4.1lemos

Environmental Technologies and International Trade

56

INTRODUCTION

Technology is critical to national development. And because the possi-bility of sustainable development is closely linked to the diffusion of envi-ronmental technologies to less developed countries, the market for suchtechnologies is becoming increasingly relevant in the global economy. Thepurpose of this article is to explore, from the perspective of an environ-mental engineer, the relationships among economic development, envi-ronmental technologies and technology transfer by

1. outlining technology transfer’s relationship to the developmentprocess;

2. defining and categorizing the technologies related to environ-mental protection; and

3. describing how international trade agreements expand and standardize environmental protection on a global basis.

Comparative Technology Transfer and Society, volume 4, number 1 (April 2006):56–72© 2006 by Colorado Institute for Technology Transfer and Implementation

HAROLDO MATTOS de LEMOS

chf

De Lemos | ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES and INTERNATIONAL TRADE

57

The article’s intended audience is scholars and practitioners interestedin the role of environmental technologies in international trade. Hopefully,its insights will help create a context receptive to technological innova-tions indispensable for those countries seeking to reach new levels ofdevelopment, and to international trade agreements designed to protectthe environment.

TECHNOLOGY AND ITS IMPORTANCEIN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

technology and development

Technology is information, knowledge, practical experience, and theability to use equipment and processes in the production of needed goodsand services (Working Group on Environmental Technology Transfer,1991). Sustainable development has become a contemporary mantra be-cause it supports multiple objectives, including economic growth andenvironmental protection, all of them desirable. Yet the possibility ofachieving such a goal is closely linked to the diffusion of environmentaltechnologies to less developed countries. The capacity to use, modify, re-tain, and constantly improve information and knowledge so as to producegoods and services more effectively depends on factors that are bothexplicit (e.g., factories, equipment, and infrastructure) and implicit (e.g.,education, experience, training handbooks, organization structures, ormanagement capacity; Wallender, 1979). Technology is in people’s brainsas well as in their machines.

Technology is the most important factor in the development process.Whatever competitive advantages a country may have are less and lessdependent on the availability of raw materials or cheap labor, and moreand more on its ability to use new technologies and apply them to otherproductive processes (United Nations Centre for Trade and Development,1990). Because new technologies are capital and knowledge intensive, it iseasier for high-technology companies to raise funds and establish them-selves in any country, with little regard to the availability of raw materialor specialized labor in that region. The strategic importance of technologyfor national economic development guarantees that diffusion and adop-tion will occur by a range of methods, including legal purchase and licens-ing agreements, or illegal transfers (e.g., theft, forgery, copying, and smug-gling) that do not respect intellectual property rights. Although these legal

Comparative Technology Transfer and Society, April 2006, vol. 4, no. 1

58

and illegal methods apply to technology transfer in general, environmen-tal technologies illustrate some unintended consequences of technologytransfer in this area.

the environmental impact of technologies: unanticipated consequences

Technological choices determine the kind of impacts imposed over theenvironment and natural resources (United Nations Environment Pro-gramme [UNEP], 1988). Technologies may have great impacts—positive ornegative—on a short-, medium-, or long-term basis. For example, refrig-eration technology improved dramatically with the discovery of chlorofluo-rocarbons (CFCs) around 1930. Until then, the gas used for refrigerationwas ammonia, which caused serious problems because of its strong smell,toxicity, and flammability. On the other hand, CFCs were odorless, color-less, nonpoisonous, nonflammable, and extremely stable in the lower atmo-sphere. Owing to these qualities, they were used not only in refrigerators,but also as propellants in perfumes and aerosol sprays. It was only afterthese compounds had been released into the atmosphere for over 40 yearsthat we discovered their negative environmental impact—when subjectedto ultraviolet radiation, they release chlorine atoms that destroy the earth’sozone layer, increasing the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching theearth and causing a dramatic increase in skin cancers. Thus, our greatestcontinuing challenge is learning to use technology in ways that improveproductivity without generating significant environmental problems ordamaging the availability of strategic natural resources.

