Synthesis report for the technical assessment component of the first global stocktake: Synthesis report on finance flows-B-Technology development and transfer

B- Technology development and transfer

  1. Pursuant to Article 10 of the Paris Agreement and in response to a request from the CMA by decision 19/CMA.1, paragraph 23 (d), this section provides compiled and synthesized information on progress made in strengthening cooperative action on technology development and transfer by Parties, support provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of Article 10 of the Paris Agreement, technology needs as reported by developing country Parties in the context of achieving the long-term vision referred to in Article 10., paragraph 1, of the Paris Agreement and gaps and challenges on cooperative action on technology development and transfer and support provided.
  1. Progress made in strengthening cooperative action on technology development and transfer for mitigation and adaptation and support provided
  2. The compilation and synthesis of BRs presents aggregate level information on the provision of support for technology development and transfer by developed country Parties to developing country Parties. All developed country Parties that submitted a BR4 provided information on steps taken to promote, facilitate and finance the transfer of, or access to, climate technologies and know-how for developing countries. Those developed country Parties also completed CTF table 8, describing a selection of technology transfer activities that they have supported in developing country Parties.
  • Scale and channels of support
  • The synthesis of BR4s revealed that the provision of support for technology development and transfer has increased significantly. Developed country Parties have more than doubled their support for technology transfer activities since 2012–2013. In the BR4s, 22 developed country Parties reported a total of 391 activities (as reported in CTF table 8) relating to technology transfer (compared with 303 activities reported in the BR3s and 170 in the BR1s – see figure 17 below). More than 70 per cent of these activities had been implemented at the time of reporting, while the remainder were either at the planning stage or ongoing activities.

62    Decision 14/CMA.3, paras. 13–14.

50

Figure 17

Support for technology transfer activities by stage of technology cycle reported by developed country Parties in their biennial reports

  1. The support for technology development and transfer provided by developed country Parties encompasses support for both hardware (equipment) and software (know-how, methods, practices). Developed country Parties provided equal amounts of support for hard and soft technologies, which differs from the situation as reported in their BR3s (soft technology activities were supported 20 per cent more often than as reported in the BR4s). About 15 per cent of activities addressed both hard and soft technologies.
  2. Several developed country Parties highlighted that they had mainstreamed technology transfer activities in their development cooperation activities with a view to contributing to sustainable development and achievement of the SDGs. In this context, Parties provided examples of supported technology transfer activities that, as well as contributing to achieving climate action (SDG 13), also contributed to achieving other SDGs, such as no poverty (SDG 1), zero hunger (SDG 2), good health and well-being (SDG 3), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8) and industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9).
  3. Developed country Parties engaged in supporting technology transfer activities at the multilateral, regional and bilateral level. The focus on bilateral activities has increased (61 per cent of all technology activities in the BR4s, compared with 54 per cent in the BR3s). Regional and multilateral activities made up about 18 and 21 per cent, respectively, of all technology activities (compared with 23 per cent each in the BR3s). Bilateral cooperation continues to be the predominant channel of international support for technology transfer activities.
  4. While sources of funding for supporting implementation of technology transfer activities were in most cases public (a finding consistent with that in previous BRs), the majority of activities reported in the BR3s were undertaken by public institutions (57 per cent), whereas Parties in their BR4s reported that the majority of activities were undertaken by public–private partnerships (63 per cent), representing a significant change in terms of the increasing role of public–private partnerships in undertaking technology transfer activities.

