GENERAL
FCCC/SBSTA/1997/13
24 September 1997
Original: ENGLISH
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
Seventh session
Bonn, 20-29 October 1997
Item 4 (a) of the provisional agenda
SECOND COMMUNICATIONS FROM PARTIES
INCLUDED
IN ANNEX I TO THE CONVENTION
ACTIVITIES OF PARTIES INCLUDED IN ANNEX
II
RELATED TO TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
Explanatory notes 3
INTRODUCTION 1 - 7 4
Mandate 1 - 2 4
Scope of the note 3 - 5 4
Availability of data 6 5
Possible action by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and
Technological Advice (SBSTA) 7 5
II. BACKGROUND 8 6
GE.97-
Paragraph Page
III. COMPILATION AND SYNTHESIS OF INFORMATION
PROVIDED 9 - 54 6
A. Multilateral 9 - 24 6
B. Bilateral 25 - 42 11
Private sector 43 - 48 18
Activities implemented jointly 49 - 50 19
Summary conclusions 51 - 55 20
IV. USE OF THE REPORTING GUIDELINES 56 - 64 21
Annex
Bilateral country study initiatives and participants
24
Explanatory notes
The following ISO country codes have been used:
Party Country code
Austria AUT
Belgium BEL
Canada CAN
Denmark DNK
European Community ZZZ
Finland FIN
France FRA
Germany DEU
Greece GRC
Iceland ISL
Ireland IRL
Italy ITA
Japan JPN
Luxembourg LUX
Netherlands NLD
New Zealand NZL
Norway NOR
Portugal PRT
Spain ESP
Sweden SWE
Switzerland CHE
United Kingdom of
Great Britain and
Northern Ireland GBR
United States of America USA
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Mandate
- The Conference of the Parties (COP), in decision 13/CP.1,
requested the secretariat to prepare an itemized progress report
on concrete measures taken by Annex II Parties with respect to the
transfer of environmentally sound technology and know-how
necessary to mitigate and facilitate adequate adaptation to
climate change. Subsequently, in decision 7/CP.2, the COP
requested the secretariat to enhance its progress reports with
information from the national communications from Parties included
in Annex II to the Convention, due in April 1997. The COP, at it
second session, also asked the secretariat to make suggestions
with regard to further improvements in the format for reporting
information on the transfer of existing environmentally sound
technologies and know-how from Annex II Parties.
- At its second session, the COP also requested the Subsidiary
Body for Implementation (SBI) to evaluate and report on the
transfer of technologies being undertaken between Annex II Parties
and other Parties, and to do so by drawing on a roster of experts
(decision 7/CP.2).
B. Scope of the note
- In response to the above mentioned requests, this note
provides a compilation and synthesis of actions taken by reporting
Annex II Parties with respect to finance and transfer of
technology, and describes how the reporting guidelines in this
area were followed in the preparation of national communications.
As a result of the data limitation described below, the
secretariat has deferred compilation of comprehensive financial
tables to a subsequent report. Suggestions on steps to improve
reporting will be provided after additional communications are
received by the secretariat.
- This note draws on the information contained in the second
national communications provided to the secretariat by 15 Annex II
Parties as of 25 August, 1997. In accordance with Article 12.3 of
the Convention, 14 of these 15 Parties described measures taken to
meet their commitments outlined in Article 4.3, 4.4 and
4.5.(1) It also expands upon
information presented in the first compilation and synthesis of
second national communications from Parties included in Annex I to
the Convention (FCCC/SBI/1997/19 and FCCC/SBI/1997/19/Add.1). The
note also draws on information contained in the first technical
paper of the secretariat on terms of transfer of technology and
know-how (TP/1997/1) and information provided by the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) to the SBI (FCCC/SBI/1997/2).
- The secretariat is seeking observations on this document from
experts nominated to the roster by governments. Any observations
and comments received by 1 October 1997 will be compiled and made
available for consideration at the seventh sessions of the SBSTA
and the SBI, in accordance with the mandate of the COP to draw on
the roster of experts.
C. Availability of
data
- It should be pointed out that this note does not represent a
comprehensive progress report on actions in these areas for two
reasons. First, it is limited by the fact that the activities of
some Annex II Parties (AUT, DNK, ZZZ, GRC, ITA, JPN, LUX, PRT,
ESP) have not been considered because their second national
communications were not submitted in time to contribute to this
note. Second, of those Parties that submitted a national
communication, many did not always provide all the information
required to produce a comprehensive report on progress (see
section IV). For example, financial contributions to relevant
multilateral institutions and programmes were often not reported,
many national communications provided limited detail on bilateral
programmes related to the implementation of the Convention, and
there was little discussion of transfer of technology through the
private sector.
