FIRST DRAFT OF POSION PAPER ON TECHNOLOGY RELATED ISSUES Background Combating climate change requires the large- s c a l e diffusion

of clean energy technologies. For this reason, Technology transfer has been a key objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since its inception. Article 4.5 of the Convention requires developed countries to “take all practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, or access to environmentally sound technologies and know-how to other Parties, particularly developing country parties to enable them to implement the provisions of the Convention.” The Bali Action Plan (2007) reaffirmed the centrality of technology transfer as one of the priority areas to be addressed in global climate negotiations. For many years, developing countries have been demanding concrete steps and measures to operationalizing these provisions in a meaningful way. The Copenhagen Accord (2009) signaled growing consensus on the creation of a Mechanism as signatories agreed to establish a “Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation.” The Cancun Conference (2010) established a Technology Mechanism (TM) whose goal is to enhance action on technology development and transfer in support of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The decision to establish the TM at the Cancun Conference represented a potentially positive development, particularly in view of the long-standing demands by developing countries for the institutional strengthening of the technology transfer „pillar‟ under the UNFCCC. The Durban COP (2011) completed the institutional set up of the TM, deciding that its two components - the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) - would jointly report to the COP. It also adopted the modalities and rules of procedure of the TEC and the terms of references of the CTCN. The TEC which is akin to being the policy body of the TM is already in place has met twice and adopted its work plan for 2012-2013. The CTCN, the operational arm of the TM, has not yet come into existence. The process for selecting a host for the Climate Technology Centre (CTC) which will steer the Network is underway and should be finalized at COP meeting in Doha.

Mandate, structure and functions of the Technology Mechanism The COP established a TM to “facilitate the implementation of actions for achieving the objective of enhanced action on technology development and transfer, is to support action on mitigation and adaptation in order to achieve the full implementation of the Convention”.


The TM is placed “under the guidance of the COP” to facilitate the implementation of actions and accelerate action at different stages of the technology cycle - such as research and diffusion and transfer of technology. The relationship between the TEC and the CTCN remains undefined due to apprehensions that the TEC could become a „politicized‟ body that intervenes in technology matters were it given power to oversee the work of the CTCN. Without an oversight function, the two bodies would report separately to the Convention‟s subsidiary bodies thus potentially resulting in some duplication. Durban Outcome It was agreed at Durban that a technology mechanism will be fully operational by 2012 to "promote and enhance the research, development, and deployment and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries". The Durban agreement also kick-started the search for a host for the Climate Technology Centre and Network to promote technology transfer between developed and developing countries. The center, it was agreed, will identify climate-friendly technologies; facilitate their deployment and adaptation to developing country needs; build national and regional technology management capacity; and support the research, development and demonstration of new climate-friendly technologies. But there was no mention in the Durban document on the technology transfer of IPR, a sticking point for developing countries, who say patent restrictions will hinder the flow of green technologies from advanced countries. Developed countries had opposed any mention of patents in technology transfer proposals. The technology negotiation group of the AWG-LCA in Durban did not come up with a clear articulation of the relationship between the TEC and the CTC&N. The governance structure agreed upon for the CTC&N is an advisory body, the details of which are to be decided in the next meeting of Subsidiary Body on Implementation. The selection process for the call for proposals for hosting the CTC&N is that the TEC will nominate from within itself the six-person panel who will do the initial technical evaluation of the proposals and ranking of the bidders who want to be the host. The shortlist ranking of the bids will be submitted to the Subsidiary Body on Implementation who in turn will agree on a ranked list of up to three proponents based on the outcome of the assessment conducted by the evaluation panel and to recommend the host of the CTC&N for approval by the COP at its 18th session in Doha, Qatar in 2012. The Durban meeting sketched out the link between the Technology Mechanism and the financial mechanism, though not to the satisfaction of the developing countries negotiating under the umbrellas of the Group of 77 and China and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs)


