Transcript Harald Diaz-Bone

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
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
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 programmes that promoted
practicable steps to facilitate and/or finance the transfer of, or
access to, environmentally-sound technologies (format table 6)
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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.