D. Possible action by the Subsidiary Body on
Scientific
and Technological Advice
(SBSTA)
- The SBSTA may wish to:
(a) Take note of the information on the actions taken by reporting
Annex II Parties with respect to finance and transfer of technology,
and take it into account in its further considerations regarding the
development and transfer of technology;
(b) Request all Annex II Parties that have not yet submitted their
second national
communication to follow the reporting guidelines in this
area;
(c) Urge those Parties that have already submitted their second
communication to provide supplementary information on finance and
transfer of technology, if their initial information was
incomplete;
(d) Recall its mandate to the secretariat to assess the
effectiveness of the reporting
guidelines and note that the secretariat intends to propose
changes to the guidelines for consideration at the ninth session of
the SBSTA in November 1998; and
(e) Request the secretariat to investigate additional means of
obtaining information, with a view to enhancing the transfer of
information and technology to non-Annex II Parties to the Convention,
e.g. by workshops, bearing in mind that some activities in the SBSTA
work programme are also relevant in this respect, such as those to
examine technology information centres and networks.
.
II. BACKGROUND
- The annex to decision 9/CP.2 requests that Annex II Parties
provide in their national
communications detailed information on activities and multilateral
and bilateral financial contributions made in 1994, 1995, and, if
available, in 1996, to give effect to their commitments under Article
4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 of the Convention. It also states that Parties
should identify and define "new and additional" financial resources,
distinguish between activities undertaken by the private sector and
the public sector and describe assistance provided to meet the costs
of adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change. Five sample
tables were provided to facilitate reporting of this
information.
III. COMPILATION AND SYNTHESIS OF INFORMATION
PRESENTED IN NATIONAL
COMMUNICATIONS
A. Multilateral
1. Transfer of technology
- As noted in the first technical paper of the secretariat on
terms of transfer of technology and know-how (TP/1997/1),
multilateral institutions and programmes facilitate the transfer
of technology by supporting capacity-building activities such as
strengthening institutional capacity, establishing research
centres and funding demonstration projects. They also influence
private financial markets to support technology transfer. Finally,
many of the climate change mitigation and adaptation projects
supported by multilateral institutions and programmes include some
activities that facilitate transfer of technology.
2. The financial mechanism
- The GEF is designated as the entity entrusted with the
operation of the financial mechanism on an interim basis. Three
Parties (NLD, GBR, USA) noted the contribution made by the GEF to
transfer of technology. In particular, these Parties noted the
role of the GEF in financing enabling studies, capacity-building
and institutional development; reducing barriers to the commercial
viability of low- or no-greenhouse gas technologies; and funding
measures to mitigate climate change.
- As of December 1996, the GEF had contributed US$ 266 million
to climate change related activities in the pilot phase and US$
262 million in subsequent work. These GEF funded projects also
secured an additional US$ 2.73 billion in co-financing support.
- Approximately 13% of the funds of the GEF were specifically
directed toward capacity-building and enabling activities.
Projects supported with these funds include: participation in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), enabling
activities for the implementation of the Convention and the
preparation of the initial national communications such as
inventory studies, mitigation strategies, studies on vulnerability
to climate change and adaptation options, research and monitoring
programmes related to greenhouse gas emissions.
- The vast majority of the funds of the GEF
(84%)(2) supported projects
directly related to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and
the enhancement of greenhouse gas sinks. These projects fall into
four categories, three defined as long-term operational programmes
such as energy efficiency, renewable energy and reducing the
long-term costs of low greenhouse gas emitting technologies. The
fourth category refers to short-term response measures in the form
of high priority projects which yield climate change benefits at
low costs. All of these projects contribute to the transfer of
"hard" and "soft" technologies related to climate change
mitigation.
- Approximately 18% of GEF funds have gone to twelve projects
that are designed to remove barriers to energy conservation and
energy efficiency. These projects focus on efforts to improve
energy efficiency in building construction, lighting, electric
power generation and industrial boilers. Some projects also have a
component that addresses energy planning.
- Eighteen projects have received approximately 33% of GEF
funding to support the removal of barriers to the use of renewable
energy. Renewable energy technologies supported include solar
water heating, photovoltaics, biogas, wind power, small hydro
installations, and landfill methane recovery.
- Efforts to reduce the cost of low greenhouse gas emitting
technologies have received approximately 26% of GEF funds. These
five projects support biomass, geothermal, wind, and solar thermal
energy technologies.
- Approximately 19% of GEF funds support twelve projects that
represent short-term response measures to climate change. These
projects focus on sustainable management of woodlands and
rangelands, fuel switching from coal to gas, coal bed methane as
an energy source, improved transmission and distribution of
natural gas, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from
the transportation sector.
- Decision 9/CP.2 requests that Annex II Parties identify their
financial contributions to the GEF in 1994, 1995, and, if
available, 1996. Eight Parties (BEL, FIN, DEU, IRL, NZL, NOR, CHE,
GBR) reported their contributions to the GEF for at least one of
these years. Another five Parties (AUT, FRA, NLD, SWE, USA)
reported their total contribution to the GEF over a multi-year
period. Finally, two Parties (CAN, ISL) did not describe their
contribution to the GEF in their national communication.
- Table 1 provides an overview of the information reported on
contributions to the GEF in the national communications of Annex
II Parties. As table 1 illustrates, these numbers were difficult
to compare with the figures published by the GEF
secretariat.(3) According to GEF
figures, the funding from reporting Parties constitutes 63.89% of
the total over the 1994-1996 period.