issues in technology transfer and development

Beyond the unexpected outcomes that can come from technology, eventhe movement and transfer of technology is a difficult and complex process.Many problems are associated with innovation diffusion and adoption, par-ticularly from the recipients’ perspectives. Industrialized countries haveoften argued that technological diffusion and adoption should be guided bythe values of markets, without governmental interference—at least in caseswhere national security issues are not evident. Yet because technology isnot value neutral, its successful diffusion and adoption includes the trans-fer of other elements such as culture, attitudes, and lifestyles from the soci-eties where it originated. Compared with donors, recipients of importedtechnology usually face great disadvantages in the negotiation process. Theseller may deliberately omit or downplay potential environmental impacts


59

the imported technology may cause, and buyers may not be aware of alter-native technologies that are cheaper and have less negative environmentalimpact. In addition, indiscriminate importation of technology may causestagnation, reduction, or extinction of the endogenous capacity of the re-ceiving country to create new technologies.

Despite these challenges, the maintenance and improvement of suchendogenous capacity is indispensable if the country is to be able to use andimprove the received technology and solve its specific development prob-lems (e.g., Brazil’s development of technologies for the use of niobium, be-cause the greatest reserves of this substance are located in that country). Italso is necessary to know how to evaluate the technologies available in themarket (with respect to their environmental impacts) to choose those thatfit better with the country’s specific conditions. Frequently, the transferpackage contains the main technology for the production process and alsoperipheral engineering projects like buildings, electrical, and hydraulicsystems that might already be available in the receiving country. This sub-sequent transfer of competing secondary technologies causes inadvertentor unintended side effects such as financial losses to local engineeringfirms, increased foreign currency expenses, and long-term dependence onimported technologies (Pirró e Longo, 1990).

When the acquired technology is exclusively employed as a “pass-through” factor in the production process, it is unlikely that the donorcountry will be able to adapt and use it for other endogenous applications.Thus, although the imported technology may represent a significant ad-vance, it does not include the necessary practical and scientific knowledgeto enable its adaptation to local conditions or refinements that might im-prove its performance, because local technicians will not thoroughly under-stand its main characteristics. Previous issues of this journal include casestudies that portray positive (e.g., Nishiyama’s [2003] assessment of Japan’ssuccess at adapting and adopting Western aerospace technology to post-World War II bullet train design) and negative (e.g., Koerner’s [2004] dis-cussion of Canada’s less successful adoption of German industrial technol-ogy during that same period, and Beatty’s [2003] analysis of Mexico’s use ofEuropean manufacturing technology a century ago) examples of this point.

technological innovation and development in a global context

Technological development depends mainly on private and govern-mental investments in research and development (R&D), physical andinstitutional infrastructure, and human resources related to the prospec-


60

tive innovation and business attitudes toward competitiveness. Thesecharacteristics in turn reflect different national cultures. In Brazil, almost80% of the resources dedicated to R&D are governmental, whereas inJapan almost 80% come from the private sector. There are huge differencesbetween the scientific and technological capacities of industrialized anddeveloping countries, mainly related to areas of direct importance for sus-tainable development, such as biotechnology, genetic engineering, andcleaner industrial technologies (Comissão Mundial sobre Meio Ambientee Desenvolvimento, 1991).

Jeffrey Sachs (2000), Director of the Center for International Develop-ment and Professor at Harvard University, argues that, with the end of theCold War, nations were increasingly categorized on the basis of techno-logical accomplishments rather than ideological divisions. The firstgroup—the industrialized countries comprising about 15% of the worldpopulation (the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, SouthKorea, Taiwan, and Australia)—is responsible for generating almost allexisting technological innovations (i.e., generating 10 or more patents permillion inhabitants). The second group, with about half of the world pop-ulation (southeastern Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Costa Rica, SouthAfrica, India, parts of China, New Zealand, Indonesia, the Philippines,Malaysia, Turkey, Greece, the Iberian Peninsula, Eastern Europe, and Euro-pean Russia) comprises mostly recipients of technology who are some-times able to increase its performance (in that the export of high-technol-ogy products represents at least 2% of their gross national product).Finally, the third group, representing about one-third of the world’s popu-lation, is composed of technologically excluded countries that do not gen-erate or use foreign technologies.

