[A2k] TWN Bali Update: CLASH OVER TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ALMOST DERAILS BALI CLIMATE TALKS

[Sangeeta]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understan=
d
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

Title : TWN Bali News Update No. 3
 Date : 07 December 2007

 Contents:
TWN BALI NEWS UPDATE  NO. 3

6 December 2007
Published by Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg


CLASH OVER TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ALMOST DERAILS BALI CLIMATE TALKS


Nusa Dua, Bali, 5 Dec  (Martin Khor) -- A clash over the developed
countries=B9 commitment to technology transfer of environmentally sound
technology to developing countries dominated the second day of the Bali
meetings on climate on 4 December.

The discussion was so heated that at one stage it threatened to derail the
entire Bali meeting, as one senior African diplomat put it at the meeting.

It confirmed the doubts and increased the frustration that the developing
countries have had for years on the sincerity of developed countries in
fulfilling their commitment on technology transfer under the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Technology transfer is one of the two major commitments that developed
countries have made to assist the developing countries to address the
climate crisis, the other being the provision of financial resources.

Article 4.5 of the Convention states that developed countries shall take al=
l
practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance as appropriate the
transfer of or access to environmentally sound technologies and know-how to
developing countries to enable them to implement the Convention provisions.
They shall also support the development and enhancement of endogenous
capacities and technologies of developing countries.

The Bali meetings comprise the Conference of Parties (COP) of UNFCCC and th=
e
meeting of parties of the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the meetings of their
subsidiary bodies, i.e. the subsidiary body for implementation (SBI) and th=
e
subsidiary body for scientific and technological advice (SBSTA).

The controversy erupted at the meeting of the SBI, which is the body that
discusses the implementation of commitments and obligations under the UNFCC=
C
and the Kyoto Protocol.

The day before (3 December), the G77 and China had successfully proposed
that the issue of development and technology transfer be placed on the
mandate and agenda of the SBI, as well as for it to continue to be discusse=
d
in the SBSTA.  Pakistan, for the G77 and China, argued that technology
transfer was not only a scientific issue to be discussed in SBSTA, but an
issue of implementation, which should thus be placed also in SBI.

G77 sources privately said that this proposal arose from the group=B9s
discussion, in which its members voiced frustration that there had been no
progress for years on the actual transfer of technology, and that it was
time that the implementation aspect be reviewed and discussed within the
SBI.

The G77 is hoping that as an agenda item in the SBI, the technology issue
will received greater attention, and moreover it could be taken up as a
review of the developed countries=B9 implementation of their commitments to
developing countries.

As there was no objection, the President of the COP, Indonesian Environment
Minister Mr. Rachmat Witoelar ruled that the topic be included in the SBI
agenda.

According to some European NGOs, the developed countries were against the
issue being discussed at the SBI, because of their dismal record in
implementing their commitment, and also because they did not want to come
under pressure from developing countries to provide technology on
concessional terms.

However these countries were caught off-guard by the G77 and China proposal=
,
and did not object.   The NGOs predicted that the developed countries would
try to put a spoke in the wheels when the SBI took up the issue.

When the SBI met the next day, the G77 and China requested that the COP
decision be implemented, and that the SBI agenda be amended to include the
new technology topic.

However, when the SBI Chair, Mr. Bagher Asadi of Iran, asked for comments,
the United States on behalf of the Umbrella Group (whose members also
include Japan, Australia, Canada and Norway) said that the SBSTA=B9s expert
group on technology had spent much time on the subject.  Since the issue ha=
d
been addressed in SBSTA, it is a duplication to discuss it in the SBI.  It
asked for informal consultations on how to proceed.

Portugal, for the EU, said SBI should consider the issue but there are
several ways to consider it and the SBI is not yet ready to take a decision=
,
and thus there should be further consultations.

At this point, China said the COP had already taken a decision and the
Chair=B9s task was to implement it by adding technology as a new agenda ite=
m.
It was very disappointing that some Annex I countries are negotiating in ba=
d
faith.  No one had objected at the COP when the G77 and China proposed a
separate discussion on technology in SBSTA and SBI.

