You are viewing our old site. See the new one here
The Netherlands, Bolivia, Hungary and others stressed the need to take into account the preexisting conditions for successful technology transfer, i.e., the economic infrastructure and climate and human resource development. Uganda noted the present obstacles to technology transfer should be studied in greater depth as should mechanisms to increase the ability of developing countries to transfer technology to other lesser developed countries.
Cuba took up these points linking issues of finance and technology transfer. Developing countries should be able to choose non-protected alternatives where a technology is protected by patent. There was consensus that the private sector should be strengthened in developing countries. Norway called for a case study of how entrepreneurs react to government stimulus of demand to transfer technology. The United States suggested a five-step process: assess national needs and priorities for technologies; analyze the capacity to use them; examine existing sources of successfully applied technologies, with consideration for the suitability of the country and its ability to maintain the technology; identify the obstacles to its transfer; and search for new and innovative financial mechanisms to secure the transfer.
There was a recurring theme in exploring to what extent technology transfer is demand or supply side driven. Japan noted that while environmentally sound technology was demand driven in its experience, that demand comes from greater public awareness. Understanding of the environment is important and monitoring is critical. Many participants noted that government plays a important role in the demand as well as the supply side, through its procurement policies. In addition, there was broad agreement that government has a responsibility to create an enabling regulatory framework. Italy called for more emphasis on the need for progressive harmonization of legislation and suggested that this start with developed countries. The UK felt that the Working Group should concentrate on the transfer of the "hardware" -- the technology itself -- and then on supporting "software" -- such as human resources -- if not already available. Belgium focused on links between technology transfer and biodiversity issues. [Return to start of article]