Regions with more advanced technologies, and with a critical mass offactors favoring further innovation, are favorably positioned to maintaintheir economic dominance through further innovation. This situation gen-erally explains why the prosperity of rich countries is increasing and thecrisis of poor countries continues to worsen, threatening global develop-ment, stability, and governance. The Brazilian Minister of Science andTechnology, Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg (2001), analyzes the country’s situ-ation concerning technology:

The Brazilian economy is becoming specialized in exports with low tech-nological content, that is, in those areas in which global markets are littleor not dynamic at all, since they are stagnated in volume and their pricestend to fall. However, we import every day more high-technology prod-ucts, with high prices. All the important countries in the internationalscenario—such as the United States, Germany, France, Japan, China,


61

India and South Korea—consider their own efforts concerning scienceand technology as a high priority. That is what we want to do in Brazil.

The number of patents registered annually is about 110 in Brazil, 3,540in Korea, and 90,000 in the United States. This is a telling indicator ofBrazil’s backwardness in this area.

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES

Defined broadly, environmental technologies, from the simplest to themost complex, are those that promote environmental betterment throughthe modification or improvement of existing processes and products thatdamage the environment. This includes direct impacts of a technology,plus indirect impacts owing to related services such as consulting andmaintenance (Braga & Miranda, 2002a). These technologies can be classi-fied in several ways: (1) by the point at which they impact the productionprocess, (2) as “hard” or “soft” technologies, and (3) according to theirenvironmental objectives.

First, when classified by point of impact, they may be described ascleaning technologies, clean technologies, or clean process integratedtechnologies.

1. Cleaning technologies reduce or remove residues and pollution generated during the production process. These are also known as “end-of-pipe” treatment technologies, because they do notinvolve or interfere with the production process. Examples areelectrostatic filters for particulate removal and treatment plants for liquid wastes.

2. Clean technologies optimize existing production processes byreplacing old technologies with more efficient ones, or by better calibration and control of existing processes (“good house-keeping”). As a result, an identical production process may usefewer resources (energy, water, or raw materials) and generate less waste and pollution.

3. Clean process integrated technologies not only optimize the pro-duction process, but also factor in the product’s comprehensiveenvironmental impacts by including such aspects as productdesign, selection of raw materials and other inputs, production,packaging, distribution, usage, and final destination after the product’s useful life.


62

Second, environmental technologies may be classified as either “soft”or “hard” (Braga & Miranda, 2002b). Soft technologies are the managerialor organizational tools or methodologies that help companies improvetheir economic and environmental performance, thereby moving towardsustainable development. Examples are environmental impact assessment,environmental management systems, environmental risk evaluation, envi-ronmental audit, and life cycle analysis. Hard technologies such as theabove-mentioned cleaning technologies are industrial process innovationsthat reduce pollutants and increase effectiveness.

Third, environmental technologies may be classified based on their ob-jectives (National Science and Technology Council, 1997):

• Supervision and evaluation technologies measure environmental quality and emission of pollutants, and evaluate the environmentalimpact caused.

• Control technologies reduce or eliminate the quantity of residues and pollutants released into the biosphere, or transform harmfulsubstances into harmless ones. These include “cleaner technolo-gies” that consume fewer resources and generate fewer residues and pollution than the production systems they replace.

• Remediation technologies neutralize toxic substances after they arereleased into the environment.

• Restoration technologies regenerate ecosystems degraded by naturalor anthropogenic agents.

An increasing number of multilateral treaties illustrate growing globalconcern for transferring appropriate environmental technologies to devel-oping countries. For the most part, these regulatory regimes involve vol-untary cooperation by business and government. In May 1990, governmentand business leaders from industrialized countries gathered in Bergen,Norway, to discuss sustainable development. “Our Common Future,” theresultant report of this World Commission on Environment and Develop-ment (popularly known as the Brundtland Commission) stated that the pro-motion of sustainable development demands an organized effort to devel-op and spread new environmental technologies. The greatest challenge is toensure that such technologies reach all those who need them by addressingproblems such as lack of information and, in some cases, the impossibilityof paying for commercially developed technologies. The Bergen MinisterialDeclaration on Sustainable Development affirmed that industrialized coun-tries and international organizations should urgently support developingcountries’ efforts to strengthen their endogenous capacity in science and


63

technology. Moreover, it charged them to make environmental technologiesaccessible to developing countries by offering them concessions and pref-erential terms.

The Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection ofthe Ozone Layer, signed in 1987, estimated that over $2 billion in invest-ments would be needed in the next ten years for developing countries tophase out their production and use of chemical substances such as the CFCsthat destroy the ozone layer. The Second Meeting of the Protocol Parties inJune 1990 resulted in the creation of a multilateral fund to implement theMontreal Protocol by encouraging financial and technical cooperation withdeveloping countries by helping them to purchase technologies that providesubstitutes for those chemicals. The fifth meeting of the protocol parties inNovember 1993 established a permanent multilateral fund for this purpose,and allocated $510 million to it for the period 1994–96. Since 1991, thisfund has invested more than $1 billion in about 110 developing countriesfor the adoption of new technologies. For example, the Brazilian govern-ment presented its Program for the Elimination of the Production and Con-sumption of Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer for approval to theMultilateral Fund in 1994. By 1996, this program had already financed 41projects in various areas and disbursed over $23 million.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development(Rio de Janeiro, 1992) included discussions of environmental technologytransfer. Chapter 34 of agenda 21 states, “Access to environmental tech-nologies and their transfer under favorable conditions is needed, particu-larly for developing countries.” Some measures already have been taken tofacilitate the transfer of environmental technologies to developing coun-tries and for those in economic transition (i.e., Eastern Europe).

Since the 1980s, industries have begun to change their productionprocesses, concentrating on the minimization, reutilization, or recycling ofindustrial wastes. In 1989, the UNEP launched the Cleaner ProductionProgram, based on new industrial technologies that enabled industries tomanufacture the same products using less energy, less water, and fewer rawmaterials, and generating less waste for final treatment. According toUNEP, cleaner production entails the continuous application of an inte-grated environmental strategy to processes, products, and services by theefficient use of natural resources and reduction of residues, pollution, andrisks for human health and safety. By adopting cleaner technologies or agood environmental management system (good housekeeping), industriesimprove their environmental performance. In addition, they lower pro-duction expenses and become more competitive in both internal and ex-ternal markets, thereby facilitating product exports.


64

The International Environmental Technology Center, created by UNEPwith offices in Osaka and Shiga, Japan, promotes environmental technolo-gies for the sustainable development of cities and river basins. This centerhas an information system called maESTro (International EnvironmentalTechnology Center, 2004).

The Climate Technology Initiative was created in March 1995 duringthe First Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Con-vention on Climate Change, and ratified by the Organization for Cooper-ation and Economic Development’s (OECD’s) 23 member states and theEuropean Committee. Its mission is to promote the international cooper-ation for the accelerated development and diffusion of technologies thatreduce global warming. Its goals are to disseminate information on tech-nology transfer and on subjects related to its applications; and to supportdeveloping countries, and those with economies in transition, in the iden-tification of their technological needs and in the improvement of theircapacity to attract and absorb such technologies. Its partner organizationsare the UNEP, the World Business Council on Sustainable Development,and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

The transfer of environmental technologies to developing countriesunder more favorable conditions may become easier after the ratificationof the Kyoto Protocol, adopted during the Third Conference of the Partiesof the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change thattook place in Japan in 1997. This protocol established that the 39 mostindustrialized countries—also the greatest carbon dioxide emitters—should reduce their emission of greenhouse gases 5.2% from 1990 levels by2012. These countries have negotiated differentiated emission reductionrates within this 5.2% standard: the United States 7%, the European Union8%, Japan 6%, Canada 6%, Hungary 6%, and the Russian Federation 0%.Some countries were allowed to increase their emissions: Australia, +8%;Iceland, +10%; and Norway, +1%. Because these reductions can be costly,the Kyoto Protocol included commercial adjustment mechanisms:

• Emissions Trade and Joint Implementation. An industrialized (Annex I) country may use reductions generated by other indus-trialized countries. It may purchase emissions not released from a country that is under its limit, reduce emissions through thetransfer of more efficient technologies, or increase carbon absorp-tion through reforestation.

• Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Annex I countries mayfinance emissions reduction projects (transfer of more efficienttechnologies or reforestation) or buy emissions reduction derived

from the initiative of countries that are not in Annex I (such asusing alcohol as fuel). The CDM will allow the certification of emissions-reduction projects, and these certificates may be sold to industrialized countries unable to fulfill their obligations. Thus,the CDM is a great opportunity for the transfer of environmentaltechnologies and resources from developed countries to developingones. Two types of actions qualify as emissions reduction measures:(1) emissions reduction through increased energy efficiency, adop-tion of more efficient production and transportation technologies,and use of renewable energy (solar and wind energy, alcohol); and(2) carbon sequestration by absorption (reforestation) and storageof greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere (carbon dioxideinjection in geologic reservoirs).

In January 2002, the Dutch government and the World Bank signed thefirst emission trade contract under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. Ac-cording to the contract, Holland will pay the Bank $40 million dollars inthree years, in exchange for credits of 10 million carbon tons, to be deductedfrom the 250 million tons the country should cut off until 2012. The re-sources will be used for clean energy programs in developing countries.

To become effective, the Kyoto Protocol must be ratified by at least55% of the signatory countries and also by countries representing at least55% of the emissions from Annex I countries, using 1990 as the baseline.Although the United States did sign the protocol (during the Clinton ad-ministration), the Bush administration had announced its opposition toCongressional ratification on the grounds that it would mean high costs toAmerican industry, and because of scientific uncertainties concerning cli-mate change. Because the U.S. was responsible for about 36.1% of theglobal carbon dioxide emissions in 1990 (other Annex I contributors werethe Russian Federation, 17.4%; Japan, 8.5%; and Canada, 3.5%), this op-position severely challenged the protocol’s effectiveness. Fortunately, dur-ing the World Summit on Sustainable Development (held during Augustand September 2002 in Johannesburg, South Africa), the Russian Feder-ation and Canada promised to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which would besufficient for the protocol to become effective. After the ratification fromthe Russian Federation in November 2004, the Kyoto Protocol becameeffective in February 2005.

Increased global demand for environmental technologies has meantthat the global economic market for them has grown rapidly. The environ-mental technology industry generated about $200 billion in 1990, with apredicted growth between 50% (OECD) and 100% (World Bank) in the


65


66

following decade. According to the OECD, in 1996 the fastest growing sec-tors of this market were the pharmaceutical industry and informationtechnology markets. In 2000, the U.S. was the leader of the environmen-tal technology market with 39% of the total, followed by the EuropeanUnion, with 24%.

ENVIRONMENT AND TRADE

Enhanced demand for environmental technologies and global politicalagreements to reduce pollution and halt global warming have been aug-mented by the adoption of international trade agreements that includeenvironmental protection. In the last decades, the environment has beenused in the adoption of commercial measures. Some are entirely justifiablefrom an environmental perspective; others might more accurately be de-scribed as economically motivated but justified on environmental grounds.A good example of a justifiable commercial measure was Brazil’s ban onimports of nonbiodegradable detergents. Their production had been pro-hibited in Brazil since the mid 1980s because of the problems with down-stream foam formation in some Brazilian rivers. In 1996, Argentina ap-pealed this ban to Mercosur (the Southern Cone trade organization), seek-ing its authorization to export nonbiodegradable detergents (which werestill being produced in that country) to Brazil. Mercosur’s environmentalentity (Sub Group 6) considered the Brazilian measure environmentallyjustifiable, and the Common Market Group ratified Brazil’s decision.

The 1990s also witnessed growing awareness of the environmentaleffects of international trade. A Committee on Trade and Environment wascreated within the World Trade Organization (WTO) when it was estab-lished in January 1995. Because of their lower level of technological devel-opment, developing countries are potentially more vulnerable to technicalbarriers created by industrialized countries. This led to the approval of aninternational agreement on technical barriers, the Agreement on TechnicalBarriers to Trade (TBT), in the scope of the WTO. In fact, this TBT was thesuccessor of the Standards Code developed in 1979 as part of the prede-cessor General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The TBT establishes thatgovernmental and nongovernmental institutions in WTO member coun-tries should not create rules or regulations that result in technical barriersto international trade.

