Reporting on Financial Resources and Transfer of Technologies

1. Reporting on Financial Resources and Transfer of Technologies Introductory presentation by the UNFCCC secretariat Workshop on the preparation of fourth national communications from Annex I Parties Dublin, 30 September – 1 October 2004

2. Overview • UNFCCC reporting guidelines, main provisions relevant to financial resources and technology transfer • C&S report of NC3s, some general issues and problems identified • IDRs of NC3s, examples of good practice in reporting on financial resources and technology transfer • Some starting points for the discussion

3. UNFCCC reporting guidelines • In general, Annex II Parties shall provide details of measures taken to give effect to their commitments under Article 4.3 (financial resources), Article 4.4 (assistance in meeting costs of adaptation), and Article 4.5 (transfer of technologies) • Annex II Parties shall complete tables on financial contributions (related to the implementation of the Convention): • to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) (table 3) • to multilateral institutions and programmes (table 4) • bilateral and regional financial contributions (table 5, both on mitigation (by sector) and adaptation (capacity building, coastal zone management, other vulnerability assessments) • Annex II Parties shall, where feasible, report activities related to technology transfer, both in textual and tabular format • Fact sheets on selected projects and programmesthat promoted practicable steps to facilitate and/or finance the transfer of, or access to, environmentally-sound technologies (format table 6)

4. Findings and Problems encountered(1) • (New and additional) financial resources • Findings • All Annex II reporting Parties provided information on their contributions to the GEF and other multilateral institutions and on their bilateral financial contributions relating to the implementation of the Convention. • The regions receiving the largest amount of bilateral financial resources were Asia and the Pacific and Africa. • Parties differed in the criteria for determining new and additional resources. Some Parties identified their contribution to the GEF as “new and additional” resources. • Problems encountered • Defining resources as being “new and additional” • Isolating climate change mitigation projects from the overall contribution to environmental protection

5. Findings and Problems encountered (1) • Assistance in meeting costs of adaptation • Findings • Most of the Parties provided information on specific activities relating to adaptation • The adaptation activities receiving most support were capacity-building and coastal zone management • Some Parties described projects aimed at assessments of vulnerability, disaster preparedness, and response and risk management as key components of adaptation policies • Problems encountered • Separating the adaptation component of a climate change project • Overlap with the NC chapter on vulnerability and adaptation

6. Findings and Problems encountered (1) • Transfer of Technology • Findings • All Annex II Parties reported on their technology transfer activities • Several Parties highlighted activities relevant to supporting the development and enhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies of developing countries. Information provided by Parties shows that capacity-building activities have been increasing • The important role of multilateral cooperative TT initiatives (e.g. GREENTIE, CADETT, CTI) was stressed • Problems encountered • Parties had difficulty in collecting information of private sector activities on technology transfer

7. OECD: Climate Change Related Aid • 2002 OECD DAC report on aid targeting the objectives of the Rio Conventions (FCCC, CCD, CBD) • Climate change related aid totalled USD 2.7 billion (annual average 1998-2000) • High commitments: JPN (USD 1.6 bln), DEU (USD 0.5 bln), USA (USD 0.2 bln), GBR (USD 0.1 bln) • High share in total ODA: DEU (17%), JPN (15%), FIN (11.3%), NOR (6.6%), GBR (3.4%) • High number of marked activities: JPN (846), USA (251), NOR (138), NDL (101), GBR (94), DEU (65), ESP (61)

8. Examples of good practice • NDL indicated that, starting from 1997, 0.1% of GNP has been earmarked to make available new and additional financial resources on top of regular development assistance budgets • Reporting on specific bilateral initiatives established to assist NAI Parties to address the various aspects of climate change: • CAN: Climate Change Action Fund • DEU: Initiative “Protecting the future through climate protection“ • FRA: French Fund for the Global Environment (FFEM) • NDL: Climate Change Studies Assistance Programme (NCCSAP) • USA: U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation, the U.S. Country Studies Programme, and the Climate Change Initiative • Reporting on AIJ-projects: JPN, NDL, NOR, CHE • Reporting in accordance with the OECD-DAC system for classifying the environmental relevance of projects: NDL, NOR, SWE

9. Examples of good practice • Private sector involvement in technology transfer • CAN and JPN provided a substantial description of activities undertaken by their governments to involve the private sector in projects and programmes relating to the transfer of technologies that will help developing country Parties to mitigate or adapt to climate change • USA described in detail the assistance provided to the private sector, as well as a number of public–private partnership activities already established to help address climate change in developing countries and EIT countries • Some Parties (DEU, GBR, ITA, NDL, SWE) described policies or programmes relating to the private sector • Capacity-building activities • NDL made a distinction between its support for capacity-building activities for mitigation and adaptation

10. Starting points for the discussion • How to report on definitions of resources as being “new and additional”? • How to isolate climate change mitigation projects from the overall contribution to environmental protection? • How to separate the adaptation component of a climate change project? • How to collect information of private sector activities on technology transfer? • How to address comparability and consistency with reporting to the GEF?Information provided by Parties makes it possible to analyse the trend of contributions paid to the GEF over the years. However, it is not easy to compare this with the information reported by the GEF, because of the different reporting systems used. The GEF reported on contributions by replenishment periods, i.e. GEF 1 and GEF 2, expressed in Special Drawing Rights (SDR) millions. Parties reported on yearly contributions expressed in US$ or other national currencies.