Debt-laden growers want an existing government procurement system to be made legally binding and to raise the minimum price for a wider range of crops – which could help them move away from thirsty rice and wheat farming.

But some agricultural analysts argue that bolstering the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for produce would not resolve the wider climate problems farmers face, nor ease demand for scarce water resources.

Expectations mount as loss and damage fund staggers to its feet

Deedar Singh, a 50-year-old farmer from Patiala, joined a march towards Delhi in mid-February and spoke to Climate Home at a camp on the Punjab-Haryana border, 200 km from Delhi. He participated in a similar mobilisation back in 2020 that lasted for just over a year.

With a family of nine to support, he complained that his five-acre landholding and meagre income of 200,000 rupees per year ($2,400) cannot provide a decent quality of life, especially as weather extremes worsen.

“If untimely rain destroys our rice or hot temperatures shrink the wheat grain, our crops are ruined, leaving us unable to even cover the costs of the next cropping season,” said Singh. Most people in his village rely on financial support sent by their children who have migrated abroad, he added.

Farmers gather at the Shambhu border, between Punjab and Haryana, to burn effigies of political leaders and shout slogans in support of the protest, February 27 2024 (Photo: Kanika Gupta)

Globally, India accounts for 10% of agricultural output and is the second-largest producer of rice and wheat. It is also the biggest consumer of groundwater. Its 260 million farmers depend heavily on depleting water reserves to irrigate their crops.

That means they are also struggling with climate change, as about 65% of the country’s cropped area depends on rainwater. Erratic rainfall and shorter winters are harming yields, with heavy downpours causing flooding and a sudden spike in temperatures a year ago causing wheat grain to shrink.

The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) reports that for every 1C increase in temperature, wheat production suffers a significant decline of 4-5 million tonnes.

Debt drives suicides

Water resources are running low and farmers’ input costs have soared – yet the government-administered minimum support price (MSP) has not risen accordingly, said Ramandeep Singh Mann, an agriculturist and member of Kisan Mazdoor Morcha, an umbrella body spearheading the current protest.

That has left farmers with no money to pay for contingencies and has forced many to take on high levels of debt, he said.

“At some point your back breaks. When that happens, there is no other solution but to take extreme steps,” he added, referring to suicides among indebted farmers.

To boost falling yields, farmers are using more inputs like water and fertilisers, leaving them with higher production costs and lower profit margins.

Some states have provided free or subsidised electricity, as well as loan forgiveness for debt-strapped farmers, but since 2014, only half of the intended waiver recipients have benefited, according to a study by the State Bank of India.

These woes have fuelled a growing wave of protest, as farmers feel they have no other recourse.

Nonetheless, Sardara Singh Johl, a 97-year-old agricultural economist from Ludhiana and former vice-chancellor at Punjab Agricultural University, said the latest mobilisation was unlikely to result in the dialogue required to address the broader problems facing farmers.

“They already have MSP for wheat and rice, and these are high-paying crops. Even if you reduce the price risk with MSP, what can you do about the other uncertainties?” he asked.

In mid-February, at the last round of talks with the government, ministers proposed to purchase five additional crops – moong dal, urad dal, tur dal, maize and cotton – from farmers at an MSP for five years through central agencies, but farmers rejected the offer.

Jagjit Singh Dallewal, leader of the non-political Samyukta Kisan Morcha group, which is also involved in organising the farmers’ protest, said the proposal would mainly benefit farmers willing to switch from paddy or wheat to other crops and would not ensure a stable income.

Farmer leaders give a press conference at Shambhu border, between Punjab and Haryana, on February 27 2024. Photo: Kanika Gupta)

Water reserves shrink amid over-use

Economist Johl argued that, irrespective of its profitability, rice is no longer a suitable crop for Punjab as its water table recedes to a dangerously low level.

A study by Punjab Agricultural University found that between 1998 and 2018, groundwater levels in the region had dropped drastically, from 10 metres below ground to 30 metres, largely due to a shift from traditional canal irrigation to widespread adoption of tube wells for water extraction.

Farmers are aware of Punjab’s dwindling water resources, said Mann, but they need guaranteed price support for more crops in order to shift away from water-intensive rice cultivation.

“They know that if they are able to earn as much as they do from paddy, they will grow other crops. But without fair support of MSP, it is hard to make that switch,” he said.

