Looking Back
Emerging Technologies in Global Economic Relations
By Gangadhar S. Gouri

Photo courtesy of the ICGEB

The 1979 United Nations Conference on Science and Technology completed its work with several recommendations. UNIDO (the United Nations Industrial Development Organization), like other UN organizations, wished to implement relevant recommendations. Since I was in charge of development and promotion of technology for the benefit of development, 1 was asked by the Executive Director to implement the recommendations. But in the process, 1 should also review new avenues of technological development. In going through the documentation of the conference, 1 found some very valuable material. Although these were hidden in the appendix, my colleagues and 1 found that they would be the suitable technologies to promote and develop for the benefit of the developing countries and related to the areas of genetic engineering and biotechnology, microelectronics, new materials, among others.

Our group felt that the developing countries would have an advantage in developing new technologies rather than following old ones. The new technologies would give a competitive edge over other countries. The development and promotion of technologies contained elements of greater requirement for scientific personnel rather than for capital resources. Since developing countries had already developed pockets of highly capable scientific manpower, they could usefully start and progress rapidly. Also, some of these technologies combined elements of research and their practical translation in the process. Therefore, UNIDO first undertook a survey of several technologies and later chose three areas, namely genetic engineering and biotechnology, microelectronics, and new materials.

Of these, genetic engineering and biotechnology provided more opportunities in terms of solving present-day requirements of food, seeds, fuel and fertilizers. The approach adopted by UNIDO was to identify the innovators and scientific leaders in those areas and invite them to Vienna for a review of the progress, and to ascertain the possibilities for the use of new technologies by the developing countries and also to emphasize the methods and money required. The meeting would also assign a role for UNIDO. Thus, UNIDO was successful in identifying a dozen scientists and technologists who were at the forefront of genetic engineering and biotechnology, and invited them to a meeting in early 1978. They were mostly from the United States and Europe. A few experts from the developing countries were also present.

We in the Secretariat of UNIDO were firstly amazed by their free expression of views. There was no sign of holding anything back as they were genuinely interested in the continuation of breakthroughs and their spread for the benefit of mankind. They felt that the developing countries could easily take up the work and make progress.

As a matter of fact, a few scientists attending the UNIDO meeting, although United States citizens, were of Indian origin. The meeting commended UNIDO for initiating action in the area of genetic engineering. They also recommended that UNIDO should pilot the spread of technological development. Towards that end, they felt that UNIDO should establish the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. In this endeavour, they would be prepared to provide all assistance needed for the purpose.

Another important recommendation was that UNIDO should send a small group of eminent persons to a few selected countries to review the current development and possibilities for further development. The team should consist of two experts presently attending the meeting, as well as a UNIDO staff member to prepare the overall report, which would be evaluated by the same group of experts and prepare a plan of action. The country missions were sent to Mexico, India, the Philippines, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Canada, Egypt, Nigeria, Brazil and the erstwhile Yugoslavia. The response to the visits of the mission was excellent. The developing countries were ready to initiate work, and the developed countries like Canada, Spain, Italy, and Belgium were inclined to provide financial resources.

Photo courtesy of the ICGEB

The review meeting by the same experts a year later felt that, while there should be an international centre, there should also be corresponding national centres. The latter centres would undertake research and training for the national needs. The great advantage of working in the area was that both research and training were two faces of the same coin.

When these developments were reported to the Industrial Development Board, some political elements entered the picture. The representatives of the developed countries were traditionally zealous in guarding their technological supremacy and leadership in the changing world. Some of them took the initiative to privately inform Executive Director Dr. Khan to be cautious in supporting such projects.(Dr. Khan of Algeria succeeded Dr. Abdel Rehman of Egypt in 1975 as the Executive Director of UNIDO.) He apparently not only turned a deaf ear, but also told them that one of the functions of UNIDO was to promote the industrialization of the developing countries. How could they do so without the command of technology?

As a matter of fact, technology had become so important that it had assumed the primary role of financial capital in international economic relations. Thus, he would be guided essentially by the decisions of the UN General Assembly in establishing UNIDO and those of the Industrial Development Board in policy matters. He cannot act in the absence of resolutions of the Board. The developed countries were not ready to adopt such a resolution. They told him that the budgetary situation of UNIDO in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly might not favour the provision of financial resources for such projects. The Executive Director told them that when such a situation arose, he would be ready to review the entire matter.

Later, he called me and urged me to obtain some voluntary contributions for this task, so that the project would not be dependent from the regular budget. We were to obtain resources more in kind from the Governments of Spain, Canada, Italy, Belgium and Yugoslavia. The Governments of Mexico and India also promised some contributions. They accordingly informed the Executive Director.

Thus the stage was set for further action by the UNIDO Secretariat. It was decided that the Secretariat would prepare the work programme of the centre, as well as its constitution. It was also realized that political support would be necessary, which would be possible through the establishment of a Preparatory Committee. The membership of the Committee would be those countries that had expressed interest in promoting and supporting the centre. But before doing so, it was felt that a meeting of such countries be convened and the constitution of the centre be adopted. Those who endorse and sign the constitution would be entitled to be members of the Preparatory Committee. The adoption of the constitution by the meeting of interested countries in Madrid unexpectedly went into difficulties.

