Abstract
The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, is ushering in a new climate regime. Owing to the increasing importance of technology development and transfer, a technology subregime became part of the Paris Agreement in the form of Article 10, which obligates parties to strengthen their cooperative action on technology development and transfer. This technology subregime includes the Technology Mechanism as a working mechanism, established in 2010 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The effective implementation of the technology subregime hinges upon the supporting role of the Technology Mechanism, particularly its implementing organization, the Climate Technology Centre & Network (CTCN). Technology subregimes are regarded not only as effective means to tackle environmental problems, but also as an inducement to extend the participation of developing countries in international environmental agreements. However, the means to assess them have not been widely explored. A recent UNFCCC discussion considered whether the CTCN impacted the enhancement of environmental quality in terms of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Therefore, this study evaluates the institutional effectiveness of the technology subregime of the Paris Agreement with the CTCN. This study utilizes five evaluation criteria: (1) environmental effectiveness, (2) technological effectiveness, (3) economic effectiveness, (4) compliance and participation incentives, and (5) administrative feasibility. It summarizes analytical results and concludes by proposing policy implications regarding the assessment of institutional effectiveness of the technology subregime.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Article 10.1 only contains a long-term vision for technology development and transfer instead of a specific and quantified long-term target.
The CTCN operates under the operational modalities and rules of procedure which are determined by the CTCN Advisory Board on the basis of the guidance of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) and the Paris Agreement Conference of the Parties (CMA).
The Poznan Strategic Program on technology transfer, approved in 2008, has three tracks of supporting developing countries, and one track regards support on TNA (UNFCCC, 2018a, paras 5 and 6).
In order to periodically assess the effectiveness of the Technology Mechanism, eleven criteria were formulated in December 2018 (UNFCCC, 2018b). However, the way to apply each specific criterion remains open.
The other approaches for goal attainment include efficiency and equity.
The MF and the GEF are the financial mechanisms of the Montreal Protocol and the UNFCCC, respectively. With the pooled financial resources, the MF and the GEF provide technical assistance to developing countries.
There are studies to assess the effectiveness of technology-oriented agreements outside the UNFCCC. These studies utilize similarly comprehensive criteria for evaluation. One study utilize (1) environmental effectiveness by the existence of legally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, (2) technological effectiveness by the extent of facilitation of low emission technology transfer, and (3) administrative feasibility by the level of funding provided (Zhang, 2007). The other study’s criteria include (1) environmental effectiveness by the carbon emissions reduction potential of their increased energy R&D investment in priority areas, (2) technological effectiveness by doubling clean energy R&D expenditure until 2020, (3) technological effectiveness through the international and cross-sectoral coordination of R&D investment, (4) incentives for participation and compliance in consideration of the political credibility of a non-legally binding target, and (5) the proportion of benefits to participants per US dollar of R&D investment (Hannon, 2016).
The Paris Agreement contains three goals, namely: (1) the global temperature goal of 2 °C, (2) the goal of increasing adaptation ability, and (3) the goal of consistent financial flows that should be met by the actions of participating countries (PA, 2015, article 2(a)).
Of these, 182 requests are on stage for support: 81 requests at the stage of completion, 37 at the implementation stage, 42 at the designing response plan stage, and 22 at the review stage (CTCN, 2020a).
This assessment may have some limitations because other services of the CTCN such as capacity-building, networking, and knowledge management are excluded for the lack of cumulative quantified data of their outcomes and because the environmental effectiveness of the CTCN’s services go beyond the allotted funding.
This is calculated based on the CTCN TA open data (CTCN, 2021b). Here, TAs in the stage of completion, implementation, review and design are all included. ‘The rest’ whose portion is 10.6% is not included.
These numbers are extracted from the CTCN TA open data (CTCN, 2021b).
The CTCN is under the guidance of the UNFCCC through the Advisory Board that decides the operational modalities and rules of procedure of the CTCN (CTCN, 2021f).
This is calculated on the basis of table in p.24 of UNFCCC (2020).
References
Alberts, C. M. (1992). Technology transfer and its role in international environmental law: A structural dilemma. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 6(Fall), 63–84.
Bernauer, T. (1995). The effect of international environmental institutions: How we might learn more. International Organization, 49(2), 351–377.
Breitmeier, H., Young, O. R., & Zürn, M. (2006). Analyzing international environmental regimes: From case study to database. The MIT Press.