The consideration of additional functions of the TEC and the CTC&N approved during the informal session of the technology group was not reflected in the final outcome document, especially on the giving of advice and support, including capacity-building on the conduct of technology assessments of new and emerging technologies by the CTC&N and the request to the TEC to consider issues related to intellectual property rights related to the development and transfer of technologies The consideration of issues relating to intellectual property rights as part of a new set of functions for the TEC were also not in the final Durban text presented for adoption by the Conference of Parties but contained in a separate document for further work next year. In the Durban duel between developed and developing countries on the matter of technology transfer resulted in the following the G77 and China originally wanted the TEC to be the entity that will exercise oversight and provide guidance to the CTC&N. At the start of the negotiations in Durban, they modified their stance to a kind of a board, which is an intermediate body between the COP, the TEC and the CTC&N, leaving some items for the TEC, such as the giving of strategic guidance on some key issues like prioritization and selection of network members, among others. The advisory body created by the Durban COP appears to be something similar, in a general sense to what the G77 and China wanted, though the role of the TEC over this advisory body is not clearly spelled out as the TEC will remain exercising its own mandate on its own concerns, not that of the CTC&N. The US, supported by Canada, Australia, Japan, and to a certain extent, the EU, wanted the TEC out of the way in the running of the affairs of the CTC&N. It was agreed that how this relationship will evolve or how they will relate to each other, to “promote coherence and synergy”. It is a matter of time and the test of such relationship in how the two will agree on the modalities of their reporting to the COP. The selection process for the host organization is a partial achievement for the G77 and China, as the TEC got to play a role in doing the technical evaluation of the bids for hosting of the CTC&N though the US prevailed in having the Subsidiary Body on Implementation do a ranking of the list of who may be recommended as the host of the CTC&N. Governance Structure of the CTC&N The decision on having an advisory body that will sit atop the governance structure for the CTC&N is a half-won battle from whichever perspective one takes. Since these serious legal issues needed a proper response, the compromise was that there is already this advisory body, which from a G77 and China‟s point of view is already a half-won battle, as at least it has spelled out there will be a distinct entity that should be governing the CTC&N, and this is not the same as the host itself.


However, the fight is not yet over until the next SBI meeting, since it has not yet been clearly spelled out how the advisory body links to the TEC, the CTC&N and the host organization. It could still be argued by those who want to wrest control of the CTC&N away from the COP that the host organization can do a better job of exacting accountability for the operations of the CTC&N. Eventually, for practical purposes, it may be useful for the to separate the advisory body from that of the host organization in order that the lines of accountability and fiduciary duty are clarified, and they are separate from the host organization. Composition of Advisory Body of the Climate Technology Center The composition of this advisory body is expected to be another potential flashpoint. The G77&China, (in retaliation for the US proposal of eight government representatives that will sit in the then called CTC Board), suggested 22 such representatives comprising 4 representatives each from the five UN regional groups and 1 each from the small-island developing states (SIDS) and the LDCs. US offered 19 representatives. In making this proposal, the US reversed from its earlier position that this body should just be small and efficient. According to some observers, the idea here was to set up the advisory body as a competitor to the Technology Executive Committee, (which is another twenty-person entity). All through the negotiating sessions, the US supported by Australia, Canada, Japan and sometimes the EU, consistently questioned the competence of the TEC on dealing with issues related to technology development and transfer, arguing that the TEC was not created for the purpose of implementing technology development and transfer projects. The G77&China, on the other hand, argued that the TEC is well positioned to be such a body that will exercise oversight and provide guidance to the CTC&N It will already save the COP time since the lengthy process of selection of its members was already over and done with. Selection Process of the Climate Technology Center At least, after several contentious exchanges in the course of the duration of the COP, the Parties agreed on a two-step process for selection viz. The technical evaluation phase and then the selection phase. The G77 and China wanted originally a process similar to the conduct of a double-blind study on the initial technical evaluation of proposals composed of four experts who will evaluate the proposals independently without meeting each other, but this was opposed by the US and the EU arguing that this is not actually scientific even if it may appear to be that and it is difficult to check how these independent experts understood and applied the criteria. After several sessions, Parties have come around to tasking the TEC to do the selection of these experts, even designating its own members to do this evaluation.


