The climate finance and technology landscape has shifted towards implementation since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015. What began as a siloed discussion under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has now become a key question for implementation: how can we turn identified technology needs into projects implemented on the ground.
For many developing countries, accessing and deploying technological solutions to address climate change is not an easy task. It requires not only substantial financial resources but also the technical capacity, data, and institutional systems and capacities needed to design and implement such projects. This demonstrates the interlinkages between climate finance and technology, highlighting that implementation requires a holistic approach to address these challenges by both the providers and recipients of climate finance.
The recent SLYCAN Trust webinar on climate technology, finance, and the role of international financial institutions (IFIs), including multilateral banks (MDBs), examined these interlinkages in detail. The discussion brought together perspectives from key experts working on climate finance and technology to examine the persistent gap between needs and delivery, and explore potential pathways to bridge it.
To understand the challenges as well as possible solutions, it is essential to analyse and assess the current climate technology and finance landscape within the UNFCCC process.
The establishment of the Technology Mechanism at COP16 in Cancun, Mexico, in 2010 marked a formal recognition of technology development and transfer as a core pillar of climate action1. The Technology Mechanism comprises two constituted bodies: the Technology Executive Committee (TEC), with a mandate on policy guidance and direction, and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN), which works to provide technical support to developing countries on matters related to climate technology. On the national side, countries also began to articulate their technological needs more systematically through instruments such as Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs) and Technology Action Plans (TAPs).
The Paris Agreement in 2015 reinforced technology (Article 10) as a key means of its implementation alongside finance (Article 9) and capacity-building (Article 11)2. With the Paris Agreement under implementation, technology development and transfer are now being communicated through a range of instruments in addition to TNAs and TAPs, including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategies (LT-LEDS). However, the post-Paris period revealed a structural disconnect: while technology needs are increasingly well defined, the translation of these needs into projects implemented on the ground remains insufficient.
More recent developments indicate a shift in how this gap is being addressed. The first Global Stocktake in 2023 highlighted implementation gaps across both finance and technology.3 The New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance (NCQG) under the Paris Agreement set a target of mobilising USD 300 billion annually by 2035, within a broader ambition of scaling finance to USD 1.3 trillion.4 with a stronger focus on implementation and closer collaboration with international financial institutions and MDBs.5 The Belém Technology Implementation Programme (BTIP) adopted at COP30 is the first technology programme under the Paris Agreement, aiming to strengthen support for the implementation of climate technology priorities identified by developing countries.
These developments within the international climate change policy process reflect a transition from framework-building to implementation and delivery, where the role of technology and finance and its link becomes critical.
One key takeaway from the webinar is that technology implementation is no longer just an outcome of access to climate finance but increasingly also a requirement to access climate finance and collect data and evidence.
For example, in order to access finance for adaptation or loss and damage (L&D), the ability to demonstrate risk, impact, and feasibility is needed to justify the need for finance. This is when enabling climate technologies such as Earth observation, geospatial analysis, and remote sensing come in to collect the required data for the justification of projects and their implications for communities. These tools also help countries build evidence on climate risks, identify priority areas for intervention, design projects with clearer outcomes, and strengthen monitoring frameworks. In effect, they turn broad climate risks into structured investment opportunities. Without this, many projects struggle to move beyond the concept stage.
A similar dynamic can be observed in accessing climate finance for mitigation projects. Accessing finance for mitigation projects, such as renewable energy, electric mobility, energy-efficient buildings, and grid modernisation, often depends on the ability to demonstrate expected emissions reduction potential, financial viability, and long-term impact. Tools such as emissions monitoring systems, energy modeling, digital grid management systems and data platforms help generate the evidence needed to assess project performance and investment potential. This allows projects to be structured with clear baselines, measurable outcomes, and more predictable returns, making them easier for funders to evaluate and support.
Despite efforts to bridge the gap between technology needs and available finance, the gap remains significant. Developing countries have already identified hundreds of technology needs through their UNFCCC reporting vehicles such as TNAs, TAPs, NDCs, NAPs, and LT-LEDs. At least 485 technology needs have been identified so far, and some of these have already been costed at around USD 777 billion, while many others still remain unquantified.6
At the same time, the availability of climate finance is limited and constrained. Rising debt burdens, reduced fiscal space, and declining concessional financing are limiting the ability of many countries to invest in climate priorities. Total external debt across developing countries has reached USD 11.7 trillion, with debt servicing costs of approximately USD 1.6 trillion in 2024 alone.7
International financial institutions, including MDBs, are central to addressing this mismatch. These institutions have expanded and deepened their engagement on climate finance, through integrating climate objectives into their portfolios and aligning with the Paris Agreement and other subsequent decisions.
