Stuck in the Desert Sand

In Doha, I was closely following the negotiations related to technology transfers and development.  This topic area led me to one very enlightening negotiation session, or what is called a Contact Group, on technology during our second day at the conferences.  To give a bit of context: The body convening was discussing the technology agenda item under the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperation and action (AWG-LCA).  This working group, created in Bali in 2007, is tasked with negotiating a number of decisions to strengthen international action on climate change by all countries.  These decisions relate to mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity building, and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).

The particular contact group I sat in on was dealing with technology matters under the LCA.  To give just a bit more background, these matters are concerned with the operationalization of the Technology Mechanism (TM).   This is the mechanism established to facilitate the transfer of key climate technologies to developing countries.  It is composed of two main bodies by which to do this: the Technology Executive Committee (TEC), charged with overseeing research, assessments, and making recommendations on policy needs and barriers to transfer, and the Climate Technology Center and Network (CTCN), a global network of nodes for implementation of technologies, or the "boots on the ground" of the TM.  

As the AWG-LCA is expected to wrap up in Doha, parties were negotiating the matter of what would happen to unresolved technology issues under the LCA.  Though it was not explicitly said in the conversation, these issues include International Property Rights (IPRs), additional functions of the TEC (to address IPRs) and CTCN (to be involved in capacity building and assessing new and emerging technologies), and the funding source for the TM.  

That is the overarching context.  But what unfolded in the room began with comments from the USA, Switzerland, EU, Japan and others over frustration about the process.  Parties were not clear on what type of meeting was taking place nor what the goals of the discussion were.  Many were also frustrated that the previous chair of the group had been removed from his role and replaced by the chair currently leading the discussion.  At one point, it was proposed that the previous chair had been removed because of racial biases.  The chair made clear that the removal was only due to scheduling conflicts and an attempt to distribute a manageable work load to group chairs.  That part of the negotiation proved to be quite tense and lively compared to others I had seen before it.

The conversation then moved into a question of what the group was attempting to get out of this discussion.  Essentially, why were they here?  While the chair was trying to lead the discussion directly into a conversation of those unresolved issues outlined above, there was push back from many parties (including the EU, US, Canada, Mexico, Norway) suggesting that those issues should no longer be discussed under the AWG-LCA but instead under the Durban Platform where they have new "homes".  An opposing group of parties consisting of Bangladesh, India, China, and Saudi Arabia pressed back, proposing to continue the discussions under the LCA of these unresolved issues and proceed as the chair had proposed.

The course of this discussion, from procedural confusion, to a call for transparency about the removal of the previous chair, to the debate over whether or not to actually hold the discussion in question, took over two hours.  Nothing was really discussed in the end.  

As an inexperienced viewer, this was one of the more interesting negotiations to attend.  Not only because the "heavy hitter" negotiators from many countries were in attendance (lead negotiators for the country party), but also because it was one of my first exposures to the realities of international negotiations.  This process is not fast.  It is in fact incredibly slow.  As I understand it, the same discussion (over whether or not to have the discussion) has been ongoing since a meeting in Bonn, Germany in May 2012 and continued in September in Bangkok, Thailand.  It did not lead me to believe that this process is useless, but gave me a better understanding of its challenges.

As the chair of the group, a native of Saudi Arabia, put it, sometimes in this part of the world vehicles get stuck in the sand.  Once unstuck, however, they move very very fast.  In closing the session (a session which really moved nowhere) he proposed this as a metaphor for the groups progress and trajectory over the upcoming days.  Perhaps they were stuck in the sand, but nevertheless the process is important, and the outcome of these seemingly inconsequent and time consuming negotiations are what add up to compose the results of this COP.  I can only hope that the group becomes "unstuck" and rapidly comes to agreement before the time allotted in Doha runs out.