Pursuant to Cancun Agreement, 57 countries plus one group of countries submitted there country NAMAs. Fccc/sbi/2013/INF.12/rev.2 Submissions in diverse ways present GHG limitations actions: Efforts to remain GHG neutral (Bhutan) GHG emission reduction of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 (Antigua and Barbuda) GHG emission reduction of 28% below 1990 levels by 2020 (Serbia) GHG emissions reduction by 35 % compared with the base year 1990, by 2020 (Moldova) GHG reduction of 40% below 2009 level (Marshall Islands) Reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 40–45% by 2020 compared to 2005 (China) 77% of total electric capacity installed will be from renewable sources and 20 % of fuel consumption from biofuels by 2020 (Colombia) Reduce CO2 emissions (except agriculture) per unit of GDP by 20–25% by 2020 compared to 2005 (India) Renewable energy represents at least 33% of total energy used and zero net deforestation by 2020 (Peru) Long-term transformational effort to achieve carbon neutrality as a country by 2020 (Maldives) Develop a low-emission development strategy. Reduce transmission & distribution losses by 15% in 2030. (Gambia) GHG emission reduction ranging between 16% - 38.9 % below its BAU emissions in/by 2020 (majority of countries: )
ScopeExample to illustrate the scope Economy- wide Goals Absolute reduction target Antigua and Barbuda: reducing GHG emissions by 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. BAU Deviation Target South Korea: reduce national GHG emissions by 30 per cent from the ‘business as usual’ emissions in 2020. Intensity target India: reduce the emissions intensity of GDP by 20–25 per cent by 2020 compared with the 2005 level. Sectoral Goal Togo: increase forest cover from 7 per cent in 2005 to 30 per cent in 2050. Focus areas energy efficiency, sustainable management of natural resources, promotion of renewable energy…for example: Madagascar - draw up and implement an action plan to develop renewable energies. Measures standards in the building sector, promotion of low energy light bulbs, development of an institutional and legal framework for REDD+)…for example: Tunisia - diffusion and development of the use of energy-saving light bulbs. Specific actions Ethiopia: 450 MW Tekeze Hydro power project. Morocco: Urban transportation development projects - the Casablanca Regional Express Network. Others Afghanistan: NAMAs would include the preparation of initial national communication, including national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory. Mauritius: comprehensive Sustainable Development Programme, which prioritizes renewable energy and energy efficiency. Source: “Understanding the Concept of NAMAs”, Sharma, S and Desgain, D. URC, 2013
Information included on political and financial assumptions underlying NAMAs: Conditions for NAMAs ▪ Most have stated it is voluntary, in context of Article 4.7 ▪ Most have stated implementation dependent on availability of support – financial, technological and capacity building ▪ Some have mentioned actions submitted for international support in accordance with Art 10 paragraph 4. Some submissions have clearly identified what will be funded by domestic resources and where international resources will be needed Many have mentioned use of carbon markets, including CDM, to implement actions. Many have not provided detailed information on underlying assumptions Strategic context and SD contributions covered better than for many CDM projects
Information generally included: Goals for reduction or measures Estimates of CO 2 reduction (some include a wider set of impacts indicators) Linkages to national/sectoral plans Information on national MRV systems and what MRV of NAMAs may include Institutional arrangements for implementation of identified NAMAs though not all the information is included in all the submissions:
Information on baseline assessment is very sketchy, if provided. Assumptions are not often not clearly stated and mostly on a very broad level. It is difficult to assess the reliability of the estimates presented. The information presented may be primarily for initiating discussions and further analysis, rather than presenting a more complete analysis. Information in NAMA submissions which are either very project specific or has had real funding for preparing the NAMAs, is generally better presented. In addition there seems to be an obvious lack of clarity on approaches and methods to be used for estimations of NAMAs that are broader than just project activities.
The information requested in forms for uploading NAMAs on the Registry Type of actions (National/Sectoral goal, Strategy, National/Sectoral policy or program, Project: Investment in machinery, Project: Investment in infrastructure, Project: Other) Sectors covered GHGs covered Estimated GHG reduction compared to BAU, and estimation methodology
Based on the submitted NAMAs 10 NAMAs report the estimated emissions reductions with explanation of estimates. 5 NAMAs have information that could be used to guestimate the BAU emissions and NAMA emissions NAMAs report the approach (e.g., CDM methodology (1), IPCC methodology (4)) used for Estimation of GHG emissions reduction 1 document provide details in Attachments In general the content of information is limited In some cases, it appears that information is based on background documents with greater details of estimates.
Sectors and greenhouse gases covered, and methodological aspects, including possibly revisiting emissions factors and GWPs; Some state that baselines will be developed to assess the impacts of NAMAs ▪ Some look narrowly at GHG reductions, others include a wide set of impacts indicators Some give information on gases covered and priority sectors Some have provided information on assumptions for BAU – economic, demographic, technology Some have provided information on the models used in establishing the BAU
Determining which GHG quantification method is most suitable for a particular NAMA will depend on: Type of NAMA (goal, strategy, policy, or project) Source of funding for the NAMA (unilateral, supported, or market-based/credited) National level goal or strategy
National or sector level issues: Nat.coms. provide inventory data mostly using IPCC guidance Existing national and sectoral analysis and modelling tools and approaches have not been designed for mitigation analysis, and may require significant redesign, same for data collection No agreed definition of baseline exists and the way to include current policies will have significant impact on scenarios Establishment of universally-applicable guidelines for developing baseline scenarios is likely to be technically impossible and politically very challenging.
Project level issues - learning from CDM? Each type of NAMA presents unique quantification challenges. For NAMAs framed as individual GHG mitigation projects or groups of similar projects (like Programmes of Activities under the CDM), existing project-based methodologies can be adapted to the NAMA context, such as those provided by the CDM. However, no agreed upon guidelines exist that prescribe how project-based methods should be adapted for NAMAs, including the appropriate types of monitoring, reporting, and verification or level of accuracy required.
Scale of indirect or unintended effects (e.g., leakage, rebound, spillover effects) Potential for double counting of GHG reductions between NAMAs, policies, and CDM projects in a sector How to address issue of transformational change in MRV Challenge in attributing GHG reductions to a specific NAMA rather than other policies or various external trends and developments such as changes in energy prices, economic activity, population, weather, or structural changes
Transparency In the absence of formal international guidance, governments may wish to demonstrate the credibility of their baseline scenarios to domestic stakeholders and to the international community Sharing experiences in developing baselines can be beneficial to all parties, as many countries face similar challenges when putting together baseline scenarios. Challenge may be that national data collection and model experiences do not match e.g. IPCC inventory guidance
Key defining factors Limited number of key factors have a major impact on baseline scenarios, so requires attention and maybe common guidance. (GDP projections, fuel prices development, how to include existing policies, etc.) Uncertainties – sensitivity analysis National vs Sector baselines and links
Example of pilot standardized format for NAMA presentation (URC NINO)
What are the main methodological challenges for the preparation and implementation of NAMAs? National baseline information (BaU) Detailed assessment of NAMA impacts Need for international generic baseline data? Need for gradual standardization (learning from CDM) What are the main gaps of information on NAMAs communicated to the UNFCCC and what could the UNFCCC do to address them? Data collection systems Expert analysis/groups Guidance/handbook/templates facilitating a move towards better common understanding and terminology