RESTRICTED  
  
WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1  
 
10 April 2013  
(13-1847)  Page: 1/19  
Committee on Trade and Environment   
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE WORKSHOP ON  
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DISSEMINATION 
12 NOVEMBER 2012 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Addendum 
1. The Workshop on Environmental Technology Dissemination was held on 
12 November 2012.  The elements of the Workshop (its scope, concrete outline, possible speakers, 
topics and technologies, including a proposal by  the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on technology 
dissemination for carbon capture and storage (CCS)) were discussed at three informal meetings in 2012. 
2. Following a general session providing an overview of the main trends, challenges and 
opportunities related to environmental technology dissemination, the Workshop focused on three specific environmental technologies: CCS, low emission, and waste management and water 
treatment technologies.  Each session was follow ed by questions and answers from Members.   
3. This Report provides a summary of the key points and issues highlighted during the 
presentations and related discussions.  The final programme of the Workshop can be found in the 
Annex, while the speakers' presentations can be downloaded from the WTO website.
2  
 
 
_______________ 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. 
2 http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/wksp_envir_nov12_e/wksp_envir_nov12_e.htm   WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
1   GENERAL SESSION: DI SSEMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES .............. 3  
1.1   Inducing Innovation in Environmental Te chnologies through Public Policy (OECD) ............... 3  
1.2   Using Product Space to Identify Export Opportunities for Developing Countries in the 
Global Environmental Technolo gies Market (UNCTAD) ............................................................ 4  
1.3   Addressing Sustainable Development in Developing Countries through 
Environmental Technology Dissemination  and Transfer (S outh Cent re) ..................................... 4  
1.4   Clean Technology Diffusion: Busine ss Perspectives (Innova tion Insights) ........................... 5  
1.5   Questions and Answers .............................................................................................. 6  
2   CARBON CAPTURE AND STOR AGE (CCS) TECH NOLOGIES ............................................ 7  
2.1   The Global Status of CCS : 2012 (Global CCS Institut e) ................................................... 7  
2.2   Carbon Capture and Storage – th e Norwegian Experien ce (Norwa y) .................................. 8  
2.3   Carbon Capture and Stor age (Sussex Ener gy Group) ...................................................... 9  
2.4   Questions and Answers ............................................................................................. 10 
3   LOW EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................... 11  
3.1   Trading Situation, from an Import Pe rspective, of Renewable Energy on Emerging 
Markets (Flexenclosure) .................................................................................................... 11 
3.2   The EU Strategic Energy Technology Plan (European Commission) ................................... 11 
3.3   Innovation and Dissemination of Renewable Energy Technologies: Role of 
Standardisation an d IPR (I RENA) ....................................................................................... 12 
3.4   Questions and Answers ............................................................................................. 13 
4   WASTE MANAGEMENT AND WATE R TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES .............................. 14  
4.1   Waste Management: Science Steering EU Waste Management Policies 
(European Union) ............................................................................................................ 14 
4.2   Innovative Waste Management in  Chinese Taipei (Chinese Taipei) ................................... 15 
4.3   Waste Manage ment (Komptech) ................................................................................. 15 
4.4   Technology Support for Waste and Wastewater Mana gement (UNEP) ............................... 16 
4.5   Questions and Answers ............................................................................................. 17 
ANNEX ......................................................................................................................... .. 18 
 
 
_______________ 
 WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
   
1  GENERAL SESSION: DISSEMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES  
1.1  Inducing Innovation in Environmenta l Technologies through Public Policy (OECD) 
1.1.  Dr. Ivan Haš čič, Economist, Empirical Policy Analysis Unit, Environment Directorate of the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), discussed the relationship 
between public policy and environmental techno logy innovation, in terms of (i) technology 
development;  (ii) international technology transfer;  and (iii) green investment and finance.   
1.2.  Governments tended to adopt a multitude of  policy instruments, from direct research and 
development (R&D) support to performance standards and policy mechanisms, such as renewable energy certificates (RECs), portfolio standards and feed-in-tariff (FIT) systems, in order to stimulate inventor activity in environmental tec hnologies.  Yet, empirical econometric evidence 
suggested that many factors, besides such instru ments, were key drivers in supporting inventive 
activity in environmental technologies.  For instance, states with developed intellectual property rights (IPRs) regimes tended to invent and patent  more.  In terms of public policy, R&D support 
seemed to have the same impact irrespective of the environmental technology, while the impact of 
other policies appeared to vary depending on the technology targeted.  For instance, RECs had a positive impact on wind power development, but no impact on solar energy.  In contrast, FITs had 
a significant impact on solar energy, while their effect on wind power was not statistically 
significant.  These findings could be explained by the fact that FITs tended to have a more significant effect on immature technologies by targeting specific technologies and differentiating energy sources, while RECs allowed utilities to choose how to meet requirements.  As a result, 
utilities subject to RECs would opt for the cheapest technology available, namely wind power.  
With respect to alternative fuel vehicles, results indicated that the impact of performance standards was statistically significant on the development of electric propulsion technologies, yet 
insignificant on hybrid propulsion technologies.  On the other hand, automatic fuel taxes had a 
statistically significant impact on hybrid propulsion technologies and a statistically insignificant effect on electric propulsion technologies.  Over all, these empirical findings suggested that the 
choice of policy instrument mattered in promoting environmental technology development.  
Governments should take the degree of technology maturity into account in their decision-making 
processes and correctly sequence policy instrument s.  In particular, when targeting early stage 
development, it was important to use instruments that could be set at a stringent level in order to 
force technology development, while more flexible instruments were suitable at the stage of 
technology diffusion, closer to the market.  
1.3.  Empirical evidence further suggested th at the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under 
the Kyoto Protocol had a positive and statistically significant impact on the transfer of wind power 
technologies from Annex I (developed countries) to non-Annex I countries (developing countries).  However, the impact of the CDM on international technology transfer and the value added created 
by new CDM projects seemed to be rather limited and decreased over time.  These results 
highlighted the importance of the absorptive ca pacity of the recipient country, which could be 
enhanced through, among other things, international technology agreements aimed at facilitating research and technology development collaboration in specific fields, as had been done by the 
International Energy Agency (IEA) with its "Implementing Agreements".  In fact, empirical 
evidence suggested that two countries with joint membership to such technology "Implementing Agreement" were more likely to co-invent.  Yet, the impact of these agreements on joint 
inventions appeared to differ depending on the pu blic good feature and maturity of the technology 
considered, as well as whether these agreements focused on information sharing or cost sharing.  According to patented inventions data, India, Chin a, South Africa and the Russian Federation were 
among the leaders in co-inventions in climate change mitigation technologies.   
1.4.  The increasing role of international trade as an important factor to facilitate penetration in 
renewable intermittent technologies was highlighted.  Although trade in wind power electricity was historically unimportant, it tended to occur in cases of relatively high penetration of wind power 
technologies.  Different factors, such as dispat chable power, transmission capacity and energy 
storage, could further impact the effectiveness of wind power technologies.   
1.5.  A number of important issues related to green investment and finance currently being 
examined referred to, amongst other things, trends in financial transactions flows from developed 
countries towards green projects in developing countries and the design and choice of policy WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  instruments best able to leverage private finance for projects while dealing with the crowding out 
effect between public (i.e. grants) and private (i.e . equity) sources of finance.  Governments also 
faced the challenge to balance technology neutrality with the willingness to direct technological change.  In his view, the best option for gove rnments was to target "local" general purpose 
technologies which drew on a diverse range of scientific knowledge and could enable development 
in lower fields, such as grid management and environmental storage technologies.  
1.2  Using Product Space to Identify Export Opportunities for Developing Countries in 
the Global Environmental Technologies Market (UNCTAD) 
1.6.  Mr. Robert Hamwey, Economic Affairs Officer, Trade, Environment, Climate Change and 
Sustainable Development Branch, United Nati ons Conference on Trade and Development 
(UNCTAD), presented a "product space" methodology that could assist developing countries in 
identifying potential export opportunities, including in the global environmental technologies 
market.  The methodology unveiled, through map visualizations, the structure of the country's exports, in which each product was defined by a circ le.  The size of the circle was proportional to 
the country's exports of that particular good, the bigger (smaller) the circle, the larger (smaller) 
the exports.  The country's comparative advantages, represented visually by squares, were determined by comparing the national producti on and exports of a given good with world 
production and exports of that product.  Products related in terms of similar inputs, skill 
requirements or producer services would be visually in close proximity, creating clusters in different regions of the product space map.  For each country, the methodology would therefore outline a unique set of comparative advantages in  which potential trade strengths in environmental 
technologies could be uncovered, such as those de fined in the sample core list of environmental 
goods included in Annex II of the Chairperson Report of the Committee on Trade and Environment in Special Session (CTESS)
3.  Although the methodology, at this stage, did not integrate 
environmental technologies supply chains because of the complexity and different inputs involved, 
it could in the future help identify possible entry points into the supply chains even if developing countries could not be major producers and export ers of the composite environmental technology. 
1.7.  Between 2002 and 2009 the share of developi ng countries' exports in total world exports of 
selected green technologies, such as biofuels , solar water heaters, wind turbines, compact 
fluorescent lamps, and photovoltaic (PV) panels , had increased significantly.  In addition, 
developing countries' exports in some of these key environmental technologies were growing 
annually at rates greater than the overall growth in world trade.  For instance, according to the 
"product space" methodology, Brazil tended to have comparative advantage strengths in wind and 
hydro turbines, sanitation equipment, heat pumps,  as well as energy efficient lamps.  Similar 
space map analysis could be undertaken for any country in order to assess the potential 
diversification opportunities in environmental technologies and other green products.   
1.3  Addressing Sustainable Developm ent in Developing Countries through 
Environmental Technology Disseminati on and Transfer (South Centre) 
1.8.  Mr. Vicente Paolo Yu III, Programme Coordinator, South Centre (Geneva), discussed the role 
of dissemination and transfer of environmental te chnologies to address sustainable development in 
developing countries.4  As recognized in Principle 9 of the 1992 Rio Declaration and Chapter 34 of 
Agenda 21, environmental technology access, transf er and dissemination were a multilateral policy 
imperative.  Environmental technologies had to be made more accessible to developing countries in order to develop their own technologies as a way to further achieve their own sustainable 
development and contribute to climate change mitigation.  Environmental technologies 
encompassed many elements, from know-how  to goods and services, equipment, and 
organisational and managerial procedures.  
1.9.  While manufacturing of renewable energy te chnologies products had shifted from developed 
to developing countries, OECD economies continued to be the leaders in the development and diffusion of advanced technologies and related pate nt ownership.  Besides absorptive capacity, the 
South Centre representative was of the view that IPRs had, in some cases, proven to be a barrier 
to the development and transfer of technology in  developing countries.  The impact of the IPR 
                                               
