Technology transfer concerns – ranging from technology needs assessments (TNA), the report of the Technology Executive Committee, to the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) – were discussed by the Parties today in various settings, but nothing highlighted the heightened concern of the Parties on the issue better than the ugly exchange that took place between developed country Parties and the AWG-LCA Chair, Aysar Tayeb of Saudi Arabia, during the contact group meeting.

LCA contact group meeting on tech transfer

The meeting was held near lunchtime on agenda items 3 to 5 of the AWG-LCA but focused mainly on issues relating to technology transfer. The heated discussion can be considered unbecoming of the Parties, mainly Annex 1 countries, when they sought to seek questions and, by implication, dictate to the AWG-LCA Chair how he should go about his work in resolving the issue on technology transfer.

The AWG-LCA chair opened the contact group discussion with his characterization of the views that have been presented to him by Parties through their submissions into four categories: acknowledgment of the work that has been going on in the bodies that have been created under the Convention, substantive agreement where further actions are required, further guidance which identifies specific tasks that can be forwarded to existing institutions such as the TEC or the CTCN, and further work which identifies additional tasks that will happen at some point in the future.

Jonathan Pershing of the United States spoke first, in a vehement, hectoring tone, asking the AWG-LCA Chair how he intends to proceed in the work of this group since, according to him, there’s a degree of ambiguity that needs to be resolved before the group should proceed further.

Switzerland spoke next telling the AWG-LCA Chair they want to understand the setting in which the group is now working, and asked a series of questions – is this a single contact group or the spin-off, if we’re not in the spin-off please name the spin-off spin-offs, or are we in an informal consultation with the Chair, so with these questions, the speaker said his delegation doesn’t understand the setting and they are a small delegation they need to get answers to these questions so they will know whom to send to what meeting.

The AWG-LCA Chair answered Switzerland saying that the meeting of the spin-offs is scheduled today and for now, the group is meeting in an informal setting.

China then spoke saying they appreciate the opportunity to discuss the unresolved issues of the LCA and highlighting the need to do so.

The US butted in after China, raising a point of order, saying his question is a procedural issue that needs to be tackled first on the floor. He doesn’t think the group should go into substantive debates without resolving the procedural question he has raised.

Japan then spoke, expressing their concern since they were informed that the facilitator of this contact group by the person of Kuni Shimada has been removed by the AWG-LCA Chair, they asked for the reason why he was removed. The AWG-LCA Chair responded to this, saying “I made sure he was not overloaded.”

Russia then said “I regret to say we are confused about the proceedings”, noting the question raised by the US is an important procedural issue, and listed down his issues: the single group that will tackle all LCA issues, nomination of the facilitator, spin-offs which needs transparency, and also time management, which to them is important as we face an overlap of major negotiating streams which does not allow us to go into substance.

The European Union said that before we go into substance, we need to be clear on procedure.

Australia followed up on the concerns of Japan on the facilitator issue which is also of great concern to them. They added that they are confident on the abilities of Mr. Shimada from Japan and are concerned over the reasons why he was removed.

Switzerland spoke again, thanking the Chair on the issue of spin-offs, but he asked if the single contact group used by the Secretariat is called an informal meeting. He also asked if it is similar to what was done in Bangkok, or how to distinguish the two if not. He added he was not aware about the issue concerning the facilitator, but this is a single contact group, to change the process if this is not a single contact group, we need a coherent approach, we need to distinguish clearly the meetings. The AWG-LCA Chair said we’ll name this the spin-offs.

Ukraine appealed for the process to begin with transparency.

The US spoke again on the AWG-LCA Chair’s approach. He asked if the single contact group lead to other groups like spin-offs, then came back to the issue raised by Japan on the facilitator, saying this is a serious issue.

Mexico thanked the AWG-LCA Chair, and went to the issue of the facilitator, the removal of a facilitator because of the views he represents or the country where he is from is a serious issue.

The AWG-LCA Chair clarified that there was nothing against any individual or country from his decision on the facilitator issue. It is only an honest attempt to make sure no one is overloaded, looking at the issues he is holding we are sharing the load, we will all come to these other issues where facilitators will allot more smaller sessions. He said is happy to take this decision, and didn’t think this was an issue.

