A little talk about Smart Cities, Technolgy Transfer, and Climate Finance

 1.    - HOW HAS THE CLIMATE CHANGE AGENDA ENCOURAGED THE NEED FOR PPE MANUFACTURING (GLOVES, MASKS, AND VACCINES) AND SMART CITY PROJECTS? 

Answer 

 The Climate agenda has increased our awareness of the need to be smart and to plan and to cooperate including global Risk Reduction and management /planning. These are multilateral issues. We have a multilateral system that is there to promote cooperation.  Global problem – Climate change is thus an existential global threat and an opportunity for transformation to a green growth trajectory. UN is there to re-affirming the need for united multisectoral, multilateral action supported by "BUSINESS" and science, reiterating the Secretary Generals' words: “we face a surplus of multilateral challenges and a deficit of multilateral solutions”;

 PPE VACCINES -NEED FOR GLOBAL PANDEMIC COOPERATION LINK TO CLIMATE CHANGE AGENDA 

  With regards to PPE and learning from the Covid 19 Pandemic cooperation - The changing climate has downstream effects, impacting broader environmental systems, which in turn harm human health. The emerging health profile of the changing climate. The changing climate has already produced considerable shifts in the underlying social and environmental determinants of health at the global level. Indicators in all domains of section 1 (climate change impacts, exposures, and vulnerabilities) are worsening. Concerning, and often accelerating, trends were seen for each of the human symptoms of climate change monitored, with the 2020 indicators presenting the most worrying outlook reported since The Lancet Countdown was first established.

These effects are often unequal, disproportionately impacting populations who have contributed the least to the problem. This fact reveals a deeper question of justice, whereby climate change interacts with existing social and economic inequalities and exacerbates longstanding trends within and between countries. An examination of the causes of climate change revealed similar issues, and many carbon-intensive practices and policies lead to poor air quality, poor food quality, and poor housing quality, which disproportionately harm the health of disadvantaged populations.

 5 years ago, countries committed to limit global warming to “well below 2°C” as part of the landmark Paris Agreement. 5 years on, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to rise steadily, with no convincing or sustained abatement, resulting in a rise in the global average temperature of 1·2°C. Indeed, the five hottest years on record have occurred since 2015.

 Alarming Statistics

Vulnerable populations were exposed to an additional 475 million heatwave events globally in 2019, which was, in turn, reflected in excess morbidity and mortality (indicator 1.1.2). During the past 20 years, there has been a 53·7% increase in heat-related mortality in people older than 65 years, reaching a total of 296 000 deaths in 2018 (indicator 1.1.3). The high cost in terms of human lives and suffering is associated with effects on economic output, with 302 billion h of potential labor capacity lost in 2019 (indicator 1.1.4). India and Indonesia were among the worst affected countries, seeing losses of potential labor capacity equivalent to 4–6% of their annual gross domestic product (indicator 4.1.3). In Europe in 2018, the monetized cost of heat-related mortality was equivalent to 1·2% of regional gross national income, or the average income of 11 million European citizens (indicator 4.1.2).

Turning to extremes of weather, advancements in climate science allow for greater accuracy and certainty in attribution; studies from 2015 to 2020 have shown the fingerprints of climate change in 76 floods, droughts, storms, and temperature anomalies (indicator 1.2.3). Furthermore, there was an increase in the number of days people were exposed to a very high or extremely high risk of wildfire between 2001–04 and 2016–19 in 114 countries (indicator 1.2.1). Correspondingly, 67% of global cities surveyed expected climate change to seriously compromise their public health assets and infrastructure (indicator 2.1.3). See - The 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises - The Lancet

 The current need is a low carbon more sustainable and smart development future. Covid 19 and CC's agenda is highlighting that a truly green recovery from the pandemic can take “a huge slice out of greenhouse gas emissions” and slow climate change. The green recovery could cut expected emissions in 2030 by up to 25 percent, and boost the chance of keeping temperature rise to below 2-degree Celsius, up to 66 percent, according to the report. Measures such as supporting zero-emission technologies and infrastructure, reducing fossil fuel subsidies, stopping new coal plants, and promoting nature-based solutions – including large-scale landscape restoration and reforestation – must be prioritized. 