In Somalia, Green Climate Fund tests new approach for left-out communities

Uday Chandra, a professor of government at the Georgetown University in Qatar, said key food-supplying states like Punjab have struggled to get their problems heard and dealt with by the national government.

“The problem is that what the Punjab farmer wants isn’t sustainable,” he said, referring to the state’s shrinking water supplies. “The best way would be to bring them into discussion and find a solution that is specific to them.”

Trucks lined up at the Shambhu border, 200 km from Delhi, after being stopped by the central government from advancing to the Indian capital, February 27 2024 (Photo: Kanika Gupta)

Thousands of farmers who were initially stopped by heavy police control outside Delhi have now made it to the capital after receiving permission to protest at the Ramlila Maidan ground. They are determined to maintain their mobilisation during the general elections – which will take place over several weeks from late April until the start of June – if their MSP demands go unmet.

In 2021, angry farmers backed down after the government rowed back on laws that had sparked huge protests. But they have now returned to direct action, calling on the government to fulfill its promises, including demands for pensions, debt waivers, penalties for selling counterfeit agricultural inputs, and withdrawal from the World Trade Organization.

Call for high-tech solutions

Mann said climate change is compounding their woes – yet while the government acknowledges the problem, it is doing little to help the sector deal with it.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

However, at the ICAR’s Annual General Meeting last month, Arjun Munda, Union Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, said the Modi government is committed to bolstering the agricultural sector and supporting farmers, including with high-yielding, resilient seed varieties released by ICAR in the past decade.

It also issues Agromet weather-based crop advisories with the India Meteorological Department to about 60 million farmers twice a week and promotes practices for more efficient use of water and nutrients.

But protesting farmers said the government’s measures are failing to help them adapt adequately to a changing climate and water shortages.

Bhupinder Singh, a farmer in Punjab’s Mohali district, discusses his transition to organic farming methods as a means to prevent the burning of stubble remaining after rice cultivation, November 26 2023. (Photo: Kanika Gupta)

Haranjeet Singh, 53, of Ludhiana in Punjab, said the rice variety farmers are now planting gives smaller harvests, after the government suspended use of a more productive but thirstier variety which also took longer to mature and produced more stubble – a major cause of air pollution when burned.

“Unfortunately, these new seeds don’t give us as much yield,” he said. “We are spending the same amount of money and getting less in return.”

Madhura Swaminathan, daughter of the late MS Swaminathan – the architect of India’s Green Revolution which boosted crop yields and tackled the nation’s food scarcity issues in the 1970s – believes greater use of technology could help.

The professor at the Indian Statistical Institute in Bangalore pointed to an example she encountered in Amritsar a few years ago, where groundwater sensors were connected to mobile apps, enabling users to remotely control water pumps and conserve water.

“We must embrace new technologies, farming practices, and techniques to tackle the challenges brought by climate change,” she said.

The post What will it take to protect India’s angry farmers from climate threats? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Global consultancy PwC warn the difficulties experienced agreeing on a series of texts at the Doha climate summit demonstrate how hard it will be to achieve a global treaty in 2015.

The COP18 talks concluded 26 hours after their scheduled finish, with conference President Al Attiyah closing the 2012 talks despite vehement protests from Russia.

Reflecting on the decisions, Jonathan Grant, Director of sustainability & climate change at PwC said they had achieved little more than expected.

“The UN climate change negotiations are still on the rails, but it will only get harder as we get closer to 2015. Doha sends a clear signal that it will be very difficult to agree a meaningful climate treaty in 2015,” he said.

Grant’s colleague Celine Herweijer also warned that greater assurances over finance and emission reduction targets will be expected next year, as pressure builds ahead of the proposed legally binding treaty in just over two years time.

“Money talks at the climate negotiations and finance as always became a critical part of the negotiations,” she said.

“Countries have been called on to submit plans on how they plan to reach the $100 billion per year target by 2020. While that didn’t feel ambitious enough to developing nations, it was enough to prevent a derailing. Next year we can expect developing countries to demand more.”

“The failure of climate negotiators in Doha to agree levels of finance to combat climate change and to delay a decision on this issue until 2013 is disappointing,” said Stephanie Pfeifer, Executive Director of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.

“Reliable, long-term policy frameworks which help scale up private capital alongside government finance are essential to tackle climate change.”

COP18 VIDEO: Doha closing briefing by Christiana Figueres & summit President Al Attiyah

The post PwC: Doha experience proves 2015 treaty agreement will be tough appeared first on Climate Home News.

