<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.opendemocracy.net" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>open Democracy News Analysis - Arguing over trivia, David Steven  - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.opendemocracy.net/global_deal/arguing_trivia</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Arguing over trivia, David Steven &quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Arguing over trivia, David Steven </title>
 <link>http://www.opendemocracy.net/global_deal/arguing_trivia</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
Some of the sticking points
here in Bali are incredibly trivial and technical.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
There&amp;#39;s been a collapse on
capacity building, for example, where the US has blocked progress on the deal
that is on the table.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
What&amp;#39;s going on here?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The aim is to provide money
for developing country governments to participate fully in negotiations, but
the US has blocked agreement on the issue.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Two slightly different
accounts of why.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
According to the UN&amp;#39;s Yvo
de Boer, the US has said that it wants capacity building to be linked to
developing country effectiveness in reporting its progress on tackling climate
change. If they do a good job, they get money to invest in expertise.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The US NGOs have a slightly
different reading. They say the American government is attempting to link the
money to the performance of developing country negotiators at climate talks.
Presumably, the idea is not so much to pay them to say the right things, but to
provide incentives for effective negotiators.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Whichever way, it&amp;#39;s seen as
a bizarre idea by many developing countries. Other see it as a very small issue
on which to pick a fight, especially when it has angered so many delegates from
African and other poor countries.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The argument over technology
transfer is more substantial, with the US worried that it may be leaving US
companies open to the compulsory transfer of intellectual property rights.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
But negotiations have
broken down over one word, whether future talks should explore setting up a
&amp;quot;Technology Leveraging &lt;em&gt;Facility&lt;/em&gt;&amp;quot; or a &amp;quot;Technology Leveraging &lt;em&gt;Programme&lt;/em&gt;.&amp;quot;
Again, the US is at the heart of the row. The G77, briefing the press for the
first time last night, was furious about this issue.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The US - which is yet to
speak to the press today - would defend itself, saying that these are truly
important demands. But many other delegations are muttering darkly about &lt;em&gt;guerrilla&lt;/em&gt;
tactics. 
&lt;/p&gt;
They
see the US approach as an attempt to gum up the works, irritate other
countries, and hope that the talks either run out of time, or that someone else
loses patience and pulls down what Yvo De Boer just described as the Bali
‘house of cards&amp;#39;.</description>
 <comments>http://www.opendemocracy.net/global_deal/arguing_trivia#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog_terms/climate_change">climate change</category>
 <category domain="http://www.opendemocracy.net/taxonomy/term/729">David Steven</category>
 <category domain="http://www.opendemocracy.net/global_deal/g8">G8</category>
 <category domain="http://www.opendemocracy.net/global_deal">Global Deal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/global_deal">Global Deal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog_terms/global_deal">global deal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.opendemocracy.net/global_deal/us">us</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>David Steven</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">35399 at http://www.opendemocracy.net</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