3 TN/TE/20 of 21 April 2011. 
4 The South Centre is an intergovernmental organization  of developing countries with its headquarters in 
Geneva.  For more information, see http://www.southcentre.org/index.php .  WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  regime on technology dissemination and transfer de pended on many factors, such as the viability 
and availability of substitutes for the technology  as well as the existence of a patent, and the 
terms and conditions of the technology licensing scheme.  For instance, high royalty and concession fees, licence refusal by the patent ho lder, and increasing patent litigation prevented 
developing countries from accessing environmental technologies.  The patenting of incremental 
improvements in existing patented or off- patent environmental technologies, known as 
"evergreening of patents" was of concern and could lead to extended monopoly rights beyond the 
initial patent period, further hindering access to environmental technologies.   
1.10.  The representative of the South Centre was of the view that the WTO could contribute to 
addressing and implementing international norms on  the transfer of environmental technologies by 
referring to the concept of sustainable development, as enshrined in its preamble, and adopting a 
WTO Declaration on Patents and Climate Technology.  He further mentioned ways, domestic or 
multilateral in nature, to enable a flexible, pragmatic and strategic IP regime promoting innovation and the transfer of environmental technologies, such  as domestic regulation of voluntary licenses, 
standard licence arrangements, limits to licence conditions put in place by patent holders, and 
increasing use of compulsory licensing under Article 31 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).  Commercial agreements and non-commercial 
arrangements had to be expanded and explored, su ch as technology pooling where patent holders 
agree to pool their patents together and estab lish standardized licence arrangements and fees, 
making it easier for developing country firms to access those patent pools.  The establishment of a global system, aimed at sharing knowledge on pu blicly funded technologies, to facilitate the 
transfer of environmental technologies, could form part of a package of elements that developing 
countries needed to consider in order to promote sustainable development. 
1.4  Clean Technology Diffusion: Busine ss Perspectives (Innovation Insights) 
1.11.  Ms Jennifer L. Brant, Executive Director, Innovation Insights (Geneva),
 discussed the 
importance, from a business perspective, of technology innovation and diffusion to enable 
countries to achieve their development goals without compromising their environmental 
objectives, including mitigating climate change.5  The private sector was a key partner and source 
of technical expertise and knowledge, accounting for up to 80% of R&D investment in green technologies.  Given the significant additional investment (up to USD 200 billion annually) and R&D (up to USD 50 billion) needed to address climate change, innovation played an important role 
in improving the cost effectiveness of the required  green technologies, potentially up to 50% cost 
reduction according to various scenarios.  In fact, the market would not reward any innovation that would reduce pollution yet increase abatemen t cost, highlighting the importance of adopting 
sound environmental policies promoting new investments in green technology.  As markets 
expanded and governments put in place policies to incentivise green investments, significant and growing investment in green technology around the world were undertaken.  In fact, developing 
countries, such as Bangladesh, would have to rely on new technologies to triple their electricity 
capacity within the next ten years in order to keep up with increasing demand and development imperatives.  Emerging markets were therefore increasingly important players, both as innovators and exporters, invalidating the North-South paradigm.   
1.12.  Several factors enabled and accelerated the processes of technology innovation and 
diffusion, such as a good investment environment, absorptive capacity and knowledge-sharing partnerships.  The need to create international collaboration networks, with a variety of partners 
and industries, in order to bring solutions to th e market (referred to as open innovation) and 
promote the transfer of technology and know-h ow, was underscored.  These partnerships could 
take various forms, such as licensing, patents sale, partnering, joint development and 
commercialization of products and equipment maintenance,  and outsourcing of end product 
components.  The sale of technologies embodied in products was also an important aspect of technology transfer through local adaptation and deployment, as exemplified by locomotive 
technology in China where partnering with local entities allowed for the initial transfer of 
technology (in the form of components sale and assemblage) and progressive upgrade of the local 
knowledge base to become a centre of innovation  through exchange of know-how.  A project with 
local rice producers in Cambodia, deploying a technology which captured and turned methane and 
                                               
