On 26-27 July 1998, Pugwash Meeting No. 238 was held in Gentofte (Copenhagen), Denmark.
Methods for Implementing the Framework Convention on Climate Change: Challenges to Technology
Report by Venance Journe and Judith Reppy
THE 3rd Pugwash Workshop on “Methods for Implementing the Framework Convention on Climate Change” involved 18 participants from 10 countries (Denmark, France, India, Japan, Kenya, The Netherlands, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, United Kingdom, and the US). As is customary in Pugwash meetings, each participant took part in his or her own capacity, and this report in the sole responsibility of the rapporteurs. The meeting was hosted by the Danish Pugwash Group which would like to express its appreciation to the Danish Foreign Ministry and and Department of Energy of the Danish Ministry of the Environment for providing travel support, and to Prof. Thor A. Bak of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters for advice and help in organizing the workshop.
The original aim of this workshop was to assess the challenges that the climate issue raises for energy technologies, considering not only hardware but also the institutional, regulatory, and management structures needed to assure the successful development, commercialization, and widespread use of appropriate technologies, both in the developed and developing worlds.
The first day of discussion was focused on presentations dealing with issues such as R&D policy, some views from industry on the Kyoto agreements, a development-oriented perspective on energy technologies, and institutional aspects of technology transfer. The second and third days were devoted to a discussion on the points of contention in the present negotiations of the Climate Convention and on issues that are not sufficiently or adequately dealt with at present in the international fora, in view of identifying a contribution that Pugwash, with its own special strengths, could make.
Background: The Kyoto Negotiations
IN the final days at Kyoto two major issues remained unsettled: time lines and flexibility, that is the means to reach the objectives for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions . The compromise that was negotiated included targets for reductions in GHG emissions by 2008-2012 for three major groups of developed countries (USA, Europe, and Japan) to 6-8% below a baseline of 1990 levels for six GHGs. The reduction goals for most of the developed countries range from an overall 8% for the European Community, 7% for the USA, 6% for Japan, to 0% for Russia and Ukraine, and an increase of 8% for Australia. The compromise also involved provisions for joint implementation of programs for reduction, deferral of negotiations on principles for emissions trading until the fourth Conference of the Parties at Buenos Aires (November 1998), and the clean development mechanism. The less developed countries did not undertake any commitments for emissions reductions, arguing that the developed world should bear the main burden of adjustment, given that its history of industrialization is the cause of the current situation. In a similar vein, the Group of 77 and China opposed emissions trading among Annex I countries (i.e., the developed countries) on the grounds that trading presupposes a property regime for the atmosphere that is indefensible in principle and that could allow the present set of developed countries to ‘use up’ the atmosphere before development has been achieved by the rest of the world.
The Kyoto Protocol will not enter into force until 55 countries representing at least 55 % of total emissions in 1990 have ratified it. As a result, the USA, which accounts for 34% of the total 1990 emissions of Annex 1 countries, holds a virtual veto. The position of the US Senate is that it will not vote to ratify unless the developing countries accept definite commitments; unfortunately the developing countries are not getting credit for what they are doing to avoid increased emissions even in the absence of fixed commitments. A regime of national commitments to reduce GHGs assumes a means of monitoring emission levels. The purpose is not so much verification with an eye to sanctions, but rather to acquire information that would signal to states whether they are on track to fulfilling their commitments. Much progress had been made prior to Kyoto in developing monitoring mechanisms, but it was sacrificed in the pursuit of the goals of flexibility and the inclusion of all GHGs, as favored by the USA. New reporting schemes will have to be developed to fit the Kyoto outcomes. There are contentious issues here, ranging from problems with the quality of national data to arguments over definitions and baselines.
Energy in the 21st Century
THE first session of the workshop started with a presentation of a report on “Energy R&D for the Challenges of the 21st Century” prepared by a panel for President Clinton’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, and released in fall 1997. The panel found that there are multiple payoffs to energy R&D, not just those associated with mitigating climate change. US spending on energy research, however, has been very unstable. This report concludes that the United States should be spending more on energy R&D, especially on GHGs emissions reductions, where there is a consensus that technology for deep cuts in emissions is needed. The report also recommended that the government should invest in projects to promote commercialization of energy-efficient technologies and should encourage international collaboration. President Clinton included many of the report’s recommendations in his budget for FY 1999, but Congress has rejected most of them.