On the day when Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was at the centre of an international legal tug of war between the UK, Ecuador, Sweden and the US, it is important to remember why the site has created so much discomfort in diplomatic circles.

In particular, on climate change, they provide a fascinating insight to the behind the scenes action of the international climate change negotiations. The majority of the cables were written just a few months after the near collapse of the Copenhagen climate change negotiations when the US and China took the blame for the last minute implosion of a meaningful emissions deal.

A global voluntary agreement was signed-off eventually but the failure of the talks tainted the process.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. (Source: Flickr/New Media Days)

French environment minister calls to drop legally binding commitment
17 February 2010, From the US Embassy in Paris

“French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo told the Ambassador that the key to advancing climate negotiations is to drop the notion of a legally binding treaty in favour of a system of national commitments. He also argued that it would be up to a small group of eight or ten heads of state, and their sherpas, to negotiate implementation of the Copenhagen Accord.”

The US on China
21 January 2012, US Consulate in Shanghai

China’s role at climate talks in Copenhagen

“China has played a positive and constructive role in the climate negotiations by maintaining cohesion among developing countries.”

China angry with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown

“China’s only concession during the talks was more cooperation with international organizations on verification of compliance on reduction commitments. The Europeans, however, “played a lot of tricks” and took advantage of their “united front” to endeavor to push CHINA to increase its carbon intensity reductions to an unacceptable level of 60 percent.

“[TEXT REMOVED] said Premier Wen was quite angry that UK Prime Minister Brown had simply repeated European earlier demands on the 60 percent target.”

China’s Government struggles to keep up with negotiation process

“The behavior of China’s delegation at Copenhagen reflects not only a lack of coordination between the Foreign Ministry and National Development and Reform Commission, but also that China´s internal decision-making process does not mesh with the fast-moving negotiating environment that characterized the Copenhagen discussions.”

Related Stories:

EU commits to two degrees climate change goal despite US doubts

Saudi Arabia: Protection of environment key to development

Analysis: Despite soaring emissions is China the world’s new green superpower?

Maldives offers to host a landmark climate change speech by President Obama

February 26, 2010, Meeting with Maldives’ Ambassador to the US and the State Department, Washington DC

“[Ambassador] Ghafoor proposed that President Obama deliver a speech on climate change from Maldives when he next visits the region. He said Maldives would provide a dramatic backdrop and draw further attention to environmental challenges the islands face.”

The US on Saudi Arabia

February 12, 2010, US Embassy in Saudi Arabia to Todd Stern and Jonathan Pershing of the US State Department

Saudi Arabia looks to soften climate change stance

“There appears to be a growing sense within the SAG that it may be in danger of becoming isolated on climate change, which may prompt a re-examination of its position. Saudi officials have suggested that they need to find a way to climb down gracefully from the country’s tough negotiating position.”

Saudi worried about funding new economy for growing young population

“On one hand, Saudi Arabia’s lead climate change negotiator has criticized the Copenhagen process in private and in public, arguing that the UNFCCC process is the only acceptable legal framework. On the other hand, Saudi officials are very eager to obtain investment credits for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and other technology transfer projects that will only become available once an agreement has been reached. Saudi officials express concern about the impact a transition to a low-carbon energy mix will have on the country’s revenue stream at a time when it faces enormous financing needs to transform its economy to create jobs for its young, growing population.”

US looks to leverage OPEC countries via the UAE following its “low key” approval of Copenhagen Accord

22 February 2010, From the US Embassy in Abu Dhabi

“Thani Al Zayoudi, a policy advisor at the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company (Masdar) who also serves as Masdar’s Director of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) Department, told EconOff on February 22 that the UAE had kept its association low key for political reasons. He noted that Kuwait had rejected the Accord and that Saudi negotiator Al Sabban had told the UAE in a recent call that Saudi Arabia also planned to reject the Accord.”

The post Wikileaks’ climate change highlights appeared first on Climate Home News.

Buried under the ground, somewhere in Switzerland, two teams of scientists at the famous CERN lab have been taking turns to smash particles together in search for proof of a concept widely referred to as “cosmic soup”.

A cross section of the (very) Large Hadron Collider. (Source: Flickr/ImageEditor)

Part way through this process they thought they’d proved that sub atomic neutrinos could move faster than the speed of light.

