The contemporary climate crisis has placed technological innovation in the centre of global strategies for mitigation and adaptation. The challenge concerns not only reducing emissions, but also transforming production, energetic, and agricultural systems, while still ensuring resilience, social justice, and economic sustenability. In this context, technology transferring surfaces as an essential element for international cooperation, as provided for since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992) and reinforced in the Paris Agreement (2015).
Article 10 of the Paris Agreement has consolidated technology transferring as a pillar for climate action, alongside mitigation, adaptation, transparency, and financing. It establishes that countries should share a long-term view on the importance of technology and reinforce the cooperation for its diffusion and development, through the Technology Mechanism (TEC and CTCN) and the Financial Mechanism of the Convention (GEF and GCF).
In Brazil, this effort was materialized by the Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs) and the Technology Action Plans (TAPs). These instruments form a bridge between climate international law and the domestic reality, working as engines that articulate technical dialogue, policies design, financial mobilization, and institutional capacitation.
The role played by the Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs)
The Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs) were designed under the UNFCCC as tools to identify national priorities for mitigation and adaptation, providing a structured basis for guiding policies and attracting international financing. In Brazil, the first round of TNA took place between 2010 and 2013, with support from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The process involved participatory assessments, regional workshops, public consultations, and technical sectoral analyses in the fields of energy, agriculture, forests, and land use (MMA, 2013).
The main goal was to map technologies with bigger impact potential, considering criteria such as technical viability , cost-effectiveness, environmental and social co-benefits, and alignment with sustainable development policies. The energy sector prioritized solar photovoltaic microgeneration, cogeneration from municipal solid waste, and small hydraulic turbines, marked by their potential for replication and contribution to the decentralization of the electricity matrix. In the agriculture and forestry sector, for their part, the focus was on practices such as agroforestry systems, no-till farming, the use of biofertilizers, and integrated soil management.
The methodological process intended to encompass not only the technological hardware (machines, equipment and infrastructure), but also the “software” (knowledge, technical capacitation), and the orgware (institutional and normative structures). This tripartite approach reinforced the idea that technology transferring is not restricted to the supply of goods, but requires the creation of an institutional ecosystem that ensures its adoption, diffusion, and sustainability.
The second TNA round, held between 2015 and 2020, expanded the scope of analysis, adding the diagnosis to the Brazilian Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. In this phase, the formulation of technological transition scenarios was in the spotlight, with short, medium and long-term goals, alongside recommendations for overcoming financial and regulatory barriers. Regional capacitation workshops were promoted in partnership with international cooperations, mainly with the German Agency of International Cooperation (GIZ), and succeeded in engaging universities, research centres, and local governments (MMA/GIZ, 2017).
This effort consolidated a robust information database on the structural barriers to the adoption of technology in Brazil, between which were the institutional fragmentation, the insufficient funding, the poor federal integration, and the lack of technical training in rural and peripheral areas. Thus, the TNAs served not only as technical diagnoses, but also as catalysts for legal and political debate on the role of sustainable innovation in meeting the country’s climate commitments.
Technology Action Plans (TAPs) and their connection to Article 10 of the Paris Agreement
Technology Action Plans (TAPs) are the main practical expression of TNAs. Based on prioritized technologies, the TAPs offer strategic roadmaps that detail concrete actions, identify responsible actors, estimate costs, and propose regulatory and financial arrangements. In the Brazilian context, TAPs were structured in line with the objectives of Article 10 of the Paris Agreement, allowing for a direct reading of their implementation.
Paragraph 2 of Article 10 emphasizes the need to strengthen cooperative action regarding technology transferring and development. In Brazil, this guideline was translated into the holding of participative process for the formulation of TAPs, in which ministries, state governments, the private sector, universities, and international organizations such as UNEP and the CTCN took part. This interaction ensured that the plans would be not only technical diagnosis, but multisector and multilevel instruments of cooperation.
Paragraph 3 establishes that the Convention’s Technology Mechanism shall serve the Paris Agreement. This mechanism, composed of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Center and Network (CTCN), played an important role in the Brazilian TAPs. The TEC provided methodological guidelines and strategic recommendations, while the CTCN facilitated international cooperation and the exchange of regional experiences, including South-South cooperation with other Latin American countries. Thus, the TAPs functioned as direct channels for the operationalization of the Technology Mechanism in Brazil.
