[A2k] TWN Bali Update: COLLAPSE ON TECHNOLOGY TALKS SOURS BALI CLIMATE CONFERENCE

[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.11
 Date : 13 December 2007

 Contents:
TWN BALI NEWS UPDATE  NO. 11

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
--

COLLAPSE ON TECHNOLOGY TALKS SOURS BALI CLIMATE CONFERENCE


Nusa Dua, Bali, 12 Dec (Hira Jhamtani and Neth Dano) - Parties to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Bali failed to
reach agreement on the development and transfer of technologies needed to
address climate change, considered as one of the four major building blocks
of the Bali Roadmap.

Both the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advise (SBSTA) and th=
e
Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI), negotiating in their separate
bodies since last week, failed to come to a consensus on the agenda item
=B3development and transfer of technologies.=B2   They decided to postpone
further discussion to the next meetings of the two bodies in June 2008.

The G-77 and China spokesman in one of the meetings strongly criticized the
developed countries, which he said had only paid =B3lip service=B2 on
transferring technology to developing countries, but in reality there was n=
o
sincerity in helping developing countries.

The failure on technology cast a dark shadow over the rest of the Bali
process, as technology is seen as a major test of the sincerity of develope=
d
countries=B9 commitments on climate change and to the developing countries.
=B3This collapse in technology talks leaves the Bali conference limping,=B2=
 said
a diplomat.

Technology had been discussed in both the subsidiary bodies.  It had
originally been discussed only in SBSTA but on the initiation of the G-77
and China it also became an item on the SBI agenda, where the implementatio=
n
aspect has been discussed.

The final plenary sessions of both bodies met separately on 11 December
night until past midnight and into the early hours of Wednesday to attempt
to salvage the situation before the start of the High-Level Meetings later
that day, but to no avail.

At the SBSTA, after some last-minute efforts failed to reach an agreement o=
n
the few remaining areas in a draft text, the meeting finally agreed to
convey to the Conference of the Parties (COP) its failure and its decision
to refer the matter, including the current text, for consideration of the
SBSTA at its next session in June 2008.

In closing remarks, Ghana on behalf of G-77 and China, expressed the
collective disappointment of the bloc on the failure of Parties to deliver
in the areas of technology transfer and capacity building.

It said that the G-77 and China =B3were led to believe that there are good
intentions=B2 among the Parties in the negotiations, but ended up disappoin=
ted
by the =B3lack of goodwill=B2 on the part of developed countries.  All the
statements on the development and transfer of technology delivered by
developed countries were merely =B3lip service=B2 and that there is no sinc=
erity
in helping developing countries.

Ghana said that Bali process is a =B3failed one=B2 for it cannot agree on t=
his
most important issue, despite the noise in the media by developed countries
about it.

China lamented the failure to arrive at an agreement on development and
transfer of technology, and called it a =B3shame=B2 that would be very diff=
icult
to explain to the public and the rest of the world especially in view of th=
e
flowery speeches of many Parties on the importance of this building block.
Pakistan noted that developing countries deserve much better than such a
result that does not match the rhetoric of Parties at the conference.

The delegates in SBSTA who spoke all expressed their disappointment over th=
e
failure to arrive at any agreement as they were =B3very near=B2 achieving a
decision.  The main stumbling block was the disagreement between using
=B3facility=B2 or =B3program=B2 in defining the nature of the multilateral =
fund for
technology transfer.

Earlier in the day, during the last SBSTA technology contact group that met
at noon, the group discussed a draft text with 9 paragraphs with two
annexes: Annex I on recommendations for enhancing the implementation of
framework for meaningful and effective actions to enhance the implementatio=
n
of Article 4, Paragraph 5 of the convention and Annex II on terms of
reference of the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT).

Operative Paragraph 4 and the annexes were not agreed on. Paragraph 4 was a
decision to establish a new multilateral technology cooperation fund to
finance development, deployment, diffusion and transfer of environmentally
sustainable technologies to developing countries.  This paragraph originate=
d
from the G-77 and China proposal placed at SBI but also brought to SBSTA fo=
r
coherence.