A few months later they confessed they’d just made a simple error, a mistake in a calculation or a fault with a GPS receiver were suggested. They duly corrected it and went about their business.

Today, that culminated with the announcement that they had almost certainly discovered the much sought after Higgs Boson, an until now theoretical particle that gives matter its mass.

No one is challenging their work, raking over the neutrino incident or questioning their (epic) funding.

Think back now to Climate Gate in 2009.

The theft of emails from the University of East Anglia failed to produce any real scandal or unearth any errors (according to an independent inquiry, not me). At worst, one of the scientists was found to be taking a short cut with his maths. This was investigated and there was shown to be no wrong doing or misrepresentation with published results.

Fast forward three years and faith in climate science has only just reached pre-Climate Gate levels.

Meanwhile, despite increasing evidence linking the frequency of extreme weather events to climate change, the constant complaining of the “funny weather” and myriad of statistically solid evidence backed, peer-reviewed scientific research, climate change is something 43% of Brits are unwilling to commit to.

Yet when a team of theoretical physicists produce findings so hugely intangible to the general public and with far less obvious and instant repercussions for our way of life, there is not a single cynic or voice of dissent to be found.

There are still 3% of scientists out there challenging the conventional climate change theories. Their doubts are healthy and also evidence based. Their contribution forces rigour, accuracy and honesty from the other 97%.

Politics

Particle physics (as far as I’m aware) is a fairly non-politicised topic. Perhaps it will be once there are bankable applications and money to be made.

For the moment, people are happy to go with what the science tells them.

Climate change on the other hand, and related policies affect people directly. It often means additional effort around the household, perceived guilt-trips from those taking action and in some countries, higher taxes.

In this instance, politics takes over and the science is moot. The trusted, omnipotent physicists at CERN are viewed entirely differently to climate scientists in this scenario, who are written off as corrupt, self-serving cogs in a clockwork conspiracy.

Scientists at CERN stopped (just) short of claiming to have discovered the Higgs Boson, but they have proved beyond doubt, that those questioning climate scientists do so not because they think they’ve done their sums wrong, but because of that other variable that scientists long to avoid – politics.

The post What the Higgs Boson tells us about climate change science appeared first on Climate Home News.

Today, Harald Heubaum, Lecturer in Global Energy and Climate Policy at the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, SOAS, University of London explains why how governments can tackle economic and environmental problems in tandem.

It’s not easy being ‘green’ these days. Ahead of Rio+20 cutbacks to government support for low-carbon, clean-energy agenda items are a reality in many countries around the world.

Government policy can support private sector investment in renewable energy. (Source: Flickr/Walmart)

In Europe, a dire economic outlook and continued sovereign debt problems have put renewable energy subsidies in the cross hairs.

Some have argued that governments should withdraw its support altogether, following Ayn Rand’s mantra that “the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off!”

Without government intervention the private sector would be free to produce the best, most cost-effective solutions.

Decreasing regulatory burdens can indeed boost investment in small and medium-sized businesses and clean tech start-ups.

The technological innovation these companies produce is critical if the world is to effectively address global climate change.

Innovation

Innovative ideas can also help tackle the structural problems underpinning sluggish growth and high unemployment rates that have manifested themselves in OECD countries since the financial crisis.

And yet, private sector ingenuity and innovation by themselves are not what has led Denmark to produce a quarter of its electricity from wind and Germany to become the world leader in installed solar photovoltaic capacity while reducing its CO2 emissions by over 20%.

It is also not what is fuelling China’s massive renewables boom. In each of these cases proactive government intervention has made all the difference.

What governments in each of these countries recognized is that technological innovation does not equal market penetration.

The nature of today’s energy market often prevents new entrants from challenging vested interests, in turn slowing down the adoption of innovative ideas and, thus, the transition to a prosperous, low-carbon economy.

If left to their own devices, these new entrants are unable to overcome the systemic bias against clean, low-carbon technologies.

In the energy field, only government can create conditions that enable these technologies to gain a lasting foothold in the market and grow the economy by building a 21st century industrial base.

The catalogue of intervention measures includes tried and tested green industrial policies such as feed-in tariffs, carbon pricing, renewable/clean energy obligations, targeted tax breaks, early-stage R&D investment and energy efficiency standards.

Picking winners

Critics contend that extensive government support has provided low-carbon technologies with an unfair advantage while driving up prices for all end consumers. Government, they argue, should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.