5 Innovation Insights is an initiative aimed at sharing perspectives with  the IP community about 
innovation and the global diffusion of new technologies.  For more information, see 
http://www.innovationinsights.ch.   WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions of waste resulting from the fermentation of rice hulls into 
electricity was also referred to.  By creating an a dditional 70% increase in electricity, this project 
enabled communities to optimize their use of natural resources, curb the release of greenhouse gases (GHG) and promote rural electrification in regions without an electrical grid, underscoring 
the relevance of local conditions and partnerships.   
1.13.  In most cases, IPRs were, in her view, no t a barrier to technology diffusion, even though a 
negative IP regime was a detractor for investment and some companies could own the entire 
patent estate and benefit from market exclusivity.  The contribution of IPRs to green technology 
diffusion was rather context-specific.  For instance, predictable IP regimes could promote partnerships and encourage the sharing of trade-secrets and know-how.  Given that some companies cannot afford to file patents worldwide, they file only in selected jurisdictions 
separately.  As a result, there was no patent protection in the vast majority of jurisdictions.  In 
addition, companies had no control over fundamental technology solutions, such as wind and solar power.  Usually they only patented features allowing them to distinguish themselves with respect 
to competitors, classifying IPRs, in most cases, as not being the main driver of business 
transactions.  In particular, 60% of WTO Members still imposed high tariffs on wind technology solutions, which increased their deployment costs and acted as a barrier to diffusion.  Therefore, 
tariffs and other customs barriers applied to green technologies should be removed to promote 
technology diffusion.  Business companies were indeed quite satisfied with the recent APEC outcome on tariff reduction of 54 environmental products by 2015.   
1.5  Questions and Answers 
1.14.  The representative of the European Union (EU) was of the opinion that IPRs did not hamper 
the use of environmental technology in developing countries, as companies could be reluctant to 
transfer technologies to countries with weak IPR rules.  Technology diffusion was an on-going 
process, in which absorptive capacity, infrastructure developments and an enabling legal 
environment were critical.  The private sector bu t also developing and emerging economies were 
increasingly important players in innovation, making the North-South divide irrelevant.  In his 
view, the WTO could enhance the diffusion of envi ronmental technologies by removing the tariffs 
on environmental goods and services. 
1.15.  The representative of Egypt voiced concern that the bilateral technological agreements, 
referred to in the OECD presentation, could replace multilateral agreements to address climate 
change and other environmental issues and lead to the exclusion of many African and least-
developed countries (LDCs) from the process.   
1.16.  The representative of India supported Eg ypt's statement and enquired about the policies 
that developing countries should adopt to correct the imbalance in global asset flows in green 
technologies.  He also asked for more information on the South Centre's view of a WTO Declaration on Patents and Climate Technology. 
1.17.  The representative of Kenya was of the view  that IPRs could act as barriers in the transfer 
of technology and requested more information on the concept of "evergreening patenting" and the 
risk of making innovations under patents not yet available in the public domain. 
1.18.  The representative of China welcomed mo re information on UNCTAD's "space product", 
which asserted that developing countries were important producers and exporters of 
environmental technologies.  The elimination of tariffs and quotas, as well as non-tariff barriers (NTBs), anti-dumping, and countervailing measures applied to environmental goods were key to 
overcome the tendency of investment protectionism. 
1.19.  The representative of the United States disagreed with the South Centre's views on IPRs, 
and considered that IP protection was key to pr omoting innovation and dissemination.  She was 
interested to learn more on the impact of compulsory licensing on innovation, in particular 
renewable energy technologies. 
1.20.  The representative of Turkey was interested to hear UNCTAD's views on the main problems 
and impediments faced by developing countries in further increasing their exports of 
environmental goods in the medium- and long-term. WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.21.  The representative of the OECD indicated that little work had been done thus far on the 
area of adaptation technologies.  The technologi cal agreements mentioned were multilateral and 
any country was welcome to join.  He further stressed the need to put the issue of IPRs in the right context.  In his view, even  though IPRs could sometimes create barriers, the problem of IPRs 
was overall largely exaggerated.  Patent protection  had to be applied in each country individually, 
since no world patent existed.  Evidence sugges ted that an invention would, on average, get 
patented in one to three countries.  In fact, less than 1% of patented inventions was filed in Africa 
or South America, which implied that 99% of patented inventions were free.  The concept of 
"evergreening" was not specific to green technologies, as IP offices were required to ensure that anything patented reflected a significant and inventive improvement.  
1.22.  The representative of UNCTAD explained th at the underlying data to compute the trends in 
exports of environmental technologies was taken from the United Nations Commodity Trade 
Statistics database (UN Comtrade database).  Tr ade figures showed that the export share of 
environmental technologies varied significantly between developing countries.  While China was 
the main producer and exporter of solar panels, compact fluorescent lamps and wind power 
equipment, other countries such as India, Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Malaysia, and Viet Nam, were becoming major producers and exporters of some of these environmental goods.  Yet, one of 
the major challenges for developing countries lay in the difficulty in identifying where to gain entry 
to the world supply chain of environmental technologies.  Another important challenge involved supporting and targeting, at the national level, some of the relevant small- and medium-sized 
enterprises (SMEs) active in the sector and able to export and compete in the international 
market.  While tariffs ranging from 10% to 30% were applied to some environmental goods, an 
additional impediment came from the fact that a large number of environmental technologies were not necessarily traded as goods, but embedded in  services trade requiring, in many cases, a 
commercial presence.   
1.23.  The representative of the South Centre agreed that there were many misunderstandings on 
IPRs.  In his view, IPRs could, in specific situations, act as a barrier to technology diffusion and 
transfer in developing countries.  The patenting of features of available technologies was of 
concern and could have a downside effect on innovation in developing countries.  The need to define and adopt a pragmatic and strategic approach on the use of IPRs in order to promote and achieve sustainable development in developing countries was underscored.  The concept of a WTO 
Declaration on Patents and Environmental Technologies had been proposed by Brazil in 2007 in 
order to strength and secure existing flexibilities in IPRs.   
1.24.  The representative of Innovation Insights noted that developing countries represented a 
significant future customer base, in which a predictable investment environment and rule of law 
would be important.  In her view, compulsory li censing could be a valuable tool where a patent 
existed.  Patents for complex technology solutions were only filed in a few countries and covered 
generally specific features.  In fact, companies refrained from flooding various jurisdictions with 
patents as these could be used against them, with cases of alleged infringement of patent rights.  Most innovating firms were interested in balanced IPR provisions, through which they could structure their business, markets and partnerships.  
2  CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (CCS) TECHNOLOGIES  
2.1  The Global Status of CC S: 2012 (Global CCS Institute) 
2.1.  Mr. John Scowcroft, General Manager - Europe, Global CCS Institute (Paris), presented on 
the current trends in the demonstration and deployment of large-scale integrated CCS projects 
globally.6  He recognized the need to develop and de ploy, through rational supportive government 
policies and in a timely manner, all currently available and nascent low and zero emission 
technologies in order to mitigate GHG emissions.  However, in his view, renewable sources of 
energy alone could not address the challenges of energy availability and climate change 
mitigation.  In particular, CCS technologies remained the only solution to reducing emissions from the combustion of oil, gas and coal, given that these fossil fuels would continue to occupy a large 
and critical role in modern economies as highligh ted by the 2011 World Energy Outlook.  For that 
                                               