China said it was not sure why these countries are now raising objections.
They should have raised their objections at the COP and not at the SBI,
whose task is to implement the decision of the COP and not debate whether i=
t
can be an agenda item.

When the Chair said the issue should be discussed informally at lunch time,
Pakistan for the G77 and China responded that the group was very sensitive
about the subject, and as the COP had ruled on this matter, there was no
need to hold informal consultations.

The US raised procedural issues of how the item should be treated by SBI.
Saudi Arabia responded that it is not a good sign or spirit for this to be
discussed further.  How can we discuss the Bali roadmap if we try to trick
each other?

Further support for the G77 position came from Tanzania and Gambia.  China
then said this issue (that technology is an agenda item in SBI) had to be
resolved first before any other item could be discussed.  Our ancestors in
developing countries had been bullied (by these countries) in the past, and
we don=B9t want to be cheated again, said China.

Referring to the developed countries, China added that we should mean what
we have said.  We cannot agree on one occasion and withdraw it on another
occasion.  The issue of technology development and transfer is dear to the
hearts of developing countries, and the issue had to be formally, not
informally, resolved.

The Chair then read a transcript of the proceedings at the COP, which made
clear that the COP President had ruled that on issues relating to the revie=
w
of commitments, the SBI can take up the technology issue and consider it.

After further debate, the Chair finally ruled that the technology issue
would be included as a new item on the agenda.  All in all, the procedural
issue of including this issue on the agenda took three hours to resolve.

When the technology issue came up for substantive discussion later that the
night, there was another clash over another procedural issue =AD on whether=
 a
contact group should be formed to discuss the topic and draft a decision --
which again revealed the reluctance of several developed countries to havin=
g
the issue discussed.

South Africa and India spoke in some detail on how they expected the issue
to be treated at the SBI. South Africa said the technology issue had been
discussed in the SBSTA for the past 9 years, particularly focusing on
considering recommendations from its expert group on technology.  But until
now no technology recommendations have been referred to the SBI.

Now that this matter has finally been referred to the SBI, the immediate
questions are what is the scope of work that the SBI needs to conduct; what
process and modalities should the SBI adopt, and what timeframes should be
given.

On the scope of work, South Africa noted that the expert group and SBSTA ha=
s
completed work in 2 areas: (1) Technology Needs Assessments to determine th=
e
technology requirements of developing countries; and (2) the development of
a framework on innovative options for financing technology transfer.

South Africa proposed that the SBI focus initially on how to transfer and
finance the transfer of existing, emerging and new technologies that have
already been identified by the Technology Needs Assessment processes. The
SBI would need to focus on 3 main questions:

=80 How do we efficiently achieve the transfer of existing climate friendly
technology at the large scale required by science?  The major implementatio=
n
issue here is the incremental cost of installing the =B3Climate Friendly=B2
technology as opposed to the =B3Business as Usual=B2 technology.  Solutions
could include implementation of strategies to =8Cbuy-down=B9 the costs of
technologies to enable its wider diffusion through mechanisms such as a
Multilateral Technology Fund proposed by India.

=80 How do we accelerate the maturation of emerging technologies and diffus=
e
them at the large scale required by science?  The major need is to address
the investment deficit in demonstrating and bringing these emerging
technologies to market at an affordable cost.  One approach is to work with
the private sector to establish a Venture Capital Fund for the
commercialisation of climate friendly technologies that have the potential
to come to the market in the near term.

=80 The final resolution to the climate change challenge in the long term w=
ill
require the extensive development of new low carbon technologies.  The key
issue is the creation of robust mechanisms to strengthen global
collaborative research efforts, including mechanisms to facilitate the
participation of non-Annex 1 parties in the co-development of technologies.
Such mechanisms would need to include a focus on human capital and financin=
g
issues.

South Africa further said adaptation technology issues have been
inadvertently excluded from the work of the Convention.  The SBI must
develop mechanisms to support the development and transfer of adaptation
technologies. In many instances, these are public good interventions with
little return on investment. Financing of adaptation technologies has thus
far received little attention.

The SBI work programme on technology must balance the current single focus
on private sector financing criteria which due to profit and economies of
scale considerations may delay the transfer of both adaptation and
mitigation technologies, since the focus shifts to finding a profitable
arrangement instead of speeding up implementation of Article 4.5 of the
Convention.