Table 1. Contributions to the GEF from reporting Annex II
Parties (1994-1996)
(US$ million)
Country
|
1994
As reported in national comm.
|
1995
As reported
in national comm.
|
1996
As
reported in national comm.
|
1994-1996
As
reported in national comm.
|
1994-1996
As reported by the GEF1
|
% paid
As reported by the GEF1
|
Austria2
|
|
|
|
|
14.69
|
75.0%
|
Belgium3
|
|
|
|
|
20.45
|
64.5%
|
Canada4
|
|
|
|
|
53.60
|
66.6%
|
Finland5
|
7.92
|
9.46
|
9.22
|
26.60
|
24.90
|
100.0%
|
France6
|
|
|
|
|
106.89
|
75.0%
|
Germany
|
75.31
|
0
|
126.84
|
202.15
|
177.70
|
75.0%
|
Iceland7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ireland
|
|
|
0.68
|
0.68
|
1.33
|
51.8%
|
Netherlands8
|
|
|
|
|
52.87
|
75.0%
|
New Zealand
|
1.68
|
1.68
|
1.68
|
5.04
|
5.39
|
75.0%
|
Norway
|
7.78
|
8.66
|
8.53
|
24.97
|
24.88
|
75.0%
|
Sweden9
|
|
|
|
|
59.29
|
100.0%
|
Switzerland
|
11.68
|
13.45
|
|
25.13
|
33.17
|
75.0%
|
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland10
|
11.35
|
10.52
|
18.52
|
40.39
|
109.43
|
75.0%
|
United States of America11
|
|
|
|
|
190.00
|
44.2%
|
NOTES TO TABLE 1, 1994-1996
1. This information was obtained from document
GEF/R.2/Inf.3, April 15, 1997. Data refer to contributions
paid and commitments received by GEF, for the first
replenishment, as of March 31, 1997.
2. Austria indicated in its national communication that
it contributed US$35 million to the GEF pilot phase and
US$20 million to the first replenishment of the GEF. In
addition, Austria committed up to SDR 4.5 million for a
bilateral GEF-Consultant Trust Fund.
3. Belgium indicated in its national communication that
it contributed FB 320 million for 1994-1995, FB 390 million
for 1996 and FB 390 million for 1997 to the GEF. In
addition, Belgium contributed up to 5 million SDR to the GEF
in its pilot phase.
4. Canada did not provide any information on its
financial contributions to the GEF.
5. Finland indicated in its national communication that
all of its GEF contributions represented new and additional
resources except for US$218,000 in 1996.
6. France indicated in its national communication that it
was contributing MF 807 to the GEF in the period
1994-1997.
7. Iceland did not provide any information on its
financial contributions to the GEF.
8. The Netherlands indicated in its national
communication that, until the year 2000, it has set aside a
sum of NLG 120 million to contribute to the
GEF.
9. Sweden indicated in its national communication that it
has contributed about SEK 650 million to the GEF during its
pilot phase and through 1997.
10. The information on contributions provided by the
United Kingdom is for the budget years 1994-1995, 1995-1996
and 1996-1997.
11. The United States of America indicated in its
national communication that aside from project development
investments and co-financing by agencies and
non-governmental sources, it has contributed US$190 million
to the GEF operation phase to date. It also states that it
is working with Congress to fulfill its current pledge to
the GEF of US$430 million.
|
3. Financial contributions to other multilateral
institutions and programmes
- Four Parties (FIN, NZL, CHE, GBR) provided information on
their annual financial contribution to the World Bank. While some
of these Parties only provided a single figure for their World
Bank contribution (FIN, GBR), other Parties reported separately
contributions to the International Development Agency (IDA) (NZL,
CHE) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(IBRD) (ISL, CHE). One Party (IRL) reported a contribution to the
IDA, but provided no other information on contributions made to
the World Bank. Four Parties (IRL, NZL, CHE, GBR) also reported
their annual contributions to the International Finance
Corporation (IFC). Two other Parties (FRA, DEU) included their
financial contribution to the World Bank in a larger number
outlining their financial contribution to a number of multilateral
institutions.
- Two Parties (GBR, CHE) provided information on their annual
contributions to each of the following regional development banks:
the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the
Inter American Development Bank, and the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). One Party (FIN) provided
information on contributions to three of these banks, one Party
(CAN) provided information on contributions to two of these banks,
and two Parties (NZL, ISL) provided information on contributions
to one of these banks. Two other Parties (FRA, DEU) included their
financial contribution to regional institutions in a larger number
outlining their financial contribution to a number of multilateral
institutions. Contributions to other multilateral institutions
were also identified in four of these national communications (FIN
- Nordic Development Fund, European Community)
(ISL - Nordic Environment Finance Corporation) (BEL, NZL -
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)).
- Seven Parties (AUT, FIN, FRA, ISL, NZL, CHE, GBR) reported
their annual contributions to the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP). Two Parties (FIN, GBR) also provided information
on their annual contributions to the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), one Party (BEL) reported on its contribution to
the Special Programme for Africa. Finally, four Parties
(AUT, CAN, IRL, NLD) provided data on either part or all of their
contributions to activities supporting the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process.