According to the Joint Summary Report on Multilateral Development Banks Climate Finance (2024), global climate finance by MDBs reached a record USD 137 billion in 2024, a 10% increase from 2023. They are also mobilizing in more private finance, which reached around USD 134 billion for mitigation and adaptation in 2024, up 33% from the previous year.8
Importantly, the role of IFI and MDBs is not limited to providing capital but how countries access finance. This includes supporting project preparation, developing project pipelines, deploying de-risking instruments, providing concessional and long-term finance, and mobilising private capital. This is particularly relevant as climate technology investments are often harder and riskier to finance, especially in early stages or in new markets.
Another key takeaway from the webinar is that delays in deploying climate technologies are often not about the technology itself or even the availability of finance but due to gaps within the enabling environment. Fragmented institutions, weak coordination across agencies, limited policy frameworks, and capacity constraints impact the implementation of climate actions and pace of how project implementations move forward.
In many cases, countries have already developed their respective priorities for climate technology. The challenge is implementation of these climate technology project ideas through mobilisation of climate finance. Transforming from plans to bankable proposals is often slow due to the limited enabling environment including lack of coordination. Multiple actors and agencies, including technology focal points, finance ministries, and funding institutions, cooperation, collaboration, and coordination impedes the pace and success of project development.
Even where the groundwork exists, limited technical and institutional capacity can slow progress. Countries often struggle to develop fundable project pipelines, prepare concept notes, conduct risk assessments and meet the fiduciary and technical requirements expected by financiers. In areas such as adaptation and loss and damage, where the evidence base and investment pipelines remain weaker, access to data, analytical tools, and project preparation support become particularly important. Without these enabling conditions, many climate technology priorities remain difficult to move from planning to implementation.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that climate technology and climate finance cannot be discussed in a silos, as both are interconnected when it comes to implementation. They are part of the same system that determines whether climate action can actually be delivered at scale. The discussion now has also shifted from frameworks to implementation. Recent developments under the UNFCCC reflect this shift. There is now greater emphasis on implementation, enhancing enabling environments, development of project pipelines, and coordination. At the same time, finance processes are starting to recognise the role technology plays in shaping investment decisions.
However, this transition brings both clarity and new challenges. For developing countries, this means strengthening the systems that link technology planning, project preparation, and access to finance. For financial institutions, it means adapting instruments and processes to better support technology access and deployment. For the broader international community, it means ensuring that access to finance, technology, and the relevant policy frameworks evolve together to enable and mutually reinforce each other.
Indika is an experienced journalist turned communications professional with a strong background in business and financial reporting. He brings expertise in multi-platform storytelling, digital media, and podcasting, with a proven ability to design impactful content strategies and engage diverse audiences across channels. Indika serves as Communications Manager at SLYCAN Trust and continues to host a widely followed political economy podcast in Sri Lanka.
The climate finance and technology landscape has shifted towards implementation since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015. What began as a siloed discussion under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has now become a key question for implementation: how can we turn identified technology needs into projects implemented on the ground.
For many developing countries, accessing and deploying technological solutions to address climate change is not an easy task. It requires not only substantial financial resources but also the technical capacity, data, and institutional systems and capacities needed to design and implement such projects. This demonstrates the interlinkages between climate finance and technology, highlighting that implementation requires a holistic approach to address these challenges by both the providers and recipients of climate finance.
The recent SLYCAN Trust webinar on climate technology, finance, and the role of international financial institutions (IFIs), including multilateral banks (MDBs), examined these interlinkages in detail. The discussion brought together perspectives from key experts working on climate finance and technology to examine the persistent gap between needs and delivery, and explore potential pathways to bridge it.
To understand the challenges as well as possible solutions, it is essential to analyse and assess the current climate technology and finance landscape within the UNFCCC process.
The establishment of the Technology Mechanism at COP16 in Cancun, Mexico, in 2010 marked a formal recognition of technology development and transfer as a core pillar of climate action1. The Technology Mechanism comprises two constituted bodies: the Technology Executive Committee (TEC), with a mandate on policy guidance and direction, and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN), which works to provide technical support to developing countries on matters related to climate technology. On the national side, countries also began to articulate their technological needs more systematically through instruments such as Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs) and Technology Action Plans (TAPs).
The Paris Agreement in 2015 reinforced technology (Article 10) as a key means of its implementation alongside finance (Article 9) and capacity-building (Article 11)2. With the Paris Agreement under implementation, technology development and transfer are now being communicated through a range of instruments in addition to TNAs and TAPs, including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategies (LT-LEDS). However, the post-Paris period revealed a structural disconnect: while technology needs are increasingly well defined, the translation of these needs into projects implemented on the ground remains insufficient.
More recent developments indicate a shift in how this gap is being addressed. The first Global Stocktake in 2023 highlighted implementation gaps across both finance and technology.3 The New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance (NCQG) under the Paris Agreement set a target of mobilising USD 300 billion annually by 2035, within a broader ambition of scaling finance to USD 1.3 trillion.4 with a stronger focus on implementation and closer collaboration with international financial institutions and MDBs.5 The Belém Technology Implementation Programme (BTIP) adopted at COP30 is the first technology programme under the Paris Agreement, aiming to strengthen support for the implementation of climate technology priorities identified by developing countries.
