Some time ago, ECO was pleased to see the phrase “environmentally sound technologies” replaced with “economically, socially and environmentally sound technologies” in the context of technology transfer. The thinking was that the consideration of economic and social implications offered two crucial additional factors planners could use to predict the likely success of technology assimilation in a local setting.
It seemed that what would follow would be a process involving various stakeholders to clarify the meaning of these three terms in various local settings and circumstances — evaluate all three — and provide an opportunity to get real buy-in from intended users.
In the economic category, users might want assurance of a sustainable, long-term business model for the adoption and adaptation of technologies, and assurance that the introduction of new technologies would not result in massive economic displacement.
Likewise, in the social category, planners might want to understand the impacts of technology-induced change of social mores and culture on health, participation of women in the work force, and participation of the most vulnerable sectors of a community. In the environmental category, they might want to consider the risk that the adopted technology could cause unintended harm to complex and critical ecosystem services and biodiversity.
While reading Section H on Technology Transfer in the draft text, ECO noticed there was no hint of language on how these categories would actually improve planning or acceptance of technology on the ground, and it wondered why? Was “economically, socially and environmentally sound technologies” adopted as a literary exercise? Or would this phrase have actual meaning for locals on the receiving end of technology transfers? ECO was delighted to see that others were also concerned, as demonstrated when Pakistan raised this issue in yesterday’s ADP session.
ECO has a suggestion about how a technology review process might work. We believe transferred climate technologies must be reviewed for their potential economic, social and environmental impacts. However, this technology review process should not be burdensome on Parties. While recognising the sovereignty of Parties to review a given technology in a way that responds to their specific needs, we suggest the Technology Executive Committee take on the responsibility of “scanning the horizon” to recommend categories of technologies that might be in particular need of review. Furthermore, we suggest that the TEC maintain a database with information that Parties may consider while making their choices, thereby reducing their burden.
Finally, the Climate Technology Centre and Network should provide capacity building and full funding to developing countries, so that they can review technologies identified as being “higher-risk”, using their chosen experts. On the other hand, ECO’s view is that public funding should not be made available for the development, transfer and deployment of technologies identified as “high risk” in cases where countries choose not to conduct a review. 