This narrative should be challenged on at least two accounts. First, it ignores the significant cost reductions that have occurred as the result of high learning rates, allowing for a gradual phase-out of subsidies.

For example, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the world’s leading wind farms are already cost-competitive with traditional ways of generating electricity such as conventional coal or nuclear power. With global installed capacity growing year on year, onshore wind is expected to reach grid parity by 2016. Solar PV is not far behind. Combined with a suite of energy efficiency and energy saving measures, such developments will help lower energy bills.

Second, the energy system can hardly be described as laissez-faire, with government picking winners and losers for more than two centuries. No energy source, be it coal, oil, gas or nuclear, ever matured without significant government intervention.

Promoting new energy technologies can provide research and manufacturing jobs, as well as cheaper, more secure energy. (Source: Flickr/Tuey)

As Nancy Pfund and Ben Healy point out in a recent study of historical U.S. energy subsidies, the financial help granted to fossil fuels and nuclear power in their formative years was, as an inflation-adjusted percentage of GDP, many times greater than the support given to renewables today.

The benefits traditional energy sources have provided to societies – affordable electricity, heating, transportation – have arguably more than repaid the initial investment.

In the same way, the added benefits of low-carbon technologies and associated industries – greater supply security, a more diversified and stronger economy, efficiency savings, less CO2 and air pollution – will more than compensate for government intervention and investment.

The job of a free-market government is to ensure that the economic game is played fairly.

In energy policy this means continued intervention on behalf of new entrants. The job of any government is to create an environment in which business and industry can thrive, providing employment in R&D, manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance and adding real value to the economy.

A proactive green industrial policy that is stable and consistent can ensure that gains made in the clean-tech, low-carbon sector are not lost but built upon. For governments gathering in Rio this June the message is clear: Hands on!

This article is part of a series commissioned by the Rio Conventions for their RioPlus Business project.

The post Rio+20 Business Focus: Green growth can end economic blues appeared first on Climate Home News.

Margaret Thatcher made some pivotal speeches on climate change (Original image: Margaret Thatcher Foundation)

She was the most divisive of political figures, but looking back, Thatcher’s environmental policies reached across political divides.

Before becoming The Iron Lady, played by Meryl Streep in the film of the same name, Baroness Thatcher was a chemist. This scientific awareness was demonstrated by her response to the early presentations of concerns surrounding rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Addressing the UN General Assembly on environmental degradation in 1989 she said: “The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto.

“Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world’s climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all.

“That prospect is a new factor in human affairs. It is comparable in its implications to the discovery of how to split the atom. Indeed, its results could be even more far-reaching,” she said.

At the time environmental issues were only just beginning to gain a mainstream foothold and were thought of by many as the exclusive domain of the liberal left.

“We should remember that Margaret Thatcher’s background was that of a trained scientist, and the environment was always something she was going to take a keen interest in,” Angie Bray, Conservative MP for Ealing Central and Acton told RTCC.

“Certainly, as Prime Minister in the late 1980s, she was one of the first world leaders to spell out the need to protect our environment for future generations,” says Bray.

Iain Murray, vice-president for strategy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, has suggested that Maggie’s environmentalism still carried the more traditional Thatcherite marks.

‘Beware the cranks’

She believed that local level pollution issues could be solved by replacing poorly run municipal services with privately-run enterprises. She warned against the “cranks and romantics” of the “environment lobby” in her autobiography.

Crucially however, she separated these issues from that of global atmospheric pollution, where she took a much stronger line. It is specifically on climate change where it becomes harder for environmental groups to criticise her record, regardless of how they may feel about her overall performance as Britain’s longest serving Prime Minister of the 20th century.

She told the Royal Society in 1988 that “it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself”.

Murray notes that in her book Statecraft, published in 2002, she was critical of how the climate change process had developed and was wary of it being misused by the left to push their agenda on other topics.

She wrote in 2002: “Whatever international action we agree upon to deal with environmental problems, we must enable our economies to grow and develop, because without growth you cannot generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment.”

Ten years later, this economically-bounded approach to climate change has been more or less paraphrased by the UK’s coalition government today. George Osborne said in October 2011 that “we’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business”.

It is disingenuous to call Thatcher an early green leader, but she recognised that climate change needed to be addressed long before her contemporaries and her mark is clearly visible in many environmental policies today.

The post Margaret Thatcher: The Green Lady? appeared first on Climate Home News.

