Objectives of the group in terms of debate and product
- To make a proposal that ensures the development and transfer of technology to developing countries by developed countries in accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
- To analyse and propose alternatives to overcome the different barriers of market, intellectual property, financing and others which restrict and/or hinder the development and transfer of technology to developing countries.
- To analyse the Understanding of Copenhague regarding this matter.
Main issues to be discussed by the group
- How to ensure the compliance with the commitment of developed countries transferring technology to developed countries as established in the UNFCCC?
- Why does the scheme for carbon market have failed to comply with the commitments of development and transfer of technology?
- What are the particularities (institutional structure, governance, financing, etc.) of a mechanism whereby the process of development and transfer of technology to developing countries is effective, efficient and sustained.
- How to overcome the barriers of intellectual property and others hindering the development and transfer of technology to developing countries?
- Which measures should be put in place to reassess and spread the endogenous capacities and technologies of developing countries?
- What are the reasons why the Copenhague Accord (Understanding of Copenhague) does not ensure the development and transfer of technology?
Background
Development and Transfer of Technology in the context of the Convention
Article 4 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change acknowledges that a process is required to face climate change allowing the development, diffusion, application, deployment, adaptation and transfer of technologies to developing countries to adapt to and mitigate climate change, as well as strengthening the endogenous technologies of said countries.
The process of technology transfer in the context of the UNFCCC is currently being carried forward mainly by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and by the Group of Experts on Technology Transfer who shall have the following functions:
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA)
The SBSTA was established in the first Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in August 1995 to provide COP and other subsidiary bodies as appropiate, timely information and advice on scientific and technological matters relating to the Convention.
The SBSTA shall be formed by a multidisciplinary group comprising government representatives competent in the relevant field of expertise.
Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT)
The main objective of EGTT is to enhance the implementation of the commitments related to the transfer of technology within the framework of the Convention and to carry out such activities related to the transfer of technology under the Convention.
Additionally, this body shall analyse and identify ways to facilitate and carry out such activities related to the transfer of technology and to issue recommendations to SBSTA.
The members of this body will be elected by parties to the Convention.
Current situation on the compliance of the commitment for Development and Transfer of Technology.
Despite the fact that this commitment was made more than 15 years ago, so far it has not been made effective.
There are a series of barriers within the current system that restrict or limit the development and transfer of technologies to face climate change in developing countries:
- The high cost of technologies.
- Intellectual Property Rights.
- The unsuitability of technology to the reality of developing countries.
- Developing countries are not keeping up with research output.
- Deficiencies in technology maintenance in developing countries.
Until now the concept has prevailed that the carbon market through the Clean Development Mechanism will be the main source of technology transfer.
Developing countries buy technology at market prices for a project to reduce emissions (in fact it is not a transfer). Later on such generations are bought in the carbon market (MDL) by developed countries to be incorporated within their commitment to reduce at lower prices.
An efficient and effective mechanism to identify the technological needs in developing countries, to address and eliminate the barriers that hinder compliance with the commitment to develop and transfer technologies to developing countries is non existent.
There are a series of barriers of intellectual property rights for development and transfer of technology to developing countries that should be addressed and eliminated in order to face the challenges of climate change in developing countries.
Some proposals under discussion
The following is a summary of some of the main proposals on development and transfer of technology within the process of international negotiations on climate change.
- Colombia: Is proposing a technological mechanism to be applied under the guidance of the Conference of the Parties (COP) for financing, access, suitability, adaptation and capacity building for such technologies required in developing countries for adaptation and mitigation, as well as the removal of barriers to development and transfer of technology.
Such mechanism comprises a Multilateral Climate Fund for Technology, a Committee on Compliance and EGTT as consulting body.
- India: Is proposing the establishment of a Board on Technology to develop strategies and plans of action on technology, monitoring the implementation of policies, lines of action and administrative agreements to achieve the objectives set forth in a Fund for Climate Change Technology. The members of the Board will be elected by the COP on the basis of a balanced representation of the Parties not included in Annex 1.
