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.
Technology Working Group
Support for the transfer and proliferation of environmentally sound climate technologies is embedded in Article 4, paragraphs 1(c), 3, 5 and 7 of the Convention. Conceived as early as 2001 and embellished and better-defined as part of the 2007 Bali Action Plan, today’s Technology Mechanism (TM) was mandated in 2010 and became fully operational in December, 2013.
The role of the CAN Technology Working Group is to ensure that the Technology Mechanism lives up to its charge to facilitate the transfer of those technologies that are best suited to meeting the mitigation and adaptation needs of developing country Parties. This means that the transfers are implemented in a “no-regrets” manner, where technologies accomplish Parties’ goals without technology-induced, side effects that were not foreseen and are potentially worse than the climate impacts they were deployed to alleviate.
Author: Bernadette Fischler, CAFOD. With contributions from: Rachel Garthwaite, Save the Children, Ruth Fuller and Dominic White, WWF UK, Sven Harmeling and Kit Vaughan, CARE, Sarah Wykes, Graham Gordon and Neva Frecheville, CAFOD, Lis Wallace, Progressio. (Supported by CAN and Beyond2015 but not an official position)
Yesterday UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner declared with much relish that the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) will begin to accept requests from developing countries for support for technology transfer on December 9. The full operationalization of the Technology Mechanism now emerges as the good news story of COP 19.
But the question arises: does the submission of requests from developing countries make the Technology Mechanism truly fully operational? For those who can’t stand the suspense, here are some suggested enhancements.
*By compromise, ECO mean somewhere in between what is scientifically needed and what YOU tell us is currently feasible.
The Conference of the Parties,
Recalling Article 4, paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 and 7 of the Convention,
Reaffirming the unwavering commitment of parties to keep global average temperature increase well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and the continuum approach between mitigation, adaptation, loss & damage and finance that is required to ensure equity before 2020.
Sixbert Simon Mwanga
Climate Action Network-Tanzania
At successive UNFCCC meetings, Parties have acknowledged the existence of a multi-gigatonnes gap between the current level of ambition to mitigate emissions until 2020 (expressed in QELROs, pledges, targets and NAMAs) for the period until 2020 and what is required in that period to allow the world to stay below the critical 1.5/2°C threshold. According to the Climate Action Tracker, current pre-2020 ambition (expressed by countries in QELROs, pledges and NAMAs) puts the world onto a path of 2.7-4.2°C warming.
The UN climate talks failed to deliver increased cuts to carbon pollution, nor did they provide any credible pathway to $100 billion per year in finance by 2020 to help the poorest countries deal with climate change, according to the 700 NGOs who are members of Climate Action Network-International (CAN-I).
This generation has witnessed unforgettable catastrophes of climate change. The most affected are the rural and poorer people of developing countries, Africa in particular. The African continent has contributed the least to the problem and is the one least able to cope with the impacts, because we depend heavily on climate sensitive activities for our survival. Most of the NAPAs from Africa prioritized agriculture, water, health, energy, forestry and wetlands, wildlife and tourism as the most vulnerable sectors.