A second batch of so-called Climategate emails, allegedly from the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit, has been posted on a Russian website.

It is not clear who has released these emails or whether they are authentic. In 2009 a number of emails linked to the Unit were published, sparking accusations that scientists were misleading the public over climate data.

Three inquiries in the UK subsequently found no evidence of malpractice – and reacting to today’s news the UEA says it continues to stand by its science and its staff.

A statement said: “While we have had only a limited opportunity to look at this latest post of 5,000 emails, we have no evidence of a recent breach of our systems.

“If genuine, (the sheer volume of material makes it impossible to confirm at present that they are all genuine) these emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks.”

The publicity follows a similar incident ahead of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009.

The original release of emails was used by climate change sceptics to accuse scientists of collusion over data. All involved have been cleared of any wrong-doing. A recent independent study funded by climate sceptics including the industrialists the Koch brothers, confirmed the results of the IPCC science.

No accusations surrounding the content of the new set of emails have been made so far.

Two of the thousands of original 'climategate' emails.

The post Second batch of ‘Climategate’ emails released appeared first on Climate Home News.

An estimated two billion people live without electricity, technology transfer can reduce this figure. (Source: Eskinder Debebe/UN)

By John Parnell

Innovation is championed as the best route to successful climate adaptation and mitigation but many under developed economies are in danger of being left behind. RTCC looks at the mechanism designed to address this imbalance.

The technology transfer mechanism is designed to encourage and facilitate the migration of climate fighting solutions from the global north to the south.

Although not yet fully finalised major challenges over intellectual property rights and funding are already apparent.

More work is sure to be done at the COP17 talks in Durban to find ways around these substantial roadblocks.

Why is it important?

Combating climate change requires major alterations to behaviour. For industrialised nations, that might mean people leaving their car at home when possible or the construction of renewable energy generation. In the developing and least-developed countries, innovating your way out of trouble is more difficult. Governments and residents live and operate within smaller comfort zones and lower tolerances for failure. Resources, finances and good governance can impinge technological development severely.

The technology mechanism is designed to help level the playing field and get the right technologies to the communities that need them most. It could be a new crop variety to boost agricultural output, a solar powered lamp for areas without electricity or an industrial scale carbon reduction practice.

How advanced is the mechanism?

The technology transfer mechanism has been under discussion at several UNFCCC COP negotiations. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has already supported numerous technology transfers out with the formal system under development. In Cancun in 2010 a formal structure for the technology transfer mechanism was formed with two parts:

-The Technology Executive Committee

The 20 person Technology Executive Committee (TEC) deals with the policy issues surrounding the technology mechanism. It is comprised of nine representatives from Annex I parties, three members from the following three groups; Asia & Pacific, Latin America & Caribbean and Africa. The final two positions are filled by one member from the Least Developed Countries and one from the Small Island Developing States.

It is the committee’s responsibility to liaise with governments, the private sector, NGOs and academic institutes to promote collaboration and cooperation on technology transfers and uses its findings to advise on policy.

-Climate Technology Centre and Network

The workhorse of the technology transfer mechanism put forward in Cancun is the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN).

At the request of a developing nation the CTCN will work at a national and regional level to provide advice and training.

It will also build ties between relevant organisations and identify opportunities where environmentally beneficial technologies can flow to the global south.

Future challenges

There are calls ahead of the Durban talks for a formal linkage between the technology mechanism and the Green Climate Fund to provide some certainty on how the costs of accelerating technology transfers will be managed.

Perhaps the greatest source of conflict arises from the issue of intellectual property.

Those investing in the development of new technologies look for a return on their efforts. Intellectual property rights (IPR) protect that investment. The cost of this can be magnified when passing from rich to poor nations. Developing countries are looking for intellectual property regulations to be relaxed in order to lower prohibitively high prices.

The situation is frequently compared to the attempts by the major pharmaceutical companies to protect the IPR of their HIV/AIDS drugs from being copied by generic manufacturers and sold at lower prices to the developing world.

Removing IPR from the equation entirely also removes the incentive for further investment in developing new technologies. Enforcing it too strongly stops the technology from reaching the people that need it most.

The post RTCC Q&A: Technology Mechanism appeared first on Climate Home News.

Report states that ten of the big green spenders, Germany, the UK and the US, could slash billions from climate change budgets.

By RTCC Staff

A $23.5 billion hole could develop in climate change response budgets as a result of public finance cutbacks, a new report has found.