But after a marathon session in Madrid, the constitution was finally adopted. The signing ceremony was set at midnight on the same day. Some twenty-two countries signed the document. It was understood that the signature merely denoted a country’s interest; no financial obligation was involved. The constitution would be binding only when the national parliaments adopted it.

Photo courtesy of the ICGEB

The same meeting had earlier adopted the Five-Year Work Programme of the centre. The Preparatory Committee was thus formed and the first meeting, in Vienna, was attended by 21 heads of the respective country delegations accredited to UNIDO. The existence of the Preparatory Committee gave the Secretariat’s work an entirely different status concerning the establishment of the International Centre.

But new developments appeared on the horizon. The developed countries, which promised up to $70 million towards the International Centre, began slowly withdrawing from their earlier indications. This inability was first expressed by Canada; the last to do so was Mexico. This development was a real setback for the efforts by the Secretariat. While this situation was simmering, the Chairman of the Preparatory Committee took a different view.

He felt that the centre was so important to the developing countries that it should not be difficult to raise the money. He told the Secretariat that under no circumstances should the momentum gained be lost. The Preparatory Committee at its next meeting recommended that there should be a panel of experts to advise the centre in scientific matters; this panel of scientists had three Nobel laureates. This was a turning point. At the initiative of the Chairman, the first meeting between the panel of scientists and heads of delegations in Vienna was organized. This meeting cleared many doubts among the ambassadors; and the representative of the USSR wanted to attend the Committee as an observer.

As the meetings of the Committee continued, the endorsements of the constitution by national parliaments began to increase, and the centre coming into existence appeared real. At this stage, another problem cropped up. Developing countries desired the location of the centre in one of them, as it was primarily directed to their needs. The developed countries, spearheaded by Italy, argued that it should be located in a country that paid for it. But the constitution was based on the concept of one centre, one director-general with a scientific staff, who would together assist national centres through advice and training. The Five-Year Work Programme was also based on one centre. Still, something had to be done.

So it was finally decided by the Committee to engage a well-known expert who would report to it on the feasibility of one versus two centres. The expert also felt uneasy, as it was a political problem rather than a scientific one. He assembled all data and presented the advantages and disadvantages of one or two centres, respectively. Since he was asked to present and answer questions, he tried his best not to take any position except to indicate the pros and cons of the situation.

Points of Fact Global consumption of fossil fuels increased by 10 per cent from 1992 to 1999. Per capita use is highest in developed countries, where people consumed an average of 6.4 tons of oil equivalent per year in 1999, or ten times the consumption in developing countries. About 2.5 billion people lack access to modern energy services. That amounts to one third of the total world population. World energy consumption has increased significantly since 1992 and is expected to grow at the rate of 2 per cent a year until 2020. At this rate, energy consumption will double by the year 2035 relative to 1998, and triple by 2055. Source: WSSD Factsheet

The Committee raised many questions, which were partly answered by the expert and partly by the Chairman. Based on the report and answers by the expert, it was later decided by the Committee to hold a separate session without the presence of the expert and the UNIDO Secretariat. The discussion, I understand, was again stormy. During the discussions, the candidate countries, namely Italy from the developed countries and India from the developing countries, offered to host the centre. There was even a suggestion for a vote. The Chairman, however, suggested that the voting should be avoided if it referred to the countries by name. Instead, a vote could be taken to decide whether to establish one centre or two. It was finally decided that a consensus be reached rather than a vote. After several rounds of negotiations, it was decided to have two centres instead of one. The Italians renewed their offer of financial resources. The Indian Government also pledged to provide all resources needed by the centre. Thus, two locations of the International Centre became a reality.

The next meeting of the Committee in New Delhi tried to allocate the work programme to the respective centres. There was literally a tug of war between the two countries in choosing the project areas. Although guidelines were given as to the choice of areas by the committee, it was difficult to identify the basic work of the two centres. India did not relish the idea of specialization in only agriculture. It desired the allocation of the medical area. It was finally decided that a certain duplication was inevitable and might even be beneficial in some aspects. Therefore, the meeting finally decided to allow each centre to work consistent with available resources. The issue of appointing the Director-General of the centre did not present many problems at that time. The scientific panel, after reviewing a number of possible candidates, selected a citizen of the United States.

My recent inquiry revealed that the centre was doing good work at both locations. The Indian Centre had developed diagnostic kits and had initiated considerable work in the area of tissue culture. The Italian Centre also had advanced considerably in several areas. It had its own building in Trieste and had assembled good staff. I also heard that twenty-four Governments had ratified the constitution of the centre in their respective national parliaments. Thus, my dream of establishing an International Centre had become a reality.

Gangadhar S. Gouri, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of Bombay School of Economics, is a veteran of thirty years of UN service. He now lives in Bangalore. This is an excerpt from his book “Personal Reflections”.

Copyright © United Nations