- Five Parties (FIN, NLD, NZL, CHE, GBR) provided data on
contributions to a wide variety of multilateral scientific
programmes. It should be noted, however, that virtually all
reporting Parties described work they were undertaking as part of
multilateral scientific programmes in their discussions of
activities related to research and systematic observations. Two
Parties (AUT, CHE) provided data on contributions to specific
multilateral technology programmes and three Parties (ISL, NZL,
CHE) provided data on contributions to a number of different
multilateral training programmes.
- The limited and inconsistent nature of reporting on financial
contributions to multilateral institutions and programmes has made
it infeasible to present this data in the form of a summary table.
B. Bilateral
- Information on bilateral financial contributions related to
the implementation of the Convention was provided by 14 of 15
reporting Parties.
- The level of detail provided on bilateral initiatives varied
significantly in different national communications. One Party
(USA) provided a detailed description of each of 70 separate
bilateral projects and programmes, including the financial
resources provided and the country and sector receiving the
assistance. Six Parties (FIN, FRA, DEU, NLD, NZL, GBR) provided a
general overview of the objectives and approach of their bilateral
initiatives with reference to a few specific examples of
individual projects and programmes, as well as detailed
information on the financial resources provided by country and
sector. Two Parties (AUT, CHE) pursued a similar approach but
provided little information on individual projects and programmes.
The remaining Parties (BEL, CAN, IRL, ISL, NOR, SWE) provided
limited but varying amounts of textual information on their
bilateral initiatives and no data on associated financial
resources.
1. Transfer of technology
- Most reporting Parties described bilateral policies and
programmes that transfer either "hard" or "soft" technologies to
developing countries and countries with economies in transition.
The vast majority of "hard" technologies were transferred in the
energy sector. "Soft" transfer of technology, such as the transfer
of "know-how" through education and training, planning and
management assistance, and institution building (e.g., legislation
and regulations), were an element of most of the bilateral
policies and programmes described in all sectors.
- Bilateral projects reported in the energy sector were directed
toward a number of different objectives. For example, six Parties
(FRA, DEU, IRL, NLD, GBR, USA) indicated that some of their
bilateral assistance is targeted at improved energy sector
planning and management, as well as market reforms in the energy
sector.
- Another common objective reported for bilateral projects in
the energy sector was improving the efficiency with which energy
is produced, transmitted and distributed. Eleven Parties (AUT,
BEL, CAN, FIN, FRA, DEU, IRL, SWE, CHE, GBR, USA) described
activities in this area. Energy efficiency improvements at coal
and diesel powered generating stations, hydroelectric facilities,
nuclear power plants, and combined heat and power plants were
specifically mentioned as were efforts to diminish losses from the
transportation and distribution of electricity and natural gas.
Three Parties (FIN, DEU, USA) also discussed bilateral projects
that helped power generators switch from more carbon-intensive to
less carbon-intensive fuels.
- Bilateral projects to promote the use of renewable energy
sources were reported by twelve Parties (AUT, BEL, FIN, FRA, DEU,
ISL, NLD, NZL, SWE, CHE, GBR, USA). The most commonly supported
renewable energy technologies are biomass, small hydro, solar, and
wind, but two Parties (ISL, NZL) indicated support for geothermal
energy technologies. Other
non-conventional energy technologies reported on were coal bed
methane, methane from landfills and fuel cells.
- Finally, eleven Parties (AUT, BEL, CAN, FIN, FRA, DEU, NLD,
CHE, SWE, GBR, USA) mentioned bilateral projects designed to
improve end-use energy efficiency
(e.g., buildings, motors, appliances). Little detail, however, was
provided on these initiatives.
- The other sector which received significant attention in the
bilateral policies and programmes of most Parties was the forestry
sector. 13 Parties (AUT, BEL, FIN, FRA, DEU, ISL, IRL, NLD, NZL,
SWE, CHE, GBR, USA) described bilateral initiatives in this area.
In general terms, these projects support sustainable land-use,
improved soil and forest management, creation of protected areas
and increased afforestation.
- Six Parties (AUT, FRA, DEU, NZL, CHE, USA) discussed bilateral
projects designed to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
transportation. These initiatives focused on increased use of
alternative transportation fuels (e.g., natural gas), support for
urban public transport, and improved transportation planning and
regulation.
- Bilateral policies and programmes in other sectors related to
the implementation of the Convention were reported on in much less
detail. Three Parties (FIN, DEU, GBR) described initiatives
supporting sustainable agriculture, one Party (DEU) described
initiatives targeted at waste reduction, and two Parties (DEU,
USA) described initiatives targeted specifically at reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from industry.
- Two Parties (FIN, DEU) provided some examples of the expected
greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with particular
bilateral climate change related projects. As a result, the
secretariat has been unable to summarize in any quantitative form
the potential benefits of such projects on the climate.
- Six Parties (FIN, FRA, DEU, NLD, SWE, USA) also indicated that
their bilateral assistance included cross-sectoral "country study"
type programmes. In general, these initiatives are designed to
help non-Annex II Parties meet their obligations under the
Convention by providing resources and technical assistance to aid
in assessing vulnerabilities to climate change, developing
greenhouse gas inventories, identifying climate change mitigation
and adaptation response options, developing climate change
response strategies, and preparing national communications. In
total, almost 60 non-Annex II Parties are participating in these
initiatives. One Party (GBR) indicated that it was supporting
similar work through its contribution to the GEF. A list of
bilateral "country study" initiatives and participating Parties is
found in the annex.