51

  • Targeted areas, sectors and technologies
  • More than half (56 per cent) of supported activities were mitigation technology activities. Support for adaptation technology activities accounted for nearly a quarter of all supported activities (26 per cent). The remaining activities related to technologies that cut across both mitigation and adaptation. This distribution of mitigation, adaptation and cross- cutting activities is similar to that reported in the BR3s.
  • Support for adaptation technology activities mainly targeted the agriculture, cross- cutting and water sectors (see figure 18 below). This differs slightly from the support for adaptation technology activities reported in the BR3s, which was dominated by the cross- cutting sector. Many of the supported adaptation technology activities in the agriculture sector were related to agricultural practices, such as seed or crop improvements, climate- smart or biological farming, or general food security improvements, which were also frequently reported in the BR3s. Support for technologies that cut across adaptation sectors (cross-cutting technologies) were frequently related to general infrastructural development, or research and development activities. As they were also in the BR3s, disaster risk reduction activities were often reported by Parties, whereas the share of information-sharing activities has declined since the BR3s. Regarding the water sector, technologies such as water supply systems, water desalination and water harvesting were often reported in the BR4s.

Figure 18

Adaptation technology activities reported by developed country Parties in their fourth biennial reports

  1. Support for mitigation technology efforts continued to focus on the energy sector (about 63 per cent) (see figure 19 below). Other sectors such as agriculture, infrastructure, water and waste each represented a small share of support for mitigation technology efforts. The majority of support for mitigation efforts in the energy sector was related to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Support for renewable energy covered implementation of either general renewable energy technology efforts or specific renewable energy technologies, such as solar, biomass, geothermal, wind and hydropower. The focus on renewable energy technologies is comparable with the focus of the mitigation technology activities reported in the BR3s. Support for cross-cutting activities mainly focused on

52

demonstration projects of specific technologies, including pilot projects and training, as well as research and development activities.

Figure 19

Mitigation technology activities reported by developed country Parties in their fourth biennial reports

  1. Some Parties highlighted that the support provided for technology transfer activities responded to the technology needs of developing countries. Parties underlined that activities were undertaken according to the specific needs and circumstances of recipient countries, acknowledging the different technology and capacity-building needs. Such activities ranged from support for renewable energy and energy efficiency equipment to training for operating and maintaining early warning systems. In this context, the technology transfer activities reported by Parties in their BR4s are very much in line with the findings of the fourth synthesis report on prioritized technology needs identified by 53 non-Annex I Parties in their TNAs (see subsection 2 (b) below).63
  • Support provided to developing country Parties for strengthening cooperative action on technology development and transfer at different stages of the technology cycle
  • Developed country Parties provided support to developing country Parties for the implementation of Article 10 of the Paris Agreement, including for strengthening cooperative action on technology development and transfer at different stages of the technology cycle in line with Article 10, paragraph 6, of the Paris Agreement. The supported activities can be distinguished by the three stages of the technology cycle: research and development, new technology demonstration, deployment of mature technologies and the entire technology cycle (from research to deployment).
  • The technology transfer activities reported in the BR4s are predominantly related to the later stages of the technology cycle, namely the actual deployment of mature technologies (see figure 17 above). However, support for the early stages of the technology cycle has increased since previous BRs. As reported in the BR4s, technology activities in the early stages of the technology cycle represented more than one third of all supported activities

63    See document FCCC/SBI/2020/INF.1.

53

compared with about a quarter according to the BR3s. Some Parties highlighted that the technology support they provided also aimed at contributing to the implementation of the Paris Agreement, including support for collaborative approaches to research and development and facilitating access to technology, in particular for the early stages of the technology cycle, in line with Article 10, paragraph 5, of the Paris Agreement.

  • Endogenous capacities and technologies
  • The Paris Agreement highlights the importance of developing and enhancing endogenous capacities and technologies to support developing countries in implementing the Paris Agreement. Several Parties provided support for building endogenous capacities and technologies in recipient countries so as to ensure sustainable uptake of climate technologies by target groups. In doing so, they highlighted that building endogenous capacities and technologies helps ensure that technology transfer is implemented in country-specific ways, building on existing knowledge and practices and using local governance structures. Activities included collaborating with country partners at the proposal and design stage of activities and involving local people in installing and operating projects, followed up by tailored training programmes to ensure proper control, function and routine maintenance of the implemented climate technologies.
  • Geographical distribution
  • The Asia-Pacific region continued to benefit most from the reported technology support (see figure 20 below), with almost half (46 per cent) of all technology support focusing on the region. The level of support for technology for the African region (23 per cent) and Latin America and Caribbean region (13 per cent) has also not changed significantly since the BR3s. Parties targeted more than half (62 per cent) of technology activities reported in the BR4s at the LDCs and SIDS, which is a slight decrease compared with the proportion reported in the BR3s (68 per cent).