‘No Regret’ Strategies
THIS was followed by a presentation emphasizing the availability of numerous technology options (energy efficiency, renewables, substitutes) to reduce CO2 emissions, and reach the Kyoto targets and beyond, at low or no cost. A scenario developed by the Wuppertal Institute based on ‘no regret’ strategies (strategies such as energy savings, for example, that make sense even if the consequences of climate change are less severe than anticipated) indicates that a 50% decrease in energy in Europe is possible even with an annual economic growth of 3% and that such strategies would generate employment. Some oil companies, such as Shell, expect a low CO2 scenario to be reached automatically in 2100 due to market forces only, and environmental NGOs stress that this could happen as early as 2030 with the implementation of appropriate policies. ‘No regret’ strategies are possible because of the presence of market inefficiencies, so major progress could be attained by taxes and regulations and the removal of perverse subsidies. The importance of transaction costs was also mentioned as a barrier to the implementation of ‘no regret’ strategies, particularly for technology transfer. Since ‘win-win’ strategies do not happen automatically, the essential role of a third actor, called ‘market maker’ (governments, investors, energy service companies, and brokers on the new carbon exchange), in a ‘win-win-win’ strategy was emphasized. The efficiency of market-based instruments to reach a more carbon-efficient society was stressed. For example, a small carbon tax is already applied in some countries and it is very efficient. A proposal has been made for a European CO2 tax, but it was rejected by the European Union in 1992. With such instruments, the EU could easily maintain its original Kyoto proposal of a 15% reduction target, and thus set an example at no real cost. It was considered that the Kyoto Protocol, which is far from a stabilisation goal, is a small but good first step in the correct direction, sending the signal that climate change has moved from a charity approach to a business approach. In the long run, however, and allowing for global population growth and economic development, much more drastic action than that envisaged at Kyoto will be necessary, even to reach a modest stabilisation goal of carbon concentrations in the atmosphere of about twice the level of pre-industrial concentrations.
This was followed by a discussion on Danish energy strategies, which now rely on a high fraction of renewable energy sources, such as wind and biomass. There have been several economic incentives in the form of taxes: an energy tax (private use only) was introduced in 1986, followed by a CO2 tax for the private sector in 1992, and a green tax for the industrial sector in 1995. The present energy strategy— ‘Energy 21’ which was endorsed by the Danish government in 1996—aims at raising the share of renewable energy sources from the current 8% to 35% by 2030, and eliminating coal completely. In the next decades, wind energy will gain considerable importance. The present installed capacity is 1200 MW; it will reach a capacity of 1500 MW in 2005 (land-based turbines), and an additional capacity of 4000 MW in off-shore turbines will be installed before 2030. The success of the wind energy program in Denmark (which now has more than 50% of the world market) can be explained by a number of factors, such as good wind resources, a tradition of solving problems in cooperatives, public support for R&D since 1976, a public subsidy of 30% of the investment costs, favorable taxation of the income, and a public subsidy for clean electricity equal to a total of 0.27 kr per kwh produced. Wind power is now economically attractive: the production costs range from 0.27 to 0.35 kr per kwh for a 600 kw turbine, to be compared to 0.42-0.51 kr per kwh for conventional coal, once the environmental costs are taken into account. The cost of an avoided ton of CO2, which is 110 kr for wind power, has values ranging from -50 kr for biogas, to 195 kr for woodchips, and reaches 8700 kr/ton for solar cells.
Sustainable Development
THE discussion then shifted to the issue of sustainable development and energy technologies. Some concern was expressed about the divergent trends in the present energy technology debate. In the North, the main preoccupation is with climate change and reduction of GHGs emissions: thus, maximization of energy efficiency and of renewable energy sources becomes the primary objective. In the South, by contrast, the main priority is sustainable development, and climate change is only a subsidiary concern. The first view, characterized as ‘fundamentalist’, does not show concern for the consequences for others in our global society. The low income countries are reluctantly dragged into the climate change process, yet they are important players for the future when they will become the main GHG emitters.
