed.

Shri Sibal concluded that the global challenge to combat global warming needs a global response. Much like the Human Genome project, the global community might consider a Human GEM project: a Global Enterprise for Mitigation technologies.

Other panelists in the Round Table were Maxwell Jumah, Deputy Minister from Ghana, Andy Karsner from Us Department of Energy, Stigson,- President of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and representative of the GEF. Shri. Sibal’s speech also triggered a number of interventions from the floor as well.

However the US, even while acknowledging the collaborative R & D with India in mitigation observed that legal and commercial frameworks within developing countries are the main constraints for diffusion of technologies. The IPR of advanced technologies lie in the private sector and the companies perforce look for compensation for investments in research.

The officiating Chairman of the Round Table even while agreeing with the rationale of protection of IPR’s referred to Shri Sibal’s speech. A facilitative IPR regime, the Minister had argued, that balances rewards for innovators with the common good of humankind is the need of the hour. This may be done through a system of regulated royalties to innovators for deployment in developing countries. Such an approach has been adopted successfully in the case of pharmaceutical technologies for the benefit of HIV/AIDS victims in developing countries. If there was a moral imperative to adopt such an approach in the case of pharmaceuticals the moral case of a similar approach for saving our planet is even more compelling.

Following is the text of the Minister’s address:

“It is a privilege for me to address this distinguished gathering today on a topic that is very close to my heart, and one that, I think, is vital for helping us meet the challenge of climate change.

In these brief remarks, I would like to make three broad points. First, about the significance of technology as one of the key pillars of the Convention, second, about some of the principles that ought to underlie our response, and third, some of the key elements of a substantive body of actions pertaining to technology that would enhance the implementation of the Convention.

Technology is a mixed blessing – while it is often the source of our problems, it also holds the promise of enduring solutions. In our move towards a low-carbon economy, technology has a vital role to play, and therefore it is quite right that mitigation technologies engage significantly the attention of policy-makers and scientists.

At the same time, we believe that technology solutions are also very important for enhancing adaptive capacity and reducing vulnerability to climate change and its impacts.

In this process it is important for us to view technology in its broadest sense – product, process and systems technology. Further, it is only when we take such a broad view that we will be able to understand and address economic and social issues that are often very important for the successful adoption and diffusion of technology.

In the deliberations on climate change, technology has been mostly addressed in terms of the transfer of environmentally sound and low emission technologies from the developed countries to the developing world. This dialogue on technology needs to be extended to focus on issues such as technology development, adoption and diffusion, along with a streamlined process that enables technology transfer.

As we proceed with our deliberations on realizing the full potential of technology, I believe that there are some basic aspects that we need to consider in our discussions. Capturing and appropriately reflecting these aspects will help us realize a more fruitful and effective outcome.

Technology needs, capacity for in-house development and mechanisms to provide for wider adoption of technology vary from country to country, depending upon their respective economic and institutional profiles and policy frameworks.

Previous deliberations have stressed upon the imperative for technology needs assessments in developing countries that identify technology priorities for mitigation as well as adaptation. This approach needs to be further elaborated to include the existing capacities for in-house technology development and technology adoption / absorption. Based on such a country-driven approach, future modalities for development, transfer and adoption of technologies in developing countries can be identified.

It is important for us to recognize and acknowledge that technologies that help us in moving towards a low carbon economy and in responding to the impact of climate change are helping us address a global problem. To deal with global ‘bad’, these technologies generate global ‘good’, and this needs to be reflected in our approach and response.

The forces of economic growth, globalization and concerns over the environment are rapidly altering the landscape for technology development and technology transfer. In formulating our response we need to be cognizant of these changes and take advantage of them as appropriate. Let me just provide some examples of these changes.

Technology development capabilities in the South have increased. There are frequent instances of technological innovations and development taking place in the South. Recently my Ministry has introduced for the first time, a technology based on ocean thermal energy conversion that provides clean drinking water from sea water at affordable prices to households that have very limited alternative sources of drinking water.

Second, favourable market forces have led to an increased incidence of a new technology making first market-entry in the South. Today, an Indian company sells an electric car in many European countries and I was happy to see Members of Parliament of the UK driving it in London.

Third, technology is now also transferred from South to South. Fourth, there are now many routes for technology development. Technology may now be developed jointly, i.e., through bi-national or multi-national efforts, or it may also be developed by new ways of public-private partnership. Many of these mechanisms are being adopted in India, and have demonstrated significant success.

The conventional model of technology transfer, considers that technology developed in the North is first established there, before it is supplied to the South. Further, the model follows that technology may enable manufacturing processes in the South to deliver products from North to South. Clearly, the changes that I have mentioned have significant implications for the processes of technology development, transfer, adoption and diffusion.

What would India like to see as the elements of a substantive body of actions under the Convention pertaining to technology? There are, I believe, three major elements: appropriate funding modalities and approaches; a facilitative IPR environment and enhancing the absorptive capacity within developing countries.

The G-77+China have already put forward a proposal for the creation of a new multilateral technology cooperation fund that would finance the development, deployment, diffusion and transfer of technologies for both mitigation and adaptation to developing countries. We strongly support this proposal. We believe in its centrality for future action.

Low carbon emissions technologies and environmentally sound technologies for public good need a facilitative IPR regime that balances rewards for innovators with the common good of humankind. This may be done through a system of regulated royalties to innovators for deployment in developing countries. Such an approach has been adopted successfully in the case of pharmaceutical technologies for the benefit of HIV/AIDS victims in developing countries. If there was a moral imperative to adopt such an approach in the case of pharmaceuticals the moral case of a similar approach for saving our planet is even more compelling.

One of the main barriers to technology adoption lies in the poor absorptive capacities of developing countries. It is vital that mechanisms for technology transfer include measures that will enable the enhancement of absorptive capacities, keeping in mind the targets of such technology interventions.

Technology diffusion cannot be forced through the harmonization of standards. Standards and norms must reflect the development levels of where they are being deployed.

We believe that any regime for technology transfer must take into account all the above elements. Then alone the issue of technology transfer, an essential building block in the global effort to combat climate change, will bear fruition.

Having said the above, the global challenge to combat global warming needs a global response. Much like the Human Genome project, the global community might consider a Human GEM project: a Global Enterprise for Mitigation technologies”.

Source : Press Information Bureau
Date : December 13, 2007