2. Adaptation
- Article 4.1 (e) requires Parties to cooperate in preparing for
adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Five Parties (CAN,
DEU, NLD, NZL, USA) described bilateral projects and programmes
that will help countries adapt to climate change. The projects
described aimed at improved coastal zone management, preservation
of ecosystems on the edge of deserts, improved water use
management in dry areas, and support for meteorological work and
famine early warning systems. It was also noted by some Parties
that much of the bilateral assistance directed toward sustainable
forestry management will also facilitate adaptation to climate
change. Two Parties (NOR, GBR) specifically noted that they had
chosen to support projects directed at climate change adaptation
through their contributions to the GEF.
Table 2. Bilateral financial contributions related to the
implementation of the Convention - 1994 (US$ million)
|
Africa
|
Asia and Pacific
|
Eastern Europe
|
Latin America and Caribbean
|
Total
(by sector)
|
Energy
|
FIN 15.01
DEU 18.27
CHE 0.98
GBR 6.91
|
FIN 1.57
FRA 0.12 DEU 79.17
CHE 0.73
GBR 56.20
|
NLD 8.70
CHE 5.25
GBR 2.91
|
DEU 1.85
GBR 4.26
|
201.93
|
Transport
|
AUT 6.30
DEU 13.58
|
DEU 0.86
CHE 0.065
|
|
|
20.80
|
Forestry
|
AUT 2.30
FIN 3.89
DEU 36.11
CHE 0.058
GBR 8.50
|
AUT 0.40
FIN 0.85
FRA 1.00
DEU 19.44
GBR 25.41
|
|
AUT 7.30
FIN 3.95
DEU 8.64
GBR 4.46
|
122.31
|
Agriculture
|
DEU 21.79
GBR 11.57
|
DEU 21.60
GBR 27.16
|
GBR 5.02
|
DEU 5.37
GBR 3.641
|
98.11
|
Waste
|
|
|
|
|
-
|
Industry
|
|
DEU 6.17
|
|
CHE 0.87
|
7.04
|
Adaptation
|
NLD 0.08
|
DEU 9.26
NLD 0.21
|
|
|
9.55
|
Other
|
DEU 0.43
|
DEU 0.24
|
CHE 0.40
|
|
1.07
|
Total
(by region)
|
145.78
|
250.45
|
22.28
|
42.30
|
460.81
|
NOTES TO TABLE 2, 1994
1. Finland has indicated that aside from what is reported
in this table, it has provided bilateral financial transfers
to Eastern European countries to prevent transboundary air
and water pollution. From 1991-1996, 140 investment projects
received US$50 million in funding and 430 technical aid
projects received an additional US$17 million. It was also
noted that Finland has undertaken debt for nature swaps in
the region.
2. Norway has indicated that it provides 249 million NOK
to Eastern Europe for general technical assistance with a
focus on capacity-building and transfer of know-how and
technology. It is not clear if this assistance is
climate-related or which sectors receive the
funding.
3. Canada provided no data on bilateral financial
contributions in 1994, but it did describe a number of
bilateral initiatives it has undertaken, primarily in Latin
America and the Caribbean.
4. Iceland indicated that it is supporting geothermal
energy projects in China, Lithuania, Romania and the Slovak
Republic, and hopes to do future work in the areas of soil
erosion and land reclamation, but it provided no data on
bilateral financial contributions.
5. Ireland noted that it has a number of projects related
to afforestation and land-use management in Africa, as well
as projects to improve the operating efficiency and
environmental performance of electrical systems in the
Middle East and Africa, but it provided no data on bilateral
financial contributions.
6. While Sweden provided no data on bilateral financial
contributions, it did indicate that it does support projects
in the areas of sustainable forestry and environmentally
sound energy consumption and production.
7. The United States of America described 19 regional
projects that are currently underway and have received or
will receive US$541 million in funding over their lifetime.
An additional 39 bilateral projects targeted at individual
countries are also described and have received or will
receive US$1.045 billion in funding over their lifetime.
Data on bilateral financial contributions made in 1994 was
not provided.