6 The Global CCS Institute (Paris, France) brings to gether projects, policy-makers and researchers by 
sharing information and building capacity to ensure th at CCS can become a widely -used technology. For more 
information, see http://www.global ccsinsti tute.com .  WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  reason, the importance of monitoring and analysing the specific barriers and enablers faced by 
CCS projects in order to reduce the costs associated with risks, development periods and management issues, was underscored.   
2.2.  Despite a recent stalling in the number of CCS projects being proposed, 75 large-scale 
CCS projects had been identified at various stages of progress worldwide in 2012.  North America 
remained the most active region, whilst Europe, which continued to have a significant number of 
projects, had cancelled or put on hold several pr ojects, and China was accelerating quickly with 
ten proposed new large-scale projects.  Out of these 75 CCS projects, eight industrial-scale 
schemes were in operation, mainly applied in natural gas processing.  Also, eight other very large CCS projects were currently under construction, tw o of which would be the first large-scale power 
plants with integrated CCS equipment in North America.  Sixteen large-scale CCS projects were 
expected to be in operation worldwide by 2015, capturing and storing more than 35 million tonnes 
of CO
2 annually.  The decision to include CCS technologies in the Clean Development Mechanism 
(CDM) of the United Nations Framework Conventi on on Climate Change (UNFCCC) constituted an 
important step forward. 
2.3.  In the absence of prospects for a global carbon price, the only driving force behind many 
CCS projects in natural gas processing plants were enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques, 
allowing for an increase in the amount of crude oil extracted, and improving energy security.  
EOR provided a valuable revenue stream, assisting technology developers to bring down the costs of CCS projects.  However, EOR itself could not allow CCS technologies to achieve a 20% reduction of GHG emissions by 2050.  Thus supportive govern ment policies were necessary to ensure that 
CCS was developed and deployed in a timely manner .  In addition to the lack of understanding 
from relevant stakeholders of the importance , safety, and advantages provided by CCS, the 
absence of fundamental public policies supporting CCS technologies was the reason why they 
could not be deployed more speedily.   
2.4.  In particular, low emission facilities appl ying CCS technologies were not only competing in 
terms of capital and operation costs with emission intensive existing facilities operating at a very 
low cost, but also with heavily subsidized rene wable energy sources.  In many cases, the 
comparative operating cost disadvantage was so la rge that the business case of the CCS facility 
could not be approved.  Out of the USD 21 billi on of government support to CCS projects 
worldwide (usually targeted at capital expenditure systems), some 40% were yet to be allocated.  
This was in contrast to the strong and wide mix of both capital and operating cost support 
measures provided to renewable energy sources, which led to a substantial reduction in unit costs of a large range of renewable energy technologies, accelerating their development and 
deployment.  Yet, evidence suggested that in  many cases the real costs of GHG emissions 
avoidance from these support programmes exceeded USD 100 per CO
2 tonnes, well above the 
carbon price of any carbon pricing scheme in place.   Several studies showed that CCS technologies 
were cost competitive with respect to a range of low and zero emission power generation 
technologies which were either in, or in the process of, being commercially available.  Therefore renewable energy support schemes were not only distorting the operation of otherwise efficient energy markets, but also the development of new and emerging technologies, such as CCS, by 
favouring more expensive alternatives.  Setti ng strong carbon targets and implementing 
technology neutral support schemes would create  the conditions conducive to the development 
and deployment of CCS technologies by enabling the market to determine which low and zero 
emission technologies could have the greatest potential for cost-effective GHG abatement.  
2.2  Carbon Capture and Storage – the Norwegian Experience (Norway) 2.5.  Mr Stig Svenningsen, Assistant Director Ge neral, Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Norway, 
presented on their national policy and experience with CCS technologies.  CCS was one element of 
the national climate change mitigation policy aimed at reducing Norway's GHG emissions by 2020 to 30-40% compared to 1990 emissions levels.  He recalled that a CO
2 tax and a national 
emissions trading system (ETS) were introduced in 1991 and 2005 in order to put a price on 
carbon emissions.  Their national ETS had been fully linked to the European Union ETS (EU ETS) 
since 2008 and would cover 80% of Norway's GHG emissions from 2013 onwards.  Several sector-
specific measures, such as differentiated levies on vehicles and energy efficiency standards in 
buildings, had also been introduced.  Norway had decided that any new gas fire power plants 
should rely on CCS technologies, as 97% of their electricity production was generated from renewable sources, and any new power plant based on fossil fuel would necessarily increase WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Norway's GHG emissions.  A public funding programme was created to facilitate R&D on 
CCS technologies and promote close cooperation with industrial actors in order to achieve broad deployment of CCS technologies.  
2.6.  CCS technologies were currently being applied to two gas fired power plants in the Sleipner 
gas field since 1996 and Snøhvit liquefied natura l gas field since 2008, storing annually one and 
0.7 million CO
2 tonnes, respectively.  Both projects were  maintained without government funding, 
due to Norway's high CO 2 tax, which made investing and adopting CCS technology commercially 
beneficial.  The role of setting up a relatively high price of carbon emissions in order to create 
incentives to develop and deploy alternative technologies such as CCS was therefore underscored.  A large scale combined heat and gas power facility, capable of capturing one million CO
2 tonnes 
per year, was planned for construction at Mongstad.  A CO 2 storage facility in the offshore Gudrun 
field, to be linked with the Sleipner field, was also under development.  Smaller projects could be 
commercially attractive if combined with larger projects already in place. 
2.7.  The importance of cooperating on specific projects in order to build capacity and transfer 
technologies to other countries in the long-term was stressed.  For that purpose, a public-private 
partnership between the Norwegian Government and the companies Statoil (Norway), Shell (United Kingdom – the Netherlands), and Saso l (South Africa) created the Technology Centre 
Mongstad in 2012 to test and improve CO
2 capture.7  Sasol planned to send several employees to 
spend two years working at the facility, before returning and applying their knowledge and experience to national projects.  Extensive research, in collaboration with multinationals and the European Union, had been conducted on the separation of CO
2 f r o m  g a s ,  a s  w e l l  a s  t h e  
transportation of CO 2 into reservoirs.  CCS was a safe technology and monitoring results confirmed 
the absence of any CO 2 leakage.  
2.3  Carbon Capture and Storage (Sussex Energy Group) 
2.8.  Dr Florian Kern, Co-Director, Sussex Energy Group, Science and Technology Policy Research 
(SPRU), University of Sussex (United Kingdom), discussed the different challenges faced by 
CCS technologies.8  While many scenarios considered CCS as one of the key climate change 
mitigation technologies, accounting for an estimated 22% CO 2 emission reduction by 2035, 
CCS technologies were at an early stage of development and would therefore require a staggering number of CCS installations on gas and coal fire electricity generation to achieve this objective.  Yet, important interrelated policy, financial and technical uncertainties were slowing and even 
deterring the development and deployment of CCS technologies.  
2.9.  Unlike renewable energy technologies, CCS imposed a cost on existing energy generating 
facilities, without actually yielding a saleable product.  As a result, in the absence of a high carbon 
price, there was little commercial incentive to deploy CCS technologies, unless commercial 
opportunities existed and a niche market could be created, such as EOR.  Besides policy uncertainties, financial liability regimes were also an important obstacle to commercial investment, 
given the high operating costs of CCS projects.  In particular, costs related to state-of-the-art 
CCS technologies had increased over time, mainly due to the so-called energy penalty (as high as 30%) following the integration of CCS technologies into power plants, which could not entirely be passed on to consumers and thus decreased the e fficiency of power plants.  The first US large-
scale plant which adopted flue-gas desulfurization technology and faced a five-fold cost increase 
due to technical challenges that only became apparent once the technology was up-scaled and deployed, is a case in point.  Although costs ev entually decreased, this phenomenon raised the 
question of the position of CCS technologies al ong the cost curve.  With very few large-scale 
projects underway, especially in the power gene ration sector, CCS technologies were at the 
beginning of the cost curve and facing many technical challenges yet to be resolved.  
2.10.  CCS relied on various technologies presenting different stages of development, some less 
attractive from a business perspective, resulting in a variety of possible investment pathways, such as investment in mainly post- or pre-combustion capture or oxy-fuel combustion, and adding 
                                               