Sustainable development implies several criteria, including the protection of climate. In particular, it implies economic efficiency, equity (especially vis-?-vis the poor, the rural, and women), empowerment, environmental soundness and peace. Energy technologies are only instruments to be appropriately designed to achieve socio-economic goals. Only if they advance the goal of sustainable development in the broad sense defined above, do they qualify as sustainable energy technologies.
Given the present global trends—globalization, marketization, corporatization of utilities, and changes in external funding—and some critical constraints—declining availability of capital and cut-backs in government spending—the design of sustainable energy strategies is a difficult task. The strategies must take into account, among other considerations, the need to focus on energy services, particularly for the satisfaction of basic needs; the need to achieve universal access to modern energy services; and the need to build indigenous capacity. The importance of designing specific policies to overcome the barriers to new energy technologies was stressed. Apart from the fact that most renewable energy technologies have not yet matured and should not be compared with conventional energies on the basis of their current costs, market and non-market barriers to renewables include subsidies to fossil fuels, the failure of market prices to reflect environmental costs and damages, limited access to information, vested interests, and institutional obstacles. The view was also expressed, however, that the current policy discourse focused too much on the supply side and did not take into account the possibility of making substantial increases in the quality of life with relative small increases in energy use. In this view, the consumption paradigm for energy is a trap that brings development goals into conflict with environmental goals. An alternative view that would focus on increasing energy efficiency without sacrificing economic growth could be more effective in limiting damage to the environment.
A fundamental weakness of the climate change process is that it is an intergovernmental process and therefore constrained to interact with governments. It operates on the assumption that governments represent the people. But in countries with a dual society, the government represents the rich elite and the poor are never heard. The role of civil society in giving a voice and empowering the left-out masses was stressed.
It is important to take into account the consequences for the development process of policies designed to limit climate change. Energy strategies should incorporate consideration of a wide range of problems such as population or employment. Some participants felt strongly that employment has a high priority and that forcing energy reductions in the low income countries could lead to a social catastrophe. Development requires energy consumption, and as there are not at present enough financial resources for the introduction of state-of-the-art technology in the developing world, there is an inescapable transition of two to three generations during which these countries will use cheap technologies not optimized for carbon reduction.
Clean Development Mechanisms and Joint Implementation
THE discussion continued on the issues of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation, which relate to one of the unresolved issues of the Kyoto Protocol, namely, the share of domestic reductions in a country’s total emission reductions. Article 12 specifies a CDM mechanism that is intended to assist Non-Annex 1 parties in achieving sustainable development, while satisfying the objectives of the Convention and promoting technology cooperation between parties, both developed and developing countries. This mechanism will also help Annex 1 parties to comply with their emission reduction commitments from the year 2000 to 2008-2012. It was strongly emphasized that, as its name indicates, the CDM is primarily about economic development and improvement of quality of life, and therefore projects should be primarily seen from this angle. Achieving emission stabilization will require participation by all parties to the Convention, but the development objectives of the developing countries must be fully considered.
Although the specifics of CDM are still to be negotiated, some components of the projects can be already anticipated: they should be compatible with national development objectives; have an assigned baseline; lead to GHG emission reductions that should be real, measurable, verifiable, enforceable and additional; and only part of the commitments may be fulfilled with reduction credits. These raise a number of issues—the role and interplay of the financing institutions, the definition of programs and national baselines, the monitoring and certification of projects—that must be resolved with the participation of developing countries, as they will have profound impacts on the future technology and financial flows in these countries. It was stressed that for CDM to provide substantial benefits for developing countries, such as stimulating technology cooperation and innovation or improved business environment, capacity building is crucial in the areas of business environment, project management, building a regulatory framework, and strengthening the private sector.