|
Table 3. Bilateral financial contributions related
to the implementation of the Convention - 1995 (US$
million)
|
Africa
|
Asia and Pacific
|
Eastern Europe
|
Latin America and Caribbean
|
Total
(by sector)
|
Energy
|
FIN 1.16
FRA 3.30
DEU 43.00
CHE 0.71
GBR 7.04
|
FIN 2.32
DEU 144.06
NZL 0.04
CHE 1.37
GBR 104.96
|
FRA 1.00
DEU 20.98
NLD 13.10
CHE 12.37
GBR 1.75
|
CHE 0.63
GBR 0.53
|
358.32
|
Transport
|
AUT 6.40
|
NZL 0.31
|
|
DEU 2.80
|
9.51
|
Forestry
|
AUT 2.00
FIN 3.44
FRA 1.20
DEU 32.66
CHE 0.07
GBR 3.67
|
AUT 0.30
FIN 1.15
DEU 53.85
NZL 3.36
GBR 38.43
|
CHE 0.81
|
AUT 1.70
FIN 4.90
DEU 12.24
GBR 7.57
|
167.35
|
Agriculture
|
DEU 22.73
GBR 13.95
|
GBR 34.41
|
GBR 8.16
|
DEU 1.61
GBR 9.04
|
89.90
|
Waste
|
|
FRA 1.00
|
|
|
1.00
|
Industry
|
|
DEU 15.10
|
CHE 2.87
|
CHE 1.97
|
19.94
|
Adaptation
|
NLD 0.08
|
NLD 0.05
NZL 0.83
|
|
|
0.96
|
Other
|
|
DEU 1.05
|
CHE 0.33
|
DEU 0.21
|
1.59
|
Total
(by region)
|
141.41
|
402.59
|
61.37
|
43.20
|
648.57
|
NOTES TO TABLE 3, 1995
1. Finland has indicated that aside from what is reported
in this table, it has provided bilateral financial transfers
to Eastern European countries to prevent transboundary air
and water pollution. From 1991-1996, 140 investment projects
received US$50 million in funding and 430 technical aid
projects received an additional US$17 million. It was also
noted that Finland has undertaken debt for nature swaps in
the region.
2. Norway has indicated that it provides 373 million NOK
to Eastern Europe for general technical assistance with a
focus on capacity-building and transfer of know-how and
technology. It is not clear if this assistance is
climate-related or which sectors receive the funding.
Another 50 million NOK was provided to Asia for projects
that disburse technology and ensure private sector
participation. Once again, the links to climate or specific
sectors are unclear.
3. Canada provided no data on bilateral financial
contributions in 1995, but it did describe a number of
bilateral initiatives it has undertaken, primarily in Latin
America and the Caribbean.
4. Iceland indicated that it is supporting geothermal
energy projects in China, Lithuania, Romania and the Slovak
Republic, and hopes to do future work in the areas of soil
erosion and land reclamation, but it provided no data on
bilateral financial contributions.
5. Ireland noted that it has a number of projects related
to afforestation and land-use management in Africa, as well
as projects to improve the operating efficiency and
environmental performance of electrical systems in the
Middle East and Africa, but it provided no data on bilateral
financial contributions.
6. While Sweden provided no data on bilateral financial
contributions, it did indicate that it does support projects
in the areas of sustainable forestry and environmentally
sound energy consumption and production.
7. The United States of America described 19 regional
projects that are currently underway and have received or
will receive US$541 million in funding over their lifetime.
An additional 39 bilateral projects targeted at individual
countries are also described and have received or will
receive US$1.045 billion in funding over their lifetime. No
data was provided on bilateral financial contributions in
1995.
|
- The total bilateral financial contributions made in
1994 by the eight Parties that completed the standard reporting
table were US$ 460.81 million. This increased in 1995 to
US$ 648.57 million. In the case of one Party, (NLD), the
financial data reported do not include the bilateral financial
resources provided to support cross-sectoral country study type
programmes.
- The vast majority of these bilateral financial
contributions in 1994 and 1995 is directed toward the energy
(50.50%) and forestry (26.11%) sectors. Smaller amounts support
initiatives in agriculture (16.95%) and relatively limited amounts
of bilateral financial contributions are directed toward
activities related to transportation (2.73%), waste (0.09%),
industry (2.43%) and adaptation (0.95%).
- The above figures could be compared with the data
provided in document FCCC/TP/1997/1, where the sectorial
distribution of bilateral aid from the Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) in years 1994-1995 reported the following
trends, energy (13.50%), forestry and agriculture (11.18%),
transport (14.73%), industry (1.73%) while others
sectors(4) totalled
64.74%.
- The region receiving the largest portion of bilateral
financial assistance in the 1994-1995 period is Asia and the
Pacific with a percentage of 58.86 of the total. Other regions
received the following support: Africa 25.90%, Eastern Europe
7.54% and Latin America and the Caribbean 7.70%.
- The eight Parties that provided the standard reporting
tables for bilateral financial assistance indicated that this
assistance was distributed to 83 different countries in the
1994-1995 period. Ten countries, however, received 57% of all the
bilateral assistance reported. These ten countries were: China,
India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Tanzania, Nepal,
the Russian Federation, and Kenya.
C. Private Sector
- Only one Party (USA) provides a substantive discussion of
activities undertaken by the private sector that have transferred
technologies that will help non-Annex II Parties mitigate or adapt
to climate change. Some other Parties do make an occasional
reference to private sector projects. As noted below, however, a
number of Parties have reported on initiatives that are designed
to facilitate such transfer of technology to non-Annex II Parties
by the private sector.
- Several multilateral initiatives help the private sector
develop and disseminate technologies to mitigate climate change.
Such programmes were specifically referenced in the national
communications of four Parties (CAN, SWE, GBR, USA). Some of the
specific initiatives mentioned include: the Climate Technology
Initiative (CTI), the Greenhouse Gas Technology Information
Exchange (GREENTIE), the Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination
of demonstrated Energy Technologies (CADDET), and the
International Model Forest Programme (IMFP).
