Technology transfer by CDM projects: A comparison of Brazil, China, India and Mexico

Abstract

The authors are grateful to the publisher, Elsevier, for letting the manuscript being archived in this Open Access repository.International audienceIn a companion paper [Dechezleprêtre, A., Glachant, M., Ménière, Y., 2008. The Clean Development Mechanism and the international diffusion of technologies: An empirical study, Energy Policy 36, 1273–1283], we gave a general description of technology transfers by Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects and we analyzed their drivers. In this paper, we use the same data and similar econometric models to explain inter-country differences. We focus on 4 countries gathering about 75% of the CDM projects: Brazil, China, India and Mexico. Sixty eight percent of Mexican projects include an international transfer of technology. The rates are, respectively, 12%, 40% and 59% for India, Brazil and China. Our results show that transfers to Mexico and Brazil are mainly related to the strong involvement of foreign partners and good technological capabilities. Besides a relative advantage with respect to these factors, the higher rate of international transfers in Mexico seems to be due to a sector-composition effect. The involvement of foreign partners is less frequent in India and China, where investment opportunities generated by fast growing economies seem to play a more important role in facilitating international technology transfers through the CDM. International transfers are also related to strong technology capabilities in China. In contrast, the lower rate of international transfer (12%) in India may be due to a better capability to diffuse domestic technologies

Factors driving international technology transfer: empirical insights from a CDM project survey

“…This finding may be explained by the benefits resulting from a general openness of CDM projects to trade, which facilitates access to the global pool of technologies. In this sense, the finding for export is consistent with the result of Dechezleprêtre et al (2009) who find that a country's openness to trade increases the likelihood of technology transfer in CDM projects. Further, our findings on export channels do not suggest that technology transfer through CDM projects requires a high degree of organisational interaction between project partners.…”

“…Dechezleprêtre et al, 2008Dechezleprêtre et al, , 2009Haites et al, 2006;Haščič & Johnstone, 2011;Schmid, 2012;Weitzel et al, 2014). These factors typically include project size, the technology sector, the length of a host country's experience with the CDM and its technological capabilities.…”

Biogás Em Aterros Sanitários: Comparando a Geração Estimada Com a Quantidade Validada Em Projetos De Mecanismo De Desenvolvimento Limpo

“…De acordo com Friberg (2009), os principais benefícios do MDL para o Brasil tem sido sua contribuição na diversificação do sistema energético e na criação de capacidade institucional para governança em carbono. A transferência de tecnologia também é um aspecto importante, e está muito associada, no caso brasileiro, a presença de parceiros internacionais (DECHEZLEPRÊTRE et al, 2009). …”

A two-track CDM: improved incentives for sustainable development and offset production

“…Different definitions of technology transfer have been used by different scholars in assessing CDM's contribution to technology transfer (Pueyo 2007;Dechezleprêtre et al 2009;Schneider et al 2008;Seres 2007;van der Gaast et al 2009;de Coninck et al 2007;Haites et al 2006;Olsen and Fenhann 2008;Murdiyarso et al 2008;Garcia-Quijano et al 2005;Georgiou et al 2008;Schroeder 2009;UNFCCC 2010;Karakosta et al 2009a and b Olsen & Fenhann (2008) analyze SD claims made in 744 Project Development Documents (PDD) and find that distribution of SD benefits among the economic, environmental and social dimensions is fairly even, with most benefits in the social dimension. This is also supported by Subbarao and Lloyd (2011) based on the analysis of 500 small scale renewable energy projects.…”