The Republic of Korea s Submission on the Scope and Modalities for the Periodic Assessment of the Technology Mechanism.

The Republic of Korea s Submission on the Scope and Modalities for the Periodic Assessment of the Technology Mechanism January 2017 The Republic of Korea welcomes the opportunity, at the invitation of the SBI, to submit its views on the elaboration of the scope and modalities for the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism referred to in decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 69 (UNFCCC 2016a; UNFCCC 2016b). The Technology Mechanism, established under the Convention, is to support the implementation of the Paris Agreement in relation to technology development and transfer (UNFCCC 2015, Annex Article 10.3). In this context, a periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism was decided to be undertaken, and the scope and modalities of the assessment has been elaborated. Korea believes that the Technology Mechanism stands as a supportive and implementing layer to realize the long-term vision on technology development and transfer under the Paris Agreement. Not only the fact that the Technology Mechanism is to be under assessment but also the consideration of the way how it is to be assessed provides bigger implications to the Technology Mechanism in terms of the results delivered, a role played, and a position held by the Technology Mechanism under both the UNFCCC and subsequently the Paris Agreement. Accordingly, in this process of elaborating the scope and modalities for the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism, Korea is pleased to present its views in the four following sections: 1) background, 2) overall direction, 3) summary of elements to be included in assessment guidelines, and 4) specific explanation on elements. 1. Background Korea sketches out what has been agreed, decided, and discussed on the elaboration of the scope and modalities of the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism in the following way: The Technology Mechanism, established under the Convention, is set to serve the Paris Agreement in terms of technology development and transfer (UNFCCC 2015, annex Article 10.3). It was decided that a periodic assessment of the effectiveness and adequacy of the support provided to the Technology Mechanism in supporting the implementation of the Paris Agreement on matters relating to technology development and transfer will be undertaken. The process of elaboration takes into account the review of the Climate Technology Center and Network (CTCN) and the modalities for the global stocktake (Ibid., para 69 and 70). The SBI44 (May 2016) initiated the elaboration of the scope of and modalities for the periodic assessment and provided a starting ground. Firstly, the scope, drawn out in the context of Article 10 of the Paris Agreement, has two elements of i) the effectiveness of the Technology Mechanism and ii) the adequacy of support provided to the Technology Mechanism in supporting the implementation of the Agreement on matters relating to technology development and transfer. Secondly, the information to be considered in the elaboration of the scope and modalities for the periodic assessment includes i) the review of the CTCN, ii) the development of the modalities for the global stocktake, iii) work on transparency of action and support, iv) the elaboration of the technology framework. The SBI44 also invited the submission of the views of Parties and observer organizations on the scope and modalities for the periodic assessment by 25 January 2017. With a lack of specific information to be considered, SBI45 (Nov 2016) decided to defer indepth discussion to SBI46 (May 2017) after the submission of the views is made. 1

2. Overall direction in the elaboration of the scope and modalities at the current stage Korea is of the parties agreed view that the elaboration of the scope and modalities needs to run in parallel with the development of the afore-mentioned information. Yet, with the previous activities traversed, Korea sees that there is a lack of progress in the specification of the information to be considered. The independent external review of the CTCN will take place in 2017, but specifics of review modalities have not yet been shared. Five themes of the technology framework were confirmed at the SBSTA45 (Nov 2016) with some possibilities that themes will come under more discussion at the SBSTA46 (May 2017). The modalities for the global stocktake and the work on transparency of action and support are still under development. Though this array of information is highly relevant to the scope and modalities of the assessment, the information is underdeveloped. Accordingly, instead of waiting for substantive progress in the afore-mentioned information, Korea is of the view that the current microscopic focus on the center of the Technology Mechanism needs to be zoomed out and the other existing review/assessment process at mechanism level under the convention can serve as references. Consideration of the existing review process will help us to devise an overall design for the scope and modalities for the assessment of the Technology Mechanism at the current stage elaboration. For the design of an overall system of assessment, the focus is zoomed out at the convention level, and Korea sees that there is already a periodic review of the Financial Mechanism being made every four years since 1998 on the basis of the review guidelines (UNFCCC 1998). The review of the Financial Mechanism was prepared and conducted at the center of the operating entity of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) from the first to fifth review. 1 The other operating entity of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is to be included as the object of review from the sixth review process. The process of the review is that the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) requests the UNFCCC Secretariat to prepare a technical paper with which the SCF deliberates the effectiveness of the Financial Mechanism and drafts & provides expert input, including through independent reviews and assessments; then, the Conference of the Parties (COP) prepares and conducts the periodic review of the Financial Mechanism (SCF 2014; UNFCCC 2017). The first review guidelines, subsequently amenable at every review process, comprise three elements of i) objectives, ii) methodology (sources of information to be utilized in the review process), and iii) criteria of assessment on the effectiveness of the Financial Mechanism (UNFCCC 1998, Annex). The current status of the review of the Financial Mechanism and the review process in comparison between the Financial Mechanism and the Technology Mechanism are shown in figures 1 and 2 in the next page. Korea is of the view that the past and existing review system of the Financial Mechanism at the same mechanism level as the Technology Mechanism provides a good example on the basis of which the scope and modalities of the assessment of the Technology Mechanism can be more specifically drawn out. 2 As a further step, Korea is of the view that designing an assessment process of the Technology Mechanism on an equal footing with that of the Financial Mechanism can create coherence and balance in the UNFCCC review processes. With this overall direction in mind, Korea would like to suggest the drawing up of a guideline in the context of the scope and modalities for the assessment of the Technology Mechanism and an enumeration of possible elements to be included in the guideline in the next section. 1 The 5 th review was done in 2014. 2 There is also the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, and efforts to elaborate terms of reference to periodically review the Warsaw International Mechanism are also ongoing (UNFCCC 2016c). 2

Figure 1 Current review status of the Financial Mechanism Figure 2 Current review process of the Financial Mechanism in comparison with the Technology Mechanism 3

3. Summary of elements to be included in the assessment guideline In this section, Korea would like to show the outline of the overall and potential elements that constitute the assessment guideline of the Technology Mechanism. This is summarized in the table 1 below. Explanation on the elements are made in the next section. Table 1 Assessment elements of the Technology Mechanism on the basis of the review process of the Financial Mechanism Elements Financial Mechanism Technology Mechanism Objectives 1 Its conformity with the provisions of Article 11 of the Convention 2 Its conformity with the guidance of the Conference of the Parties (COP) 3 Its effectiveness of the activities it funds in implementing the Convention 4 Its effectiveness in providing financial resources 5 Its effectiveness in providing resources to developing country Parties under Article 4.3 of the Convention Principal Agent Objects Conference of the Parties (COP) - SCF undertaking expert assessment and providing expert inputs for the review by the COP Global Environment Facility (GEF) as an operating entity Green Climate Fund (GCF) as an operating entity 4 1 Its conformity with the Article 4.1(c) of the Convention 2 Its conformity with the guidance of the Conference of the Parties (COP) 3 Its conformity with the provisions of Article 10 of the Paris Agreement 4 Its effectiveness 5 The adequacy of support provided to the Technology Mechanism Conference of the Parties (COP) - Suggestion of establishing the Standing Committee on Technology (SCT) to undertake expert assessment for the review by the COP Effectiveness scope - Technology Executive committee (TEC) - Climate Technology Center and Network (CTCN) Adequacy of support provided to the Technology Mechanism - Financial Support Description Qualitative assessment Qualitative assessment Cycle & Timing Review cycle: Every four years Review timing: 6 th review in 2017, 7 th review in 2021 Assessment cycle: Every four years Assessment timing: 1 st review in 2021 Criteria Governance Responsiveness to CP guidance Mobilization of financial resources Delivery of financial resources Results and impacts achieved with the resources provided Consistency of the activities of the Financial Mechanism with the objectives of the Convention Effectiveness scope (*Five themes of the technology framework utilized) - Innovation - Implementation - Enabling environment and capacity-building - Collaboration and stakeholder involvement - Support Adequacy of support provided to the Technology Mechanism

Process Review results Information to be considered for the review process Consistency and complementarity of the Financial mechanism with the other sources of investment and financial flows 1 The secretariat drafts a Technical Paper 2 SCF conducts independent expert assessment and provides inputs 3 The COP prepares and conducts the review Reflection of the review results (recommendations) in the next review report Information to be considered for the assessment - Information provided by the Parties on their experiences regarding the financial mechanism - Annual reviews by the COP on the conformity of the activities of the financial mechanism with the guidance of the COP - The annual report of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to the COP on its activities as an operating entity of the financial mechanism, the annual reports of the GEF and other relevant GEF policy and information documents - Reports from the GEF monitoring and evaluation programme - Reports from the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development and relevant bilateral and multilateral funding institutions - Relevant information provided by other intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations - Financial support - Further discussion and expansion of the specific scope of support 1 The secretariat drafts a Technical Paper 2 SCT conducts independent expert assessment and provides inputs 3 The COP prepares and conducts the review Reflection of the review results (recommendations) in the next review report Information to be considered for the design of the scope and modalities of the assessment of the Technology Mechanism - Review of the CTCN - Development of the modalities for the global stocktake - Work on transparency of action and support - Elaboration of the technology framework Information to be considered for the assessment - Information provided by the Parties on their experiences regarding the Technology Mechanism - Joint annual report of the TEC and the CTCN - Work progress and implementation status of the workplan of the Technology Mechanism - Information to be delivered for and outcomes to come out from global stocktake on efforts related to support on technology development and transfer for developing country parties 5

4. Specific explanation of elements 4.1 Objectives of assessment The first element to be considered is objectives. The objectives referred to here are the objectives in relation to the assessment of the Technology Mechanism. Korea suggests the objectives of the assessment of the Technology Mechanism as shown in Table 2 below. These assessment objectives are grounded on the purposes to be attained by the support of the Technology Mechanism. Table 2 Suggested assessment objectives of the Technology Mechanism # Components 1 Its conformity with Article 4.1(c) of the Convention 2 Its conformity with the guidance of the Conference of the Parties (COP) 3 Its conformity with the provisions of Article 10 of the Paris Agreement 4 Its effectiveness in supporting the implementation of the Agreement on matters relating to technology development and transfer 5 The adequacy of support provided to the Technology Mechanism in supporting the implementation of the Agreement on matters relating to technology development and transfer The reason why these assessment objectives are suggested is that Korea takes the example of the review objectives in the guidelines for the review of the Financial Mechanism as shown in Table 3 below. It is noteworthy that these review objectives are drawn from the purpose and the direction in which the Financial Mechanism aims to head and that they are contained in Article 11 of the convention and the guidance of the COP. Furthermore, the effectiveness aspect of review of the Financial Mechanism is more specified in three components. Table 3 Review objectives of the Financial Mechanism # Components 1 Its conformity with the provisions of Article 11 of the Convention 2 Its conformity with the guidance of the Conference of the Parties (COP) 3 Its effectiveness of the activities it funds in implementing the Convention 4 Its effectiveness in providing financial resources on a grant or concessional basis, including for the transfer of technology, for the implementation of the Convention s objective on the basis of the guidance provided by the COP 5 Its effectiveness in providing resources to developing country Parties under Article 4.3 of the Convention Source: Annex of the UNFCCC (1998). Accordingly, Korea explored the purposes and directions of the Technology Mechanism in terms of technology development and transfer. Korea sees that the purpose of technology development and transfer and the objectives to establish the Technology Mechanism are existent in diverse documents. The sources are enumerated in Table 4 in the next page. On the basis of these sources, Korea is of the view that the assessment objectives can be driven by the purposes of technology development and transfer and the establishment objectives of the Technology Mechanism that are mainly indicated in the UNFCCC, COP decisions, and the Paris Agreement. Accordingly, Korea is of the view that objectives for assessments need to regard the Technology Mechanism s consistency with the provisions of the article of the Convention, the guidance of the COP, the provisions of the Paris Agreement and also the effectiveness of the Technology Mechanism and the adequacy of the support provided to the Technology Mechanism as enumerated in Table 2 above. 6

Table 4 Purposes of technology development and transfer and establishment objectives of the Technology Mechanism Doc Article 4.1(c) of the UNFCCC COP decision 1/CP.16 Article 10 of Paris Agreement SBSTA45 Contents All Parties shall promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion, including transfer, of technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol in all relevant sectors, including the energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste management sectors (UNFCCC 1992, article 4.1(c)) - Decides that the objectives of enhanced action on technology development and transfer is to support action on mitigation and adaptation in order to achieve the full implementation of the Convention (UNFCCC 2010, para 113). - Also decides that, in pursuit of this objective, technology needs must be nationally determined, based on national circumstances and priorities (Ibid, para 114). - Further decides to accelerate action consistent with international obligations, at different stages of the technology cycle, including research and development, demonstration, deployment, diffusion and transfer of technology (hereinafter referred in this decision as technology development and transfer) in support of action on mitigation and adaptation (Ibid., para 115). - Decides to establish a Technology Mechanism to facilitate the implementation of actions for achieving the objective referred to in paragraphs 113 115 above, under the guidance of and accountable to the Conference of the Parties, which will consist of the following components: (a) A Technology Executive Committee, to undertake the functions contained in paragraph 121 below; (b) A Climate Technology Centre and Network, to undertake the functions contained in paragraph 123 below (Ibid., para 117). - 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 greenhouse gas emissions (UNFCCC 2015, annex article 10.1). - Parties, noting the importance of technology for the implementation of mitigation and adaptation actions under this Agreement and recognizing existing technology deployment and dissemination efforts, shall strengthen cooperative action on technology development and transfer (Ibid, annex article 10.2). - The Technology Mechanism established under the Convention shall serve this Agreement (Ibid., annex article 10.3). The SBSTA also agreed that the purpose of the technology framework is as stipulated in Article 10, paragraph 4, of the Paris Agreement. It noted that the technology framework can play a strategic role in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the work of the Technology Mechanism by addressing the transformational changes envisioned in the Paris Agreement, consistent with its Article 10, paragraph 4, and the long-term vision for technology development and transfer, referred to in its Article 10, paragraph 1 (UNFCCC 2016d, para 5). 7

4.2 Principal agent of assessment The second element is related to who takes the role of assessment of the Technology Mechanism. As mentioned in section 2, the Financial Mechanism is reviewed by the COP. For this review, the secretariat prepares a technical paper, and then the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) makes an independent review and assessment of the effectiveness of the Financial Mechanism on the basis of this technical paper and provides expert inputs. Then, the COP conducts the review and adopts a decision (SCF 2014; UNFCCC 2017). The review process involved the SCF from the fifth review of the Financial Mechanism in 2014, because the SCF was established in 2010. The sixth review, taking place in 2017, will also expect the further role of the SCF. 3 This existing review process with the involvement of the SCF provides good food for thought to those deliberating on the scope and modalities for the assessment of the Technology Mechanism. Accordingly, Korea is of the view that the preparation and conduct of the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism should be done by the COP as the principal agent of the assessment. For the provision of expert input, including through independent assessments, for the decision of the COP, Korea suggests that the Standing Committee on Technology (SCT, tentatively named) is established. This SCT can be rendered not only to undertake an assessment of the Technology Mechanism but also to enable a condition for the Technology Mechanism to be more developed and strengthened. The kinds of functions besides independent expert assessment that could be delivered by the SCT can be further discussed on the basis of the activities of the SCF. The establishment of the SCT will build a basis for the Technology Mechanism to be balanced with the existing Financial Mechanism systematically, functionally, and financially under the Convention and also to be mutually complementary on even level. 4.3 Objects of assessment The third element relates to the objects of assessment. In the case of the Financial Mechanism, there is only one aspect of review scope, and that is effectiveness. In the C. Criteria section of the first review guideline of the Financial Mechanism, the criteria are set only to review the effectiveness of the Financial Mechanism (UNFCCC 1998, Annex). In this singular scope, the object of assessment from the first to fifth review process was GEF, it being an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism. The GCF is to be included as an object of assessment from the sixth review process. The non-inclusion in the fifth review process was due to the fact that the GCF was established in 2010 and that it would have been premature for the GCF to undergo assessment during the period of the years 2011 to 2014. At the SBI44, the scope of the assessment was decided to focus on two aspects: i) the effectiveness of the Technology Mechanism and ii) the adequacy of support provided to the Technology Mechanism (UNFCCC 2016a). Korea is of the view that the objects of assessment need to be considered and decided upon on the basis of these two different aspects of assessment scope. Regarding the scope of the effectiveness of the Technology Mechanism, Korea is of the view that the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Center and Network (CTCN) are to be the objects of assessment. The TEC is the policy arm and the CTCN is the operational arm of the Technology Mechanism, and they are in a mutually complementary relation. Thus, the TEC and the CTCN need to be the objects of assessment. Furthermore, the CTCN is subject to a periodic independent review of the effective implementation under the COP every four years (CTCN 2016). The CTCN will receive its first review in 2017, following its operational inception in 2013. Korea suggests that this periodic review of the CTCN is integrated to the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism in the long run. 3 Besides the review of the Financial Mechanism, the SCF takes responsibility for the activities of biennial assessment and overview of climate finance flows; coherence and coordination for forest-financing; possible future institutional linkages and relations between the Adaptation Fund and other institutions under the Convention; MRV of support beyond the biennial assessment and overview of climate finance flows (SCF 2014). More specifics are indicated in the Annex IV of this paper. 8

Regarding the scope of the adequacy of support provided to the Technology Mechanism, Korea is of the view that the scope needs to be further specified. There can be various types of support to be provided to the Technology Mechanism. Korea suggests that financial support should be set as a priority scope for the adequacy of support. Other types of support can be further discussed and expanded later. Also, whether to specify the objects of assessment on the adequacy of financial support is also a subject matter for discussion. 4.4 Description The fourth element relates to the descriptive in which the assessment targets and results are reflected in the technical paper. Korea is of the view that the assessment is to be conducted in a qualitative manner. Recalling previous and existing experiences, in 2009, the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) developed a quantitative performance indicator to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of the technology transfer framework in five thematic areas, as contained in the Annex II in this paper. Korea is of the view that these indicators cannot cover the overall meaning, experiences, and lessons-learned of the Technology Mechanism, though selectively referenced. Accordingly, Korea is of the view that the qualitatively descriptive manner of the Financial Mechanism can be similarly applied the Technology Mechanism. 4.5 Cycle and Timing The cycle and timing of the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism can be made in many ways. Korea is of the view that the cycle and timing of the Technology Mechanism can be aligned with existing or future review processes as well as macro review processes for overall consistency. In the first place, in the near term, Korea suggests that the cycle and timing of periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism can be coincided with those of the Financial Mechanism in order to enhance a balance and complementary linkage between the Technology Mechanism and the Financial Mechanism. Currently, the Financial Mechanism is reviewed every four years in accordance with Article 11.4 of the Convention. 4 Accordingly, in the near term, Korea recommends that the assessment on the Technology Mechanism is also made every four years to be aligned with the review of the Financial Mechanism and that the first assessment of the Technology Mechanism is conducted in 2021 (at COP27) when the 7 th review of the Financial Mechanism is to be conducted. Meanwhile, in the second place, in the long term, and taking the macro view, Korea is of the view that the cycle of the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism can be aligned with the global stocktake whose cycle is every five years with its first review undertaken in 2023. This alignment will enable the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism and the global stocktake to be interconnected and complementary. 4.6 Criteria The sixth element is the criteria which frame the assessment of the Technology Mechanism. Korea would like to recall that the SBI44 defined the scope of the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism by i) the effectiveness of the Technology Mechanism and ii) the adequacy of support provided to the Technology Mechanism in supporting the implementation of the Agreement on matters relating to technology development and transfer (UNFCCC 2016a). Also, Korea would like to recall that the SBSTA45 drew out the initial key themes for the technology framework that provide overarching guidance to the work of the Technology Mechanism and that the five key themes are i) innovation, ii) implementation, iii) enabling environments and capacity-building, iv) collaboration and stakeholder engagement, and v) support (UNFCCC 2016d; UNFCCC 2015, Annex article 10.4). 4 The 6 th review of the Financial Mechanism is expected to be conducted in 2017 (COP23), and the 7 th in 2021 (COP27). 9

On the basis of this, Korea suggests that the effectiveness of the Technology Mechanism is assessed on the ground of five key themes of the technology framework and that the adequacy of support provided to the Technology Mechanism is added. The assessment criteria may be subject to subsequent amendment as in the case of the review of the Financial Mechanism. For each criterion, the kinds of elements/activities that should be included can be further discussed. For reference, potential elements/activities, corresponding to five key themes for the assessment of effectiveness of the Technology Mechanism, are listed on the basis of the co-facilitators reflection note of the SBSTA45 on the technology framework (UNFCCC 2016e). For the adequacy of support to the Technology Mechanism, as mentioned in section 4.3, financial support is included, and further discussion on additional criteria can be made. The suggested criteria and elements/activities are summarized in Table 5 below. Table 5 Assessment criteria & elements/activities Assessment Criteria Elements/Activities* - Collaborative approaches to R&D 1Innovation - Improving national systems of innovation - Development, demonstration and diffusion of new technologies - TNA/TAP implementation and record 2Implementation - Linking with NDC and enhancing coherence between TNA and implementation and record of NDC Enabling environments - Enhancing enabling environment for the development and transfer of technologies - Addressing of barriers to the development and transfer of technologies 3Enabling - Enabling and facilitating access to climate technology (for early environments and stages of technology cycle) capacity-building Capacity-building - Capacity-building related to climate technology development and transfer - Enhancing endogenous capacities - Harnessing indigenous knowledge Effectiveness of the Technology Mechanism (TM) Adequacy of support provided to the TM 4Collaboration and stakeholder engagement 5Support 6Financial support Collaboration - Collaboration with other thematic bodies under the Convention - Leveraging/Increasing synergy with international organizations, mechanism, initiatives in climate technology outside the Convention - Strengthening, enhancing support for and effective use of NDEs - Sharing and exchanging technology information and best practices, mapping and recording of existing climate technologies Stakeholder engagement - Private sector involvement - Citizen involvement - Enhancing engagement of and coordination with stakeholders in technology issues - Provision of enhanced financial and technical support for the implementation of TNA results - Strengthening linkages between the Financial Mechanism and the Technology Mechanism (facilitating access to public sector finance) - Monitoring and reporting of the efforts related to support - Assessment of appropriateness of climate technologies within a specific context 7Further discussion on additional criteria 10

4.7 Process The seventh element is the process of the assessment. Korea is of the view that the assessment of the Technology Mechanism takes the same steps of the review of the Financial Mechanism, which is as follows; 1 UNFCCC secretariat prepares a technical paper on the basis of relevant information such as GEF s annual report and views from the stakeholders (including Parties), 2 The Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) conducts an independent expert review and assessment and provides expert inputs, and 3 The COP prepares and conducts the review of the Financial Mechanism. In section 2 on Principal agent of assessment, Korea has suggested the establishment of a Standing Committee on Technology (SCT) to facilitate and evaluate the work of the Technology Mechanism. With the work of the SCT, Korea suggests the process of the assessment of the Technology Mechanism as follows; 1 UNFCCC secretariat prepares a technical paper, 2 The SCT conducts an independent expert assessment and provides assessment results as expert inputs to the COP, and 3 The COP prepares and conducts the final assessments of the Technology Mechanism. Regarding this, considering that the afore-mentioned information identified by Korea on the current review process of the Financial Mechanism may lack accuracy, Korea requests the secretariat to prepare a document that elaborates the review process of the Financial Mechanism. 4.8 Review Results The eighth element is related to how the assessment results are to be reflected in the future work of the Technology Mechanism. Korea is of the view that assessment results need to be reflected in the subsequent assessment report. Also, the next round of assessment by the COP needs to evaluate whether the results of a previous assessment is reflected in the enhancement of the effectiveness of the Technology Mechanism and the adequacy of the support provided to the Technology Mechanism. 4.9 Information to be considered for the review process Korea sees that there are two types of information needed regarding the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism. One is the information needed in the design of the scope and modalities of the assessment of the Technology Mechanism, and the other is the information utilized in the actual conduct of the assessment. When designing the scope and modalities of the assessment, the information was listed at the SBI44 in the following manner, and Korea is of the view that this information needs to be furthered and reflected in the design of the scope and modalities of the assessment of the Technology Mechanism; 1 The review of the Climate Technology Centre and Network 2 The development of the modalities for the global stocktake 3 Work on transparency of action and support 4 Elaboration of the Technology Framework 11

Meanwhile, for the Information to be considered in the process of assessment, Korea suggests the list of following information, with this list being open to extension; 1 Information provided by the Parties on their experiences regarding the Technology Mechanism 2 The joint annual report of the TEC and the CTCN 3 Work progress and implementation status of the workplan of the Technology Mechanism 4 Information to be delivered for and outcome to come from the global stocktake on efforts related to support on technology development and transfer for developing country parties 12

References CTCN. (2016). Relevant COP Decisions on Monitoring and Evaluation Processes. https://www.ctcn.org/sites/www.ctc-n.org/files/ab20167_9.1_cop_decisions_on_evaluation_v1.pdf. Accessed on January 19, 2017. SCF. (2014). Fifth review of the Financial Mechanism: Technical paper. http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/standing_committee/application/pdf/tec hnical_paper_fifth_review_of_the_financial_mechanism_18112014 final.pdf. Accessed on January 19, 2017. SCF. (2017) Standing Committee on Finance, http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/standing_committee/items/6877.php Access on January 19, 2017 UNFCCC. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf. Accessed on January 19, 2017. UNFCCC. (1998). Decision 3/CP.4 Review of the financial mechanism. http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/application/pdf/3_cp.4.pdf. Accessed on January19, 2017. UNFCCC. (2010). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf. Accessed on January 19, 2017. UNFCCC. (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf#page=4. Accessed on January 19, 2017 UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf. Accessed on January 19, 2017. UNFCCC. (2016a). Scope and modalities for the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism in relation to supporting the implementation of the Paris Agreement. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/sbi/eng/l05.pdf. Accessed on January 19, 2017. UNFCCC. (2016b). Scope and modalities for the periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism in relation to supporting the implementation of the Paris Agreement. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/sbi/eng/l27.pdf. Accessed on January 19, 2017. UNFCCC. (2016c). Review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/sb/eng/l09.pdf. Accessed on January 19, 2017. UNFCCC. (2016d). Technology framework under Article 10, paragraph 4, of the Paris Agreement. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/sbsta/eng/l21.pdf. Accessed on January 19, 2017. UNFCCC. (2016e). Co-facilitators reflection note. http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/marrakech_nov_2016/insession/application/pdf/sbsta_6b_co-facilitators_reflections_note.pdf. Accessed on January 19, 2017. UNFCCC. (2017). Standing Committee on Finance. http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/standing_committee/items/6877.php. Accessed on January 19, 2017. 13

Annex I References to be considered in periodic assessment of the Technology Mechanism (SBI44) 1. Independent review of the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) The review of the effective implementation of the CTCN will be carried out independently, and the findings of the review will be considered by the COP. TEC and the advisory board of the CTCN will not be involved in the review process. The first independent review of the CTCN will be conducted in 2017, four years after its operational inception referred to in decision 2/CP.17 (UNFCCC 2011, annex VII, para 20). Yet, the specific timing or detailed methodology for the review has not been decided. 2. Development of the modalities of the global stocktake Article 10.6 of the Paris Agreement states that the global stocktake shall take into account available information on efforts related to support on technology development and transfer for developing country Parties (UNFCCC 2015, annex, article 10.6). The COP requested the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA) to identify the sources of input for the global stocktake, including the information on the mobilization and provision of support and also to develop modalities for the global stocktake (Ibid., para 100 (a)(iii)). 3. Transparency Framework The purpose of the framework for transparency of support is to provide clarity on support provided and received by relevant individual Parties in the context of climate change actions under Article 4 (mitigation), 7 (adaptation), 9 (finance), 10 (technology development and transfer), and 11 (capacitybuilding), and to the extent possible, to provide a full overview of aggregate financial support provided (UNFCCC 2015, annex, article 13.6). Developed country Parties shall, and other Parties that provide support should, provide information on financial, technology transfer and capacity-building support provided to developing country Parties (Ibid., annex, article 13.9) and developing country Parties should provide information on financial, technology transfer and capacity-building support needed and received (Ibid., annex, article 13.10). At the Climate Change Expert Group (CCXG) Global Forum on the Environment and Climate Change, which was held on Sept. 2016, transparency of mitigation and support were the main topics of discussion. It was discussed that the definition of the climate finance should be decided in advance to improve access to information on climate finance flows. Identification of the source of finance is key to the tracking of climate finance flows. It was also mentioned that information on the mobilization of private finance as well as public finance for mitigation and adaptation projects is needed. Discussion on the transparency framework is divided into action (mitigation and adaptation) and support (finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building). A transparency framework on technology development and transfer has not been discussed yet. 4. Elaboration of the technology framework Elaboration of the technology framework will continue to be carried out at the SBSTA46 (May 2017) on the basis of the views on the principles and structure of the technology framework, submitted by the Parties and relevant stakeholders. 14

Annex II Theme Technology Needs Assessment Technology information Enabling environment Capacitybuilding Mechanism for technology transfer Performance indicators on 5 key themes of the TTF, recommended by the EGTT (2009) Performance indicators (quantitative measures) - Amount of financial resources provided for the TNA process - Number of programmes/projects for capacity-building on TNAs in non-annex I Parties - Number of published TNAs completed or updated by non-annex I Parties - Synthesis report on technology needs made available by the secretariat and considered by the subsidiary bodies - Number of technology programmes/projects from TNAs implemented by non-annex I Parties - Number of training programmes and workshops for building capacity in technology information - Number of national communications with information on technology transfer activities - Synthesis report with information on maintaining, updating and developing TT:CLEAR, addressing gaps and user needs made available by the secretariat and considered by the subsidiary bodies - Number of technology information centres and networks connected to TT:CLEAR - Number of users of TT:CLEAR from developing countries - Performance against each of the six World Bank governance indicators - Total volume of joint R&D opportunities for ESTs provided by (primarily developed country) governments - Presence of clear policy guidelines for the recipients of public funding on how to move from the research stage to the commercialization stage of the technology transfer process - Number of bilateral and multilateral programmes that have helped developing countries in developing and implementing regulations that promote the use and transfer of and access to ESTs - Presence of tax preferences and incentives for imports/exports of ESTs - Volume of export credits to encourage the transfer of ESTs - Rating of investment climate according to World Bank business indicators - Degree of disclosure and transparency regarding the approval processes of technology transfer projects - Number of technical studies that explore barriers, good practices and recommendations for enhancing enabling environments - Percentage of partnerships with thematic foci on climate change and sustainable development with meaningful participation by developing country Parties - Amount of financial resources provided for capacity-building in the development and transfer of technology - Synthesis report on national capacity needs and priorities for capacity-building for development and transfer of technologies in line with the technology transfer framework - Number of participants/experts in training programmes on the development and transfer of technologies, in particular on EST-related activities - Number of new and existing national and regional institutions operating as centres of excellence in the development and transfer of technology - Number and volume of reported innovative public private financing mechanisms and instruments - Report on possible ways to enhance cooperation between the Convention and other multilateral environmental agreements - Number of reported barriers to, and good experiences in, the development of endogenous technologies - Report with guidance for reporting on joint R&D needs 15

Annex III Overview of the review of the Financial Mechanism Guidelines for the review of the Financial Mechanism (Decision 3/CP.4, Annex) 1. Guidelines for the first review of the Financial Mechanism A. Objectives In accordance with Article 11.4 of the Convention, the objectives will be to review the financial mechanism and take appropriate measures regarding: (a) Its conformity with the provisions of Article 11 of the Convention; (b) Its conformity with the guidance of the Conference of the Parties (COP); (c) The effectiveness of the activities it funds in implementing the Convention; (d) Its effectiveness in providing financial resources on a grant or concessional basis, including for the transfer of technology, for the implementation of the Convention's objective on the basis of the guidance provided by the COP; (e) Its effectiveness in providing resources to developing country Parties under Article 4.3 of the Convention. B. Methodology The review shall draw upon the following sources of information: (a) Information provided by the Parties on their experiences regarding the financial mechanism; (b) Annual reviews by the COP on the conformity of the activities of the financial mechanism with the guidance of the COP; (c) The annual report of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to the COP on its activities as the operating entity of the financial mechanism, the annual reports of the GEF and other relevant GEF policy and information documents; (d) Reports from the GEF monitoring and evaluation programme; (e) Reports from the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development and relevant bilateral and multilateral funding institutions; (f) Relevant information provided by other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. C. Criteria The effectiveness of the financial mechanism will be assessed taking into account the following: (a) The transparency of decision-making processes; (b) The adequacy, predictability and timely disbursement of funds for activities in developing country Parties; (c) The responsiveness and efficiency of the GEF project cycle and expedited procedures, including its operational strategy, as they relate to climate change; (d) The amount of resources provided to developing country Parties, including financing for technical assistance and investment projects; (e) The amount of finance leveraged; (f) The sustainability of funded projects. 16

2. The 5 th review guidelines of the Financial Mechanism 2.1 Overview Following the first review of the Financial Mechanism in 1998, the review process has been executed every four years, with a total of five reviews undertaken so far. The sixth review, covering from year 2015 to 2017, is planned to be finalized by the COP23 (November 2017). At the COP22, the updated guidelines for the sixth review of the Financial Mechanism have been adopted, though the guidelines may be subsequently amended. It has also been decided to include the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in the sixth review. 2.2 The fifth review of the Financial Mechanism (SCF 2014; UNFCCC 2014) The SCF conducted independent assessments and reviews on the effectiveness of the Financial Mechanism on the basis of a technical paper prepared by the secretariat, and expert inputs by the SCF were delivered to the COP. The fifth review of the Financial Mechanism focused on the GEF owing to the fact that the GCF was still developing its operations and it was premature for it to be reviewed. The following table shows the criteria for the fifth review of the Financial Mechanism. Criteria (1) Governance (2) Responsiveness to Conference of the Parties guidance (3) Mobilization of financial resources (4) Delivery of financial resources (5) Results and impacts Items - Transparency of decision-making process of the operating entities (Assessment entities: Transparency International) - Level of stakeholder involvement - Gender sensitive approaches - Environmental and social safeguards - Fiduciary standards - Level of responsiveness to Conference of the Parties guidance - Efficiency of GEF project cycle - Amount of resources provided to developing countries - Amount of finance leveraged and modalities of co-financing - Adequacy, predictability and sustainability of funds - Accessibility to funds - Disbursement of funds - Country-ownership of programmes and projects - Sustainability of programmes and projects - Enabling Environments - Mitigation results - Adaptation results - Technology transfer - Capacity-building (6) Consistency of the Financial Mechanism with the objective of the Convention (7) Consistency and complementarity of the Financial Mechanism with the other financial flows and sources of investment 17

Annex IV Overview of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) 5 1. Outline As part of the Cancun Agreement, at the COP16, Parties decided to establish the SCF to assist the COP in relation to the Financial Mechanism of the Convention. More specifically, the SCF is to assist the COP in terms of improving coherence and coordination in the delivery of climate change financing, rationalization of the Financial Mechanism, mobilization of financial resources and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of support provided to developing country Parties. The SCF is composed of 10 members from Parties included in Annex I and 10 members from the Parties not included in Annex I. 2. Activities of the SCF 1 Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows The SCF has prepared Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows Report in 2014 and 2016. The report for 2018 is under preparation. 2 Coherence and Coordination: Financing for Forests, taking into account different policy approaches The COP requested the SCF to consider its work on coherence and coordination, inter alia, in the issue area of financing for forests. The SCF initiated its consideration on the issue of coherence and coordination of financing for forests by preparing a working paper and organizing forums. 3 Measurement, Reporting and Verification of Support Beyond the Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows One of the functions of the SCF is to assist the COP in exercising its function in relation to MRV of support. Based on a two-year workplan (2016-2017) on the MRV of support beyond the biennial assessment, the SCF is working on methodologies for the reporting of financial information by Annex I Parties, developing the modalities, procedures and guidelines for the transparency framework and developing the modalities for the accounting of financial resources provided and mobilized through public intervention. 4 Draft Guidance to the Operating Entities of the Financial Mechanism The SCF prepares the draft guidance to the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism to improve the coherence and practicality of the guidance. 5 Review of the Financial Mechanism The fifth review of the Financial Mechanism was completed with expert input from the SCF at COP20. The sixth review which covers the period from 2015 to 2017 is planned to be finalized by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-third session (November 2017). The GEF and the GCF will both be subject to the review. 6 Possible future institutional linkages and relations between the Adaptation Fund and other institutions under the Convention As requested in decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 45, the Adaptation Committee (AC) and the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG), in collaboration with the SCF have developed methodologies and make recommendations for adaptation related issues, and they are considering further collaboration with the Technology Mechanism. 5 This section is based on SCF (2017). 18