- Six Parties (CAN, DEU, NLD, CHE, GBR, USA) described a large
number of initiatives they have designed to facilitate the
transfer of technology that will help mitigate climate change to
non-Annex II Parties through the private sector. These initiatives
can be divided into three categories.
- First, some initiatives provide financial support for the
development and commercialization of private sector technologies
to mitigate climate change. Examples include the provision of
funding for the design and start-up costs of projects as a means
to help leverage additional funding from both the private and
public sector, or the provision of loans to support the research,
development, and commercialization of technologies.
- Second, some initiatives facilitate information sharing and
personal contact between private sector technology producers and
potential users of these technologies in non-Annex II Parties.
Examples include multimedia databases that describe readily
available private sector technologies, institutional partnerships,
and the creation of networks that link technology producers and
users.
- Third, some initiatives provide support and technical
assistance to members of the private sector seeking to make their
technologies available in non-Annex II Parties. Examples include
the facilitation of joint ventures and technology co-operation
between members of the private sector in Annex II and non-Annex II
Parties, or technical advice on promoting and adapting
technologies for use in non-Annex II Parties.
D. Activities Implemented
Jointly
- Seven Parties (CAN, DEU, ISL, NLD, NOR, SWE, USA) described
projects that had been undertaken to support the pilot phase of
Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ). Most of these Parties have
described projects that are currently underway and either noted,
or identified, specific additional projects under consideration at
this time. Another two Parties (FRA, CHE) indicated that they had
just begun to establish their own pilot programmes. Some
governments are funders and participants in AIJ projects, while
other governments have invested in the establishment of a
programme to facilitate private sector investment in AIJ projects.
One Party (NOR) noted that its investment in AIJ projects was "new
and additional".
- There was significant variation in the level of detail
provided by reporting Annex II Parties on pilot AIJ projects. Most
of the projects described are energy-related, and include projects
that install new renewable energy capacity, switch from high
carbon to low carbon fuels, and promote energy efficiency
improvements in both energy supply and demand. Several Parties
(CAN, DEU, ISL, SWE, USA) provided an estimate of the potential
greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with at least some
of the projects described.
E. Conclusions
- This document represents a retrospective compilation of
actions undertaken by Annex II Parties as reported in their
national communications. It provides an overview, but does not
address more insightful questions that could enhance the quality
and quantity of technology transfer. Questions that may provide
more insights include: What programmes and projects have been
successful? What effects have they had on developing countries?
Why have they been successful? In order to answer such questions,
it would not suffice to have a more complete reporting according
to the present guidelines, although better reporting would provide
a more comprehensive overview of the situation. When considering
changes to the guidelines, it might be appropriate to see how
reporting in a different manner might improve understanding of
these questions.
- A deeper comprehension may require a broader strategy than
relying on national communications alone. Additional information
could be obtained through regional seminars and workshops,
analyses of other national and international reports,
clarifications during the in-depth review process and enhanced
co-operation with other international organizations.
- Many multilateral organizations and programmes support the
transfer of technology. However, it is difficult to assess how the
financial contributions to the GEF have contributed to developing
and transferring technologies since (a) information contained in
national communications and that available from the GEF are
difficult to compare and (b) the GEF thus far has not explicitly
reported on this issue to the COP (see report of the GEF to the
COP contained in document FCCC/CP/1996/8). It is also difficult to
draw conclusions about financial contributions made to other
multilateral institutions and programmes because reporting on
these contributions was quite inconsistent.
- The vast majority of bilateral projects related to the
transfer of technology are found in the energy and forest sectors.
Energy-related projects focus on promotion of renewable energy,
energy efficiency improvements (supply, distribution and end-use),
and energy sector management and market reform. The regions
receiving the largest portion of bilateral financial resources are
Asia and the Pacific and Africa, and the individual countries that
have received the most assistance from reporting Parties are
China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Tanzania,
Nepal, the Russian Federation and Kenya.
- Very little information was provided on transfer of technology
by the private sector. A number of Parties did, however, report on
initiatives that are designed to facilitate such transfer. These
initiatives tend to be of three types:
(a) Financial support for the development and commercialization of
private sector
technologies to mitigate climate change;
(b) Initiatives that facilitate information sharing and personal
contacts between private sector technology producers and potential
users of these technologies; and
(c) Support and technical assistance for members of the private
sector seeking to
make their technologies available to non-Annex II
Parties.
IV. USE OF THE REPORTING
GUIDELINES
- The second compilation and synthesis of national
communications from Annex I Parties (FCCC/CP/1996/12/Add.1)
indicated that with regard to finance and transfer of technology,
"the information that was reported by the Parties varied
considerably in level of detail and breadth of coverage. Drawing
comparisons between Parties was difficult as time-frames and
levels of expenditures, and types of assistance were not
comparable in all instances".
- As a result, Parties, in decision 9/CP.2, stated that all
Annex II Parties should report, in four standard reporting tables,
information on financial contributions to the operating entity or
entities of the financial mechanism, to regional and other
multilateral institutions and programmes, and on bilateral
financial contributions related to the implementation of the
Convention. The extent to which reporting Annex II Parties have
provided this information in a standard format is presented in
table 4.