The same trend is evident in the establishment of international envi-ronmental standards. Countries cannot require that imported products fol-low stricter technical regulations than those required for domestic prod-


67

ucts. The Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade meets regularly inGeneva to monitor TBT implementation and revise it every three years tosolve conflicts involving the TBT.

One TBT objective is to harmonize regulations, rules, and proceduresfor conformity evaluation by stipulating that their elaboration is based oninternational rules, such as ISO 14000. In accordance with the parity prin-ciple, countries are encouraged to accept regulations and evaluation proce-dures that provide satisfactory results, in conformity with the objectives of their own regulations. Because of the TBT’s provisions, the ISO 14000International Standards have become more influential in internationaltrade. Moreover, consumers, particularly in developed countries, are show-ing preference to ISO 14001-certified companies (those that have imple-mented environmental management systems). In 1999, a world survey ofabout 50 companies (including two from Brazil) indicated that they haddecided to seek ISO 14001 certification for the following reasons, in prior-ity order (Tener, 1999): to compete more effectively in internal and exter-nal markets; to promote an eco-friendly image; to improve environmentalperformance; and to reduce expenses, increase competitiveness, and mini-mize risks.

Consumer awareness of environmental matters resulted in the creationof environmental labeling systems (“green seals”) that identify environ-mental benefits in processes and products. Labeling started with nationalinitiatives, in general with the participation of governmental institutions:Germany (Blue Angel, established in 1978), Nordic countries (NordicSwan, 1988), Canada (Environmental Choice, 1988), Japan (Eco-Mark,1989), the U.S. (Green Seal, 1990), France (NF-Environnement, 1991),India (Eco Mark, 1991), Korea (Eco Mark, 1992), Singapore (Green Label,1992), New Zealand (Environmental Choice, 1992), the European Union(European Ecolabeling, 1992), and Spain (AENOR, 1993). These pro-grams use different criteria. Some (such as Japan’s and Canada’s) focus onenvironmental externalities of consumption (use and final disposal),whereas others (France’s and the European Union’s) focus on environmen-tal externalities of production. The Nordic countries use life cycle analysisof the product as their criterion.

A global network of environmental labeling, called the Global Eco-labeling Network, recently has been created. Although public awareness ofenvironmental labeling has been growing, so has concern for the possibleuse of this system as an international trade barrier. These twin concernshave led to the standardization of environmental labeling within the ISO14000 series. Three international standards have already been approved:


68

• ISO 14020: Environmental Labels and Declarations, GeneralPrinciples;

• ISO 14024: Environmental Labels and Declarations, Type I (voluntary labeling based on multiple criteria established and certified by independent entities such as Blue Angel, Nordic Swan, and others); and

• ISO 14021: Environmental Labels and Declarations, Type II (Self-Declared Environmental Claims).

An international standard for the Environmental Label Type III wasinitiated in 2003. This will require a complete life cycle analysis of theproduct. Although they will offer more comprehensive environmental im-pact assessment, Type III labels may also function as a barrier to the exportof products from countries not prepared to carry out the life cycle analy-ses, which require specialized professionals and the existence of auxiliarydatabases (raw materials, energy, transport, and so on).

CONCLUSION

First, sustainable development is essential to the future of the earthand its peoples. Natural resources are continuing to deteriorate, and theamount of waste and pollution in the biosphere is still increasing. TheLiving Planet 2002 warns that we now consume 20% more natural re-sources than the planet is capable of restoring. Taking into considerationpopulation growth, technological evolution, and economic development,this report predicts that by 2050 we will be consuming the earth’s re-sources at double the maximum possible regeneration rate (World Wild-life Fund, 2002). The Global Environment Outlook 3—GEO-3, developedby the UNEP and presented in the World Summit for Sustainable Devel-opment (Johannesburg 2002)—confirms that we face serious challenges,including the availability of water for human activities and the conse-quences of global warming.