The alternative paragraph suggested by developed countries was to assign th=
e
EGTT as the effective institutional arrangement within the Convention, base=
d
on the terms of reference (TOR) in Annex II.

Paragraph 3 provides for the reconstitution of the work of EGTT for a
further five years based on the TOR. Thus the developed countries want the
EGTT to continue to be the implementing body while developing countries wan=
t
to create a new facility. Countries could not resolve this and referred the
disputed text to the SBSTA plenary.

Meanwhile, the SBI had separately over the last few days been discussing tw=
o
proposals by the G-77 and China and by the Umbrella Group (Australia, the
United States, Japan, Canada, Norway and other developed countries).
Paragraph 4 of the SBSTA draft also appeared as paragraph 2 in the 11
December draft of SBI, and it was also not agreed on at the contact group.

The G-77 and China made it clear that the SBSTA text would not be agreed on=
,
if the SBI text is not agreed on. The alternative text for paragraph 2 says
=B3request the GEF to explore forming a program to provide further support =
for
technology transfer to help developing countries address their needs for
environmentally sound technology, and how such a program might be
implemented.=B2  Thus while the G-77 and China paper proposed establishing =
a
technology fund and going into implementation, the alternative text merely
asks to =B3explore forming a program=B2.

During the informal SBI meeting, a developing country delegate said the G-7=
7
and China had given up on a lot of issues, in the spirit of moving forward.
They were even willing to consider a text that says =B3establish a new
facility for the implementation of technology transfer=B2. The EU and US sa=
id
they have no mandate to agree on this and will have to ask the head of thei=
r
delegation.

Two hours later, they came back and said they could not agree to
establishing anything. The contact group co-chairs had no choice but to
report back to the SBI chair that the group could not come to an agreement.
In that case, the G-77 and China asked that the text submitted to the SBI
chair must the text in which the G-77 and China had not made many
compromises.

They said they had made compromises hoping to come to an agreement. Since n=
o
agreement was arrived at, they wanted their original positions were
reflected. There was a heated argument on this but it was not clear which
text would be submitted to the SBI chair.

When the SBI met formally late on 11 December night, Pakistan, speaking on
behalf of G-77 and China, reiterated extreme disappointment in the manner i=
n
which the technology transfer issue has been dealt with and with the lack o=
f
agreement.

Pakistan proposed that the issue be taken up by the next SBI session in Jun=
e
2008 and said that the text of 11 December at 15.50 hours must be the one
transmitted to SBI.

India said without technology the process of mitigation and adaptation will
be slower. India had thought that parties would want to work together to
solve climate change, but it was not to be so.

Algeria questioned what is the intent behind not allowing any implementatio=
n
of technology transfer.  This has not allowed the countries to go forward i=
n
climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The Philippines reminded countries of two important obligations under
article 4.3 on finance and 4.5 on technology transfer under the Convention,
governed by the principle of common but differentiated responsibility.
Article 4.7, said the Philippine delegation underlines these obligations an=
d
it proceeded to read out the article: =B3The extent to which developing
country Party will effectively implement their commitments under the
Convention will depend on effective implementation by developed country
Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial
resources and the transfer of technology and will take fully into account
that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first
and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties=B2.

This is the heart of the convention, said Philippines, and this is the basi=
s
of equity. =B3How can we talk of mitigation and adaptation without finance =
and
transfer of technology?  Something unbalanced is going on,=B2 she ended.

Ghana, echoing the disappointment of other developing countries questioned
why developed countries do not want to implement their commitments. Ghana
asked if it was possible to take up the issue with COP president and whethe=
r
the issue needs to be raised at the COP. To this the chair replied that
countries are free to raise the issue and ministers can also do so during
the high level segment.

In a futile attempt to avert a disastrous consequence of the failure to
arrive at any concrete agreement on a major building block of the Bali
Roadmap, several Parties presented proposals to salvage the situation.