- Japan: The support for the promotion of technology transfer should be provided to developing countries that have already adopted policies, measures to reduce greenhouse gas emisions and who have made efforts to enhance the business environment to accelerate the transfer of technology.
Is proposing the establishment of a consulting group for technology cooperation that will identify effective technologies, analyse the current situation on technology transfer, analyse the barriers to the transfer, identify measures to accelerate the transfer of technology and review the outcome of such measures.
The funds that may be used to speed up the transfer of technology should be discussed. Programmes based on criteria such as cost-efficiency and others such as the Clean Technology Fund of the World Bank.
- Bolivia: Points out that the existing system of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) include a series of flexibilities designed to reduce the impact of IPR when they become a barrier to access and transfer. In this sense and regarding climate change such flexibilities should be expanded to ensure that the technological needs of developing countries to adapt to and mitigate the adverse effects of climate change should be addressed.
With this understanding proposes that any international agreement on IPR should not be construed as restricting or preventing the Parties thereto to address climate change, including the development and transfer of technology.
The necessary steps should be taken at fora to exclude patents in developing countries for technologies that are environmentally sound; the necessary measures should be taken to facilitate technological centres that include knowledge and market secrets.
To create and provide immediately fresh and additional financial resources for the establishment of technological centres of excellence in developing countries for research in technologies of adaptation and mitigation of climate change.
Ensure that the transfer of technology is conducted in a manner that guarantees its effective and immediate use.
There is a document which is the result of the work by AWG-LCA, COP 15 in Copenhague, Denmark. However, the substantial contents of said documents are not reflected in the Understanding of Copenhague.
The Understanding of Copenhague proposes the establishment of a Technological Mechanism to speed up the development and transfer of technology as support to the adaptation and mitigation guided by a process led by the countries on the basis of national priorities and circumstances.
All elements contained in the negotiation text developed at COP 15 are not included in the Understanding of Copenhague among which are the following:
- Principles of cooperation action on technology.
- Activities to be supported.
- Institutional architecture of the Technological Mechanism.
- Governance and functions of the Technological Mechanism.
- Liaison with the Technological Mechanism.
- Barriers to the Development and Transfer of Technology.
- Capacity Building and Strenghtening.
Reference Documents:
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
- Kyoto Protocol.
- Bali Action Plan.
- Submissions by the Parties contained in documents: FCCC/AWGLCA/ 2008/MISC.1 / FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/MISC.9, including addenda and complements.
- Non-paper No. 47 6/11/09 @ 13:00 CONTACT GROUP ON ENHANCED ACTION ON DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY.
- Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative
Action under the Convention. Enhanced action on technology development and transfer.
- Copehague Accord.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 1, 2010 at 11:25 am
David Whitfield
In addition to the above political aspects, what is being done now to identify and facilitate simple and appropriate technology that can be transfered immediately and if the respective governments of developing nations facilitated, implemented immediately.
Solar cooking, solar water pasteurization efficient rocket stoves for domestic and productive uses, retained heat cooking, regulations to require thermal solar for domestic hot-water, restaurants, hospitals. Some much technology exists in the public domain or is simple to replicate but the governments are the biggest barrier so far.
Market conditions will never exist which spur on the use of efficient, clean technology. Governments could provide education. Governments could stimulate the use of energy conservation and appropriate technology.
I challenge this group to include this line of thinking in the development of position statements. CEDESOL can serve as a resource for information should it be desired.
March 1, 2010 at 11:37 am
David Whitfield
an example of appropriate technology needed
The open cooking fires replaced by the improved stoves cause respiratory and eye infections, as well as severe burns, which are especially frequent among young children who stumble or fall into their mothers’ fire pits.
Acute respiratory infections are among the main causes of childhood morbidity and mortality in Mexico and many other poor countries around the world.
The World Health Organisation (WHO), which has designated the issue as one of the four most critical global environmental problems, estimates that 1.6 million people, especially women and children, die prematurely each year from exposure to high levels of indoor smoke from home cooking and heating practices.
