ECO is a fan of transparency, and we’re encouraged by the general agreement on the need for more of it on mitigation here in Bonn. Parties need to start considering the unique needs of transparency for support– particularly to enable the transfer of environmentally sound technologies.
This discussion opens the opportunity to move beyond standard MRV questions. Instead, we can assess whether support ensures that all Parties are enabled to participate to their fullest extent? And are supported technologies respectful of communities and planetary boundaries?
Such questions reflect the reality that full participation of developing countries is needed to ensure emissions reductions at the required scale, and that support is needed to enable this participation. This would also be jeopardised by the introduction of technologies that put sustainable development at risk, threaten biodiversity or are undesirable from a cultural perspective though.
How can these pitfalls be avoided? Complete transparency.
To achieve this, there must be a comprehensive set of quantitative and qualitative indicators that can appropriately reflect relevant concerns. These should include indicators to measure the participation of countries in the full variety of technology transfer arrangements from bi- to multilateral or business-to-business and the list goes on.
Transparency also demands the establishment of a mechanism that stakeholders can demand redress in the case that climate action is impacting their property or livelihood. This must be accompanied by capacity building and technology assessment tools that could be used to determine the most suitable national fit.
It’s a big job, but there’s no alternative if given that we need to use technology to enable mitigation action without causing other environmental or social problems.