Comments on Bangkok (September 2018) Draft of the UNFCCC Technology Framework

The latest draft of the Technology Framework (SBSTA48.IN.i5_v08May) being negotiated as part of the implementation of the Paris Agreement has been out since the end of the May 2018 Bonn SBSTA[1] and SBI[2] meetings. The Framework should have been concluded at the end of the first year of implementation of the Paris Agreement, but, along with the delay in agreeing Paris rules, the Technology Framework has also been delayed.  However, the COP24 in Katowice, Poland in December 2018 is meant to be the conclusion of the process and should lead to adoption of the Framework. Although it is now somewhat of a political orphan, the Technology Framework was originally put forward by the African Group and was the main technology outcome from the Paris Agreement.  This document is what substituted for significant original language addressing financing, intellectual property, and pushing technology transfer implementation by the Technology Mechanism. As has happened before, the proposal did not present a full negotiating text and thus left the details of the Technology Framework to be addressed after the adoption of the Paris Agreement. This turned it into a Secretariat and SBSTA Chair driven process. We are now at a point in the process where the document should have been well developed but it remains at a stage where little is agreed and only some elements have been discussed.  A version with some annotated comments by me can be found here: SBSTA48_IN__i5_v08May: and an original can be found here: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/conferences/bonn-climate-change-conference-april-2018/sessions/sbsta-48#eq-9

Some comments:

• The basic aim of the technology framework by the African Group was to transform the mandate of the Technology Mechanism (TM) so that it would actually have an implementation role in technology transfer not just technical assistance in design of policies and measures. The current document does not reflect that essential aim as a basic principle nor as an element of its design. In part, what this requires giving the CTCN power to carry out demonstration n projects of technologies with partners and to provide the funding to do so. The other has to do with the relationship between the Technology Mechanism and the Green Climate Fund; AND the Technology Mechanism and the Nationally Determined Contributions[3] (NDC) substance and process. The text as it stands does not foresee a role for the Framework in the NDC Process, a major gap in implementation of the Paris Agreement and one that would fail to meet an essential element of the bargain it represents,
• There are worrisome indications from disagreements in the text over basic things such as whether the focus of the TM should be on “actions” or “activities”. This suggests a reluctance to give any ground on even small details and to try to restrict the scope of the Framework as much as possible. Given the outcomes from the Marrakech decision which gave us the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) and the previous Technology Framework from the pre-Cancun UNFCCC, this suggests that we may be headed to a death by a thousand cuts approach to the outcome here.
• On Collaborative research development and demonstration, nothing in the text provides a mandate to the TM to engage in demonstration and local adaptation projects itself in partnership with Climate technology Centers (CTC), and dissemination of the research results. The CTCN needs to initiate, convene and implement such partnerships and to seek GCF funding in conjunction with regional and national CTCs. This should include assessment of technologies for local adoption and facilitating licensing for R&DD where necessary.
• As always, the discussion of enabling environments seems limited to discussing policy environments in developing countries to pull technology but nothing about enabling environments in developed countries to push technologies. This is a real problem for framing who has to make the effort to restructure their markets and investment policies. For example, one can imagine export promotion agencies being a tool for providing risk insurance and other tools to encourage firms to engage in technology transfer. As it stands, this is a major blind spot at the UNFCCC more generally.

What happens in Bangkok in September is crucial to preserving elements in the Framework that can be hooks for more expansive action.  I suspect that we will end up with a relatively narrow, cramped document if the current document stands as the main outcome.

Recommended Citation: Dalindyebo Shabalala, “Comments on Bangkok (September 2018) Draft of the UNFCCC Technology Framework”, IP& (July 5, 2018, 12:30 PM)

[1] Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice

[2] Subsidiary Body on Implementation

[3] This is the term to describe the essentially voluntary commitments to reduction of GHG emissions by countries under the Paris Agreement.  There remains some debate about whether developed country NDCs should also describe their ‘support’ commitments for finance and technology. Most developed countries have not made such commitments in their NDCs.