7 For more information, see http://www.tcmda.com/en/   
8 The Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU) centre focuses on innovation management in 
firms, technological competition in industries, societal impacts of technologies and their regulation, and the 
positive contributions of innovation to solving societal  and economic policy problems.  For more information, 
see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru.   WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  more uncertainties to the deployment of CSS technologies. In particular, the scaling up of existing 
CCS technologies applied to small-scale plants (5 megawatts) to full power plants (500-900 megawatts) remained a technical challenge,  along with the speed of deployment, given 
that very few on-going pilot projects were a pplied to the power sector.  Another important 
technical issue related to the integration of CCS facilities into working CCS networks, in particular 
regarding transport infrastructure and storage rese rvoirs.  In fact, carbon storage continued to 
face key technical challenges in terms of integration, impurities, pressure and sealing as well as 
storage liabilities arrangements.  Saline aquifers represented the biggest potential storage space, 
even though the possibility had been explored less  compared to oil and gas fields.  The lack of 
public acceptability of CCS projects, in particul ar regarding onshore storage, also remained an 
important challenge, although according to public acceptability studies people were more likely to 
accept CCS projects as part of a broader portfolio of mitigation technologies initiatives than as a 
single solution.  Projects in Germany and the Ne therlands had been cancelled due to the concerns 
of affected communities.  Strong public opposition regarding onshore storage increasingly shifted 
the focus to offshore storage opportunities.  
2.11.  The central role of support policies to a ddress some of the policy, financial and technical 
uncertainties affecting the development and depl oyment of CCS technologies was underscored.  
Given that the process of cost decrease could take two to three decades, R&D investments aimed 
at specific cost reductions, and funding of large-scale integrated CCS demonstration projects in the electricity sector, were particularly important.  In his view, governments should fund all technologies underlying CCS and refrain from choos ing a particular option for CCS as, at this 
stage, the risk of selecting an inferior technology was too high.  The establishment of an 
independent ring-fenced management fund granting some coverage for potential liabilities in order 
to enable companies to invest in CCS technologies, and protect the interests of consumers and tax 
payers, was raised. 
2.4  Questions and Answers 2.12.  The representative of Egypt noted that the future of CCS technologies could be jeopardized 
in the absence of strong commitments to reduce  GHG emissions and the establishment of carbon 
pricing.  He was therefore interested to know  how CCS technologies could be pushed forward 
under the CDM framework, given the concerns raised  by several environmental groups over safety 
issues and the risk of CO 2 leakage associated with CCS. 
2.13.  The representative of Oman also expressed interest in learning more about the safety and 
reliability of CCS technologies.   
2.14.  The representative of the Sussex Ener gy Group confirmed that the deployment of 
CCS technologies on a wider scale internatio nally would be difficult without meaningful 
GHG mitigation objectives and high and steady carbon pricing.  Given the cost profile of 
CCS technologies, it was unclear as to whether the recent inclusion of CCS as one of the applicable 
technologies in CDM projects would constitute a big deployment driver.  In reality safety concerns 
of CCS technologies related mainly to the storage,  and not so much to the capture and transport, 
of CO 2.  All existing pilot and demonstration CCS projects had monitoring and verification 
mechanisms in place to determine and assess the risk of local leakage from storage.  This potential 
CO2 leakage into the atmosphere and its contribution to climate change was another global 
environmental concern.  Overall engineers considered that the CO 2 containment in appropriate 
storage sites had become very safe, with a nearly 98% safety guarantee.   
2.15.  The representative of the Global CCS Institute inferred that the safety issues of 
CCS technologies could be more related to public perception than actual scientific evidence.  While 
strong monitoring and verification mechanisms were needed to demonstrate the safe storage of 
CO2 emissions, engineers and scientists should al so increase their communication and outreach 
efforts to the general population.   
2.16.  The representative of the Ministry of Petr oleum and Energy, Norway, indicated that as part 
of the UNFCCC commitments, a CCS project applied to ethanol production in Brazil was being 
undertaken.  However, he was of the view that th ere would be no incentives for CCS projects in 
the absence of a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, even if the CDM framework provided rules and procedures covering issues such as safety, public concern and liability.  WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  3  LOW EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES   
3.1  Trading Situation, from an Import Pers pective, of Renewable Energy on Emerging 
Markets (Flexenclosure) 
3.1.  Mr Pär Olsson, Vice President Purchasing, Flexenclosure (Sweden), presented on the trading 
situation of renewable energy in emerging markets.9  Although Flexenclosure had 20 years' 
experience, the company had only been providing fully integrated intelligent power systems and modular data centres based on renewable energy sources (e.g. solar, wind, biogas) with low 
operation costs to telecom customers over the last five years, including areas with either limited or 
no grid in Africa, the Asia Pacific region an d the Middle East.  The extension and upgrade of 
existing off grid systems running on diesel generators with renewable energy power solutions could improve diesel consumption by up to 90% while reducing CO
2 emissions and noise from 
diesel generators, considerably improving communities' living standards.    
3.2.  The importance of being able to commercial ize particular solutions by reducing the need of 
post-services and increasing their accessibility in order to be competitive in the market was 
underscored.  While import duties applied to renewable energy power equipment in emerging 
markets were usually very low or non-existent, administrative burdens were considered the major obstacle.  Such administrative issues, in particular  those related to inspection, could be dealt with 
and overcome by adopting an appropriate approach.  For instance, goods could be clearly specified 
and inspected before delivery to the customer, which could be undertaken by different companies, including Flexenclosure.  The main challenges in deploying low emission technologies to emerging markets were related to payment schedules and financing.   
3.2  The EU Strategic Energy Tec hnology Plan (European Commission) 
3.3.  Mr. Martin Huemer, Policy Officer, DG Research and Innovation, European Commission 
presented the EU Strategic Energy Technology Pl an (SET-Plan), launched in 2007.  The SET-Plan 
was the technology pillar of the EU's energy an d climate change policy, aimed at stimulating and 
accelerating the development and deployment of cost-effective low carbon technologies in Europe.
10  Prior to the introduction of the SET-Plan, multilateral cooperation on research and 
innovation between EU member States was limited, apart from the European Framework 
Programme for Research and Technological De velopment and the implementation of some 
IEA agreements.  Therefore, the main strategy of  the SET-Plan was to establish and develop joint 
strategic planning at the EU level by aligning and connecting national research and innovation 
programmes in order to pool financial and human resources, and mitigate risks. 
3.4.  The SET-Plan Steering Group, with repres entation by all 27 EU member States and the 
European Commission, was in charge of overseei ng and reviewing the implementation of the SET-
Plan by coordinating policies, promoting joint actions and identifying the resources needed.  
Information on the state of research and innovation in low-carbon technologies required to carry out the tasks of the Steering Group was provid ed by the Strategic Energy Technologies 
Information System, led by the EU Joint Research Centre, which monitored different activities of 
the research community and industrial sector.  Annual SET-Plan conferences were held to bring together all relevant stakeholders involved in the entire industrial and technology innovation supply chain and to adopt joint initiatives and prog rammes.  In addition, working groups had been 
launched to examine the workforce management sk ills needed to implement the SET-Plan.  The 
European Commission was in the process of analysing working group assessment reports, prior to providing consolidated recommendations for further action at the EU or member State level.   
3.5.  The implementation of the SET-Plan bega n, on the one hand, with the creation of the 
European Energy Research Alliance (EERA), re sponsible for pooling and integrating basic and 
applied research activities and resources th rough Joint Programmes, and the launch of the 
European Industrial Initiatives (EIIs), in charge of conducting large-scale technology development 
and demonstration projects to overcome low carbon energy technologies innovation chain bottlenecks.  Thirteen joint programmes, involving more than 150 research institutes and 
                                               