Figure 20

Distribution by region of technology transfer activities reported by developed country Parties in their biennial reports

  • Technology needs to achieve the long-term vision on fully realizing technology development and transfer in order to improve resilience to climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
  • In accordance with Article 10, paragraph 1 of the Paris Agreement, Parties share a long-term vision on the importance of fully realizing technology development and transfer in order to improve resilience to climate change and to reduce GHG emissions. This section contains compiled and synthesized information on technology development and transfer for NDC implementation provided by Parties and technology needs of developing country Parties to mitigate or adapt to climate change in the context of achieving this long-term vision.

54

  • Technology development and transfer for nationally determined contribution implementation
  • The synthesis report on NDCs synthesizes information from the latest available NDCs communicated by Parties to the Paris Agreement. With regard to information on technology development and transfer for NDC implementation, the NDCs of most Parties covered qualitative aspects and many also covered quantitative aspects.
  • Many Parties referred to technology development and transfer in the context of actions that inherently address both adaptation and mitigation or focus solely on mitigation. Many Parties also referred to climate technology for adaptation.
  • Information provided by Parties on climate technology related matters mainly covered specific technologies to be deployed; technology needs; policy, regulatory and legal aspects; technology innovation, research and development; and support required by Parties or support provided by Parties for technology development and transfer.
  • In terms of specific technologies that Parties intend to use for achieving their adaptation and mitigation targets, those most frequently identified were cross-sectoral energy-efficient appliances and processes; enhanced use of renewable energy technologies such as hydropower, solar, wind and biomass; low- or zero-emission vehicles; blended fuel; waste to energy technologies; and climate-smart agriculture.
  • Technology needs mentioned by Parties were mainly in the areas of energy, agriculture, water, waste, transport, climate observation and early warning. Regarding technology innovation, research and development, some Parties included information on promoting collaboration between countries and promoting institutions, mechanisms, tools and business models that foster progress in this area. Actions on policy, regulatory and legal aspects commonly referred to by Parties included developing or updating policies and strategies to promote technology innovation, promoting use of renewable energy and accelerating adoption and transfer of climate technologies. A few Parties included specific information on their intended provision of support to developing country Parties, while some Parties indicated the support needed for development and deployment of clean technologies, for example in the areas of energy, energy efficiency and agriculture. Some Parties referred to TNAs and TAPs in identifying priority technology needs in adaptation and mitigation.
  • Technology needs of developing country Parties
  • The fourth synthesis of technology needs identified by Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention synthesizes information contained in the TNA reports, barrier analysis and enabling framework reports, and TAP reports of 53 Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention that participated in phases I (2009–2013) and II (2014–2017) of the global TNA project. It provides an overview of the technology needs of those Parties aiming to mitigate GHG emissions and facilitate adaptation to the adverse impacts of climate change.
  • Targeted sectors and technologies for mitigation
  • For mitigation, energy was the most commonly prioritized sector (by 94 per cent of the Parties). Within the energy sector, the most commonly prioritized subsectors were energy industries (88 per cent of the Parties) and transport (53 per cent).
  • The agriculture, forestry and other land use sector was prioritized by 35 per cent of the Parties. Of those, 27 per cent prioritized the land subsector (including land use, land-use change and forestry). Other mitigation sectors prioritized by the Parties are shown in figure 21 below.

