Download - Third World Network

C O V E RMoving forward half-clearly on theTechnology MechanismElpidio V PeriaTHE technology transfer discussionsin the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change(UNFCCC) in Durban under the AdHoc Working Group on Long-term CooperativeAction (AWGLCA) may havebeen the least reported of all the topicsand may not have gotten the attentionof international media and activists.However, government negotiatorsslogged through the entire twoweekduration of the Conference of theParties (COP) to come up with a cleardecision on the various pending issuesabout technology development andtransfer, all aimed at making the TechnologyMechanism fully operational in2012.The Technology Mechanism isthe institutional entity created by lastyear’s climate talks in Cancun, Mexico,meant to address the lack of complianceby developed-country Partieswith their obligations to undertaketechnology development and transferof environmentally-sound technologiesunder the Convention. This wasthe result of years of persistent demandswith various proposals by developingcountries to implement a crucialpart of the Convention.The Mechanism is composed oftwo entities, a policy-making bodycalled the Technology Executive Committee(TEC) and the Climate TechnologyCentre and Network (CTC&N),which, though it exists only on paperuntil it is hosted by a pre-existing organisation,will get to implement actualtransfer of technologies, but to becarried out by such host organisationthat will perform its functions as mandatedby the COP.Paragraph 128 of Decision 1/CP.16 from Cancun had mandatedthat the COP in Durban resolve thefollowing:a) the relationship between theTEC and the CTC&N and their reportinglines;b) the governance structure andterms of reference for the CTC&N andhow the Centre will relate to the Network,drawing upon the results of aworkshop authorised by the Cancundecision;c) the procedure for calls for proposalsand the criteria to be used toevaluate and select the host of theCTC&N;d) the potential links between theTechnology Mechanism and the financialmechanism of the Convention; ande) consideration of additional functionsfor the TEC and CTC&N.Durban outcomesThe technology negotiation groupof the AWGLCA in Durban did not comeup with a clear articulation of the relationshipbetween the TEC and theCTC&N.The governance structure agreedupon for the CTC&N is an advisory body,the details of which are to be decided inthe next meeting of the Subsidiary Bodyfor Implementation, one of two permanentbodies of the UNFCCC and itsKyoto Protocol.The selection process for the hostof the CTC&N is that the TEC will nominatefrom within itself the six-personpanel who will do the initial technicalevaluation of the proposals and rankingof the bidders who want to be the host.The shortlist ranking of the bids will besubmitted to the Subsidiary Body forImplementation who in turn will agreeon a ranked list of up to three proponentsbased on the outcome of the assessmentconducted by the evaluationpanel and recommend the host of theCTC&N for approval by the COP at its18th session in Doha, Qatar in 2012.The Durban meeting sketched outthe link between the Technology Mechanismand the financial mechanism,though not to the satisfaction of the developingcountries negotiating under theumbrellas of the Group of 77 and Chinaand the least developed countries(LDCs).The consideration of additionalfunctions of the TEC and the CTC&N,approved during the informal session ofthe technology group, was not adopted,presumably deleted by the Chair of theAWGLCA, especially on the giving ofadvice and support, including capacitybuildingon the conduct of assessmentsof new and emerging technologies bythe CTC&N. The consideration of issuesrelating to intellectual property rights aspart of a new set of functions for theTEC was also not in the final text presentedfor adoption by the COP.To answer the question of whowon and who lost, the Durban duel betweendeveloped and developingcountries on the matter of technologytransfer resulted in the following:• The G77 and China originallywanted the TEC to be the entity thatwill exercise oversight and provideguidance to the CTC&N. At the startof the negotiations in Durban, theymodified their stance to a kind of aboard which is an intermediate bodybetween the COP, the TEC and theCTC&N, leaving some items for theTEC, such as the giving of strategicguidance on some key issues likeprioritisation and selection of networkmembers, among others. The advisorybody created by the Durban COPappears to be something similar in ageneral sense to what the G77 andChina wanted, though the role of theTEC over this advisory body is notclearly spelled out as the TEC will remainexercising its own mandate onits own concerns, not that of theCTC&N.• The US, supported by Canada,Australia, Japan and, to a certain extent,the EU, wanted the TEC out ofthe way in the running of the affairs ofthe CTC&N. They didn’t quite get tothat, as it was agreed that how thisrelationship will evolve or how they willrelate to each other, to ‘promote coherenceand synergy’ as called for bypara. 127 of Decision 1/CP.16 ofCancun, is a matter that will be seenthrough time; the test of such relationshipis in how the two will agree onthe modalities of their reporting to theCOP.The selection process for the hostorganisation is a partial achievementfor the G77 and China, as the TECgot to play a role in doing the technicalevaluation of the bids for hostingof the CTC&N, though the US prevailedin having the Subsidiary Bodyfor Implementation do a ranking of thelist of who may be recommended asthe host of the CTC&N.The final form, shape and functionsof the Technology Mechanismwill continue to be fought out in2012. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿuElpidio Peria was a member of the Philippinedelegation to the Durban Climate ChangeConference. The views presented here are his ownand do not necessarily represent the views of thePhilippine delegation.THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/25638