These developments within the international climate change policy process reflect a transition from framework-building to implementation and delivery, where the role of technology and finance and its link becomes critical.
One key takeaway from the webinar is that technology implementation is no longer just an outcome of access to climate finance but increasingly also a requirement to access climate finance and collect data and evidence.
For example, in order to access finance for adaptation or loss and damage (L&D), the ability to demonstrate risk, impact, and feasibility is needed to justify the need for finance. This is when enabling climate technologies such as Earth observation, geospatial analysis, and remote sensing come in to collect the required data for the justification of projects and their implications for communities. These tools also help countries build evidence on climate risks, identify priority areas for intervention, design projects with clearer outcomes, and strengthen monitoring frameworks. In effect, they turn broad climate risks into structured investment opportunities. Without this, many projects struggle to move beyond the concept stage.
A similar dynamic can be observed in accessing climate finance for mitigation projects. Accessing finance for mitigation projects, such as renewable energy, electric mobility, energy-efficient buildings, and grid modernisation, often depends on the ability to demonstrate expected emissions reduction potential, financial viability, and long-term impact. Tools such as emissions monitoring systems, energy modeling, digital grid management systems and data platforms help generate the evidence needed to assess project performance and investment potential. This allows projects to be structured with clear baselines, measurable outcomes, and more predictable returns, making them easier for funders to evaluate and support.
Despite efforts to bridge the gap between technology needs and available finance, the gap remains significant. Developing countries have already identified hundreds of technology needs through their UNFCCC reporting vehicles such as TNAs, TAPs, NDCs, NAPs, and LT-LEDs. At least 485 technology needs have been identified so far, and some of these have already been costed at around USD 777 billion, while many others still remain unquantified.6
At the same time, the availability of climate finance is limited and constrained. Rising debt burdens, reduced fiscal space, and declining concessional financing are limiting the ability of many countries to invest in climate priorities. Total external debt across developing countries has reached USD 11.7 trillion, with debt servicing costs of approximately USD 1.6 trillion in 2024 alone.7
International financial institutions, including MDBs, are central to addressing this mismatch. These institutions have expanded and deepened their engagement on climate finance, through integrating climate objectives into their portfolios and aligning with the Paris Agreement and other subsequent decisions.
According to the Joint Summary Report on Multilateral Development Banks Climate Finance (2024), global climate finance by MDBs reached a record USD 137 billion in 2024, a 10% increase from 2023. They are also mobilizing in more private finance, which reached around USD 134 billion for mitigation and adaptation in 2024, up 33% from the previous year.8
Importantly, the role of IFI and MDBs is not limited to providing capital but how countries access finance. This includes supporting project preparation, developing project pipelines, deploying de-risking instruments, providing concessional and long-term finance, and mobilising private capital. This is particularly relevant as climate technology investments are often harder and riskier to finance, especially in early stages or in new markets.
Another key takeaway from the webinar is that delays in deploying climate technologies are often not about the technology itself or even the availability of finance but due to gaps within the enabling environment. Fragmented institutions, weak coordination across agencies, limited policy frameworks, and capacity constraints impact the implementation of climate actions and pace of how project implementations move forward.
In many cases, countries have already developed their respective priorities for climate technology. The challenge is implementation of these climate technology project ideas through mobilisation of climate finance. Transforming from plans to bankable proposals is often slow due to the limited enabling environment including lack of coordination. Multiple actors and agencies, including technology focal points, finance ministries, and funding institutions, cooperation, collaboration, and coordination impedes the pace and success of project development.
Even where the groundwork exists, limited technical and institutional capacity can slow progress. Countries often struggle to develop fundable project pipelines, prepare concept notes, conduct risk assessments and meet the fiduciary and technical requirements expected by financiers. In areas such as adaptation and loss and damage, where the evidence base and investment pipelines remain weaker, access to data, analytical tools, and project preparation support become particularly important. Without these enabling conditions, many climate technology priorities remain difficult to move from planning to implementation.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that climate technology and climate finance cannot be discussed in a silos, as both are interconnected when it comes to implementation. They are part of the same system that determines whether climate action can actually be delivered at scale. The discussion now has also shifted from frameworks to implementation. Recent developments under the UNFCCC reflect this shift. There is now greater emphasis on implementation, enhancing enabling environments, development of project pipelines, and coordination. At the same time, finance processes are starting to recognise the role technology plays in shaping investment decisions.
However, this transition brings both clarity and new challenges. For developing countries, this means strengthening the systems that link technology planning, project preparation, and access to finance. For financial institutions, it means adapting instruments and processes to better support technology access and deployment. For the broader international community, it means ensuring that access to finance, technology, and the relevant policy frameworks evolve together to enable and mutually reinforce each other.
