5 October 2015: The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat has released a report, titled “Evaluation of the Poznan strategic programme on technology transfer: Final report by the Technology Executive Committee” (FCCC/SBI/2015/16). The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) will consider the report at its 43rd session, scheduled to take place in Paris, France, in November–December 2015.

The Poznan strategic programme on technology transfer (PSP) was launched by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in response to the request by the 13th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 13) to the UNFCCC that the GEF should elaborate a strategic programme to help developing countries address their needs for environmentally-sound technologies. The aim of the evaluation of the PSP is to enhance the effectiveness of the Convention’s Technology Mechanism by drawing experience and lessons learned from the implementation of the PSP that would be useful for the Technology Mechanism.

The report sets out the mandate of the evaluation, as well as some background information. In Chapter III, it assesses the PSP’s effectiveness and efficiency in meeting Parties’ needs for each of the five elements of the long-term implementation of the PSP. On the element “Support for climate technology centres and a climate technology network,” the report analyzes four regional climate technology transfer and finance centers being supported by the PSP. It notes that the centers focus on providing a range of measures to support mitigation activities, primarily in the energy sector, but also support adaptation-related technology transfer. It also highlights that while two of the centers focus on engaging the private sector, the other two focus more on public sector investment.

On the elements “Piloting priority technology projects to foster innovation and investments” and “Public–private partnership for technology transfer,” it concludes that it is too early in their implementation to assess their impacts.

On “technology needs assessments (TNAs),” the report notes the successful completion of the first phase of the TNA project and that the second phase is under implementation. It highlights that stakeholders in the TNA process have reported on its usefulness and that some developing countries have used the outcomes of the TNA process to, inter alia, support the preparation of intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs).

On the GEF as a catalytic supporting institution for technology transfer, the report notes that the PSP has prompted the GEF to showcase its programming on technology, engage with climate technology stakeholders, and raise awareness of its programming to support technology transfer.

In another chapter, the report analyzes the operations of the PSP in terms of scaling up and replicating projects, as well as the PSP’s relevance in addressing global and regional issues, and effectiveness and evolution as a model of change. Noting the difficulty of coming to a conclusion on these issues because implementation of most activities only began in the last few years, the report highlightes examples of the PSP resulting in scaling up or replicating projects, such as cases of engagement with the PSP leading to countries seeking support from the Technology Mechanism.

Another chapter outlines lessons learned from the implementation of the PSP, such as: the importance of influential technology champions; value of a regional presence for climate technology efforts; the need for financing targeted at the private sector to be flexible and tailored to its risks and needs; and the importance of continuity of funding for TNA activities.

Recommendations made by the TEC for enhancing the Technology Mechanism’s effectiveness are outlined in the final chapter, and include to: encourage the GEF to further catalyze the scaling-up of good practices under the PSP; invite the GEF to share the midterm evaluations of the PSP climate technology transfer and finance centers; encourage the climate technology transfer and finance centers and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) to strengthen coordination, enhance information-sharing and create synergies that accelerate regional climate technology development and transfer; and encourage countries to enhance coherence and effectiveness of national climate technology efforts by strengthening links among the different national entities. [Publication: Evaluation of the Poznan Strategic Programme on Technology Transfer]