AIJ in Africa
DISCUSSION of a project in the context of Activities to be Implemented Jointly (AIJ) in Africa illustrated this point. AIJ projects differ from CDM in the sense that AIJ projects are bilateral, do not provide emission reduction credits, and are focused on climate change, while CDM projects are multilateral, provide reduction credits, and focus on sustainable development. Nevertheless, the two mechanisms have similarities—they are both market based and driven by large differences in abatement costs—and the experience gained with the AIJ that have been carried out can provide useful information in formulating the modalities of CDM. In particular, there is a large potential for the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries, but the lack of credits has seriously affected the interests of the private sector, whose participation has been limited. The poor understanding of the concept in many countries has resulted in a cautiousness, particularly in Africa, and it is likely that AIJ will only be effective in countries with a strong local institutional framework. It is unrealistic to think that market mechanisms alone will bring about the very large scale transfer of technology that is needed.
The constraints on technology transfer in Africa are multifold: they relate to the supply of technology that is not locally available; the difficulties with markets for material supplies and final products; inappropriate government interventions; and inadequate facilities for R&D. A project in the Burkina Faso, supported by the World Bank and Norway, was described; it will enhance carbon sinks to sequester carbon emissions and introduce low carbon energy technologies, such as solar PV systems. It is expected that over a period of 6 years, about 1.5 million tons of CO2 will be abated at a unit cost of 1.66 US$ per ton of CO2. Yet the project benefits may be threatened by several factors related to local conditions: delays in implementation; depreciation of the local currency; lack of skills to use PV solar systems; conflict over property ownership between the goverment and local communities; and possible conflicts resulting from the interests of fuelwood wholesalers in maintaining their markets. The success of the projects will therefore depend upon a global consideration of the needs in institutional and human capacity building.
Clean Development Mechanisms in Developing Countries
THE discussion then turned to CDM mechanisms as envisaged by the developed countries. CDM is expected to reduce GHG emissions economically and facilitate technology transfer. Nevertheless, since financial support from the developed country does not lead to direct economic benefits for it, the question of negative impacts on the competitiveness of its own industry arises. A model using game theory to investigate an efficient CDM strategy, called ‘expanded CDM’, in which developing countries can improve industrial energy efficiency, was analyzed in the case of a collaboration between Japan and China. An orthodox CDM strategy would involve Japan replacing conventional steel factories in China that have a high CO2 intensity with more efficient steel factories. The model for expanded CDM suggests instead that a shift in product mix to lower CO2 emitting industries, such as machinery industries, is more efficient. Further investigation of such an expanded strategy and its applicability to other countries was suggested.
The importance of standards in facilitating compliance with the emerging global environmental regime was discussed. Standardized information is important in formulating criteria for evaluation. For example, even the initial step of stipulating the baselines for national emissions under the Kyoto Protocol requires standard techniques for gathering and analyzing data. Standardized information can also facilitate the transfer of more energy-efficient technologies, by providing a common language for the transferring and host countries. One kind of universal standard—the standardization of products and practices in multinational companies—is particularly important, given that so much technology transfer takes place through direct foreign investment by private corporations. There is the danger, however, that emphasis on universal standards will detract from recognition of local differences and the need to make adjustments to accommodate those differences. The benefits of standards in facilitating technology transfer do not pertain when the presumption of shared understanding is one-sided and leaves out the host country’s perspective.
What Role for Pugwash?
FACED with this abundance of important issues, the question remains: what role for Pugwash? There was a discussion of the work done by international organizations dealing with various aspects of these problems. At the request of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), a body of the UNFCCC, the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is producing a number of special reports on such issues as technology transfer, land use change and forestry or emission scenarios. The IPCC will conduct the Third Assessment Report (TAR), a peer review of current knowledge on issues related to climate change that is due to be completed in 2001. For this review, about 4,000 scientists and experts in all disciplines and regions of the world have been nominated to participate.
