CAN thanks the Parties for this opportunity to share our thinking on the Technology Framework. Our submission contains five key components: Strategic Vision; Innovation and RDD; Support for implementation; Enabling Environments and Capacity Building; and Collaboration and Stakeholder Engagement.
CAN thanks the Parties for the opportunity to present our initial thinking on the scope and modalities for the Periodic Assessment (PA) of the Technology Mechanism (TM).
Our KEY IDEAS:
1.The Technology Framework should provide guidance for the regular evaluation of the TM through the Periodic Assessment (PA). The Assessment must include metrics and indicators developed from the mandate of the TM.
2.The TM has the opportunity to play a central role in supporting the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of developing countries within its existing mandate, but in order to meet the scale of Parties’ needs, the TM must further build cooperation among institutions that have capacity to work in this space.
3.The PA should assess the mandates of the TEC in terms of how its guidance is actually having influence on appropriate technology decisions in developing countries and how well the outcomes of Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs) and Technology Action Plans (TAPs) are mainstreamed into planning at various levels, and translated into bankable projects.
4.The PA should assess the ability of the CTCN to meet its mandate in providing technical assistance to NDEs, ensuring that the knowledge generated is accessible and actionable by others, and provides adequate support for developing country NDCs.
The PA should assess the effectiveness of the TM to create and maintain the linkages with other institutions needed to ensure that technology-related climate action can be implemented at scale.
CAN thanks the Secretariat of the UNFCCC and the members of the Technology Executive Committee for the opportunity to comment on the Technology Needs Assessment and the Technology Action Plan processes. In response to the questions posed by the Secretariat on this topic, CAN submits the following responses, on which we would welcome a broader discussion with the TEC.
ECO has noticed with great appreciation that the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) is continuing to move towards greater transparency. Ever since its inception 2 years ago, the TEC has laid the foundation for transparency with their adoption of webcasting and inclusion of observers in thematic dialogues. In the meeting that just ended last week, the TEC outshone its own record of inclusiveness by inviting BINGO; RINGO; ENGO; and IGO observers to take part in many of the thematic task forces. To boot, the secretariat will begin to post notes of the meetings on the TT: Clear website.
ECO toasts the TEC members and secretariat, especially Chair Gabriel Blanco and Vice-Chair Kuni Shimada, for their insightful leadership. Congratulations TEC - cheers to you!
Other thematic bodies, you’re invited to follow suit.
CAN, YOUNGO and CJN! SBI Opening Plenary Intervention at COP18
Delivered by, David Gawith of YOUNGO, 27 November 2012
Thank you Chair, my name is David and I will be 60 years old in in 2050
Your task this week is a challenging one. The SBI is expected to complete its entire business this session by Saturday. We stand ready to assist you in this task. Science is telling us that full and sustained implementation of the Convention's fundamental objective is slipping further and further from our grasp. This has disastrous implications for humanity and for its future, our future.
Hurricane Sandy’s impacts in Haiti, Cuba, and the United States have reminded us that loss and damage is a reality. It’s happening now. Current low mitigation ambition is breaching the ultimate objective of the Convention. Opportunities for avoiding loss and damage are being wasted because of insufficient funding. We need to start thinking beyond adaptation. Based on the decision from Durban, we expect you to set up a comprehensive mechanism to address compensation and rehabilitation issues. Further, we expect you to develop the next phase of the work programme to detail the modalities of the mechanism. Almost 100 vulnerable developing countries have outlined the needs and potential elements of an international mechanism. Doha must not end without clear progress on addressing loss and damage.
On technology, for the Technology Mechanism to be considered "fully operational" at COP18 there must be a committed source of interim and long term funding for the Technology Executive Committee, the Climate Technology Centre and its Advisory Board. The architecture of the Technology Mechanism must also be highly responsive to developing Party clients in order to promote transparency and ensure equitable access to adaptation and mitigation technologies. Finally there must be robust engagement with stakeholders and civil society.