9 Flexenclosure (Stockholm, Sweden) is an engineerin g company specialized in intelligent telecom site 
solutions to help operators all over the world expand and modernise their networks. For more information, see 
http://www.flexenclosure.com .   
10 For more information, see http://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/set_plan/set_plan_en.htm .  WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  universities, had been launched in areas such as PV energy, ocean energy and energy storage.  
The EERA maintained close contact with the Europe an Institute of Innovation and Technology and 
Knowledge and Innovation Communities, as well as the European Platform of Universities Engaged 
in Energy Research, Education and Training.  In parallel, six industry-led EIIs on wind, solar, 
bioenergy, electricity grid, CCS, and sustainable fission technologies had been established.  Each 
EII formulated technology roadmaps for 2010-2020 and elaborated implementation plants for 2010-2012.  Aside from the EIIs, the SET-Plan incorporated already existing programmes, such as 
the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Init iative and the European Innovation Partnership 
on smart cities and communities.  In addition, a materials roadmap, recognizing the role of materials as key to enabling low-carbon energy technologies, complemented and expanded the technology roadmaps developed in the context of EIIs.  More generally, all groups established by 
the SET-Plan, including the Steering Group, the EER A and the EIIs, were expected to strengthen 
international cooperation in energy research as part of their activities. 
3.3  Innovation and Dissemination of Renewable Energy Technologies: Role of 
Standardisation and IPR (IRENA) 
3.6.  Mr. Francisco Boshell, Analyst, Innovation and Technology Centre, Bonn, International 
Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), discussed th e role of standardisation and IPRs in the 
innovation and dissemination of renewable energy technologies.11  He stressed that innovation 
policy frameworks for renewable energy technologies should cover the whole technology life-cycle, up to commercial deployment, and be linked to the country's global policies, such as energy security and sustainability.   
3.7.  In this context, standards were considered as key instruments in helping bridge R&D and 
deployment of new technologies, such as renewable energies, able to compete with existing technologies.  While certification of standards compliance assisted in gaining market acceptance 
and obtaining bank loans for renewable energy projects, the use of standards facilitated the 
dissemination of knowledge and transfer of tec hnology.  International standards and conformity 
assessment procedures were particularly relevant tools for policy makers and regulators 
elaborating national innovative policy frameworks for renewable energy technologies.  In 
particular, international standards provided access to state-of-the-art technological requirements and were regularly updated to incorporate the la test developments.  Furthermore, international 
standards were based on the consensus of balanced participants in technical committees, usually 
stemming from the private and public sector.  The need to facilitate the participation of developing 
countries in international standardizing bodies was highlighted.  IRENA was committed to providing capacity building to developing countries regarding approaches to transpose international 
standards and conformity assessment procedures to national regulations and policy frameworks.   
3.8.  IPRs were also important instruments for innovation and dissemination of renewable energy 
technologies.  According to various studies undertaken by IRENA, 8,000 patents related to 
renewable energy technologies had been filed at  the World Intellectual Property Organization 
(WIPO).  While patents played a role in the early stages of the technology life-cycle, licensing tended to be more important at later stages, in particular at the point of the commercial diffusion.  It was therefore important to properly design IPRs in order to avoid unnecessary hurdles and 
barriers to trade, and commercialisation of renewable energy technologies.  IRENA was looking at 
ways to facilitate access of publicly available information contained in patents related to renewable energy technologies for policy makers and R&D inst itutions in developed and developing countries.   
3.9.  Mr. Joachim Monkelbaan, Programme Officer, Platform on Climate Change, Trade and 
Sustainable Energy, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), 
presented on the role of trade in innova tion and diffusion of sustainable energy.12  According to a 
study undertaken by ICTSD in collaboration with the European Patent Office and the 
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), worldwide innovation activities in clean energy technologies had increased over the past three years, with half of all licenses related to PV solar 
                                               
11 IRENA is an intergovernmental organization, located in Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) promoting 
widespread adoption and sustainable use of all forms of renewable energy. The Innovation and Technology 
Centre of IRENA is located in Bonn, Germany.  For more information, see http://www.irena.org .  
12 The International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) is an independent non-
profit and non-governmental organisa tion aiming at advancing the goal of sustainable development in the 
international trading system.  For more information see http://www.ictsd.org . WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  and wind energy granted to China, India and Br azil, while innovation in fossil-fuel related 
technologies had decreased.  The increase in clean technology patenting could, in part, be linked to the establishment of fast-track green patent pr ogrammes, adopted so far by nine IP offices in 
the world, and treating the application of green technologies 75% faster than non-green 
technologies.  Moreover, fast-track patents were mostly higher in quality, filed in more countries 
and received more than twice as many citations in follow-up patents, facilitating knowledge diffusion.  However, the dissemination of clean en ergy technologies to developing countries was 
determined by many factors, including IPRs protec tion, absorptive capacity in terms of scientific 
capabilities, infrastructure and human capital as well as favourable market conditions and investment climate.   
3.10.  Solutions to facilitate access to climate friendly technologies in developing countries as 
mentioned in Article 4.5 of the UNFCCC had yet to prove successful, mainly due to financial 
barriers.  ICTSD had therefore suggested a 'two pronged approach' involving the adoption of a 
climate technology innovation strategy in developing countries and entry into mutually beneficial 
technology transfer contracts.  Countries such as China (i.e. state innovation system) and 
Cuba (i.e. innovation strategy focused on biotech and medical care) had already developed innovation strategies. 
3.11.  The important role played by trade an d trade policy in enabling access to low carbon 
technologies was underscored, as very few countries had the capacity and know-how to produce all the clean energy technologies.  International trade represented the main engine of technology 
diffusion.  The global market for sustainable en ergy services was bigger than the market for 
sustainable energy goods.  For instance, the solar PV industry was 10 times more job-creating 
than the coal-fired power plant industry, ofte n requiring a higher skilled workforce.  Trade 
liberalization of clean energy goods and services could thus lower the cost for equipment and 
services due to the scaling up of markets and inte rnational competition.  Sustainable energy goods 
and services production and trade were also closely related to domestic support policies, such as FITs, standards, subsidies and government procurement, which could act as non-tariff barriers and 
actually deter diffusion of clean energy technologies.  However, the important need of subsidies, 
up to USD 4.8 billion until 2035 as highlighted by the IEA, could lead to trade disputes.  While R&D subsidies in energy efficiency were less trade distortive than subsidies granted to manufacturing, they were crucial to address the large underinvestment in private sector R&D.  The 
role of energy efficiency was more important and cost-effective than renewable energy in the 
mitigation of GHG emissions.   
3.12.  The need for stronger, flexible and adaptive enabling technology transfer frameworks in the 
context of trade and investment to achieve sustai nable energy security in a very dynamic clean 
energy market was highlighted.  The 2012 APEC deal on environmental goods, as well as some of the preferential trade agreements  between the EU and various Asian countries were welcome.  The 
possibility of a WTO Agreement on sustainable energy trade establishing a new and clearer 
institutional architecture for trade and investment and covering all modes of technology transfer of sustainable energy was raised.   
3.4  Questions and Answers 
3.13.  The representative of the European Union underscored the role of the CTE as a forum to 
discuss emerging developments and exchange best practices.   
3.14.  The representative of the United States welcomed more information on the exact work and 
functioning of the data centres delivered by Flexenclosure, as well as on IRENA's role in the 
development of standards in light of the relevant work of other organizations. 
3.15.  The representative of the OECD expressed concern over the fast track patenting of green 
innovation, given the difficulties in identifying th e green technologies to be qualified for the fast 
track procedure.  Fast tracking opportunities could encourage inventors to "paint" their inventions green, which could result in more green patents without actual greater environmental benefits. 
3.16.  The representative of the Dominican Republic was interested to learn more from the 
strategies proposed by IRENA to facilitate th e participation of developing countries in the 
development of standards.  WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.17.  The representative of ICTSD was of the vi ew that the WTO could hold discussion on the 
creation of enabling frameworks for sustainable en ergy.  Necessary standards and those that acted 
as trade barriers to foreign markets needed to be reviewed.   
3.18.  The representative of Flexenclosure expl ained that the company was in the business of 
delivering fully integrated solutions, known as "t urn-key", to the market where the product would 
be installed later on. 
3.19.  The representative of IRENA stressed that IRENA was not a standardization body, but 
served as a facilitator of dialogue and inform ation dissemination between standards developers 
and users, in order to uncover the factors affect ing the deployment of renewable energies at the 
global level.  In particular, IRENA aimed to make good use of existing tools to improve and enhance the participation and engagement of developing countries in the international 
standardization process and facilitate the application of international standards into national 
regulatory frameworks.   
4  WASTE MANAGEMENT AND WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES  
4.1  Waste Management: Science Stee ring EU Waste Management Policies 
(European Union) 
4.1.  Mr. Hans Saveyn, Scientific Officer, Instit ute for Prospective Technological Studies (Sevilla), 
Joint Research Centre, European Union, discussed the main drivers and challenges in waste 
management technologies.13  The various EU waste management policies had been developed in 
changing economic landscapes, in which environmental concerns, legislation, market forces, and technological and scientific development, were among the main driving forces. 
4.2.  While the main objective of waste management technologies was to decouple the 
environmental impact of waste from economic growth, the waste management sector represented 3.2% of the EU-27 total GHG emissions with around 150 million tonnes CO
2 equivalent annually.  
In particular, despite producing only 10% of total solid waste in the European Union, the municipal 
solid waste sector was a large GHG emitter due to  the high presence of biodegradable carbon.  
Concerns over the environmental impact of waste management led to the adoption of several 
pieces of legislation at the national and European level, such as the Landfill Directive adopted in 
1999, which intensified separate collection, recycl ing, and pre-treatment of waste, as well as 
landfill gas recovery, resulting in large GHG emissions reductions, up to 35% in the municipal solid waste sector between 1990 and 2008.  The municipal solid waste sector could even become 
GHG neutral through enhanced recycling, and pote ntially GHG negative with the development and 
adoption of advanced waste treatment technologies.   
4.3.  Collecting and recycling waste were usually characterized by high costs.  For instance, with 
each of the 500 million European citizens producin g, on average, half a tonne of municipal solid 
waste per year, collection and landfill of muni cipal solid waste and electronic equipment cost, 
respectively, around EUR 12.5 billion and EUR 3.5 billion.  Despite these high costs, the waste 
management and recycling sector was developing rapidly, resulting in a 17% increased turnover 
between 2004 and 2008, with EUR 9.2 billion, and accounting for 1.5 million jobs in the European Union.  Recycling had also become a global activity with materials being traded internationally, leading to more efficient waste processing and recycling technologies.  Yet, with a recycling rate of 
40%, down to 1% for critical materials for emerging technologies, there was still huge potential for 
improvement and development of technologies dea ling with waste prevention, recycling and reuse, 
final disposal and monitoring in order to furthe r reduce the environmental burden of waste.   
4.4.  Recent EU waste legislation recognized the need to fully understand the interrelated and 
increasingly complex economic, social, environmental and technological impacts of waste management policies, by relying on applied science and research.  The new Waste Framework 
Directive, issued in 2008, which established the European Waste Hierarchy, giving the priority 
order to (i) prevention; (ii) re-use; (iii) recycling; (iv) recovery; and (v) disposal was referred to.  
                                               