55

Figure 21

Prioritized sectors for mitigation reported in technology needs assessments of Parties

  1. Figure 22 below presents the most commonly prioritized subsectors for mitigation for all Parties. The energy industries subsector was prioritized by almost all Parties, followed by the transport subsector, which was prioritized by 50 per cent of the Parties.

Figure 22

Prioritized subsectors for mitigation reported in technology needs assessments of Parties

  1. Notably, the sectors or subsectors prioritized by Parties for mitigation are generally the sectors with the highest GHG emission levels nationally. A similar relationship can be observed between the development priorities of Parties and the sectors prioritized by them for mitigation.
  2. For mitigation, Parties identified more than 950 technology options in their preliminary lists (or “long lists”) of technologies within their prioritized mitigation sectors or subsectors. More than 350 technology options were prioritized by Parties.
  3. Within the energy sector (the most frequently prioritized mitigation sector), the majority of the technologies prioritized for the energy industry subsector were related to electricity generation and were renewable energy technologies. Solar photovoltaic and hydroelectricity generation technologies were the most frequently prioritized (by 43 and 33 per cent of the Parties that undertook mitigation TNAs, respectively) (see figure 23 below).

56

Figure 23

Prioritized technologies for the energy industries subsector reported in the technology needs assessments of Parties

  1. In terms of scale of application, a minority of the prioritized technologies for electricity generation were small-scale technologies (i.e. for home application or not generally connected to the grid). Most of the technologies within that category were for medium- or large-scale application (i.e. grid-connected plants).
  2. Most of the prioritized technologies for electricity generation could be applied in the short term. Some were better suited to the medium or long term, as they were either at the research, development or demonstration stage of development, or in the process of market deployment.
  3. For the transport subsector of the energy sector, 39 per cent of the Parties prioritized technologies related to modal shift, such as mass rapid transit road or rail systems, and 37 per cent prioritized energy-saving technologies, including vehicle technology improvements. Figure 24 below illustrates the most commonly prioritized technologies for the transport subsector.
  4. In the transport sector, Parties mostly prioritized soft technologies, aimed at instituting behavioural change in relation to transportation and improvement of infrastructure, which could be applied in the short to medium term.

57

Figure 24

Prioritized technology categories in the transport subsector reported in the technology needs assessments of Parties

  1. For the agriculture, forestry and other land use sector, prioritized technologies for mitigation in the forestry subsector covered a wide range of categories. These included forest conservation technologies, such as the protection of forest areas, promotion of sustainable forest management and general improvement of forest management. Sink enhancement (afforestation or reforestation) and forest rehabilitation and restoration techniques were also among the prioritized technologies.
  2. Technologies prioritized for the agriculture subsector of the agriculture, forestry and other land use sector included mainly new or alternative agricultural practices, such as organic farming; classic, mini or no tillage; fertilizer dosing; and irrigation techniques.
  • Targeted sectors and technologies for mitigation and adaptation
  • For adaptation, the most commonly prioritized sectors were agriculture (87 per cent of the Parties), water resources (79 per cent) and infrastructure and settlements, including coastal zones (33 per cent). Figure 25 below illustrates the sectors that were prioritized by Parties for adaptation.

58

Figure 25

Prioritized sectors for adaptation reported in the technology needs assessments of Parties

  1. For adaptation, Parties identified more than 1,000 technology options in their preliminary lists (or “long lists”) of technologies within their prioritized adaptation sectors. More than 400 technology options were prioritized.
  2. The technology needs identified in relation to adaptation comprised both hard technologies, such as dykes and floodwalls, sprinkler and drip irrigation systems, and drought-resistant crop varieties, and soft technologies, such as the establishment of water user associations and the roll-out of knowledge transfer and awareness campaigns.
  3. Some Parties also prioritized indigenous technologies that could be used to assist national adaptation to changing weather conditions, such as traditional housing designs, bunds, levees, dykes and mangrove plantations. In that regard, the needs identified were generally related to the deployment and diffusion of the technologies and the further improvement of their design and quality through research and development.
  4. Within the agriculture sector (the most commonly prioritized adaptation sector), most of the technologies prioritized were related to sprinkler and drip irrigation (prioritized by 37 per cent of Parties), as well as biotechnologies, including technologies related to crop improvement, new varieties and drought-resistant, salient-tolerant and short-maturing varieties (together prioritized by more than 50 per cent of Parties). Conservation agriculture and land-use planning was prioritized by 21 per cent of Parties undertaking TNAs for adaptation. Figure 26 below shows the most commonly prioritized technologies for the agriculture sector.