Chan, G., Stavisn, R., & Ji, Z. (2018). International climate change policy. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 10, 335–360.
CTCN. (2015). CTCN operating manual for national designated entities (NDEs). Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/sites/www.ctc-n.org/files/documents/NDE%20Manual%20Version%201.2_April%202015.pdf.
CTCN. (2016). CTCN: Technical assistance process and success factors. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/sites/www.ctc-n.org/files/session_4_-_accessing_technical_assistance_through_ctcn_0.pdf.
CTCN. (2018b). 4d) Collaboration with the green climate fund. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://ctc-n.org/calendar/events/11th-ctcn-advisory-board-meeting.
CTCN. (2018). Pro bono contributions for CTCN technical assistance. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/sites/www.ctc-n.org/files/ab201811_11.1_ctcn_approach_to_pro_bono_v1.pdf.
CTCN. (2019). CTCN perceptions: Results of a small-scale survey conducted in September 2018 and March 2019. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/sites/www.ctc-n.org/files/item_6_-_network.pdf.
CTCN. (2020a). Request visualizations. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/technical-assistance/request-visualizations.
CTCN. (2020b). Instructions to lead implementers for drafting the technical assistance closure and data collection report. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/sites/www.ctc-n.org/files/learning-reports/ta_closure_report_final_0.pdf.
CTCN. (2020c). Submit a request: Technical assistance request form English version. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/technical-assistance/submit-request.
CTCN. (2020d). Annex 1 national designated entities (NDEs) for the CTCN. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/about-ctcn/national-designated-entities.
CTCN. (2021a). Financial overview. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/sites/www.ctc-n.org/files/Agenda%20item%2015_CTCN%20AB17_CTCN%20financial%20matters.pdf.
CTCN. (2021b). Open data. Retrieved May 22, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/about-ctcn/open-data.
CTCN. (2021c). NDE list and profiles. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/about-ctcn/national-designated-entities/national-designated-entities-by-country.
CTCN. (2021d). Network visualizations. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/network/network-visualizations.
CTCN. (2021e). About the Climate Technology Centre and Network. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/about-ctcn.
CTCN. (2021f). Advisory board. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.ctc-n.org/about-ctcn/advisory-board.
De Coninck, H., & Bhasin, S. (2015). Meaningful technology development and transfer: A necessary condition for a viable climate regime. In S. Barrett, C. Carraro, & J. de Melo (Eds.), Towards a workable and effective climate regime (pp. 451–464). CEPR Press.
de Coninck, H., Fischer, C., Newell, R. G., & Ueno, T. (2008). International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change. Energy Policy, 36(2008), 335–356.
de Coninck, H., Haake, F., & van der Linden, N. (2007). Technology transfer in the Clean Development Mechanism. Climate Policy, 7(2007), 444–456.
De Coninck, H., & Puig, D. (2015). Assessing climate change mitigation technology interventions by international institutions. Climate Change, 131(3), 417–433.
Dimitrov, R., Hovi, J., Sprinz, D. F., Sælen, H., & Underdal, A. (2018). Wires Climate Change, 10, e583. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.583
Esty, D. C., & Ivanova, M. (2002). Revitalizing global environmental governance: A function-driven approach. In D. C. Esty & M. Ivanova (Eds.), Global environmental governance: options and opportunities (pp. 181–204). Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.
Falkner, R. (1998). Institutions for global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 8(2), 171–175.
GCF. (2011). Governing instrument for the Green Climate Fund. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/governing-instrument.pdf.
Hannon, M. (2016). Mission impossible? Five challenges facing 'mission innovation', the global clean energy innovation drive. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/58345/.
Jorrizzo, M., & La Motta, S. (2017). The technology mechanism under the UNFCCC as a transformational policy to help achieving low carbon societies. GeoProgress Journal, 4(1), 41–50.
Kay, D. (1974). International transfer of marine technology: The transfer process and international organizations. Ocean Development & International Law, 2(4), 351–377.
Lee, W., & Mwebaza, R. (2020). The role of the Climate Technology Centre and Network as a climate technology and innovation matchmaker for developing countries. Sustainability, 12, 7956.
Matisoff, D. C. (2010). Are international environmental agreements enforceable? Implications for institutional design. International Environmental Agreement: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(3), 165–186.
Mitchell, R. B. (1994). Regime design matters: Intentional oil pollution and treaty compliance. International Organization, 48(3), 425–458.
Mitchell, R. B. (2004). A quantitative approach to evaluating international environmental regimes. In A. Underdal & O. R. Young (Eds.), Regime consequences: Methodological challenges and research strategies (pp. 121–149). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ocwell, D., & Byrne, R. (2016). Improving technology transfer through national systems of innovation: Climate relevant innovation-system builders (CRIBs). Climate Policy, 16(7), 836–854.
Oh, C. (2020). Contestations over the financial linkages between the UNFCCC’s Technology and Financial Mechanism: Using the lens of institutional interaction. International Environmental Agreement: Politics, Law and Economics, 20(3), 559–575.
Oh, C., & Lee, W. (2020). Research on the role of the technology mechanism under a new climate regime: From the perspective of intermediary organization for technology transfer and innovation. Journal of Climate Change Research, 11(1), 21–35. (in Korean).
PA. (2015). Paris agreement. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf.
Smieszek, M. G. (2019). Evaluating institutional effectiveness: The case of the Artic Council. The Polar Journal, 9(1), 3–26.
Sugiyama, T., & Sinton, J. (2005). Orchestra of treaties: A future climate regime scenario with multiple treaties among like-minded countries. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 5, 65–88.
Sullivan, K. M. (2019). Implementing the UNFCCC technology mechanism and the 5 “Ps”: Progress, practicalities, priorities, pathways and the public sector. Law, Environment and Development Journal, 15(1), 14–31.
UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
UNFCCC. (2010). Report of the conference of the parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf.
UNFCCC. (2011). Report of the conference of the parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf.
UNFCCC. (2012). Decision 14/CP.18 Arrangements to make the Climate Technology Centre and Network fully operational. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/cop18/eng/08a02.pdf#page=8.
UNFCCC. (2013). Decision 25/CP.10 Modalities and procedures of the Climate Technology Centre and Network and its Advisory Board. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a03.pdf#page=25.
UNFCCC. (2016). Linkages between the technology mechanism and the financial mechanism of the convention. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/cop22/eng/l06.pdf.
UNFCCC. (2017). Report on the independent review of the effective implementation of the Climate Technology Centre and Network. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/2017/cop23/eng/03.pdf.
UNFCCC. (2018a). Linkages between the Technology Mechanism and the Financial Mechanism of the Convention. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/l04_2.pdf.
UNFCCC. (2018b). Scope of and modalities for the periodic assessment referred to in paragraph 69 of decision 1/CP.21. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2018_3_add2_new_advance.pdf#page=11.
UNFCCC. (2018c). Decision 16/CMA.1 Scope of and modalities for the periodic assessment referred to in paragraph 69 of decision 1/CP.21. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2018_3_add2_new_advance.pdf#page=11.
UNFCCC. (2019). Joint annual report of the Technology Executive Committee and the Climate Technology Centre and Network for 2019. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/sb2019_04E.pdf.
UNFCCC. (2020). Joint annual report of the Technology Executive Committee and the Climate Technology Centre and Network for 2020. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/sb2020_04E.pdf.
UNFCCC. (2021). Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. Retrieved June 1, 2021, from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_02E.pdf.
Verhoosel, G. (1997). International transfer of environmentally sound technology: The new dimension of an old stumbling block. Environmental Policy and Law, 27(6), 470–487.
Vollenweider, Z. (2013). The effectiveness of international environmental agreements. International Environmental Agreement: Politics, Law and Economics, 13(3), 343–367.
Young, O. R. (2011). Effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Existing knowledge, cutting-edge themes, and research strategies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(50), 19853–19860.
Young, O. R., & Levy, M. A. (1999). The effectiveness of international environmental regimes. In O. R. Young (Ed.), The effectiveness of international environmental regimes (pp. 2–32). The MIT Press.
Zhang, Z. X. (2007). China, the United States and technology cooperation on climate control. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(708), 622–628.
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared within the Green Technology Center’s research projects of ‘Research on international and national policy and institutional analysis for green∙climate technology cooperation: At the center of the UNFCCC, the IPCC, SDGs and CPS’ (C20211) and ‘Research on the analysis of international institutions for green/climate technology cooperation: At the center of UNFCCC and IPCC’ (C2120101).
Funding
Green Technology Center Korea (C20211, C2120101).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Author declares that he have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oh, C. Evaluation of the UNFCCC Technology Mechanism’s contribution to an international climate policy framework. Int Environ Agreements 22, 527–542 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-021-09559-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-021-09559-y