The next stage of the process, the selection phase, is what became contentious but the group settled on the SBI to make the selection. It was not clear what will happen if the SBI could not come to a compromise on this item. Thus the technology group asked the SBI to agree on the recommendation to the COP on who will eventually be the host of the CTC&N, Relationship of the TEC and the CTC&N While this has not been explicitly spelled out, how this will eventually unfold is seen by how the two entities comprising the Technology Mechanism – the TEC and the CTC&N – will render its report to the COP. The G77 and China wanted the Climate Technology Center to report to the TEC, but the EU, as well as the US, insisted that the CTC should also be able to report directly as both of them are accountable to the COP. Potential Links between Technology Mechanism and Financial Mechanism Financing is another key issue that was hard-fought, but references to the Green Climate Fund and the Standing Committee was deleted during one informal group meeting on 8 December, and the Parties came around to the compromise wording that does not really amount to much though it appears to broaden the sources of funding of the CTC&N . Without clear sources of specific amounts of core budget and short and long-term funding, there is a possibility that the CTC&N will be hampered in its early stages of operations. Technology Executive Committee (TEC) At the 16th COP in Cancun in 2010, Parties agreed to establish the TEC comprised of 20 expert members (with 9 members from Annex 1 countries and 11 members from non-Annex 1 countries). The Cancun decision tasked the TEC to implement the framework for meaningful and effective actions to enhance the implementation of technology transfer in developing countries. The second meeting of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) met in Bonn, Germany from 16-18 February and concluded with agreement on a two-year work plan for 2012 to 2013, the nomination of a six-man evaluation panel for selecting the host of the Climate Technology Centre (CTC) and elaboration of the modalities on linkages with other relevant institutional arrangements under and outside the Convention. The TEC held its first meeting in September 2011. In elaboration of the work plan, one issue that was controversial among TEC members from developed and developing countries was the issue of addressing intellectual property rights (IPRs) in relation to technology development and transfer.


There are a number of policy issues that are relevant for the transfer and development of technology in the interests of developing countries on which the TEC should work and produce recommendations. These include:      Regulation of markets for technology, namely through competition policies that, inter alia, deal with refusals by companies to transfer technology and address restrictive practices; Measures relating to IP protection, such as facilitating searches for patented technologies and supporting efforts to improve the quality of patents (mainly in respect of inventive step and sufficiency of disclosure in patent applications); Adoption of technical standards in a way that ensures the participation of developing countries‟ firms and avoids the use of patents (which are eventually incorporated into such standards) as a means to restrict competition; Initiatives based on open innovation schemes to promote the development of technologies as a public good (as in the case of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] model); and Effective implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement (Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement of the World Trade Organization that deals with the transfer of environmentally sound technologies [ESTs] to Least Developed Countries with regard to ESTs and establishment of patent pools to facilitate access to technologies on pre-determined conditions.

Evaluation Panel To Select Host of the CTC The Durban COP decided that the selection process for the host of the CTC shall be launched and requested the secretariat to convene an evaluation panel, consisting of three members from Parties included in Annex I (developed countries) and three from non-Annex I Parties (developing countries) to the Convention as nominated by the TEC from within its membership. Work Plan of the TEC In the discussion over the two-year work plan for the TEC, while some members of the TEC especially from the US and Japan wanted the TEC to mainly focus on stock-taking and information gathering related to technology development and transfer in the first year of its work (while waiting for the CTC and Network to be operationalized next year), other members from developing and developed countries stressed the need for the TEC to show that it is “looking forward”, and “not appear passive” or “start from zero”. Apart from the controversy of the IPR issue, other areas that saw some tussle among TEC members were over how to deal with technology roadmaps; the preparation and topics for the technical papers; and on recommending guidance on policies and programme priorities related to technology development and transfer. The TEC finally agreed on a two-year rolling work plan which includes the following:


Mandated activities from Durban which were the nomination of TEC members for an evaluation panel to select the host of the CTC); elaborate modalities on linkages with other relevant institutional arrangements (see details below); and elaborate procedures for preparing a joint annual report of the TEC and the CTC. Short-term activities which consists of the preparation of an inventory of relevant work of the institutions that are active in the area of technology collaboration with a view to seeking collaboration with them; review of technology needs from various sources; engage stakeholders through thematic dialogues in order to seek cooperation with other relevant technology initiatives, stakeholders and organizations; preparing an inventory of existing technology roadmaps; initiate preparation of technical paper(s); developing an information platform within the Technology Clearinghouse for the TEC. Medium term activities (2013 and beyond) consisting of the preparation of inventories of relevant technology briefs, reports and technical papers; review of roadmaps, taking into account the inventory of existing technology roadmaps; engage stakeholders through thematic dialogues on different topics; organize a stakeholder thematic dialogue on research, development and diffusion; produce technical paper(s) on topics agreed by the TEC and recommend guidance as appropriate, on policies and programme priorities related to technology development and transfer.