Second, sustainable development only can be accomplished if wetransfer environmental technologies from industrialized to developingcountries. The private sector is trying to address the challenges of sustain-able development by more efficient production, reduced use of naturalresources, and less waste generation. However, these market mechanismsare necessary, but not sufficient. They must be augmented with interna-tional protocols (including the ISO standards process) and trade agree-ments (like the WTO) that emphasize shared governance based on com-


69

mon interests of government and business in a sustainable future for thisplanet.

Third, even successful cooperation between government and businessis not enough, for it leaves unanswered some serious issues this articleraises. These include how to overcome the unintended negative conse-quences of technology transfer, and how to better prepare countries toadapt—as well as adopt—outside technologies. Yet even experts have dif-ficulties resolving such issues, as illustrated by Mavhunga’s (2003) assess-ment of the social and environmental consequences of firearms importa-tion into southern Africa a century ago. But it is hoped that by identifyingthese concerns, the author will encourage additional research that exam-ines these familiar refrains about the diffusion process and its unintendedside effects—as applied to environmental technologies.

Last, increased international trade and global interdependence makechange inevitable. Technology transfer is an important element of the ulti-mate goals—sustainable development and poverty reduction. Yet now, asalways, the most important tool for constructing a favorable environmentfor technological innovation is education and cultural change. Accordingto the Chinese philosopher Kwantzu (a.c.): “He who plans in a short-termbasis must cultivate grains; in a middle-term basis, one must plant trees;and, in a long-term basis, one must educate people.”

REFERENCES

Beatty, E. (2003). Approaches to technology transfer in history and the case of nineteenth-century Mexico. Comparative Technology Transfer and Society, 1(2), 167–200.

Braga, A. S., & Miranda, L. C. (2002a). Comércio & meio ambiente—Uma agenda para a América Latina e Caribe. Brasilia, Brazil: Ministério do Meio Ambiente.

Braga, A. S., & Miranda, L. C. (2002b). Comércio & meio ambiente—Uma agenda positiva para o desenvolvimento sustentável. Brasilia, Brazil: Ministério do Meio Ambiente.

Comissão Mundial sobre Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento. (1991). Nosso futuro comum (2nd Ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Editora da Fundação Getúlio Vargas.

International Environmental Technology Center. Retrieved March 2004 from<http://www.unep.or.jp/maestro2/>.

Koerner, S. (2004). Technology transfer from Germany to Canada after 1945: A study in failure? Comparative Technology Transfer and Society, 2(1), 99–123.

Mavhunga, C. (2003). Firearms diffusion, exotic and indigenous knowledge


70

systems in the Lowveld frontier, South Eastern Zimbabwe, 1870–1920.Comparative Technology Transfer and Society, 1(2), 201–31.

Mota Sardenberg, R. (2001, June 1). Technology and development. O Globo[Rio de Janeiro, Brazil], section Opinião, p. 7.

National Science and Technology Council. (1997). Technology for a sustainablefuture—A framework for action. Washington, DC: National Science andTechnology Council.

Nishiyama, T. (2003). Cross-disciplinary technology transfer in Trans–World War II Japan: The Japanese high-speed bullet train as a case study.Comparative Technology Transfer and Society, 1(3), 305–25.

Pirró e Longo, W. (1990). Tecnologia e transferência de tecnologia. Revista da Associação Brasileira de Controle da Qualidade. Rio de Janeiro.

Sachs, J. (2000, June). Um novo mapa do mundo. The Economist. Republicadono Caderno de Fim de Semana da Gazeta Mercantil.

Tener, B. (1999). ISO 14001: Lessons from the early adopters. New York: Cutter Information Corp.

United Nations Centre for Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (1990). Joint ventures as a channel for the transfer of technology. New York: United Nations.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (1988). Environmental perspective to the year 2000 and beyond. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.

Wallender, H., III. (1979). Technology transfer and management in the developing countries. Cambridge, MA: Ballingh Publishing Co.

Working Group on Environmental Technology Transfer. (1991, April).Technology cooperation—New approaches. Rotterdam: II World IndustryConference on Environmental Management.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2002, June 9). The living planet 2002.Washington, DC: WWF.

4.1lemos

Documents