شراب کهنه در بطری های جدید: اکتشاف انتقادی از مفاهیم و مکانیزم های سازمان ملل متحد برای انتقال فن آوری های سازگار با محیط زیست برای صنعت
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|19983||2014||20 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8222 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Technology in Society, Volume 22, Issue 2, April 2000, Pages 201–220
Environmentally sound technologies (ESTs) have been recommended for uptake into production mainly from discussions within the United Nations, professional “green” organisations, and industry. The UN has taken the lead both in conceptualising these technologies and organising institutional mechanisms for their transfer. This article engages critically the UN's conception of ESTs and the mechanisms for diffusing them into national industries. A closer look of UNEP/UNIDO's mechanisms for diffusing cleaner production practices and transfers into national industries has also been made to see if new avenues have been opened to connect environment with development at the industrial level. It appears that the so-called “cleaner” technology risks being no more than an old wine in new bottles.
The United Nations Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, produced an action document called Agenda 21. The purpose of Agenda 21 was the unenviable task of translating into an action document the United Nations Commission on the Environment and Development (UNCED) Report on Sustainable Development. Underpinning Agenda 21 is the explicitly stated claim that gains for environmental security can be purchased even while embarking on economic development. Its ruling assumption is that there is no zero-sum game between environment and development; that a positive-sum game between them is both desirable and possible. While politically such a rhetorical discourse may be necessary and perhaps even effective in balancing conflicting interests and bringing along many to support environmentally friendly measures, in reality economic development (as it has been practised) entails and generates an unacceptable threshold or level of waste and polluting emissions. Analytically, the claim that environment and development can be paired has to be tempered with the skepticism that it not be possible. Admittedly, it is possible to produce an empirical case where a particular economic action is not unduly detrimental to environmental matters. It is equally possible to generate the opposite empirical case. This suggests that a document that is largely politically negotiated and presented as a policy path-setter still needs to be scientifically validated into action. The work remains at the initial stages, and there is not yet conclusive empirical proof that a trajectory that combines economic development with environmental concerns can override the pre-1992 Earth Summit patterns of industrial–economic evolution. While relationships between the environment and development remain controversial, the reality is that most significant stakeholders act as if, by the application of political will and scientific and technological ingenuity and innovation, any residual tension that exists between them can be diffused and harmonised. I assume that development can be channelled along trajectories that will not impose much burden on the environment, given a shared belief and concerted action among all the significant actors and stakeholders involved. In other words, theoretically, there is a positive-sum game between them. In fact, some have suggested that industry, technology, and economic development can be re-directed to serve as the “engine” for the protection of the environment. Agenda 21 was thus born as the task plan to facilitate implementation of the new combination of environment and development. It emerged after the Earth Summit set forth a policy orientation for governments, businesses, civil society stakeholders, and learning institutions to work in concert to “tame” or “discipline” economic growth from imposing further burdens on the environment. Thus a global policy concern not to evade responsibility for the environment came out of the global discourse of the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED), and it is enshrined in the principle of “common and differentiated responsibility” for the environment. Agenda 21 has translated “common and differentiated responsibility” relative to the transfer and access of environmentally sound technologies (ESTs) to mean the following: • facilitating access to state-of-the-art technology, especially to developing countries; • promoting, facilitating, and financing access to and transfer of ESTs and know-how to developing countries “on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms”; • promoting technology cooperation between suppliers of technology and recipients; • facilitating the maintenance and promotion of environmentally sound indigenous technologies that may have been neglected or displaced; • supporting endogenous capacity-building for assessing, adopting, managing and applying ESTs by training human resources, strengthening institutions to enhance capacities for R&D, and integrating sector assessments of technology needs; and • promoting long-term technological partnerships between holders of ESTs and potential users [1, pp. 212–213]. There was a clear recognition that coupling environment with development would entail that new technologies which are environmentally sensitive should be made available on “favourable terms” to those who seek it from those who have it. Chapter 34 of Agenda 21 identified both public and private technology proprietors as sources for developing countries to shop for access to ESTs. It may be easier just to access technology in the public domain, although information may not be readily available that would facilitate such access. Agenda 21 also stipulated that ways must be found to make it easier for developing countries to gain access through information provision and other supportive measures to make ESTs accessible which may be already protected by patent and intellectual property rights [1, p. 212]. The international dialogue on ESTs suggests that as a matter of responsibility and commitment to the environment, technology proprietors from countries with strong systems of innovation be enjoined to transfer ETSs on “favourable terms” to developing countries with relatively weak systems of innovation. While positive encouragement of such transfers is given at international forums and in international documents, some firms and industries (both suppliers and recipients) may not be aware of their “environmental responsibilities”. Even if they have some awareness of the international process, they may not know how to translate such provisions into direct, specific and measurable activities. Thus, it is necessary to provide information about implementation. The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) support cleaner technology transfer and production practices through a mechanism known as the National Cleaner Production centres (NCPCs). The main function of the NCPCs appears to be providing information on ESTs and their transfer and the possible provision of financing to facilitate the promises enunciated in Agenda 21.