Paragraph 5, which emphasizes the importance of accelerating and enabling innovation with the support of the Financial Mechanism, is also reflected in the TAPs. Each Brazilian sectoral plan included project proposals eligible for financing from the GEF and the Green Climate Fund (GCF), in addition to suggesting blended finance mechanisms and public-private partnerships. This coordination sought to transform technical diagnoses into bankable projects capable of mobilizing resources from multiple sources and of reducing the perception of risk for private investors.
Finally, paragraph 6, which provided for financial support to developing countries, was materialized in the TAPs through the definition of strategies to fundraising and the institutionalization of focal points for interaction with multilateral funds. The GEF funding for the first round of the TNA in Brazil, together with the search for alignment with programs such as EUROCLIMA+, exemplify the attempt to operationalize this provision. However, limited technical capacity to formulate projects and the absence of legal mechanisms for international accountability still restrict the predictability of this support.
Therefore, Brazilian TAPs constitute a concrete link between the international climate regime and national public policies by aligning the programmatic norms of Article 10 with planning and financing instruments adapted to the domestic context.
TAPs in Brazil: energy, agriculture and forests
In the energy sector, the TAPs emphasized the decentralization of generation through renewable sources. Specific credit lines for micro and small producers were proposed, as well as regulatory recommendations such as the simplification of environmental licensing and the introduction of feed-in tariffs for clean energy injected into the grid. The coordination of climate policy with rural electrification programs was also in the spotlight, with a view to expanding access to sustainable energy in remote areas.
In the agriculture and forestry sector, the TAPs prioritized integrated production practices, such as agroforestry systems, crop-livestock-forest integration (ILPF), and the use of biofertilizers. They recommended the incorporation of climate criteria into rural credit lines such as PRONAF and the ABC+ Program, in addition to the creation of sectoral funds for agro-environmental innovation. They also emphasized the need to strengthen technical assistance and rural extension as conditions for the adoption of technologies.
In spite of these advancements, the implementation of TAPs faces significant barriers. The financing is insufficient and fragmented, without a long-term national strategy for climate innovation (MMA/GIZ, 2017). The federative integration is fragile, marked by the rotativity of technical teams and by the lack of coordination between the Union, states and municipalities (Boletim Ciência & Clima, 2021). The private sector, although recognized as a main character, still participates timidly due to the high risk perception and to the absence of regulatory mechanisms that balance risk and revenue.
From a juridical standpoint, the main limitation refers to the absence of a normative framework that incorporates TAPs into the domestic system, providing them with binding force and mandatory orçamentary previsions. Until the present moment, TAPs have not been institutionalized as state politics, remaining dependent on conjunctural political will and on external sporadic resources.
Conclusion: Perspectives for Technological Transferring in Brazil
Brazil’s experience with TNAs and TAPs demonstrates significant institutional progress, particularly in the development of technical assessments and in the formulation of structured plans. The country has managed to align national priorities with the guidelines of Article 10 of the Paris Agreement, integrating aspects of cooperation, innovation, and financing. However, there remains a mismatch between planning and execution, exacerbated by financial, federal, regulatory, and legal obstacles.
To overcome these limitations, it is vital to advance on three main fronts. First, the creation of a specific regulatory framework for climate innovation, which incorporates TAPs as mandatory public policy guidelines and ensures stable sources of financing. Second, the strengthening of federal coordination and interinstitutional governance to ensure continuity and coordination in the execution of plans. Finally, the expansion of private sector participation through regulatory mechanisms that reduce risks and encourage investment in clean technologies.
In the international field, the creation of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) represents a crucial opportunity to correct imbalances on climate financing. If provided with clear goals and binding character, the NCQG might offer previsibilities to resource flows and expand Brazil’s capacity for transforming abstract commitments into concrete projects.
That said, the effectiveness of technology transferring in Brazil will depend not only on the technical quality of TNAs and TAPs already consolidated as good practices, but on the country’s capacity to legally institutionalize these instruments, strengthen their federal coordination, and ensure stable and predictable financing. Only then will it be possible to guarantee that technology transfer becomes a vector for sustainable development, climate justice, while also fostering Brazil’s international leadership in addressing the climate crisis. In short, TAPs embody Article 10 of the Paris Agreement in Brazil. They articulate diagnosis, cooperation, financing, and execution, transforming programmatic norms of international law into potential public policies. Their full implementation, however, depends on the country’s ability to convert technical plans into lasting legal and financial commitments.
