Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 11 • Number 7 • 18th April 2011

Delegates Tackle Technology Mechanism at Bangkok Climate Talks

Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say

Seeking to operationalise the outcomes of the Cancun conference, parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) delved into the details of the institutional set up and design of the new Technology Mechanism. The agreement to create the mechanism was hailed as one of the important results of Cancun.

The decision comes as the culmination of a three year negotiating process on the means to enhance the transfer of climate friendly technologies - particularly to developing countries. It is built upon the premise that the worldwide accelerated diffusion of these technologies is critical to global efforts to reduce green house gas emissions.

However, the decision left several pending issues to be agreed upon in 2011. These include finance and a number of institutional matters regarding the relationship between the mechanism’s two main bodies - the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN). More generally, many of the mechanism’s functions need to be further “fleshed out” so that new body can become fully operational in 2012.

Need for “specifics”

During the 4-5 April workshop, which took place alongside formal negotiating sessions of the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA (see related article, this issue), countries put forward suggestions and proposals on how to make the mechanism work concretely and, in particular, how to structure the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN). Apart from countries, presentations were also made by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

Delegates discussed many ideas over the course of the workshop, with many agreeing that discussions would need to move toward establishing specifics in order to move substantially forward. US negotiator, John Pershing, called the CTCN one of the “good outcomes” of Cancun, and stressed the “need to elaborate specifics to move rapidly to operationalise the CTCN, including enabling the issuance of Request for Proposals in Durban.”

“Many models for the CTCN could work, but they should be ‘results oriented, cost effective, and efficient’,” Pershing said. He suggested the network could be arranged in sectoral areas, such as renewables, efficiency, water, and agriculture, and emphasised that the private sector and academia should have an important role in the network

Bangladesh emphasised that “technology transfer proposals should have balanced emphasis on both adaptation and mitigation.”

North-south divide on relationship between bodies

The relationship between the mechanism’s two main bodies - the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) was much commented upon by countries.

The EU said it believes the CTC should operate independently within its terms of reference and only take into account “the strategic guidance provided by TEC.” But many developing countries - such as China, India and Bangladesh - would like to see the TEC as the body overseeing the CTCN. China suggested that the TEC should guide the CTCN and provide the “broad framework, directions and strategy for technology development and transfer under the Convention.”

In another point of contention, the EU suggested the CTC should be hosted by an intergovernmental institution in the UN system, while India said it should instead be preferably hosted in a developing country. Bangladesh also proposed that Regional Climate Technology Centres (RCTCs) be set up in all the UN Regions as Networks of the CTC.

Intellectual property rights back in?

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) has been one of the most divisive issues in the climate technology negotiations. Since the UNFCCC’s Thirteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 13) in Bali, developing countries have been pressing for the consideration of IPRs as one of the possible barriers to the transfer of climate friendly technologies.

However, developed countries opposed such a view, given the essential role they consider that IPR protection plays in providing incentives for innovation in clean technologies. As a result, all the language on IPRs remained bracketed during negotiations and, ultimately, there was no reference to IPRs in the final text of the Cancun Agreements.

At the Bangkok workshop, China, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Bangladesh argued in their presentations that the Technology Mechanism should - in one way or the other - address the role of IPRs in the transfer of climate friendly technologies.

China indicated that the mechanism should “properly deal with IPRs” while Bangladesh mentioned that the CTC should “resolve issues related to IPRs.”

Ecuador argued that IPRs impede the diffusion of certain technologies in the developing world. The Latin American country said the TEC should thus “ensure that environmental-climate related technologies are in the public domain and free of patents” and “influence multilateral entities to enact policies to facilitate the transference of clean technologies and reduce IPRs barriers.” Ecuador further called the TEC to apply a flexible system of IPRs with respect to clean technologies.

Bolivia emphasised that the Technology Mechanism should attempt to identify the concrete IPR obstacles facing the transfer of climate-friendly technologies. It further suggested that the mechanism should propose alternatives, such as supporting the use of flexibilities available within the TRIPS Agreement - including compulsory licenses, exceptions to patent rights, regulating voluntary licenses and strict application of patentability criteria. Bolivia also suggested that the mechanism support the development of proposals for national legislation that allow more flexibilities in IPRs and initiatives to promote and fully benefit from innovations that are in the public domain.

If countries are able to agree on issues relating to design and the institutional set of the Technology Mechanism at COP-17 in Durban, the mechanism could be fully operational by 2012.

ICTSD Reporting.