Modalities For Linkages With Institutional Arrangements Under the Convention On the modalities for linkages with the institutional arrangements under the Convention, the TEC agreed that for performing its functions through close interactions with relevant thematic bodies established under the Convention, including but not limited to the advisory body of the CTC and Network, the Adaptation Committee, the board of the Green Climate Fund, the Registry, the LDC Expert Group, the Consultative Group of Experts on national communications from Parties in non-Annex 1, the Standing Committee (on finance) and the Adaptation Fund Board, the modalities may include the following:
  

Cross participation in the meetings of the relevant bodies including workshops and events organized by such bodies, or jointly organized, on issues of common interest; Inviting inputs to support the implementation of particular activities as specified in the work plan of TEC; Knowledge and information sharing.

Modalities for Linkages with Other Relevant Institutional Arrangements Outside Relevant Institutional Arrangements Outside the Convention For performing its functions through linkages with institutional arrangements outside the Convention including, inter alia, public institutions, the business community, academia, international organizations, NGOs, networks and partnerships, the TEC agreed that the modalities include the following:

Offering participation in the TEC meetings as observers or expert advisors;


  

Technical task forces, stakeholder forums and/or consultative groups; Bilateral cooperative arrangements; Web-based communication channel including through the technology transfer clearinghouse (TT: Clear); and

A second aspect of importance to developing countries is technology transfer.

Issues at COP 18 Technology transfer or technology diffusion? Industrialized countries and private sector organizations have voiced their well-known misgivings about the concept of „technology transfer‟, preferring the term „technology diffusion‟. They consider the latter as reflecting real world dynamics more accurately. Intellectual property (IP) protection has been a polarizing topic in climate change technology discussions. The TM‟s approach, resting on technology as a means to enhance innovation capacity is well positioned to cater to the technological capacity building needs within developing countries For the TM to succeed, it needs to be recognized that technology development and transfer is a much wider notion than simply an issue of IPRs At COP 18 developing countries must remain attached to the concept of „technology transfer‟ and point out that a significant share of clean energy technologies are developed by public institutions which use public funding - thus dispelling the argument that technology is solely in the hands of the private sector. Another challenge will be the diversity of technological „needs‟ within the large, heterogeneous grouping of „developing countries‟. References to national needs, circumstances and countrydriven approaches are recurrent throughout the mandate the primacy of national needs and country ownership in guiding the work of the Mechanism. Deadlock on Intellectual Property The issue of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) is one of, if not the most divisive in the technology negotiations. Developing countries will continue to press for the consideration of IPRs as one of the possible barriers to technology transfer. Meanwhile, developed countries opposed such a view because of the essential role they consider IPR protection plays in providing incentives for innovation in clean technologies. Role of TM The TM can “keep its promise” and deliver a novel approach focused on technology development and innovation rather than simply transfer and “access.” the TM is uniquely


positioned to support developing countries building their capacity to develop and deploy climate change technologies. We need to stress that TM be made operational by:       Ensuring coordination between the TM‟s two bodies, Identifying technological needs, putting priority areas into practice, Addressing the need for effective monitoring and evaluation, Promoting a participatory approach, apportioning financial priorities, and Coordinating with existing initiatives. Addressing the needs and challenges facing developing countries to access and/or use climate technologies and chiefly their weak national systems of innovation.

An approach towards technology development, as proposed by the TM, could be an important step not only within climate change, but also in broader international discussions on technology, to move beyond simply window dressing the notion of technology transfer, to effective technology diffusion and technology assimilation. Enhancing Innovative Capacity An approach towards technology development, as proposed by the TM, could be an important step not only within climate change, to move beyond simply window dressing the notion of technology transfer, to effective technology diffusion and technology assimilation. Furthermore, there should be strong capability to acquire new technology and ways to reconcile the role of the private sector in the area of technology transfer. It is almost certain that there will be a multiplicity of mechanisms to enhance the transfer and diffusion of climate change technologies to developing countries. The availability of this variety of mechanisms is a positive, particularly since different technologies are likely to be more feasibly transferred through different mechanisms. Moreover, it appears very likely that bilateral and regional mechanisms will be responsible for as much technology transfer as global multilateral mechanisms. Position on Issues at COP 18 Ensuring coordination and coherence between the TEC and CTCN For the purpose of achieving the goals of the TM, it seems absolutely imperative that the TEC and CTCN are well synchronized and work in tandem. Most of their functions are complementary in nature – for instance, while the TEC is mandated with the task of creating technology action plans at the international, regional and national levels, the CTCN is 9