13 The Joint Research Centre (JRC) located in Brussels, Belgium, provides independent scientific and 
technical research to the European Commission and member States of the Euro pean Union.  For more 
information, see http://ec.europa.eu/ dgs/jrc/index.cfm .  WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  E U  m e m b e r s  S t a t e s  w e r e  a l l o w e d  t o  d e p a r t  f r o m  t h i s  h i e r a r c h y  a s  l o n g  a s  t h e  b e s t  o v e r a l l  
environmental outcome was justified by life-cycle thinking.   
4.5.  Several issues, such as scientific decision  making tools, standard ized measurement methods 
as well as independent and harmonized data, needed to be developed in order to be able to set 
objectives, assess technologies and develop policy tools capable of unlocking new benefits from 
waste management and recycling.  The need of more research on the impact on the recycling 
market of changes in the "end-of-waste" criteria to make it easier for waste to become a new 
secondary resource was underscored.  Further questi ons also needed to be addressed, such as the 
role of product eco-design requirements regardin g recycled content, the potential of consumer 
oriented measures, shared costs of waste treatment and benefits distribution from recycling as well as the optimization of material supply from waste. 
4.2  Innovative Waste Management in  Chinese Taipei (Chinese Taipei) 
4.6.  Dr. Harvey Houng, Researcher, Environmen tal Protection Administration, Chinese Taipei, 
presented on two innovative waste management instruments, the tracking-system for waste, and 
the Four-in-One Resource Recycle Program, aimed at facilitating efficient material flow 
management through the prevention of illegal wa ste activities and promotion of recycling.  
4.7.  Established in 1997, the industrial waste tr acking system relied on a control information web 
platform, through which each waste generator, wast e transporter, treatment facility and disposal 
site had to report online.  In addition to online  reporting, the movement of trucks transporting 
waste along the industrial waste treatment routes co uld be traced by GPS.  The estimated costs of 
implementing the online reporting management and GPS tracking systems were relatively low and 
amounted annually to USD 65,000 and USD 60,000, respectively.  Yet, the system had proven to 
be quite effective in tracking non-hazardous waste as well as recycling and international trade of waste, both of which had been covered by the system at a later stage.  Given that the tracking-
system could be accessed online, it provided easy access to information on up to 80% of all waste 
produced in Chinese Taipei.  Waste generators reporting to the system were also able to monitor through the tracking-system their own waste and therefore improve their waste management.  
Likewise, any movements within the tracking-system and any abnormal reporting could be 
monitored and the necessary measures could be adopted.  Information provided by the online tracking-system could also be used for policy-making.  For instance, the system could implement an alarm system triggering a warning each time a truck entered a sensitive zone.  Many countries, 
such as Japan (since 1999), Korea (since 2002), Singapore (since 2003), Austria (since 2005), 
Malaysia (since 2007) and Thailand (since 2010) had implemented a similar system. 
4.8.  Also established in 1997, the Four-in-One Resource Recycle Programme integrated the 
recycling industry, community residents, local au thorities, and a recycling fund in order to 
minimize waste and carry out recycling.  The program regulated 33 recyclable waste products, 
covering 14 categories of waste, from containers to batteries, electronic equipment and light 
bulbs.  According to the principle of extended  producer’s responsibility, manufacturers and 
importers of regulated recyclable waste were oblig ed to pay recycling fees to the recycling fund, 
which granted financial subsidies to recycling facilities.  The program had been successful in reducing the daily per capita waste collection volume from a peak high of 1.14 kilos in 1988 to less 
than 0.43 kilos in 2011. In addition, the subsidies scheme had improved recycling management, 
whose recycling rate continued to grow, reaching 62% in 2011.  The successful case of footballers' clothes made out of recycled PET bottles was highli ghted.  Thanks to the system of fees charged 
from manufacturers and importers upfront and used as subsidies, the program did not incur any 
cost.  
4.3  Waste Management (Komptech) 
4.9.  Dr. Martin Wellacher, Research Associate, Komptech GmbH (Austria), provided an overview 
on business opportunities and activities in waste management technologies.14  K o m p t e c h  w a s  
mainly active in the recycling of compost, metals, paper, plastics and glass, as well as the energy recovery of some waste products (i.e. biomass).  Over the last 20 years, the company had gained 
                                               