Some 28 million people, out of a total population of 107 million, are dependent on firewood for cooking and heating in Mexico, using 2.5 kg of wood a day per person.
Mexico has 56 million hectares of forests, of which more than 500,000 hectares a year are felled, making this country second to Brazil in Latin America with respect to deforestation, in absolute terms.
But different models of improved fuel-efficient stoves are helping to address the issues of deforestation caused by firewood use and health problems resulting from indoor air pollution from cooking fires.
March 11, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Bozena Sawa
I suggest that this group looks outside the square. Forget the governments and international institutions, forget the patents. Connect on community basis. Solutions are out there. The challenge is to find them. The internet is of big help, but it is not the only option. For example just google home made solar or wind energy. These will not take much funds to try to implement. Communities that are willing to do it can take one on and check how it works and then share what they done. and what were the outcomes.
The big solutions did not work (still waiting for outcomes) lets start on a small scale and let it grow.
Small is beautiful.
April 6, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Keith Lampe
The best technology available for dealing with climate change is so helpful that at first it may seem like a miracle. But for this reason it has been viciously suppressed in the US and in a few other places. Some of the inventors and spokespeople for it have been murdered, others unjustly imprisoned or forced into mental institutions. The best summary of the current situation comes from Jeane Manning, co-author of BREAKTHROUGH POWER: How Quantum-leap New Energy Inventions Can Transform Our World: “There is an astounding variety of revolutionary clean-energy technologies already invented and in proof-of-principle form or in working prototypes but not sufficiently funded, which could be available to be developed into useful local solutions to many of humankind’s problems if vested interests could be bypassed”.
There’s a tremendous opportunity at this conference to bypass vested interests. And the nation(s) which initiate these energy breakthroughs can expect to do very well in various export markets with them. Most of the breakthroughs have occurred within the energy modes of zero point, cold fusion and advanced hydrogen/water.
I’d be quite pleased to continue this presentation if there’s interest in such.
With highest regards,
Keith Lampe aka Pondo
April 24, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Keith Lampe
I’d like to add a bit to what I’d posted April 6. The best way to gain access to these breakthrough technologies is to demand total transparency from the U.S. Patent Office, which has been denying patents for them in order to preserve the huge profits of Big Oil and Big Coal. These new energy modes are so tremendously beneficial that if the developing nations can gain access to them, they then can become developed nations within a generation. Some of the inventors of these breakthrough modes have been murdered. Gary Vesperman provides us with the first documented instance of this:
In a speech presented in 1988 on the subject of “Climate Change Factors, Ozone Layer Crisis, and Zero Point Energy Technologies” (see below for complete text) Adam Trombly reported information from a contact that Tesla was poisoned and died in 1943 the night before he was scheduled to go to Washington, DC to meet with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Tesla had intended to propose to Roosevelt that perhaps we should look carefully at the fact that we can get all the energy we need from any space we happen to be in. The U.S. Government’s Federal Bureau of Investigation confiscated two truckloads of Tesla’s written work after his death, much of which remains classified.
Since then, other murdered breakthrough inventors have been: Dean Warwick: Ampliflaire Efficient Wood-Burning Stoves, Gianni A. Dotto: Anti-Aging and Anti-Gravity Thermionic Couple, Arie M. DeGeus: Self-Powered Battery, Two Inventors: Model T Ford Generator with Magnets Added.
The suppression of this information is arguably a form of genocide since applications of it would increase the human carrying capacity of this planet.
In any case, it would be helpful if the US Patent Office were sued by the UN’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and/or its Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT). If these groups have been so thoroughly infiltrated by Big Oil and Big Coal that they refuse to do so, then the litigation should be initiated by an appropriate NGO.
The information might be released more quickly if the US Patent Office were surrounded and shut down–”Nobody In, Nobody Out”–by protesters.
Yours for waking to the quantum ether,
Keith Lampe aka Pondo