expected to foster alliances and collaborations to achieve the targets set out by the plans. Recognizing this, the arrangements to make the TM fully operational clearly recognize that the CTCN and the TEC shall relate so as to promote coherence and synergy in the functioning of the TM. Under the current arrangement, t h e C T C N , o n c e o p e r a t i o n a l , is expected to elaborate its modalities and procedures according to its terms of reference. Greater coherence between the CTCN and TEC, during the course of the coming years, can also be achieved by setting common goals and common outcomes. Identifying technology areas and technological needs The TM‟s task of creating international, regional and national technology plans that match the technological needs of countries has now been allocated to the TEC. Taking into account the decision that created the TM, these technology needs “…must be nationally determined according to local circumstances and priorities.” Putting this into practice calls for (a) Garnering the support and participation of individual countries to take into account their technological needs in this area; and (b) Identifying and reaching agreement on what sectors are covered by the technologies that fall under the purview of the TEC. These technology areas have not been clearly listed out in the modalities and procedures set out for the TEC. Garnering participation and clarity on the individual technological needs of countries in this area could prove to be a very difficult exercise. As a first step in this process, a means by which this could be achieved is by promoting coalitions or groups of like-minded countries (regionally or otherwise) with the intention of formulating joint technology needs. This could fit very well into the CTCN‟s mandate of facilitating regional collaboration on innovation issues. Putting the priority areas into practice The seven priority areas identified in the TM‟s mandate are pertinent to the new idea of technology development and innovation. Ideally, these needed to be reorganized on a practical priority basis for policy formulation purposes. The seven priority areas are highly interlinked and include cooperative research, development and deployment programmes, diffusion of environmentally sound technologies and know-how, increasing public and private investment in technology deployment, diffusion and t r a n s f e r activities, the s t r e n g t h e n i n g of national systems of innovation and the development and implementation of national technology plans. From a practical policy implementation perspective, all other priority areas are specific actions within the umbrella of strengthening innovation systems, and are


dependent on how innovation system related actions are accomplished. Technology development and transfer within the TEC and the CTCN Technology Executive Committee is expected to perform key policy functions such as: (a) Providing an overview of technological needs along with an analysis of technical issues relevant for the development and transfer of technology in climate change mitigation and adaptation; (b)Assisting in the creation of international, regional and national technology action plans to promote cooperation in technology; and (c) Promoting the collaboration on the development and transfer of technology related to mitigation and adaptation between governments, private sector actors, non-profit organizations and research and academic communities. Innovation In the past decade has seen an increasing emphasis across the developing world on innovation, and the role of domestic policy frameworks to promote it. Against this background, the TM‟s role would be most useful if its identified priority areas would work hand in hand to complement domestic efforts in innovation capacity strengthening t h a t a r e a l r e a d y i n m o t i o n in developing countries. These need to be further coordinated with the activities of the CTCN, with clearly articulated milestones that can monitor progress. In this context, currently, some of the important functions for the CTCN that have been proposed, which will be discussed and decided upon during the 18th session of the COP will be: (a) Identifying currently available climate- friendly technologies for mitigation and a d a p t a t i o n t h a t m e e t t h e i r k e y low-carbon and climate-resilient development needs; (b) Facilitating the preparation of project proposals for the deployment, utilization and financing of existing technologies for mitigation and adaptation; (c) Facilitating adaptation and the deployment of currently available technologies to meet local needs and circumstances; (d) Facilitating research, development and demonstration of new climate- friendly technologies for mitigation and adaptation, which are required to meet the key objectives of sustainable development; (e) Enhancing national and regional human institutional capacity to manage the technology


cycle and to support the challenges for activities listed above. Decision on these functions needs to be made bearing in mind that the CTCN‟s role would be best served to complement national efforts to build innovation capacity from within the area of climate-friendly technologies. Promoting a participatory approach to technological change.