14 Komptech GmbH is an international technology supplier of machinery and systems for the mechanical 
and mechanical-biological treatment of solid waste and for the treatment of biomass as a renewable energy source.  For more information, see http://www.komptech.com/en/home.htm .  WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  a large body of knowledge in waste treatment technologies, including through cooperation with 
universities and research institutes, allowing it to export the technologies to many countries, including Australia, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt, the European Union, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Ru ssian Federation, United Arab Emirates, and the 
United States.  
4.10.  Waste, waste pickers and populations living  on landfills constituted an environmental and 
social problem that had to be addressed through the adoption and dissemination of waste 
treatment technologies.  In particular, in order to make recycling and energy recovery viable, it 
was necessary for governments to implement a landfill ban or tax, as well as a separate collection scheme reducing and preventing certain waste stre ams from going into the landfill.  The switch 
from fossil fuels and nuclear energy towards renewable energy sources to address climate change 
created another opportunity for the developmen t of waste treatment technologies, such as 
biomass fuel.  The role of the CDM in helping developing countries gain access to waste treatment technologies was further highlighted.  
4.11.  There was a gap between countries implementing advanced waste management 
technologies and those adopting less advanced ones, which was not linked to the developed and developing dichotomy.  There were important opportunities in dissemination of available 
technologies not only to developing countries but also to developed economies.  Central European 
countries, along with Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Austria were leaders in waste management and exporting the underlying technologies to developed and developing economies.   
4.12.  Limited financial resource and local waste management policy, legislation and regulation 
were considered as the main barriers for the dissemination of waste treatment technologies.  For instance, some countries limited imports by implementing special traffic regulations, such as 
France, or imposing high import taxes, such as Brazil.  Cooperating with the local partner 
possessing exclusive technology distribution rights was recommended in order to address specific local characteristics.   
4.4  Technology Support for Waste and Wastewater Management (UNEP) 
4.13.  Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed Memon, Program Offi cer, International Environmental Technology 
Centre (Osaka), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), presented the various UNEP 
initiatives promoting the development and adop tion of waste and wastewater management 
technologies.15  Developing countries' needs in waste or wastewater management had shifted over 
the last century.  Initially, waste management fo cused on proper collection and disposal of waste 
to avoid its negative implications on public health and the environment.  Nowadays the focus 
turned to resource recovery from waste, although  proper disposal of waste remained necessary.   
4.14.  As many developing countries did not have a national waste strategy, it was difficult for 
local governments to develop a waste management policy framework.  Active cooperation between 
national and local government was therefore essent ial to create an enabling environment, as was 
stakeholders participation during the planning process to ensure successful implementation.  Yet, decision-making was often hampered by limited information on waste management technologies.  Therefore, UNEP was in the process of developing a compendium of available technologies, such as 
waste oils recycling and destruction, healthcare  waste treatment and destruction, solid waste, 
e-waste, waste and climate change, wastewater reuse, and water use efficiency management technologies.   
4.15.  UNEP delivered training support on the sustainability assessment of technologies 
methodology, which provided guidance at the policy and operational level to select the appropriate technologies based on criteria developed by local decision-makers.  UNEP was working directly 
with local authorities in the implementation of pilot projects in integrated solid waste management 
(China, India, Lesotho, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Keny a, Ethiopia, Thailand, Viet Nam and Cambodia), 
waste agriculture biomass (Sri Lanka, Nepal, Philippines, Pakistan, Malaysia, India and Cambodia), 
                                               
15 The International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), a branch of the United Nations 
Environment Programme (UNEP), located in Osaka, Japan, prom otes the application of environmentally sound 
technologies on waste management in developing countrie s and countries in transition .  For more information, 
see: http://www.unep.org/ietc . WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  waste plastics in e-waste (Cambodia, Philippines and Thailand) and wastewater reuse (Viet Nam).  
UNEP was also acting as a dialogue facilitator between technology providers and buyers in developing countries.  Virtual exhibitions could enhance the access of developing countries to waste management technologies, given that most of these technology exhibitions had taken place 
in developed countries.  The initiative "Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short Lived 
Climate Pollutants", launched early 2012, was also viewed as a potential tool to further develop and deploy waste management technologies.
16   
4.5  Questions and Answers 
4.16.  The representative of Pakistan was interested to know whether UNEP had developed best 
practices or recommendations to promote the transf er of environmental technologies to developing 
countries. 
4.17.  The representative of UNEP stressed that since the UNEP Bali Strategic Plan for Technology 
Support and Capacity Building had been approv ed, efforts had been undertaken to support 
technology transfer, while highlighting the important role of governments to address barriers 
deterring the deployment of technologies.  For instance, in the case of e-waste management, it 
was important to control smuggling of illegally imported electronic goods in order to ensure that firms complying with e-waste regulation (i.e. up front charge) were not put at a disadvantage 
compared to illegally imported electronic goods.  Some UNEP documents and specific case studies 
could be used to draw and foster best practices in technology transfer.  For instance, "Waste Concern", a fertilizer company in Dhaka (Bangladesh) managed to increase its compost production from one to 15 tonnes per day in seven years, thanks to a Dutch funded CDM project.  The 
strategy of the firm involved informing househol ds about separating, drying and wetting waste to 
get them involved in the production of compost and to save money.  In addition, the firm collaborated with Dhaka University to improve the technology, which was being sold throughout 
Bangladesh. 
4.18.  The representative of Innovation Insights underscored UNEP's role as a facilitator in helping 
businesses to connect the dots between similar market opportunities.  She asked the 
representative of Komptech whether developing countries could be early adopters of advanced 
technology solutions as they were not hampered by legacy infrastructure like developed countries.   
4.19.  The representative of Komptech was rather  of the view that limited access to financial 
resources was the greatest impediment to the adoption of advanced waste management 
technologies in developing countries.  
4.20.  The representative of Chinese Taipei view ed environmental education as the most important 
tool to facilitate the adoption of state-of-the-art waste management technologies. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
                                               
16 For more informa tion, see: http://www.unep.org/ccac . WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  ANNEX 
 
WORKSHOP ON ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DISSEMINATION 
12 NOVEMBER 2012, WTO, GENEVA 
FINAL PROGRAMME 
 
10:00-10:15 Opening Remarks by Am bassador Krisda Piampongsant,  
Chair of the Committee on Trade and Environment 
 
 
10:15-11:30 General Session: Disseminati on of Environmental Technologies 
 
 
Based on national experiences and presentations by relevant international institutions and the 
private sector, this session will discuss the current situation, opportunities and challenges related 
to environmental technologies dissemination, commercialization, and access, including: their contribution to sustainable development; the role of intellectual property; trade and investment; 
barriers to trade;  technical assistance, transfer of technologies and capacity building activities. 
Speakers : 
 Mr. Ivan Haš čič, Economist, Empirical Policy Analysis Unit, Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development, Environment Directorate, Paris, France 
 Mr. Robert Hamwey, Economics Affairs Office r, Trade, Environment, Climate Change 
and Sustainable Development Branch, United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Development (UNCTAD), Geneva 
 Mr. Vicente Yu, Programme Coordinator, Global Governance for Development, South 
Centre, Geneva, Switzerland    
 Ms. Jennifer L. Brant, Executive Director, Innovation Insights, Geneva, Switzerland 
Q&As 
 
11:30-12:30 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Technologies 
 
 
The session will discuss the various themes outlined in the general session as they apply to carbon 
capture and storage technologies.  
Speakers : 
 Mr. John Scowcroft, General Manager, Global  CCS Institute, European office, Paris, 
Norway  
 Mr. Stig Svenningsen, Assistant Director General, Norway Ministry of Petroleum and 
Energy, Oslo, Norway  
 Dr. Florian Kern, SPRU-Science and Technology Policy Research, University of 
Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom 
Q&As WT/CTE/M/54/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
   
 
14:30-16:15 Low Emission Technologies 
 
The session will discuss the various themes outlined in the general session as they apply to low 
emission technologies, including technologies to reduce energy consumption, and renewable energy technologies. 
Speakers : 
 Mr. Pär Olsson,Vice President Purchasing, Flexenclosure, Stockholm, Sweden  
 Mr. Martin Huemer, Policy Officer, European Commission, DG Research and 
Innovation, Brussels, Belgium  
 Mr. Francisco Boshell, Analyst, Innovation and Technology Centre, International 
Renewable Energy Agency, Bonn, Germany 
 Mr. Joachim Monkelbaan, Programme Officer, Global Platform on Climate Change, 
Trade and Sustainable Energy, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable 
Development, Geneva, Switzerland  
Q&As 
 
16:15-17:50 Waste Management and Water Treatment Technologies 
 
 
The session will discuss the various themes outlined  in the general session as they apply to waste 
management, waste water management and water re-use technologies. 
Speakers : 
 Mr. Hans Saveyn, Scientific Officer, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 
Joint Research Centre, European Union Commission, Sevilla, Spain  
 Dr. Harvey Houng, CIH, Researcher, Department of Waste Management, 
Environmental Protection Administration, Chinese Taipei  
 Dr. Martin Wellacher, Research Associate, Komptech GmbH, Frohnleiten, Austria  
 Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed Memon, Programme Officer, International Environmental 
Technology Centre, United Nations Environment Programme, Osaka, Japan 
Q&As 
 
17:50-18:00 Concluding Remarks by Dr. Harsha Vardhana Singh,  
Deputy-Director General 
 
 
18:00-19:00 Reception 
 
 
 
__________