The TAR will consist of three reports by three different working groups and a policy relevant synthesis report. Working group 1 will assess the scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change; working group 2 will assess scientific, technical, environmental and social aspects related to the vulnerability to climate change and the consequences for ecological systems, socio-economic sectors and human health, with an emphasis on regional issues; and working group 3 will assess scientific, technical, environmental and social aspects of mitigation and methodological aspects of cross-cutting issues such as equity, discount rates and decision making frameworks. At the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) work is going on under three rubrics: enabling activities, such as aid in producing national inventories of GHGs and capacity building; short-term mitigation programs; and long-term mitigation programs. The distinction between short-term and long-term is important because reduction goals that are unattainable in the short run or attainable only at very high cost become feasible in the long run, when new technology has displaced older, energy-intensive technologies.
The group then discussed the present process of negotiations, the different points of contention, and the issues that still need more expertise. It was stressed that many topics of great importance to the negotiation process deserve more scientific work, due either to the uncertainties in the science itself or to the difficulties of getting proper data, before studying the institutional aspects. The areas open for more work include:
- the definition of the real GHG concentration goal;
- carbon sequestration and carbon sinks, for which a lot of data is still needed. This is a topic with a high content of North-South discussion;
- costs and timing of preventive action;
- fundamentals of emission quotas trading; this will be one of the main topics for the COP4 at Buenos Aires in November. A lot of work is going on, but there is no agreement on such issues as the assignment of credits, or the allocation of fault in case of failure of emission reductions;
- fundamentals of CDM;
- the role of developing countries, and particularly of the newly industrialised countries, in meeting the objectives of the convention. The question of how to take into account the emissions of the rich and polluting middle classes in some low income countries was also mentioned as a sensitive topic that deserves attention and could be discussed in the setting of the CDM programs, as aid should not be used to support unsustainable modes of living of the elite. These issues are obviously very contentious;
- long term R&D processes. The issue of nuclear energy was set aside as too sensitive and controversial and providing too little contribution to solving the greenhouse problem;
- monitorability of implementation. Unlike arms control treaties, in the field of climate change, the definition of commitments is linked to the verifiability of emissions reductions. It was mentioned that this aspect was disregarded in the Kyoto agreement, with its emphasis on flexibility and taking into account six GHGs. The relevant data are very unreliable in some countries, and therefore, for example, measuring and counting anthropogenic changes in land use is a central issue and a difficult one as far as reporting systems and monitoring systems are concerned;
- adaptation, which is still a completely open topic.
- and equity, likewise a controversial issue.
Regarding the US, where many of these conflicts play out, it was regretted that the situation is such that the Kyoto Protocol cannot be sent for ratification now on the grounds that the developing world has not taken commitments. These objections are supported by only a small fraction of US opinion, especially the business community, which nonetheless is blocking the negotiation and is a main source of misinformation. It was mentioned that the avoidance of emissions in the developing world has not yet been given enough credit.
Some topics are likely to be neglected, either because they are important only to weaker members of the international community or involve difficult political decisions.The aim is to take advantage of the convening power of Pugwash and of the common space for unconstrained discussion and action that Pugwash provides for participants, acting in their private capacities, coming from all countries and with a fairly good representation from North and South, to tackle a set of questions that are not easily discussed in other fora, either because they are politically sensitive or because they require a longer time horizon than the political process can accommodate.
The topics that seem most important and appropriate for Pugwash to touch upon relate first to the non-Annex 1 countries’ participation in attaining the goal of the convention, which is a long term and a key issue. In this respect, it was also noted that NGOs, for the moment, are reluctant or embarrassed to touch upon this issue owing to a sense of solidarity with the developing world before the Annex 1 countries have started to really implement their commitments. A second topic relates to an overall design of R&D to take up the climate challenge, to the fulfillment of the developed countries’ commitments about technology transfer.
After considerable discussion the workshop members settled on “Frameworks for North-South Cooperation on the Climate Development Challenge” as an overarching concept to guide the agendas for future Pugwash workshops. The focus will be on fostering progress towards global cooperation in implementing the FCCC in a framework of increased participation, diffusion of best available technologies and best practices, and international R&D cooperation. Specific topics will include developing a framework for future national commitments that are equitable, sufficient, negotiable, and capable of being implemented; monitoring and verification systems for Kyoto commitments; overcoming barriers to the introduction of emissions-reducing or avoiding technologies; and building capacity in less developed countries. The challenges here are not only technical. Above all, the main challenge is for policy makers to come to grips with the need to make tough decisions, decisions that will necessarily involve renunciation of privilege and transfers of wealth on an unprecedented scale.