Technology development To benefit from the technology development approach a more participatory process is required. In this approach, developing countries are not simply the „recipients‟ of technology, but active participants in setting the agenda for technology transfer according to needs, on the one hand, and working domestically to promote the capacity to use technological opportunities on the other. The more technologically advanced developing countries in the emerging South are also well- positioned to help promote technological development and deployment of climate change technologies across the developing world. Currently, the terms of reference for the CTCN do not specify how such a participatory approach is to be set out. In fact, from the current terms of reference on the CTCN it is not clear how the participatory institutions that will form part of this Network are to be selected, coordinated and what binding roles can be assigned to them. The functioning and effectiveness of the CTC will largely depend on the Network. These issues need to be addressed constructively also bearing in mind the important contribution of the emerging Southern countries in promoting technological development in this area. Apportioning financial priorities Given that the existing climate change financing architecture is fragmented CTCN has an indisputable role to play in promoting all aspects of climate change technology adaptation as opposed to just mitigation, development and innovation. Learning from other existing mechanisms, especially the Global Environmental Facility‟s experience, it is evident that such funding should include finance for technology transfer itself failing which technology transfer will lack necessary incentives.

Coordinating with existing initiatives The CTCN and the TEC would both benefit from being able to work in collaboration with


existing regional hubs, new international initiatives on the issue, and the newly created International Agency on Renewable Energy (IRENA). The traction towards a more comprehensive approach to bridging the technological divide in climate change technologies has been furthered in Durban and beyond. Conclusion Overall, the new Technology Mechanism potentially represents a step to move beyond the „conventional‟ approach to technology transfer under the climate regime - based essentially on capacity building and technology needs assessments - to a more „dynamic‟ one geared towards fostering public-private partnerships; promoting innovation; catalyzing the use of technology road maps or action plans; mobilizing national, regional and international technology centres; and facilitating joint R&D activities. The past few months have seen promising developments in the move towards making the TM fully operational. The TM, is a promising initiative that seeks to address some of the key problems that the international community has been facing in promoting technology transfer. If well designed, governed and adequately funded, the proposed TM can support developing counties to e f f e c t i v e l y e n g a g e in the development, acquisition and use of technologies f o r c l i m a t e c h a n g e a d a p t a t i o n and mitigation. It is recommended that negotiators should: (a) Be more actively engaged UNFCCC techno- logy discussions, including at COP 18, and in the process of operationalization of the TM; (b) Advocate a gradual or evolutionary approach to the creation of the TM to ensure that it involves cost effective institutional experimentation and learning; (c) Promote inclusion of activities for strengthening their national systems of innovation and building capacity for technology prospecting. The task facing the Technology Mechanism is arduous. Governments and other stakeholders, especially the private sector, have an important role in ensuring its success. In this context, discussions on the road to COP 18 in Durban will play a critical role in settling outstanding institutional matters relating to the design of the Technology Mechanism and in elaborating further the exact manner in which its main bodies will operate. Concomitant deliberations on finance will also be essential in ensuring the Mechanism‟s future viability. The success of these discussions will put the Mechanism on solid ground in order for it to be operational and more importantly to become an integrated and coherent entity which is both flexible in its design and operations and effective in carrying out its tasks.


Annex I Functions of the TEC a) Provide an overview of technological needs and analysis of policy and technical issues related to the development and transfer of technology for mitigation and adaptation; b) Consider and recommend actions to promote technology development and transfer in order to accelerate action on mitigation and adaptation; c) Recommend guidance on policies and program priorities related to technology development and transfer with special consideration given to the least developed country Parties; d) Promote and facilitate collaboration on the development and transfer of technology for mitigation and adaptation between governments, the private sector, non-profit organizations and academic and research communities; e) Recommend actions to address the barriers to technology development in order to enable enhanced action on mitigation and adaptation; f) Seek cooperation with relevant international technology initiatives, stakeholders and organizations; promote coherence and cooperation across technology activities, including activities under and outside of the convention; g) Catalyze the development and use of technology road maps or action plans at international, regional and national levels through cooperation between relevant stakeholders, particularly governments and relevant organizations or bodies, including the development of best practice guidelines as facilitative tools for action on mitigation and adaptation.


Annex II Functions of the CTCN

The CTCN is expected to facilitate a network of national, regional, sectorial and international technology networks, organizations and initiatives. Its core functions include:

(a) Identifying technology needs for the implementation of environmentally sound technologies, practices and processes in developing countries and facilitate the prompt deployment of existing technologies; (b) Promoting their ability to maintain, operate and adapt technology; (c) Promoting R&D cooperation including through south-south and trilateral channels; (d) Facilitating international partnerships among public and private stakeholders to accelerate the innovation and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing country Parties.