In SBSTA, the EU proposed extending the negotiations on the matter in the
coming days until a consensus is reached.  Pakistan suggested that the
current negotiating text be forwarded to the COP plenary for decision, whic=
h
was supported by China and India.  Saudi Arabia said that it would want to
refer the text to the Ministers during the high-level segment of the
conference.

The US offered that, in the absence of an agreed text, the SBSTA should
decide to extend the mandate of the Experts Group on Technology Transfer fo=
r
one year. The proposal was strongly rejected by the G-77 and China, citing
the fact that the body has failed to arrive at any agreement on matters
related to technology transfer.

The Parties initially agreed to extend the negotiations on the matter durin=
g
the SBSTA plenary through the night and into the morning but they were
reminded by the Secretariat on the security constraints of holding sessions
beyond 3:00 am.  The SBSTA Chair proposed to refer the matter to the next
session of the body, including the latest negotiating text, which was
accepted by Parties.

The decision was then conveyed to the Chair of the SBI which was awaiting
for the outcome from SBSTA on the issue before it was taken up on the SBI
floor.  In the absence of any agreement, SBI then also decided to refer the
matter to its next session.

The highly divisive tone of the discussion on development and transfer of
technology kicked off with an ominous controversy at the beginning of the
Bali conference.  On the first day, G-77 and China proposed at the
Convention meeting that the technology issue be also put under the SBI
agenda so that it could become an implementation issue.

The proposal was accepted by the Conference of Parties but when the
technology issue was brought up was discussed at the SBI, the Umbrella Grou=
p
tried to block its immediately being put on the agenda, or that a contact
group be created.  This shocked the G77-China as it was clear proof to them
that these developed countries were trying to hinder technology being
discussed as an implementation issue. The procedural wrangling took up five
hours of the SBI=B9s time.

After a bumpy start, the members at both SBI and SBSTA had lengthy
discussion that almost ended in a compromise agreement. However, in the end
the talks in both bodies collapsed because of an issue related to
implementation. This has led the developing countries to conclude that the
developed countries are not ready to be serious about technology transfer,
and they have openly questioned the intention of the developed countries in
Bali and even what was going to be achieved in Bali.

There was a similarly disheartening development in the group on capacity
building for developing countries.  The group failed to reach agreement on =
a
Decision.  When this was reported to the formal SBI meeting, Pakistan,
speaking on behalf of G-77 and China said there were times their delegation
were frustrated because procedural issues took precedence over substantive
issues.

The G-77 and China said they were disappointed that countries could not
agree on a Decision for capacity building which is very important for
developing countries. The issue has not received the attention it deserves.
Developing countries need support for sustainable development including
capacity on early warning and disaster risk management. Therefore it is a
great disappointment that the capacity building issue could not be agreed
on.

This was echoed by Tanzania and China. China questioned, without an
agreement on capacity building what will the Bali mandate and the post 2012
regime look like? This will damage the UNFCCC process if capacity building
and developing country concerns keep being ignored. =B3We feel sad and
disappointed=B2, China said but with patience and belief China hopes to mak=
e
progress and urged that partners take into account developing country
concerns. It was instructive that no developed country spoke on this issue.

At almost 2.00 a.m. on 12 December, the SBI meeting came to an end with the
concluding remarks of its Chair, Ambassador Asadi Bagher of Iran.

He said that when there was an impasse, the Co-chairs at the capacity
building informal meeting asked for a helping hand.

On development and technology transfer, we had a bumpy start, said Asadi.
Negotiations were bumpy and difficult on a number of issues. The sky high
expectations of Bali conference on the streets had been too unrealistic and
negatively impacts our work.

The Chair said as we look at the tally, we have not failed. We have the
adaptation fund. And we have other good decision on the funding mechanism
(agenda item 5).

The main disappointments and failure was the lack of agreement on capacity
building.

With the bumpy start on development and technology transfer, it has not bee=
n
in vain. Contact group worked hard to come close to a text. But in the end
the issues were too complicated and it was regretful there was a collective
failure (on the technology issue).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
--

www.twnside.org.sg;  twnet@po.jaring.my


 Author :

------ End of Forwarded Message

--