 Smart Cities 

 The “smart cities semantics began to buzz in 2010 with IBM’s Smarter Cities Challenge. The company vowed to award technology worth millions of dollars to cities that wished to upgrade their infrastructure. Among other things, that initiative established a highly competitive approach to urban innovation that pitted cities against each other in a bid to win free products and services from the private sector.

The 2010s brought a wave of these competitions, backed by corporations that selected cities to host pilot projects. Many philanthropic organizations, including Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Rockefeller Foundation, launched similar events. And in 2015, the US Department of Transportation used this same approach for its Smart City Challenge, selecting one winning city (Columbus, Ohio) from the 78 that applied to serve as a testbed for transportation technology.

Many of these early initiatives were partnerships between tech firms and individual cities –urban planners aimed at upgrading large urban systems for transportation, energy, waste, or communications. Hardware, software, business services, and connectivity companies formed alliances to offer system-wide solutions. Gaps in community inclusion began to get noticed for success it is now a norm rather than the exception.

  Smart cities are semantics about offering solutions. We can learn from the cities that had experimented i.e. see the recent MIT article on subject-Chicago. Toronto etc. We know where these projects need more focus and energies placed for success – for instance, we know that smart cities need - community and broader private sector participation in planning and it is important it is not just a government- to private sector contract. We know we must debunk the learning of what is involved in a system called a smart city i.e. community, private sector, technology transfer, leapfrogging solutions, equality, digital -energy -waste solutions from infrastructure solutions, and bring those together, etc. 

   - What are the gaps that have stagnated the technology transfer /learning agenda?

It is well known that countries have developed series of national climate change, green growth, and sustainable development policies, strategies, and action plans, and governance measures and have been doing so since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The process of transfer and cross country learning- and leapfrogging -technical cooperation however has been too slow. There is evidence of key weaknesses bogging down the process of advancing technological change and the need for a lead private sector's role. The private sector can lead this climate change learning agenda. 

The first illusion of what needs to change is the mindset of who is responsible to drive change. Changing mindsets for instance on procurement and financing climate change projects is central to change – Not about the lowest contract cost. Another issue is that debate about development has not been inclusive to all and needed a more holistic approach- and certainly, the mindset on contracting technology must change. Changing mindsets for instance on procurement and financing climate change projects is central to technology transfer change – Development should not be about the lowest contract cost.

I read this - The astronaut and US Senator John Glenn once reflected on climbing into an Atlas rocket on a Launchpad in 1962: “I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of 2 million parts — all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract.” This race to the bottom is a mentality that plagues both the public and private sectors. Refocusing procurement will play a crucial role in our fight for a more sustainable planet. Decisions can no longer simply be made based on the lowest cost and least effort. We have to consider the full life-cycle effect and impact of products, embedding sustainability into their development and supply chain, as well as scoring them on their contribution to a circular economy.

Gap one – Low private sector engagement in technological adaptation and knowledge transfer/ sharing agenda. We need to support leapfrogging to advancements in technologies due to the existential threats we face as humanity. The climate agenda, however, can be led by the private sector... the transfer of advanced technologies, smart cities, etc, smart development can support trends and bottlenecks encountered for example in rapid urban migration. We need low carbon and smart solutions -technologies i.e. waste management, traffic solutions, energy efficiency, and renewable–energy independence-low carbo trajectories.

Generally, since Rio -1992 –First Earth Summit on Sustainable Development, the policy debates, and action planning for climate change adaptation and energy technology improvement has been a Government and UN exercise. It was at Rio for instance that the three Rios- Climate change, Biodiversity and Land Degradation conventions, and the Agenda 21 for government to deal with sustainable development policy and action-were born. 