Japan asked for a reinstatement of Kuni Shimada saying there are a lot of contact groups.

Switzerland then spoke, on this issue of assistance, this is a horizontal question, was it the facilitator, and he was not able to finish his sentence he was cut off by Aysar, the AWG-LCA Chair saying this is already finished, he made the decision, he doesn’t think this should be an issue anymore.

The US pointedly asked the Chair if it will be helpful to just listen to the Chair talking about his plans for this group but without really being clear on how he intends to go about the procedure. He asked if this is the kind of process we should be undergoing, and the chair intended to follow.

The AWG-LCA Chair answered he is looking at it from a “time management perspective.”

“I will be chairing this as much as possible, this is nothing new, the different questions that I didn’t address, in another kind of setting it will be clear, we should be in an informal setting so that we can achieve the agreed outcome of the LCA. You have all expressed to me you are willing to go straight to work; I will kindly request you to have a greater exchange on the issues at hand. I will continue to talk with Japan after this meeting to have a suitable arrangement. With that, I go back to the thing that we have on these proposals and on the four categories, does the acknowledgment of the existing institutions useful to us in doing our work?” the Chair asked.

The US spoke and went back to his question on procedure, what’s our outcome from this discussion, they can see there’s an agreement to move forward; there was some general agreement there but he doesn’t think we have had agreement on the text, thus this discussion seems premature.

Canada said the categorization is premature as the procedural issue is not clarified.

The US spoke again, telling the Chair the latter did not respond to his question. He doesn’t see the categories should be discussed until the procedural issue is settled.

The Philippines said he commiserates with the Chair given the way he has been treated by the previous speakers. He agreed with the Chair that the acknowledgement of the existing institutions created under the Bali Action Plan (BAP) would be useful as a first step in determining whether indeed the BAP’s mandate has been fulfilled. He added that as in previous discussions of this group dating from Bonn, then Bangkok, especially on the matrix the Chair presented, there are still  issues that were left unresolved, and that is where we should go. He added that the country’s delegation trusts the Chair and supports him in this approach on how to proceed in our work.

China said technology transfer is an important issue and expressed support to the Chair.

Saudi Arabia said he has been trying to restrain himself; had it not been for the impressive facilities here compared to the ones we have on Bonn or Bangkok, we thought this would be sufficient to satisfy the concerns of Parties and now as we got to the process of what we are doing. He said the Chair has adequately reflected the positions of everybody on his text, from various submissions on the various issues to no text, but the no-text position is not acceptable to the country.

He said that one country doubting the nationalities of the facilitators is a dangerous precedent; in previous LCA Chairs, we gave him his trust, in spite of what he did, so should it be for this current LCA Chair; we are not accepting a dilution of the work of the LCA saying it is already successful when there are still unresolved issues that still need to be tackled.

The EU said they didn’t feel the Parties have entered into a substance of the discussions, and to this the Chair said, if there’s any category that you think is useful, please do make the suggestions.

India said that there has been an exercise of pick and choose since Durban, as far as technology is concerned, we have made a lot of progress, but we need to narrow our differences, but proceeding in a manner that we pick an issue and find agreement on them and if there’s no agreement it should no longer be on the table is not the way to proceed, we need to discuss where we can find some common ground and for them that is the helpful way.

Mexico thinks we have already reached an agreed outcome, they don’t see any other issue that needs to be discussed. To this the Chair said, you are absolutely right so the acknowledgement of the work is useful.

Norway supported Mexico on the way we have made progress. EU made the same support.

Bangladesh supported China and India.

The Philippines said that if we apply what the US has been saying that we drop any issue that we don’t have an agreement on  based on what Mexico said then we don’t have anything more to discuss, because if Mexico is saying we have a successful outcome we have a different view from that and we don’t want that discussion to be taken off the table for if we do, then we will then have nothing to show for our efforts which started since Bali, that is why given this view that there are differences on how we view whether there is a successful outcome, then what we should do is continue the discussion further and find ways where the differences of opinion lie and work our way to find commonalities and convergence there.

The US said the Philippines is talking at cross-purposes, from our perspective we don’t have anything else to do, the LCA is right to wrap up now, we agree with Philippines there are still unresolved issues but we disagree that we need to continue discussing it in LCA as there are now new forms or entities where we can tackle these issues. Now is the time to finish, we can work with you but we continue these discussions in the bodies we have created.