59

Figure 26

Prioritized technologies in the agriculture sector reported in technology needs assessments of Parties

  1. In the water sector, Parties prioritized technologies relating to rainwater harvesting (54 per cent of the Parties) and water storage and catchment (35 per cent). Figure 27 below presents the most commonly prioritized technologies in the water sector.

Figure 27

Prioritized technologies in the water sector reported in technology needs assessments of Parties

  1. Within the infrastructure and settlements sector (including coastal zones), most of the prioritized technologies were related to coastal protection, including both hard and soft measures. The most commonly prioritized technologies related to wetland restoration and natural disaster prevention, such as early warning systems. Others included sea walls, mapping and surveying, and beach reclamation.

60

  • Budgets estimated in technology action plans
  • Approximately 77 per cent of Parties provided estimates of the budget required for the actions specified in their TAPs, including 60 per cent of Parties in phase I and all Parties in phase II. The difference in the prevalence of reporting on budget requirements is most likely due to new TAP guidance. Most Parties specified a budget for each action within their TAPs. Parties also calculated a budget for the activities under each action; however, a few Parties calculated a budget for the overall TAP only. Additionally, while some of the Parties specified annual costs, most indicated costs for the entire time frame of their TAPs.64
  • For mitigation, the total cumulative budget requested by Parties for their TAPs was USD 20.1 billion: USD 5.2 billion requested by phase I Parties and USD 14.9 billion by phase II Parties. Three Parties reported budgets over USD 1.5 billion, while several other Parties reported total budgets that did not exceed USD 10 million.
  • For adaptation, the total cumulative budget requested by Parties for their TAPs was USD 4.4 billion: USD 2.4 billion requested by phase I Parties and USD 2.0 billion by phase II Parties. Four Parties reported budgets over USD 350 million, while several other Parties reported total budgets that did not exceed USD 10 million.
  • Tables 4–5 below provide an overview of the estimated total budget required for TAP actions by action category and time frame.

Table 4

Budgets for the actions contained in technology action plans of Parties in their technology needs assessments for mitigation

(USD billion)

Category<5 years5–10 years>10 yearsTotal
Infrastructure3.872.014.079.95
Multiple categoriesa1.414.661.017.08
Economic and financial1.290.230.051.57
Research and development0.800.020.010.82
Institutional and organizational capacity  0.10  0.15  0.02  0.26
Policy, legal and regulatory0.060.130.010.20
Information and awareness- raising  0.08  0.01  0.06  0.15
Other0.040.0100.05
Total7.657.225.2120.09

a Refers to actions contained in TAPs that cover a combination of several categories of action. For example, an action in this category may consist of economic and financial measures integrated into information and awareness- raising campaigns alongside policy, legal and regulatory measures.

Table 5

Budgets for the actions contained in the technology action plans of Parties in their technology needs assessments for adaptation

(USD billion)

Category<5 years5–10 years>10 yearsTotal
Multiple categoriesa1.060.200.001.26
Economic and financial0.190.370.621.17
Infrastructure0.630.030.300.95

64 The budget reported by Parties in their TAPs is usually the estimated overall budget requested for TAP implementation. The figures may therefore not necessarily reflect the overall incremental costs of a project over its lifetime, as they may not include project revenues.