 The government's first response to Rio was to build new institutions ministries of the environment rather than to interpret and focus on agenda 21 which was about technology and education. It was about the broader engagement - the need for education including a strong private sector role building on market forces and value of biodiversity and natural capital. It is now commonly recognized that across the UN, the development and government institutions partner agencies that the drivers for a nature value chain, major technological leapfrogging has to be with the full engagement of the public and the private sector. Stimulating both public and private sector involvement through education is a major priority for technological cooperation and change. The key message is that technological change is a knowledge economy agenda and the world needs education for sustainable development cooperation.

  Gap two –The need for innovative financing models -past was a history of a project led approach to finance technology transfer and for CCA

Secondly, per Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, publicly mobilized private adaptation finance and innovative financial instruments for private sector engagement are curtailed. Realizing innovative financing instruments and vehicles for scaling up technological change in developing economies is essential and more than ever the number one global policy priority for climate change adaptation- sharing clean energy technology is key for CCA and a low carbon future. 

 A major barrier has been the project-led approach. The GEF – the global environmental facility – for instance, is a wonderful vertical fund (born at 1992 RIO summit to fund knowledge-sharing projects and catalytic actions. The GEF assumption was built on good government and UN intentions. Vertical funds however are not built to be the resourcing solution for the systemic capacity (education and technology transfer) issues: low institutional capacities to manage technological sharing processes and projects, policy changes, or scaling the piloted technologies are endemic. I.e. solar IRE. The GEF, for example, has a portfolio of thousands of pipeline and or completed pilots of renewable energy and solar technologies projects aimed at policy, capacity building, and demonstration so why have they not be scaled we might ask?. They generally are intended to deal with the level of resourcing or strategies needed for the systematic institutional capacity needs, the technological education agenda, and scaled up sustainability resourcing i.e. or to create the market conditions and engaging the PS for sustained change. 

  Gap three –The need for global and national platforms for Communities, Business and Technology, UN and Government Technology and Knowledge Sharing

The global platforms are needed for showcasing the international experiences, the technologies and developments for urging private sector engagement in climate change action and strategies as they are reflected (including latest discussions surrounding emissions trading systems – Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, publicly-mobilized private adaptation finance, and innovative financial instruments for private sector engagement).

 2.    - WHAT HAS THE UN DONE, AND IS DOING, TO COMBAT THIS POLICY.

 Answer 

The UN has been playing its convening role and mobilizing support for a policy to promote smart development including cities. It is urging for broader stakeholder engagement and inclusive design in urban-rural smart development projects

·     Platforms like Paris and other related Rio Conventions – Convening governments and stakeholders around policies and solutions and more recently actively involving communities groups and private sector

·     Building capacities for technology transfer through south south modalities

·     Designing and implementing smart projects that bridge the knowledge stakeholders and their resources - GEF GCF

·     Focus on knowledge transfer and education around the value of biodiversity, natural capital, and environmental assets.

 UN had begun setting up more stakeholder engagement forums at the global level - Communities and Business – To Government –To UN platforms –showing opportunity for investments i.e. UNEP, UNDP operational platform out of Panama- supporting the GEF projects. This is needed at the national level. 

 3.    - IS THERE UN FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR SMART CITY PROJECTS. IF SO, HOW CAN PROJECTS MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS AND ACCESS THESE FUNDS.

 Yes, indirectly and directly -1. design and cofinancing with vertical funds- and co-financing for scaling up results of pilots from catalytic initiatives but 2. also through the UN global marketplace to source bidder to provide solutions through projects as contractors.

 The UN seeks to provide platforms for innovation and knowledge sharing through it global networks to support development issue i.e. climate change and drylands agriculture, Water management, IRE cities, agricultural technologies, sect.

 The UN seeks to successfully broker all these elements and stakeholders - south south, north-south- private sector- government -community transfer of proven and adaptable technological solutions - convening the development stakeholders i.e. COPs and national platforms, using an 80/20 principle for project design with smart strategies for capacity building and stimulating market creation, and innovative financing for full-scale implementation, initial meets on project designs, etc. The UN is also open to innovative funding ideas to speed up this work and process of change.