A youth representative spoke saying we need to ensure that the work of the CTC is about community empowerment that goes along the lines of the work of the CTCN; the conduct of national technology needs assessments should be done with indigenous peoples, the issue of barriers must be addressed, particularly the issue of IPRs; there are many issues, let’s get it right, but let’s get it done.

Uganda spoke, saying we are not helping the process, the LCA is still breathing but now we are trying to bury it, the LCA is not yet dead. For example, on the issue of linkages, like the TEC with the financial mechanism, that one is not settled.

The US responded to Uganda, on whether we have addressed the issues, he said there is already a platform on which to discuss these  issues and this is where we can look at these connections.

The Philippines responded to the US, if we look closely at the bodies that the US said has been created to look at these supposed unfinished issues, let’s examine closely, can these bodies, like the CTCN and the TEC, address the issue of linkages, well, they have a  discussion that looks at it in a similar way, this is one on modalities, but the way they are addressing it is not in accordance with the mandate that is provided by the Bali Action Plan and I don’t think they can address it immediately since the TEC, for example, will look at its linkages with other bodies as it evolves. Let’s go to another issue, the matter of taking on additional functions, can these bodies like TEC or CTCN add on these functions, but the Cancun decision tells us we can consider additional functions, but on their own these bodies cannot add these functions, this has to be done under the LCA.

Mexico said we already have a successful outcome, we still have work to do but we can try to continue these discussions in its proper space.

After this intervention, the AWG-LCA Chair said there is no more time, we will have to continue and he will just make the announcements later.

SBI/SBSTA contact group on technology transfer

Before these LCA-related discussions, the SBI/SBSTA contact group on technology transfer also tackled the report of the TEC as well as the results of the experiences-sharing workshop held in Bangkok after the 4^TH TEC meeting in September.

The debate on the TEC report is that mainly the developed countries from the US, Japan, Canada, Australia and the EU don’t want an elaborate set of conclusions but just merely to acknowledge the report and thank the TEC for its work. The developing countries want to highlight certain aspects of the work of the TEC, especially the work on the enabling environments that deal with also with the issue of IPRs, among other guidance as to how the TEC will carry on its work.

On the TNA assessments, the Philippines spoke, saying that the SBI should give further guidance on how  the implementation and action leading to actual transfer of technologies should be done, after these workshops, countries cannot just be doing workshops forever, there should already be transfer of technologies that need to be done and on those countries like the Philippines that were not able to participate in these TNA workshops, something must be done also to them, do they do now these transfers on their own without the benefit of these workshops or  a way can be found for them to do these workshops at a later stage.

On the discussions on the MOU for the host of the CTCN, which is now the UNEP, it was made clear by the legal counsel of the UNFCCC Secretariat that Parties can do what they want with this draft MOU, which may be in the form of a Decision to guide the Secretariat in further negotiations with the UNEP or maybe textual suggestions to further enhance it.

The key issues that surfaced during the Q&A session with the UNEP and the UNFCCC legal counsel mainly revolved around the matter of reporting: the draft MOU says the UNEP only reports to the COP, through the Advisory Board, but the debate was on whether the UNEP should also report to the TEC as that is the contention of the developing countries.

There was also the matter on how accountability can be exacted by the COP. The MOU only speaks of guidance from the COP, but, for example, if the COP sees that the CTCN is not responsive to the needs of developing countries for technology transfer, how can the COP ensure that will do other things that the COP wishes to do, that is not clear in the MOU.

In addition, there is the interface of the UNEP governing council since the MOU says the CTCN Director, who is appointed and vetted by UNEP, also reports to the UNEP Governing Council. If the UNEP Governing Council says one thing and the COP through the Advisory Board says another, who then will the Director follow?

Networks were also taken up, and how they can be made accountable. The MOU says it will be through the consortium agreements, but that will still be developed by the UNEP. Shouldn’t the COP have a hand on that too?

There were other issues raised by Parties but the Co-Chair of this contact group on the MOU, the well-esteemed Kuni Shimada, was given the mandate to make a set of draft conclusions and a draft decision for discussions to become focused on this issue.