South Africa proposed a Contact Group be set up to develop a decision on
this issue, which was`supported by Ghana, India China, Nigeria, Brazil,
Egypt, Iran, Uganda, Tanzania.

[Contact groups have been set up at Bali to further discuss specific issues
and to develop draft decisions for adoption.  Throughout the day, many
groups had been formed on almost all issues under discussion].

India said we are at a technology crossroads.  The vast majority of
infrastructure and equipment have not yet been installed.  Normally,
countries will adopt the most cost effective technology.  But we can take
another path =AD technology with low Greenhouse Has emissions earlier than
otherwise.  The transfer of these technologies to developing countries
should be accelerated.

India proposed the contact group discuss core issues:  (1) review of the
current status of technology transfer under the Convention;  (2) identify
key technologies;  (3) identify instruments (research, treatment of IPRs,
finance) that can accelerate adoption of key technologies;  (4) institute a
global dialogue to promote a framework for these key technologies.

China suggested the SBI=B9s technology work focus on (1) exploring realisti=
c
way to implement specific decisions on the issue;  (2) financing issues,
including implementing innovative financing;  (3) a work plan for technolog=
y
transfer and development at global, regional and national levels; (4)
mechanisms and policy issues.

Nigeria said that the discussion in the morning over procedure had =B3almos=
t
derailed Bali=B2.  The message was that some countries did not want to
implement technology transfer.  It supported a contact group be formed.

Portugal, for the EU, agreed to a contact group.  However, three major
developed countries opposed having a contact group at this session.  Japan
said it wanted clarification on what could be the substance of discussion o=
f
the proposed contact group.  It said it was premature to create this contac=
t
group.

Canada proposed that a contact group be set up at the next SBI session, not
this time.  The US said it had heard the same arguments (made by developing
countries) before, also at SBSTA.  They are being addressed already.  The
issues will not be solved in a few days.  To use our time wisely, they
should be addressed at the next SBSTA.

It was clear that Canada, Japan and the US were still trying to stall
discussing the technology issue at the SBI.  Having failed to prevent its
entry into the SBI agenda, they were trying to prevent it being discussed i=
n
a contact group, with a draft decision produced.

These responses from the developed countries earned the further ire of many
developing countries  Nigeria said it had expected positive pronouncements
from developed countries but they are not making it.  If it takes to 2008 t=
o
establish a contact group, how many more years would it take to begin the
negotiations on this issue?

After many years, the expert group had only produced guidelines on
technology.  Now, these developed countries say we can=B9t even have a cont=
act
group on technology in SBSTA.  To say that you can=B9t even have the right =
to
have a contact group to discuss an issue touching on the lives of developin=
g
countries is to deprive us of the freedom to speak, said Nigeria.

With irony, Nigeria asked that at least the developed countries should allo=
w
a contact group to be established, and then after that make things
impossible in that group.

Uganda said that no party here doubts the role of technology as key, and if
there is such a party it could not be a party to the convention.  The issue
is extremely difficult yet easy.  The technologies are there.  Said Uganda:
Why don=B9t we open our doors and facilitate the transfer so that future
generations have a better life?

Uganda added that for 9 years we have talked and walked in the corridors,
yet we have got nothing out of it regarding technology.  There should be a
group for practical action on technology transfer.

After further questions from China and Tanzania to the Chair on why there
has to be a discussion before setting up a contact group, the Chair ruled
that a contact group would be formed.  Uganda and Finland were nominated to
co-chair the contact group.

Following the meeting, several developing-country delegates expressed deep
frustration with the turn of the discussion.

=B3How can they expect us to trust them with negotiations on a comprehensiv=
e
agreement, when on such a key issue of technology they were trying all kind=
s
of methods to block us from conducting a review of implementation,=B2 remar=
ked
a leading African diplomat.

=B3This debate has been very frustrating, we wasted three hours this mornin=
g
and two hours tonight just discussing whether the issue should be discussed=
,
when the Convention had already agreed on the SBI=B9s role.

=B3It is quite clear to us that they are just not interested to help in
technology transfer.  If this is the case, it is hard to see how
international cooperation can be done on climate change.=B2
--