List of Participants
- John Avery, Associate Professor of Theoretical Chemistry, H.C. ?rsted Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark; Technical Advisor, World Health Organization [formerly: Managing Editor, Journal of Bioenergetics and Biomembranes; Lecturer, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London]
- Rosina Bierbaum, Acting Associate Director for Environment (1997-98), Assistant Director for Environment (Feb. 1996), Senior Policy Analyst (Nov. 1993-Feb. 1996), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C., USA [formerly: Senior Associate, Environment Program, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.]
- John Christensen, Head, UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment, Risoe National Laboratory, Riskolde, Denmark
- Ogunlade R Davidson, Visiting Professor, UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy and Environment, Risoe National Laboratory, Riskolde, Denmark; Professor and Head of Mechanical Engineering Dept., Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, Freetown [formerly: Member, Pugwash Council (1992-97)]
- Eric T. Ferguson, Consultant on Energy and Development, MacFergus bv, Eindhoven, Netherlands [formerly: Senior Scientist, Philips Research; Liaison Scientist to IIASA]
- Owen Greene, Senior Lecturer, Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, UK; Board Member: VERTIC, Safer World, ISIS, Council of INES
- John Holdren, Teresa & John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Center for Science & International Affairs (CSIA), John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Professor of Environmental Science & Public Policy, Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; Visiting Distinguished Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center; Chair, Committee on International Security and Arms Control (CISAC), National Academy of Sciences; Chair, Panel on Reactor Options for the Disposition of Excess Weapon Plutonium, National Academy of Sciences; Member, President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), The White House [formerly: Professor of Energy and Resources, University of California, Berkeley, California]
- Venance Journ?, Researcher, National Scientific Research Council (CNRS), Paris, France; Member, Pugwash Executive Committee
- Patrick Karani (Kenya), Consultant, The World Bank, Washington DC., USA
- Ryuji Matsuhashi, Associate Professor, Department of Geosystems, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
- Dr Paul E. Metz, Executive Director, European Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future, Velp, The Netherlands
- Mark James Mwandosya, Chairman and Director, The Center for Energy, Environment, Science and Technology (CEEST), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Professor of Engineering, University of Dar es Salaam; Professorial Chair in Energy, Technology and Management (formerly: Principal Secretary, Ministry of Water, Energy, and Minerals; Principal Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Trade)
- George William Rathjens, Secretary-General, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
- Amulya Reddy, President, International Energy Initiative, Bangalore, India
- Judith Reppy, Professor, Department of Science & Technology Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA; Associate Director, Peace Studies Program; Co-Chair, U.S. Pugwash Group [formerly: Director, Peace Studies Program, Cornell University]
- Haldor F.A. Tops?e, Chairman, Haldor Tops?e A/S, Lyngby, Denmark
- Kai Christian Worsaae, Section Chief, Renewable Energy Section, Danish National Department of Energy (Energiestyrelsen), Copenhagen, Denmark
List of Papers
- Clean Development Mechanism: Opportunities for Technology Transfer for Developing Countries, by Ogunlade Davidson (Sierra Leone)
- Abatement of CO2 Emissions by Extraction Permits, by Eric T. Ferguson (Netherlands)
- Policies for Promoting CO2 Abatement Technologies, by Eric T. Ferguson (Netherlands)
- Challenges for Climate Change Technology Transfer in Africa, by Patrick Karani (Kenya)
- Study on an Improved System for Technology Transfer to Reduce CO2 Emissions, by Ryuji Matsuhashi and Hisashi Ishitani (Japan)
- The Fruits from KYOTO for the Sustainable Energy Business, by Paul E. Metz (Netherlands)
- Energy Technologies, Climate Change and Sustainable Development, by Amulya Reddy (India)
- Regimes, Standards and Technology Transfer, by Judith Reppy (USA)
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs 