Report

On the

Global TNA Experience Sharing and Launching Workshop

Bangkok, Thailand
May 26-27, 2015
Technology Needs Assessment

Global TNA Experience Sharing and Launching Workshop

Bangkok, Thailand

May 26-27, 2015

Asian Institute of Technology

May 2015
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abbreviations 3

Workshop Proceedings

1. Introductory Session 4

2. TNA: Key Findings, Lessons and Experience to Date 4-5

3. Country Experience Session: Lessons and Best Practice from 5-8

TNA Phase 1

4. Country Experience Session: Making the TNA an Effective Policy 8-9

Planning Tool

5. Country Experience Session: Conclusions 10-12

6. Implementation Example Session 13-14

7. Support for Implementation 15-17

8. Investments for Clean Technology Transfer Panel Discussion 17-19

9. Lima Mandate on TAP Guidance 19

10. Conclusions from Workshop 19-20

11. Closing 20

Appendices

A.1. Appendix 1: Agenda for TNA Workshop

A.2. Appendix 2: List of the Participants

A.3. Appendix 3: Presentation Slides (Day 1)

A.4. Appendix 4: Presentation Slides (Day 2)

A.5. Appendix 5: Workshop Photos

 ABBREVIATIONS
ADB Asian Development Bank

AIT Asian Institute of Technology

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

COP Conference of Parties

CTCN Climate Technology Centre and Network

EEP Energy and Environment Partnership Program

EU European Union

GEF Global Environment Facility

GHG Green House Gas

IEA International Energy Agency

IPR Intellectual Property Right

LAMA Locally Appropriate Mitigation Action

LULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry

MCA/MCDA Multi-Criteria Analysis/Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action

NAP National Action Plan

NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action

RC Regional Center

TAP Technology Action Plan

TFS Technology Fact Sheet

TNA Technology Needs Assessment

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

DTC Danish Technology University

WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

Day 1 (May 26, 2015)

1. Introductory Session

Jonanthan Duwyn, Session Chair, welcomed all participants to the two day Global TNA
Experience sharing and launching workshop.

Kavez Zahedi in his welcome address to the participants traced the history of TNA and noted
that the TNA process has evolved over time and that countries are now moving to addressing
specific needs. He concluded by noting that 2015 will be an important year with the September
meeting on SDGs at the UN, and the COP in Paris at the end of the year.

Jorge Rogat then presented the objectives and the expected outcomes of the workshop. He
informed the first day of the workshop will discuss the TNA process, while the second day
would focus on implementation of TAPs. He also observed that most countries have already
hosted inception missions. He then went through the agenda in detail.

The session ended by Jorge Rogat asking participants to introduce themselves and to tell their
expectations from the workshop to know more details about the TNA process, the challenges
and pitfalls, and the impacts of the TNA project.

2. TNA: Key Findings, Lessons and Experience to date

Vladimir Hecl presented a brief history of the TNAs noting that this is a country driven process,
addressing the evolving needs for new equipment, techniques, and practical knowledge. Since
2001, more than 85 developing countries have assessed technology for climate change
mitigation and adaptation. He showed the guidance available for conducting the TNA process,
namely the TNA handbook and the Lima Mandate on TAP guidance. The current TNA focuses on
mitigation and adaptation, and has 4 deliverables.

Asher Lessels then presented some key findings of the last TNA including the commonalities
and key trends based on a synthesis of TNA reports (2006, 2009, and 2013). A new report based
on 26 new countries is expected soon. In most countries, TNA was a high level process carried
out by national ministries and had institutional arrangements. There seemed to be a lack of
financial stakeholders involved in the TNA process in some countries. Most countries prioritized
the energy sector and to some extent also looked at agriculture and land use. In adaptation, the
focus was largely on agriculture and infrastructure. The main technologies identified centered
around electricity generation for mitigation and for adaptation, specifically for agriculture, it
was focused on crop management. Most of the barriers were economical and financial, while
some countries had also identified technical barriers. Specifically, the mitigation sectors had
inappropriate financial incentives, while barriers in adaptation were the lack of access to
financial resource. There were less commonalities regarding enablers, since this is mostly
country dependent, though for mitigation, better financial incentives were observed.
Technology Action Plans and Project Ideas were developed by almost all countries, and
examples from countries were noted.

More than half the countries had identified interlinkages between TNAs and national/
multinational process. The UNFCC Technology Portal has been designed to make it easy for
users to find TAPs just like a search engine. It would be easy to find, read, and accesses
information (useful for stakeholders)

Vladimir Hecl showcased the impact of TNAs with examples from Ecuador, Costa Rica,
Mauritius, and Georgia. The benefit of Linking TNA with other national level activities would
result in better national development process, and also enhance the implementation of TNAs.
TNA could have possible linkages with the UNFCC Process in Mitigation, Adaptation, Finance,
and Technology. The TEC guideline on Linkages provides policy briefs. He concluded by noting
that Implementation is the key (through detailed TAPs).

During the discussion session, it was noted that TAP to be much more than a compilation of
measures, and also including stakeholders, financial aspects, and time wise activities. However
the submitted TAPs varied significantly in their content, and some TAPs had comprehensive
road maps. About 30 of the 36 countries had submitted their TAPs and Project Ideas.

Tea/Coffee Break

3. Country Experience Session: Lessons and Best Practices from TNA Phase I

Experience from Thailand: Setting-Up the Institutional Structure and Mechanisms for the
TNA/TAP Process

Surachai Sathitkunarat presented the experience of conducting the TNA/TAP in Thailand during
2010-2012. The National Science Technology and Innovation Policy Office under the Ministry of
Science and Technology was the focal point, and this institution works across other government
ministries. The TNA timeline of Thailand was as follows:
2010 - Discussion with ONEP (national focal point for climate change in Thailand).
2012 Submission of report to various bodies. One of the key success factor is to link
with national/international bodies.
2013 Use of TNA results as input for climate change master plan.
 2014 Completion of the TNA in detail for energy and agricultural sector and will submit
to country for finance in the near future for implementation. To work with partners and
neighboring countries
2015- TNA results used in draft of the INDC
Selected Sectors for detailed analysis
o agriculture, modelling, water resource management
TAP Energy
o Biogas
o Advanced biofuels
o Fuel combustion in industry

He went on to mention that The National Science Technology and Innovation Policy Office was
now a national designated entity (NDE) and that they have developed internal mechanisms to
assess the importance of the TNA. Subsequently, he talked about the importance of global and
regional support in the process, particularly mentioning GEF, UNEP, UNEP-DTU, AIT, CTCN,
UNFCC, and also their bilateral partnership with ASEAN members. He stressed that every
technology can be related to climate change and mentioned the importance of selecting and
choosing the right and suitable consultants. He highlighted the need to engage every
stakeholder and also how to use the right tools to identify needs. He concluded by stating that
it was important to implement the projects with both developed and developing countries.

Experiences from Senegal: Identifying Barriers and Enabling Frameworks

El hadji Mbaye M. Diagne presented his observations regarding the barriers and enablers in the
TNA process for Senegal. He started the presentation with a focus on technology prioritization
and sector selection. During sector selection, there must be a review of national and sectorial
policies and plans and the most vulnerable sectors must be defined. He also talked about
defining sectors with the most GHG emissions and the importance of organizing national
workshops. Regarding the prioritization of technologies for mitigation and adaptation, he
mentioned how different technology needs in the sectors were identified and how they were
prepared. He suggested the need to arrange workshops to amend and validate those
technologies by the various stakeholders before prioritizing the technologies for each sector.
He gave few examples regarding certain sectors and their technology prioritizations. For
instance in Agriculture, thirteen technologies were identified by consultants and specification
sheets were prepared. The technologies which were selected for multi-criteria analysis
included: Agroforestry, Organic Farming, Bio-Charcoal, etc. He discussed the criteria selection
for technology prioritization. He stressed that while most parameters were going to be country
dependent, the ideal situation would involve cases that lead to economic development, poverty
alleviation, etc. He also commented on some of the agricultural sector technologies selected
after multi-criteria analysis and these included the use of dykes, anti-salt and salt tolerant
species, etc. He then focused on the mitigation process and explained that it followed the same
process. He gave the example of the energy sector and its focus was the use of renewable
energy, energy efficiency in buildings and industry.
Subsequently, Diagne talked about barrier analysis and its use in the classification of
technology. He suggested that some of the key characteristics would include the number of
potential consumers, the complication of the market chain, the involvement of the financial
sector, etc. He also suggested identifying the economic framework under which the technology
would be classified and using a market mapping framework. Furthermore, he stressed the
importance of organizing the whole process and using working groups to brainstorm. Regarding
the UNEP-DTU partnership and the regional center support, he mentioned their assistance
regarding the country missions, documentation, regional workshops, help desk, and reports
review. He also spoke about the importance of using the workshops to validate the work done
and to ensure it is a national process. Regarding the process as a whole, he mentioned some of
the key results: A good capacity building exercise led to the identification of main technologies
and the elaboration of technology sheets, and it also prioritized technologies selected for
mitigation and adaptation.

Furthermore, he also discussed some of the lessons learned during the process. One of these
included the need to involve stakeholders, particularly the financial community early in the
process and also the national steering committee. He also mentioned that the working group
organization should be updated during the process and a detailed work plan should be
developed.

Conducting the TNA/TAP process

The regional coordinators of the three regions presented their experiences.

Experiences from LAC region

Osvaldo Girardin presented the experiences from 10 Latin American countries, where the
sector and technology selection of the TNA process had similar participative methodology and
long term strategies as described by the earlier presentations. Some of the considerations with
regard to mitigation included: contribution to sustainable development, co-benefits, emission
levels, potential for replication, and market potential. Similarly, for adaptation, in addition to
those considerations identified for mitigation, the vulnerability of section and information
available was also deliberated. He mentioned that the most common types of technologies
were considered and these included information and observation systems, soil, etc. (a mix of
soft and hard technologies). With regards to barriers, Mr. Girardin mentioned some of the most
common barriers for mitigation with respect to each of the sectors identified:
Energy: High initial capital cost, finance access
Transport: high investment and absence of financing
Waste: High investment cost and risk
Agriculture: Lack of access to better products ad inputs
Industry: high investment costs

Furthermore, he also suggested some of the ways to overcome such barriers:

Financial Barriers: include innovation in public budgets
 Regulatory: Lobbying
Institutional: Capacity building

He also said that in most cases actions or measures proposed are directly related to the barrier
identified and that very few counties explicitly identified project ideas. He concluded by saying
that local financial restrictions were present as were barriers for accessing international
funding.

Experiences from Africa Region

Libasse Ba talked about his observations regarding the Africa region, which included the
Francophone countries in the 1st and 2nd phase and also Lebanon in the 2nd phase. He stressed
that at the regional level it was vital to exchange ideas and experiences. At the country level,
there was also a need to connect with the national climate committees and a need to hold
national workshops. He also mentioned the need to identify and involve stakeholders from the
very beginning. Regarding sectors, he mentioned that there was a need to have a common
understanding on the sectors and the number of sectors in adaptation and mitigation. He also
spoke of the need to have common understanding for number of technologies and definition of
technology.

Experience from Asia Region

Sivanappan Kumar presented observations based on the TNA project conducted in Asia and CIS.
He summarized the selected sectors, technologies, common barriers and measures to address
the barriers. The observations were as follows:

The country TNA team should realize that the TNA process will be useful in addressing the
development priorities and climate change issues of the country. Moreover, the TNA outputs
will be useful for other national programs and projects. There is support to carry out TNA
process at the Regional Center and UDP. Country missions along with capacity building
workshops can be organized based on country needs and requests. The country TNA process
should ensure widespread stakeholder participation (finance, etc) and not limiting to ministries
and government organizations. Good communication by those attending workshop to those
involved at ground level will help in smooth implementation. He observed that in some
countries there was lack of data on GHG emissions and technology status/facts. He concluded
by noting that AIT had developed a hypothetical case study for mitigation for use by the
countries.

During the discussion session, the following were observed:

The cultural and social issues should be addressed as part of barrier analysis. This
can be addressed by bringing in relevant stakeholders and engaging them.
This project offers countries that lack capacity to conduct the TNA process, and to
build their capacity. For example, Bhutan took help from a consultant (group)
 Selected technologies and TAPs are important results of TNA project but
implementation is more important and it requires financial and technical assistance.
Workshops will be an excellent opportunity to speak about financial aspects and the
next steps.
The budget is limited, and some countries have contributed as well. But most
countries have been able to work within the allocation.

Lunch

Initiating the session after lunch, Jorge Rogat, Session Chair, underscored the importance of
involving stakeholders. He informed that UDP is working on a guide note on the stakeholder
identification and engagement process e-learning training and expected to have it ready soon.
He mentioned also a guide note on the TNA process complemented by E-learning is under
development.

4. Country Experience Session: Making the TNA an Effective Policy and Planning Tool

Experience from China in institutionalizing the TNA process as a planning tool to support
national/sectoral/local planning processes

Yin Hongshu presented the experience of conducting the TNA process in China. The China TNA
project was started in 2012, and was expected to be complete in late 2015. The total budget is
5 million USD from GEF and 1.7 million USD from the Chinese government. The Responsible
Agency is the Climate Change Department of the National Development and Reform
Commission, and is implemented by the Project Management Office (PMo) and National Center
for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation (NCSC). The four components of the
project are:
Stakeholders evaluation and consultation
Research and assessment boundary need to be defined from the outset and reviewed
regularly
Grasp of key trends for assessment is needed to be practical
Divide projects into short-term and focus projects instead of long-term comprehensive
projects.
Overlap of technologies in different sectors should bring complementarity

The Chinese TNA project has four components: Methodology Guidelines in which the
assessment of methodology was developed, 1 workshop and 3 steering meetings held; MAP
with Peer-reviewers; National Climate Technology Network, which will be used to collect
information is under development; and nine pilot projects (technology). These projects are
estimated to avoid 680 tCO2 during lifetime. The projects are spread across China.

The lessons learnt include the following: Importance of stakeholder evaluation, same
technology can be prioritized differently in different sectors, and research and assessment
boundary needs to be defined from the outset. The Climate Technology Network (CTN) can be
an access point for CTCN in the future. It will facilitate international technology transfer as well
as assisting national technology development. One of the major impacts of TNA is the
development of 9 pilot projects (60,000-100,000 USD/program) chosen for technology supply
from outside the country. The TNA outputs can applied to 5 year plan, INDC, NAMA, NAPs, etc.

Commenting on the presentation, Jorge Rogat noted that if a country would like to expand its
activities, then there is the possibility of doing that. The responses to the questions posed
during the discussions were:
Multiple criteria decision analysis and (analytical) hierarchy analysis method were used
for the analysis. The 5 year plan was considered, and there was focus on stakeholders.
The project included a mix of survey, consultation, and modelling.
Answering the question How the same technology can be prioritized differently in
different sectors, the example of IGCC was highlighted. It can be used in the power
sector, chemical industry or waste management. But being an expensive technology, its
value is different for each of the application, i.e. considering its greenhouse gas
abatement potential.
China is still interested in TNA not being just a project but sustaining it. The
recommendations will be made to the respective government sectors and it is hoped
that the results would be reflected in the 13 th 5 year plan. Furthermore, the National
Climate Technology Network is a key output.
China would invite companies who would like the sub grant and their proposals would
be considered.
There were differences in technologies observed when they were prioritized and
consultations made with field level workers.

Break Out Groups

5. Country Experience Sessions: Conclusions

Following discussions in the breakout sessions, the groups were asked to briefly present their
results in the plenary.

The Anglophone and Russo-phone group talked about some of the challenges for securing high
level political support, and cited some key areas:
Lack of awareness of issues. This leads to less political support.
Lack of knowledge regarding climate change.
National planning process hinders new project implementation
Political risks and instability which leads to changes in personnel

They also suggested some approaches to facilitate high level support:

Create awareness and engage stakeholders
Involvement of stakeholders in TNA/TAP development process
Bottom Up Approach
 Professional level of experts

With regards to the challenges involved in securing ownership, both groups mentioned the
following:
TNA committee is often made up of low level members, thus lack of political focus
from outset
Lack of professionalism/knowledge among stakeholders

Regarding the approaches for securing ownership, the Anglophone and Russo-phone group
suggested the following:
Representations from different ministries. Have chairs of working groups.
Hiring a consultancy to create influence in ministries (China experience)
Interagency cooperation
Cooperation and engagement with civil society, professional associations,
parliament, media, etc.

In their discussions, the Anglophone and Russo-phone found that the challenges for
establishing a national TNA committee included:
Lack of commitments and technical capacity of the president of the committee
Lack of interested professionals at national level

They suggested some approaches to ensure Commitment and Engagement of TNA committee
members:
Ensure committee is made up of relevant and most suited people in government
Use existing institutional structures
Ensure private sector is adequately represented.
Establish a large pool of experts and then filter
Promotion of public announcements
Experts from other donors, financial institutions, IDIs, etc.

The Francophone group and the Hispanic group discussed some of the criteria for selecting
priority sectors:
Importance of economic development, existing policies, sectors of greater
emissions.
Availability of technology in the sector and sustainability and scale up of technology
Consideration of the mitigation potential and also an analysis of cost and return on
Investment.

They also mentioned that some of the challenges involved with selecting priority sectors were
largely linked to political aspects.

While discussing the challenges for linkages and synergies, both these groups mentioned the
following
 Engagement of Stakeholders
Lack of coordination and information sharing
Lack of responsibility

They suggested that the use of existing climate change mechanisms to share information and
also having face to face meetings were possible solutions to these challenges.

Regarding the challenges for mapping the development partners, both the groups mentioned
that they involved:
External financing issues
Creating specific actions to address financial issues
Giving visibility of Corporate Social Responsibility of these actions

They suggested a possible solution would be to improve communication and information

sharing.

In a final part of the discussion, the challenges involved in engaging the private sectors were
discussed by both the Francophone and Hispanic groups. They mentioned some of the
following key points:
Mapping of key actors
Give incentives to implement different technologies
Availability and interest of public and private financing

They noted that the solution would involve informing, communicating and advocating ideas
effectively and also engaging these stakeholders through meetings.

During the discussion, the following issues were also mentioned:

The need to consider what will be the main financial interest of the private sector to get
them interested. The TNA is a good process for policy making but more detailed
assessment is required for financial investments.
Engaging the financial and private sector in meetings will also allow for an
understanding of which barriers exist.
There are cultural differences, and in some places there is a who knows who
approach, but this doesnt imply a lack of professionalism. This process takes time and
understanding.
It is important to consider the mapping of experts available in the countries at the start
of the process.
Sometimes, the use of experts from donor organization might lead to greater expertise
but it might come at a cost of loss of autonomy. However, involving them during the
validation process might allay some of those concerns, and in most cases donor
organizations are there to influence good policy without imposing.
Jonathan Duwyn wrapped up the first day by saying that it was very interesting to have old and
new countries describing their experience with TNA and that in general there was a wealth of
information for the countries that are looking at their TNA. He mentioned that one of the main
points of discussion throughout the day involved stakeholders. He suggested that this whole
process is a participative process and so this idea is key and that countries can start by
identifying and mapping in the beginning but also bringing in other stakeholders later on in the
process.
He stated that the end goal is to ensure that TNA will lead to deployment of technologies
(through TAP) and that the TAP is much more a document for government but also to
understand the barriers and to get the views of the financiers. He continued by saying that we
must also understand that there is no one solutions. All countries and situations are different.
Therefore, he suggested to tailor the process and also said that the results might not also be
the same for different countries. However, the utmost goal is to make sure that it helps the
country to reducing poverty, developing the economy, etc. He concluded by saying that the key
was to link to implementation mechanism so as to ensure sustainability.

He thanked all the presenters and all those who attended the first day of the workshop.

The first day of the workshop closed at 6:15 PM. The presentations slides from the first day are
attached in Appendix A.3.

Day 2 (May 27, 2015)

6. Implementation Examples Session

The Session Chair, Sivanappan Kumar welcomed the participants and initiated the proceedings.

Implementation of Results of TNAs in the countries, including success stories and challenges

Hecl first discussed the mandates and activities of TEC. A synthesis report was prepared in 2009
that noted that 266 project ideas were mentioned. A survey was conducted with 69 countries.
11 countries responded of whom, 4 indicated that PIs were implemented or under
implementation, with funding from various agencies WB, CIDA, JICA, etc. In early 2013, 21
countries were contacted (new), of whom 12 replied with 40 factsheets. 32 claimed implanted
projects and 8 had not implemented. Funding was from domestic and external sources.

The success factors and lessons learnt were funding availability (domestic ad international),
ability to reach political and institutional consensus, involvement of relevant state authorities, a
proactive and knowledgeable project champion, focal point available at national level, interest
of national stakeholders to build national capacities, etc. Reasons for failure were when no or
inadequate involvement of state authority, high investment, reliance on consultants,
environmental issues not a priority for the country, low visibility, no ownership of users,
difficulties in tracking the progress of projects due to personnel changes and low attractiveness
of proposed technologies, etc. Creating an efficient mechanism for delivering targeted
information about funding opportunities can be an important implementation support factor.

Moldova: Agriculture Programme

Ala Drutta presented the experience of adaptation project ideas in Moldova on the agriculture
sector PIs. The TAPs for conservation agriculture included conservation system of soil tillage
without herbicides, Vetch field as green fertilizer into 5 year crop rotation, and applying 50 t/ha
of manure with bedding to agricultural soils once per five years. She mentioned that
involvement of stakeholders (ministries, researchers, academia, NGOs and private sector) was
important and it was on-going process. It was important to engage stakeholders in moving
forward with TAPs and also keeping them in mind during TNA. Engagement with private sector
was an important step, and it was vital to engage with knowledgeable stakeholders. The
activities with stakeholders aimed at information Exchange, creation of enabling environment,
and Increasing stakeholders engagement related to TAPs. The barriers for implementation were
identified, grouped into categories and ranked. MCDA and cost benefit analysis were applied.
26 measures were identified for addressing barriers, and the most important were developing a
system of economic incentives for agricultural enterprises, enforcing subsidies for
implementing climate technologies, and enforcement of relevant legislations.

The actions undertaken by the government following the TNA project included the
development of policy document (on sustainable/conservation agriculture) on national strategy
on agriculture and rural development, financial support by ministry of agriculture to farmers for
implementing sustainable farming practices, providing education and extension services
(training to entrepreneurs), and support for research activities. Support was also received from
external sources including SAPARD, WB, FAO, Japan, ADA, IFAD, etc. The results and outputs of
TNA were incorporated into the national policies and documents. She discussed the challenges
and measures considered for addressing the challenges, which included Includes inadequate
knowledge, no dedicated budget, and low involvement of private business. These challenges
can be overcome by communicating with stakeholders and can lead to successful implantation.
She concluded by noting that TNA helped to bring to light the need in adapting to climate
change through implementation of adequate climate technologies, Good practice to involve
stakeholders and develop countrys ownership, and a good learning process which contributes
to building capacity.

Vietnam: Developing NAMAs from TNAs-TAPs

Nguyen Van Anh presented how TNA-TAPs were useful for developing NAMAs in Vietnam. In
mitigation, energy, agriculture and LULUCF were the prioritized sectors in Vietnam. In the
energy sector, wind and biogas were prioritised with support from DTU. She presented the
development of wind power aim to promote wind energy by removing barriers on policy,
capacity and technology. It was planned for 2 phases 2016 to 2020; 2021 2030. The main
barriers were on finance, regulatory, human capacity and technical infrastructure. TNA, NAMAs,
INDC contributed to Vietnams overall strategy on climate change, and there was a need to
have wide involvement of stakeholders, while international support plays an important role in
deploying results of TNA project.

The discussions were on the following:

Vladimir noted that in some countries (1st phase) it seemed that consultants were driving the
process without much interaction with the government. The role of the Secretariat is to assist in
linking with CTCN, provide financial and technical support and guidance. Countries can be
provided with information, link with technical assistance, and there is a whole set of
implementation facilities to support in finance and technical assistance. Countries need to
understand the difference between TNA and implementation. There are a number of additional
steps which need to be taken, but government involvement is more important. TNA is an
enabling activity and expectations are too high and it is really on the governments to take it
forward.

The consultations in the agriculture sector were with all stakeholders in Moldova, and not only
with the private sector. However, the private business took active interest in implementing
technologies. On no regret option, Ala clarified that this means that the benefits would
accrue by doing the option irrespective of whether climate change happens or not.

Jorge Rohat clarified the three phases of TNA Phase 1 was carried out by UNDP. Phase 2 was
carried out by UNEP and DTU. Phase 1 did not have TAPs.

Tea/Coffee Break

7. Support for Implementation

GCFs Support to Countries for Implementing Technology Actions from TNA-TAP

Mr. Clifford Polycarp presented about the GCF activities, which started in December 2013 and is
based in Korea, and it is the centerpiece of long-term climate finance. The essential operational
policies were adopted in May 2014 and the accreditation framework approved in October 2014.
The threshold for starting operations has been reached, and the total fund portfolio is shared
by mitigation and adaptation, and 50% funds of adaptation would be for SIDS, LDCs and Africa.
They would also have a geographical balance, significant allocation for private sector and also
sufficient resources for readiness activities. GCF funds for mitigation are for low emission
energy, transport, buildings cities, and forestry and land us. In adaptation, it is for livelihoods of
vulnerable people, health and well being, food and water security, infrastructure and for
ecosystems and ecosystems services. The potential investment priorities are for cities,
agriculture, forestry, resilience and energy generation and access. To catalyse the private
business, in the urban sector, efficient public transportation, waste and water management and
efficient and resilient cities are the areas of interest, while in adaptation, agriculture and
forester. The cross cutting areas are alternative energy and water.

The proposal approval has six steps generation of funding proposals, concept development,
submission, analysis and recommendation, board recommendation, and legal arrangements.
There is a technical advisory panel before the Board decision. The proposal should come only
from the Accredited facility. There are six criteria for investment impact potential, paradigm
shift potential, SD potential, needs of recipient, country ownership and efficiency and
effectiveness. He also presented the funds fiduciary standards and environmental and social
safeguards. The funds should leverage different institutions and is aimed to create a network of
institutions. There are two tracks for funding requests direct and international and the
requestor should have key administrative and financial capacities and be transparent and
accountable. Some examples include ADB, KfW, UNDP, SPREP, and CSE. 49 applications have
been received; 16 are national and regional; 10 are private sector; and 23 are international; and
under fast track there are 24. He also presented about the Readiness Programme, which has
already 74 readiness requests. The scope of readiness activities include strengthening NDAs,
sharing information and experiences, developing pipelines and for developing strategic
frameworks.

Answering questions, he noted that the fund has been step up to emphasize strategies and
initiative, and to address the priorities that have been identified. An appraisal toolkit is being
developed that will give the indicators on how the assessment of projects will be made, and
details are available in the website. The GCF has a strong emphasis on application, since there
has been a gap in application funding and it needs to be prioritized. The focus is more on
adaptation (compared to GEF) and has a wider outlook.

Using the CTCN to Catalyze TAP Implementation

Jonathans presentation was on CTCN. He presented the Mandate, Services, and Structure of
CTCN and noted that it was mainly for the development and transfer of technologies. The main
idea is regarding technical assistance, knowledge sharing and foster collaboration. It is hosted
by UNEP in collaboration with UNIDO (along with 11 partner institutions).

The CTCN Technical Assistance is for reducing GHG and adapting to climate change and has a
Fast and short application process
Provides state of the art and locally relevant expertise, free of charge in developing
countries. Sectors include academic, public, NGO, or private expertise and it is for a
broad range of adaptation and mitigation technologies. It is available at all stage of the
technology cycle.

The technical assistance works on a four step process: Identify the need, contact national
designated entity (NDE), CTCN selects an expert team leading to a solution. CTCN Technology
Webinar Series has been launched in 2015 and there have been 5 till date. The next one will be
on MCDA.

The Parties expect strong links between TNAs and the activities of the CTCN, and NDEs should
become central to TNA process especially with new increased political commitment to climate
technology issue. The TNA counties can seek support from CTCN to:
o Make stronger business cases
o Strengthening the information about the benefit-to cost ration
o Remove some of the identified barriers/ establish enabling mechanisms
o Asses feasibility of technology/investments

Out of 35 request submitted, 8 are directly generated from TNA/TAP. Countries can also seek
assistance from CTCN for activities not originating from TNA as well.

Technology Priorities for Transport in Asia and CTCN Support for Bhutan

Subash Dhar presented the case of Bhutans transport sector. The prioritized mitigation sub-
sectors in energy were Energy Industry and Transport. In transport sector the mitigation
technologies identified were Mode shift and Vehicle and Fuel technology. The criteria used by
countries were
Benefits (Economic, Social, Environmental Development and GHG mitigation) and cost
of technology, and
Countries also had included scale, safety, reliability, and efficiency of technologies as a
criteria

The Bhutan TNA project prioritised three technologies, namely, Mass Transport Systems,
Intelligent Transport Systems, and Non-motorized transport. The TAP which dwelt on Intelligent
Transport Systems had requests on elements of procurement as well as training. The CTCN
support requests are provided by aResponse Team to refine response and will include
Capacity building and trading from network partners
Assistance in development of proposals for funding
In country training using funding from incubator program

ADBs Climate Finance Center: Advising Countries on Technology Financing and Investment
for TNA-TAP Priorities
Xuedu Lu noted that the services of CTFC are 3 pronged public sector, private sector and
knowledge sharing. ADBs focus is mostly on the downstream side (compared to UNEPs focus
on the upstream side). ADB has also a market place where technologies could be made
available.

Casper van der Tak presented Mainstreaming Climate Technology using the case of Mongolia
and Bangladesh on rural electrification and on agriculture and forestry, respectively.
In Bangladesh, the objective was to conduct pre-feasibility study for rural power development,
and to provide information on a limited number of technical options with regards to power
supply. The approach was based on resource identification, technical energy conversion
options, leveled cost of electricity calculation of options, ranking of technological options, fields
visits, options/site selection, formulation of interventions, presentations and consultations,
proceed with next steps for financing. The key findings were:
Biomass based power generation would be cheaper but solar based power options are
less complicated
Biomass based power generation might present mismatch between locations and
resources
Led to concept of building blocks

This resulted in $399 million loan to the Government of Bangladesh from original proposal of 8
million.

In case of Mongolia, this was a follow up of the TNA project and to broaden analysis and move
to financing. The sectors covered include: Agriculture, forestry, and energy, while the
preliminary outcomes were:
o 4 climate technologies in Agriculture for incorporating in ADB pipeline projects
o 3 Projects in Energy for ADB co-financing using climate technologies

The next steps are to finalize reports, act on financing opportunities, and provide inputs to new
CPS by May 2015.

Lunch

The post lunch session was chaired by Vladimir Hecl.

8. Investments for clean technology transfer Panel discussion

Panel Members: Dr.Xuedu Lu (ADB), Alan Dale Gonzales (Full Advantage Co., Ltd/CTI-PFAN),
Carlos Ludena (IADB)

Moderator: Edward Clarence -Smith (UNIDO)

ECS: Introductory Statements: Discuss the problems and challenges in the

financing of clean/green technology projects. Hopefully this discussion
will help you to shape your projects into reality

C: Technology financing in buildings (Energy Efficiency in buildings). Phase 1

involved study and disbursement. Phase 2 involves looking at the project
in operation
ECS: Is your scheme a method to get more proposals or is it a system for the
bank to ensure its making good investments?
C: It is basically sort of an insurance scheme.
Gonzales: The following projects offer insights into markets and financial
institutions.
Philippines-well developed project. They asked for help in raising finance.
But during negotiations regarding sharing, there was a total dead end.
Expectations were very high. This is one of the common things that we
see.
Solar Project from Philippines-Inadequate technical knowledge and
justification of project
Thailand-land development. Developer believed that there was potential
for wind energy; however, there was a lack of data. Also, there was no
will to even invest into getting preliminary technical data.
Also, usually there is a lack of documentation and there is a trend of over
promising. Developers might have over optimistic views of their projects.
Lu: Understand technology needs in your country and market. Also, develop
favorable policy in your area. Build on TNA by approaching entrepreneurs
to understand what the client wants, so as to make financing easier.
ECS: Must have macro policy and partnerships as well as technology. TNA
must then proceed on fairly large projects involving the government. One
of the things I have often noticed is that banks dont like SMEs, which
means they see them as high risk. So there are some psychological and
cultural aspects against some the smaller, but good projects.
Q: Small states dont have much capacity when doing TNA and consultants
are also limited in availability or are expensive. So, what kind of help can
we receive in those scenarios?
A: The CTCN is available now. There are also development partners.
A: Ownership is fundamental. You have to look how to take it forward. In
smaller countries, there are a lot of good ideas but no networking. So
thats the key.
Q: The outcomes of the TNA are project ideas but there is a gap between
those and bankable projects. There are no funds specifically targeting
TNA projects. The expectation is to find an automatic linkage between
outcome of TNA and funding.
A: There are some initiatives already regarding that. Again, that is where the
CTCN would come in.
A: One suggestion was that to bring potential investors and developers fairly
early in the process of TNA so that the PI developed are more feasible.
There is a gap between the TNA output and investor, that could be
addressed by CTCN support.
Having favorable policies will encourage investment for both small or big
countries.
A: In my opinion, rather than having financial institutions at the center of
the discussions, we should be centered around people.
ECS: Well I see that as a very good thought on which to end our discussions.
Thank you panelists.

Tea/Coffee Break

9. Lima mandate on TAP guidance

Hecl observed that the TNAs should not be at prototype level, but should be taken up to be
more (useful). He noted the following existing Guidance Documents
Technology Needs Assessment for Climate Change (UNDP and UNFCCC)
The third synthesis report needs identified by 31 N(A) Parties (UNFCCC)

The existing TAP and Project ideas Guidance are

TAP and project ideals report templates for mitigation/adaptation (UNFCCC)

10. Conclusions from Workshop

Asher Lessels coordinated the discussion by posing the following question to the participants
what else would you like to know in addition to what has been discussed during the past 2 days.
The opinions expressed by the participants were:

We still need some experience to feel. We have to get involved in the process and once
we get to doing it, then some questions will come up. Hopefully some of the guidance
available will aid.
Grassroots involvement needed as technology is used at local level and its
success/failure is realized at that level. One of the main issues was stakeholder
consultations and stakeholder involvement in the grass roots level. This workshop made
me realize the importance of involving all stakeholders early on in the process. Also data
collection, capacity and equipment is something we must look into. It is also possible to
use international organization in our countries that work at the grassroots level. For
instance in Armenia we have worked with over 40 of these groups.
Stakeholder consultation is an important process. Bolivian example: environmental
entity created and all ministries can approach this entity for TNA process.
I realized the importance of introducing the banking sector from the start, and its
something which I learned through the course of this workshop.
Data requirement (capacity for hardware and software). Also data collection, capacity
and equipment is something we must look into.
Financial institution should be involved from the beginning
Quality control of TNA needs to be addressed. It was informed that the regional centres
and UDC would address this issue.
Importance of academe in monitoring and so need to be included. Peru and Uruguay
had involved researchers from universities as consultants in Phase 1.
The role of regional centers were informed during the inception missions.
 Regarding the consultants, there were cases where the reports were not satisfactory
and not accepted by the Ministry, and had to be changed.
Availability of experts in all sectors may be problematic, especially adaptation relevant
expertise. Careful screening from large pool of consultants will be useful.

11. Closing

Subash Dhar wrapped up the days proceedings in detail. The main points are:
Countries are implementing the TAP coming out of the TNA and this came out clearly
from the questionnaires sent by UNFCCC to the countries. Moldova showed how the
TNA is being mainstreamed in a number of donor funded projects whereas Vietnam
showed how TNA has been taken forward as a NAMA
CTCN has emerged as a important bridge for taking forward the TNA /TAP to the next
step and bringing closer to implementation and this was in more detail explained
through case of Bhutan
GCF which has now more than 10 billion US $ can become an important source of
funding for TAP and GCF presentation provided inputs on the ways to access funding
same include status of accredited entities, etc.
ADB appreciated the role TNA has played in influencing policy and thereby creating a
better enabling environment however doubted the that project ideas emanating from
TNA can be implemented mainly since the ownership is an issue.
In the panel discussion the following factors for success were identified for - funding,
o Good technologies (technologies identified through a top down process may not
be same as technology needs of industry)
o Failure factors were lack of government involvement and lack of environmental
issues.
o Having policy environment within the country is of essence with regards to
technology
o Engagement of private sector has been highlighted with regards to investments.

Jorge Rogat's closing statement: there have been two intensive and very productive days where
we all (TNA country participants but also the organizers) have exchanged experience and
learned a lot, which were exactly the main objectives of the workshop. He informed also in a
few days from now country participants will receive an evaluation form and asked to send to
UDP their feedback.

He thanked all the presenters and participants, and organizers, in particular, UNEP, CTCN,
UNFCCC and AIT for the great collaboration.

The second day of the workshop closed at 5:15 PM. The presentations slides of the second day
are attached in Appendix A.4.
Appendices
A.1: Appendix 1- Agenda for TNA Workshop

Global TNA experience sharing and launching workshop

May 26-27, 2015
Hotel Novotel on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand
Programme

Day 1: Best practices, challenges and lessons learnt in conducting the TNA-TAP process
May 26, 2015

Objective: Focusing on the main steps of the TNA process, Day 1 will focus on sharing lessons and best
practices from TNA practionners for conducting the TNA process (what worked, what not and why, what
would you do differently and how), and how TNA Phase II countries can overcome potential challenges
and integrate best practices from TNA Phase I.

Moderators: Jonathan Duwyn, UNEP/CTCN (morning) and Jorge Rogat, UDP (afternoon)
Time Activity Responsible
08:30 09:00 Arrival and registration
1. Introductory session
09:00 09:30 Welcome address [10 min] Kaveh Zahedi, UNEP
Introduce agenda, objectives and expected Jorge Rogat, UDP
outcomes of the workshop [20 min]
2. TNA: key findings, lessons and experience to date
09:30 10:20 Brief history of Technology Needs Assessments Vladimir Hecl, UNFCCC
[10 min]
Key findings from TNA Phase I: experience, Vladimir Hecl/Asher Lessels,
lessons and best practices, and linkages with UNFCCC
other processess [20 min]
Discussion, questions and answers [20 min]
10:20 10:45 Tea/Coffee break
3. Country Experience Session: lessons and best
10:45 12:30 practices from TNA Phase I
Experience from Thailand: setting-up the Surachai SATHITKUNARAT,
institutional structure and mechanisms for the National Science and Technology
TNA/TAP process [20 min] and Innovation Policy Office

El hadji Mbaye M. Diagne, Afrique

Experience from Senegal: identifying barriers and Energie Environnement
enabling frameworks [20 min]

Osvaldo Girardin, Fundacion

Time Activity Responsible
Conducting the TNA/TAP process: Bariloche
o Experience from LAC region [10 min] Libasse Ba, ENDA
o Experience from Africa region [10 min] Sivanappan Kumar, AIT
o Experience from Asia region [10 min]
Discussion, questions and answers [30 min]
12:30 13:30 Lunch
4. Country Experience Session: Making the TNA an
13.30 14.15 effective policy and planning tool Ms. Yin Hongshu, Chinese National
Experience from China in institutionalizing the Center for Climate Change
TNA process as a planning tool to support Strategy and International
national/sectoral/local planning processes [45 Cooperation
min]

5. Country Experience Session: break out groups

14:15 15:45 (guiding questions to be distributed focus on Facilitated by:
overcoming challenges and integrating lessons learnt
for TNA Phase II countries)
Group discussions:
- Anglophone group (Baudelaire room) Subash Dhar (UDP)/Sara Traerup
(UDP)/ Dr Bothwell Batidzirai
(ERC)
- Francophone group (Monet room, 4th floor) Libasse Ba (ENDA)/Jonathan
Duwyn (UNEP/CTCN)
- Hispanic group (Voltaire room, basement) Jorge Rogat (UDP)/ Osvaldo
Girardin (FB)
- Russophone group (Vangoh room, basement) Sivanappan Kumar (AIT)/Ala Druta
(Moldova)
15:45 16:00 Tea/Coffee break
16:00 - 17:00 6. Country Experience Session: conclusions
Groups briefly present their results in plenary [15
min each]
Discussion, questions and answers [5 min for
each]

17:00 17-15 Wrap-up of the first day Jonathan Duwyn, UNEP/CTCN

18:00-21:00 Welcome reception (Monet room, 4th floor) All participants

 Day 2: Moving from TNA/TAP to the implementation of technology actions
May 27, 2015

Objective: Day 2 aims to showcase how countries are using the outputs of their TNA/TAP process, and
how organizations are supporting countries for TNA/TAP implementation and catalyzing investments for
climate technology transfer, diffusion and dissemination.

Moderators: Prof. Kumar (morning) and Vladimir (afternoon)

Time Activity Responsible
09:00 10:30 7. Implementation examples session
Implementation of the results of TNAs in the countries, Vladimir Hecl/Asher Lessels,
including success stories and challenges UNFCCC

Moldova: transport programme Ala Druta, Ministry of

Environment

Vietnam: Developing NAMAs from TNAs-TAPs Nguyen Van Anh, Ministry of

Discussion, questions and answers [30 min] Natural Resources and
Environment
10:30 11:00 Tea/Coffee break
11:00 12:30 8. Support for implementation
CTCNs TNA Implementation Support Programme:
Using the CTCN to catalyse TAP implementation
[15 min] Jonathan Duwyn,
UNEP/CTCN
Technology priorities for transport in Asia and Subash Dhar, UDP
CTCN support for Bhutan [15 min]
GCFs support to countries for implementing Clifford Polycarp, GCF
technology actions from TNA-TAP [20 min] (virtual)
ADBs Climate Finance Center: advising countries on Xuedu Lu, ADB/ Casper
technology financing and investments for TNA-TAP Meeuwis Van Der Tak, ADB
priorities [20 min]
Discussion, questions and answers [20 min]
12:30 13:30 Lunch
13:30 14:45 9. Investments for clean technology transfer panel Moderator: Edward
dicussion Clarence-Smith, UNIDO
Themes:
Perspective of the financiers/investors on TNAs and Panel members:
TAPs Dr Xuedu Lu, ADB
Main requirements for facilitating investments in Antony Watanabe, Asia
climate technology actions Clean Innovations
Recommendations for enhancing the TNA process in Alan Dale Gonzales
order to facilitate the implementation of Executive Director
prioritized technology actions and project ideas Full Advantage Co., Ltd./CTI-
emanating from it PFAN
Carlos Ludena (IADB)
Time Activity Responsible
14:45 16:00 10. Lima mandate on TAP guidance
Context: Lima mandate on TNA guidance for Vladimir Hecl, UNFCCC
TAPs (challenges in TNA implementation and
how to overcome these) [10 min]

16:00 16:15 Tea/Coffee break

11. Conclusions from Workshop Asher Lessels, UNFCCC
16:15 17:00 Analysis of Workshop and TNA

17:00 17:15 Wrap-up of day 2 and closing Subash Dhar, UDP

 A.2: Appendix 2- List of Participants

TNA Phase II Project Launching and Experience Sharing Workshop

26-27 May 2015, Novotel on Siam Square, Bangkok, Thailand

List of Participants
No. Title Name of Participants Organization Country Email Address
PHASE 1
Afrique - Energie -
1. Mr. El Hadji Mbaye Diagne Senegal emdiagne@hotmail.com
Environnement
National Science Technology and
2. Dr. Surachai Sathitkunarat Thailand Surachai@sti.or.th
Innovation Policy Office (STI)
Department of Meteorology,
3. Ms. Van Anh Nguyen Hydrology and Climate Change, Vietnam nvanh.dmhcc@gmail.com
MONRE
PHASE 2
National Commission for
4. Mr. Goudouma Zigani Environment and Sustainable Burkina Faso zigani_el@yahoo.fr
Development
Geographic Institute of Burundi
5. Mr. Astere Nindamutsa Burundi nindamutsaastere@yahoo.fr
(IGEBU)
Ministry of Environment and
6. Mr. Alioune Fall Mauritania
Sustainable Development lunef@yahoo.com
Ministry of Science and
7. Mr. Antonio Uaissone Mozambique Antonio.Uaissone@mctestp.gov.mz
Technology
Meteorology Department,
Ncamiso Martin
8. Mr. Ministry of Tourism and Swaziland bandzie@gmail.com
Ngcamphalala
Environmental Affairs
Antoine Marie Ministry of Fisheries and
9. Mr. Seychelles antmoust@seychelles.net
Moustache Agriculture
Maxmilian Ng'winula Vice President's Office, Division
10. Mr. Tanzania mahangila@yahoo.com
Mahangila of Environment
Ministry of Environment and
11. Mr. Bouzghaya Fethi Tunisia bf_fathy@yahoo.fr
Sustainable Development
National Climate Change Office,
12. Mr. Colin Mattis Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries Belize cco.cc@ffsd.gov.bz
and Sustainable Devt.
Mara Renee Pinto Ministry of Environment and
13. Ms. Bolivia marepinto@gmail.com
Romero Water
Ministry of Agriculture, Lands,
14. Mr. Benedict Peter Forestry, Fisheries and Grenada bouncing98@hotmail.com
Environment
Ministry of Energy, Natural
15. Ms. Irene Ortega Flores Resources, Environment and Honduras iortega@miambiente.gob.hn
Mining
Unidad de Cambio Climtico,
16. Mr. Rene Lopez Autoridad Nacional del Panama rlopez@miambiente.gob.pa
Ambiente (ANAM)
Division of Climate Change,
17. Mr. Jorge Castro Uruguay jorgecastrosomoza@gmail.com
DINAMA/MVOTMA
The Centre for
18. Ms. Lyudmila Shardakova Uzbekistan lsh_wm@rambler.ru
Hydrometeorological Services
No. Title Name of Participants Organization Country Email Address
(Uzhydromet)
United Nations Development
19. Mr. Vardan Melikyan Armenia vardan.melikyan@gmail.com
Program
20. Mr. Arnold Belver Climate Change Commission Philippines arnoldgrant@gmail.com
Resource persons
Casper Meeuwis Van Asian Development Bank
21. Mr. Philippines cvandertak.consultant@adb.org
Der Tak
22. Dr. Xuedu Lu Asian Development Bank Philippines xlu@adb.org
National Center for Climate
23. Ms. Yin Hongshu Change Strategy and China yinhs@ncsc.org.cn
International Cooperation
Edward Clarence- UNIDO
24. Mr. Thailand E.CLARENCE-SMITH@unido.org
Smith
Clifford Polycarp Green Climate Fund
25. Mr. Korea cpolycarp@gcfund.org
(virtual)
26. Mr. Antony Watanabe Clean Innovations Asia Thailand aw@asiacleaninnovations.com
27. Mr. Carlos Ludena IADB USA carlos@iadb.org
Full Advantage Co., Ltd./CTI-
28. Mr. Alan Dale Gonzalez Thailand alandale.g@full-advantage.com
PFAN
Observers
29. Ms. Sooskiri Chamsuk UNIDO Thailand S.CHAMSUK@unido.org
30. Mr. Brad Denig Clean Innovations Asia Thailand Denig.brad@gmail.com
31. M Kulvarong Kijtanasopa Clean Innovations Asia Thailand kk@asiacleaninnovations.com
32. Ms. Alexandra Clean Innovations Asia Thailand avp@asiacleaninnovations.com
33. Ms. Julia Stanfield UNEP Thailand stanfield@un.org
34. Mr. Rajiv Garg UNEP-ROAP Thailand rajiv.Garg@unep.org
35. Ms. Puja Sawhney IGES Thailand sawhney@iges.or.jp
36. Mr. Michael Shinkman IRRI/CCAFS Denmark m.sheinkman@irri.org
Regional Centers
ENDA Energy, Environment and
37. Mr. Libasse Ba Senegal libasseba@yahoo.fr
Development
38. Prof. Sivanappan Kumar Asian Institute of Technology Thailand kumar@ait.asia
Climate Change Office, Ministry
39. Dr. Ala Druta Moldova drutaala@yahoo.com
of Environment
Leonidas Osvaldo Fundacion Bariloche
40. Mr. Argentina logirardin@fundacionbariloche.org.ar
Girardin
41. Mr. Bothwell Batidzirai University of Cape Town South Africa bothwell.batidzirai@uct.ac.za
ORGANIZERS
42. Mr. Vladimir Hecl UNFCCC Secretariat Germany VHecl@unfccc.int
43. Mr. Asher Lessels UNFCCC Secretariat Germany Lessels@unfccc.int
44. Dr. Jorge Rogat UNEP-DTU Partnership Denmark jorr@dtu.dk
45. Dr. Subash Dhar UNEP-DTU Partnership Denmark sudh@dtu.dk
46. Dr. Sara Trrup UNEP-DTU Partnership Denmark slmt@dtu.dk
Regional Office for Asia-Pacific,
47. Mr. Kaveh Zahedi Thailand Kaveh.zahedi@unep.org
UNEP
Division of Technology, Industry
48. Mr. Jonathan Duwyn France Jonathan.Duwyn@unep.org
and Economics, UNEP/CTCN
AIT
Natural Resources and
49. Dr. Rajendra Shrestha Thailand rajendra@ait.asia
Management, AIT
50. Dr. P. Abdul Salam Energy FoS, AIT Thailand salam@ait.asia
Mokbul Moshed Regional and Rural Development
51. Dr. Thailand morshed@ait.asia
Ahmad Planning , AIT
Secretariat
52. Ms. Aileen Guirnela AIT Staff Thailand
No. Title Name of Participants Organization Country Email Address
53. Ms. Pragya Niraula AIT Staff Thailand
54. Ms. Anita Gautam AIT Staff Thailand
55. Mr. Arnab Chaudhuri AIT Staff Thailand arnabc@ait.asia
56. Ms. Neriza Cabahug AIT Staff Thailand neriza@ait.ac.th
A.5: Appendix 5- Workshop Photos

Kavez Zahedi welcoming the participants to the workshop on the first day

Ms.Hongshu presenting Chinas experience in Institutionalizing the TNA process during the first day.
Dr.Dhar facilitating the discussions for the Anglophone group during the Country Experience Breakout Session.

Mr.Melikyan presenting the results of the group discussions during the first day.
 Ms.Van Anh giving her presentation during the second day.

Mr.Polycarp joined the workshop through teleconference during the second day.
Mr. Clarence-Smith moderated the panel discussion on the second day of the workshop.

Mr.Lessels led the discussion regarding lessons learned from the workshop