61

Category<5 years5–10 years>10 yearsTotal
Institutional and organizational capacity  0.30  0.11  0.02  0.44
Policy, legal and regulatory0.140.130.010.28
Information and awareness- raising  0.20  0.01  0.04  0.21
Research and development0.070.040.000.11
Other0.010.010.010.03
Total2.600.880.964 45

a Refers to actions contained in TAPs that cover a combination of several action categories. For example, an action in this category may consist of economic and financial measures integrated into information and awareness-raising campaigns alongside policy, legal and regulatory measures.

  • The highest total cumulative TAP mitigation budgets were estimated for the energy subsector of energy industries (USD 18.8 billion, 92 per cent of the total) and transport (USD 389 million, 2 per cent of the total). For adaptation, the highest total cumulative budget was estimated for the agriculture and water sectors at USD 2.34 billion (53 per cent) and USD 1.81 billion (42 per cent), respectively (see figure 28 below).

Figure 28

Budget by sector for technology action plans for mitigation and adaptation identified by Parties as part of their technology needs assessments

  • The budget requirements for TAPs were country specific. Several Parties requested large infrastructure investments to accelerate the development and deployment of large-scale electricity generation technologies. Other Parties requested significant government budgets for the provision of financial incentives, such as subsidies, tax schemes and financial grants.

62

  • Gaps and challenges for cooperative action on technology development and transfer and support provided
  • After prioritizing technologies as part of the TNA process, most of the developing country Parties identified and analysed technology-specific barriers to the development and transfer of their prioritized technologies and identified possible measures to overcome such barriers.
  • Barriers to and enablers of mitigation technologies
  • Overall, irrespective of the sector, all Parties identified economic and financial and technical barriers to the development and transfer of prioritized technologies for mitigation (see figure 29 below).
  • Within the economic and financial category, most of the Parties (92 per cent) identified lack of or inadequate access to financial resources as the main barrier, irrespective of the sector or technology. In the technical category, many of the Parties identified system constraints and insufficient expertise as the main barriers (71 and 70 per cent, respectively).

Figure 29

Overview of barriers to technologies for mitigation identified in barrier analyses of Parties

  • For mitigation, the most commonly mentioned cross-sectoral enabler was the provision or expansion of financial incentives for the implementation and use of the prioritized technology. Another commonly cited measure was the formulation or updating of regulations, policies and standards related to the technology. Other measures mentioned as being cross-sectoral were capacity-building and the establishment of stakeholder networks and information and awareness programmes to promote and develop capacity with regard to the specific technology.
  • Barriers to and enablers of adaptation technologies
  • For adaptation, irrespective of the sector or technology, all Parties identified economic and financial barriers. Policy, legal and regulatory (98 per cent of the Parties), institutional and organizational capacity (98 per cent) and human skills (96 per cent) were also commonly mentioned categories of barriers to the development and transfer of prioritized technologies (see figure 30 below).
  • Within the economic and financial category, most of the Parties (92 per cent) identified lack of or inadequate access to financial resources as the main barrier. For the policy, legal and regulatory category, the most common barrier was an insufficient legal and

63

regulatory framework (92 per cent). With regard to institutional and organizational capacity, the most frequently reported barrier was limited institutional capacity (88 per cent), while for the human skills category, the most commonly reported barrier was lack of skilled personnel for the installation and operation of climate technologies (90 per cent).

Figure 30

Overview of barriers to technologies for adaptation identified in the barrier analyses of Parties

  • For adaptation, the most commonly mentioned cross-sectoral enabler of adaptation technologies was increasing the financial resources available for a specific technology by introducing or increasing allocations in national budgets or identifying and creating financial schemes, funds, mechanisms or policies. Another commonly mentioned measure was strengthening the current relevant institutions by increasing the number of staff and facilities in order to accelerate the research and development of the technology.
  • Other commonly mentioned cross-sectoral enablers for adaptation technologies were capacity-building and the establishment of information and awareness-raising programmes to promote and develop capacity with regard to the technology.