This figure is based only on the top ten spending governments on climate mitigation and adaptation. The study by Ernst & Young predicts that this number could rise to $45 billion if the crisis in the Eurozone expands and triggers additional national debt defaults.

“The funding gap and the magnitude of the challenge ahead forces us to think of new ways of scaling-up finance for climate adaptation and mitigation,” said Juan Costa Climent, global leader climate change and sustainability services, Ernst & Young.

“Financial innovation is key to unlocking the capital markets. New schemes could drive down the cost of financing and help ensure risk in developing countries is better priced.”

The largest investor in climate change response is Germany with an annual spend of $23.5 billion. Under the extreme economic scenario, this figure could be slashed by $8.3bn.

“Public finance should seek to provide an arena for the private sector to minimise investment risks. It has a key role to play in leveraging private finance, mitigating real and perceived risks and funding R&D climate-related activities,” said Climent.

A number of public finance initiatives are under way to stimulate investment in climate change-related industries including the Green Investment Bank in the UK and the BMVBS retro-fit initiative in Germany.

The most ambitious financing initiative to date, the Green Climate Fund, will be negotiated at the COP17 talks in Durban this month with leaders set to negotiate its design.

The Funding Gap

Source: Ernst & Young

The post Report: Climate change funding could face $23.5 billion gap appeared first on Climate Home News.

EU Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard (Source: EC library)

By John Parnell

With the EU backing Kyoto to the hilt and extending its carbon emission reduction targets, attention could now turn to the group’s wider ambitions for Durban.

The bloc is currently committed to a reduction of 20% but has now agreed to extend that ambition, although it has not committed to an actual figure.

Speculation in recent weeks suggested that the extension was increasingly unlikely as economic pressure was ramped up. Could this positive step be a sign of good things to come from the EU as climate finance takes centre stage at the COP17 talks?

“The Eurozone crisis won’t help…it takes politicians’ attention off other issues,” Stephen Tindale, former executive director of Greenpeace and now associate fellow at the Centre for European Reform told RTCC.

“The crisis and budget deficit also mean countries are less prepared to invest in energy efficiency and low carbon options. There’s not enough money, and this will make the EU position in Durban weaker than it would have been otherwise,” says Tindale.

Opposition to an extension from with in the EU has also surfaced. Several members from Eastern Europe with dirtier energy generation and a greater proportion of heavy industry, expressed concern that further cuts would come too soon for them.

The decision to extend cuts would suggest confidence from more developed economies such as Germany, in their ability to offset lower reductions from other members.

The UK, one of the nation’s pushing for 30%, has backed today’s announcement from the EU. A statement from the Department for Energy and Climate Change obtained by RTCC said: “The UK supports an EU move to a 30% cut in emissions by 2020 based on 1990 levels and that this happens as quickly as possible.”

“It’s in Britain’s interests that Europe does more to cut emissions because that’s how we can reduce our dependency on oil, make our energy supplies more secure and open up opportunities for jobs in the green industries of the future. We believe that in cutting emissions going further, sooner, is cheaper in the long run. Countries outside Europe are already taking action.”

The next question regarding the EU’s participation at COP17 will be the funding gap left by the expected demise of Kyoto-based finance in 2012 and the proposed Green Climate Fund (GCF), not set to launch till 2020.

“The reality is that everyone thought it [GCF] was the low hanging fruit but it seems we have no money anywhere,” says Annika Ahtonen from the EU Policy Centre.

“At the moment it’s understandable that there are other concerns…states are worried about how much it will increase costs, [which] measures and sectors it will involve. There are questions to be answered,” says Ahtonen.

One of those questions receiving much attention ahead of the UN climate change conference is the fate of the Kyoto Protocol and its related mechanisms.

The EU has been one of the more enthusiastic players at UNFCCC talks in the past and the rise in emissions reduction commitments could also increase expectations for the COP17 talks themselves.

“The UNFCCC has a role to play but there is far too much attention into the top down approach of setting targets, rather than more practical measure of bottom up energy efficiency and carbon reduction,” says Tindale.

“I think the EU is capable of much more on climate change, whether there is an agreement or not. The top down or bottom up argument is academic…the international negotiations do help – Kyoto is not a necessary condition.”

More on this story throughout the day – for latest news check @RTCCnewswire

The post Analysis: EU puts Eurozone crisis aside and backs Kyoto appeared first on Climate Home News.