Table 4. Provision by Annex II Parties of data tables
requested on multilateral and bilateral financial
contributions
Country
|
Table 9a Financial contributions to multilateral
institutions and programmes
|
Table 9b
New and additional financial contributions to
multilateral institutions and programmes
|
Table 10a
Bilateral financial contributions related to the
implementation of the Convention
|
Table 10b
New and additional bilateral financial contributions
related to the implementation of the Convention
|
AUT
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
No
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
BEL
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
CAN
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
No
|
Yes (1995)
|
No
|
FIN
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
No
|
FRA
|
Yes (1994-95)
|
No
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
No
|
DEU
|
No
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
Yes (1994-95)
|
No
|
ISL
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
IRL
|
Yes (1995-97)
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
NLD
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
No
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
No
|
NZL
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
No
|
Yes (1994-95)
|
No
|
NOR
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
SWE
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
CHE
|
Yes (1994-95)
|
No
|
Yes (1994-95)
|
No
|
GBR
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
No
|
Yes (1994-96)
|
No
|
USA
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
- In general, the standard reporting tables were not widely
used. No Party provided all four of these reporting tables in
their national communication. Four Parties (ISL, NOR, SWE, USA)
failed to include any of these tables and two Parties (BEL, IRL)
only included one table. The remaining Parties all included at
least one partially completed table for each of their multilateral
and bilateral financial contributions. Only two Parties (AUT, FIN)
provided three of the four tables. In reviewing the national
communications, it appears clear that several areas of the
reporting guidelines posed a challenge to Parties.
- First, although eleven Parties provided at least one table
detailing their financial contributions to multilateral
institutions and programmes (AUT, BEL, CAN, FIN, FRA, DEU, IRL,
NLD, NZL, CHE, GBR), the reporting guidelines specifically
identify a number of multilateral institutions and programmes that
should be reported on. Only two Parties (CHE, GBR) provided data
on financial contributions to all of these institutions and
programmes.
- The Parties that reported on their financial contributions to
specific multilateral institutions and programmes usually provided
their entire contribution, whether or not it was used for purposes
related to the aims of the Convention. This is consistent with the
revised reporting guidelines. It seems that some Parties were
unclear, however, about what financial contributions should be
reported. DEU, which did not provide data on funding for many of
the individual multilateral programmes and institutions identified
in the reporting guidelines, noted that "it is impossible to
separate out from this funding (contributions of DEU to
multilateral institutions) those payments that relate directly to
the aims of the FCCC".
- Second, although nine Parties (AUT, CAN, FIN, FRA, DEU, NLD,
NZL, CHE, GBR) provided at least one table detailing their
bilateral financial contributions related to the implementation of
the Convention, it appears that some Parties had difficulty
determining what portion of their bilateral assistance was related
to the implementation of the Convention. Norway, which did not
provide a table, noted that "significant environmental
side-effects consistent with promoting the Convention...are not
the primary purpose of development assistance (and) they have been
rather scarcely recorded and assessed".
- Third, the issue of "new and additional" financial
contributions seemed to pose a challenge to Parties. Only three
Parties (AUT, FIN, DEU) provided a table outlining "new and
additional" financial contributions to multilateral organizations
and programmes. One other Party (NZL) indicated that it considered
its contribution to the GEF to be "new and additional". Only one
Party (AUT) identified "new and additional" bilateral financial
contributions.
- Several Parties appear to have had some difficulty defining
and separating "new and additional" funding from all multilateral
and bilateral assistance. The NLD noted that "although the
bilateral assistance activities in the specific field of climate
change are new and additional...it is not really possible to list
them separately from other development assistance projects and
components". CAN stated that the "issue of what constitutes new
and additional contributions is unclear".
- Fourth, although Parties are to provide detailed information
on measures related to transfer of technology, only two Parties
(DEU, USA) provided a detailed description of specific individual
bilateral projects related to technology transfer. While Parties
were encouraged, to the extent possible, to report such
information through a standard table provided in the reporting
guidelines, DEU was the only country that made use of the table.
Annex
EXAMPLES OF BILATERAL COUNTRY STUDY
INITIATIVES
AND PARTICIPANTS
Finland - Finalization of national programme for
implementation of international Convention on Climate Change and
Montreal Protocol:
Participant: Nicaragua
France - Centre national de la recherche
scientifique:
Participants: Brazil, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal, and
Thailand
Germany - Immediate aid measures for implementation of the
FCCC:
Participants: China and Indonesia
The Netherlands - Climate study
programme:
Participants: Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Ghana,
Senegal, Suriname, and Yemen
United States of America - Country studies
programme:
Participants: Argentina, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia,
Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Côte
d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia,
Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia,
Kazakstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius,
Mexico, Micronesia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria,
Oman, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation,
Samoa, Slovakia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda,
Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
- - - - -
1. Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland,
France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America.
2. Several other miscellaneous projects
will bring the total reported in paragraphs 14 to 17 to 100%.
3. Problems are mainly related to
different reporting and accounting systems, as well as the different
exchange rates applied.
4. Among "other sectors" are included:
social infrastructure, education, health and water supply.