On Capacity Building, Parties should concentrate their work on paragraph 6 of 13/CP-17. By agreeing on an intensive 2 year work programme that creates an enhanced structure for effective capacity building in developing countries, by the end of 2014, the ground lost on capacity building could be regained here in Doha.
We hold you accountable for these outcomes.
Dear delegates:Yesterday CAN was scheduled to deliver a 2 minute statement at the opening of the SBI. Regrettably (to CAN at least), the Chair decided under his own authority that there were not 2 minutes left available in the session for the delivery of that statement. So you never got to hear it. For your information, here it is:
SBI-36 OPENING STATEMENT
Thank you, Chair. Good evening dear delegates and colleagues.
Firstly, Chair, CAN wishes you all the best in the task ahead of you in what promises to be yet another challenging year for the SBI.
On specific items this session, we would like to briefly highlight three particularly important issues for CAN:
Firstly, on capacity building, the establishment of the Durban Forum was one small step taken last year towards recognising the critical need for Parties to agree on scaled up and coordinated action on capacity building. The vast majority of developing countries fully understand the benefits of low-carbon development, how it can benefit their sustainable development and poverty alleviation objectives and how it will allow their emissions to deviate from a business as usual baseline. Ways to address their current lack of capacity to even commence this task need to be urgently agreed. CAN looks forward to participating in the Forum next week and to working with you, Chair, and with Parties towards scaling up the implementation of 2/CP-7.
Secondly, on arrangements for inter-governmental meetings, CAN has no need to remind delegates of the scale of the task involved in ensuring coherence between the seven negotiating tracks scheduled for Doha. The confluence of those tracks has to be a framework for both vastly scaled up mitigation effort between now and 2020, and a robust workplan to deliver a new and fully comprehensive legally binding agreement by 2015 at the latest.
In the same item, the subject of NGO participation is of course a vital matter for CAN. Progress we thought the SBI had secured this time last year has been more than somewhat degraded since, with Parties continuing to conduct the real substance of the negotiations away from the eyes and ears of civil society. In at least one case in Durban the final "open" informal meeting was in fact just 5 minutes long. Civil society observers therefore had no opportunity whatsoever to contribute to the outcome, or even to be able to comment on it. This was not the spirit of last year's SBI decision as CAN understood it.
Thirdly, on appeals against decisions of the CDM Executive Board, Parties must uphold the principle that the right to information, the right to public participation, and the right to seek justice are intrinsic to every individual and are inherent human rights. Access to justice for all local and global stakeholders including project-affected peoples and communities must be ensured. Thank you.
In the Cancun UN Climate Talks (COP16) it was decided that the Technology Mechanism will be fully operational in 2012. The institutions within the Technology Mechanism: Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and Climate Technology Centers and Network (CTCN) should be fully functioning to implement the Cancun Agreements. This is the reason CTCN has become an important issue of discussion here in Panamá.
ECO cannot stop wondering; what will it take to make Japan come to its senses? Nuclear is neither safe nor clean. If the ongoing, dreadful tragedies in Fukushima cannot make this simple fact clear, what will it take?
And still, in the KP spin off group meeting yesterday, Japan, supported by India, once again refused to drop the option to include nuclear in CDM. This means the country still wants to get credits for exporting to developing countries the very technology that brought such tremendous hardship upon its own people.
This is inappropriate, irresponsible and even morally wrong.
The country still has not been able to stabilize the reactors and has not been able to take care of the residents in the heavily contaminated areas, nor dispose of radioactive waste arising from decontamination and from water treatment sludge.
How can Japan take this position in the midst of the nuclear crisis?
Just as a reminder, this technology does not fit one of the objectives of CDM, which is to contribute to sustainable development.
It is time for all Parties to make a simple decision: drop the option to "include nuclear in CDM." The world expresses great disapproval towards the Japanese position of continuing to promote nuclear in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster.