Developing countries are quickly progressing in the design and development of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), some of which are beginning to seek international financial support for implementation. As funding through the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is likely several years out, these countries are currently determining how to best structure their NAMAs in a way that makes them eligible and attractive for bilateral funding (potentially distributed either directly by individual contributing countries or through multilateral development banks). Similarly, contributing countries are determining how to prioritize limited funding and allocate funds to the most promising NAMAs seeking support. CCAP recently released a new discussion paper entitled Criteria for Evaluating Supported NAMAs: A straw proposal of conceptual criteria for selecting NAMAs to receive international support, which seeks to advance a shared vision between developed and developing countries.
This straw proposal of conceptual criteria will help shape early NAMAs, define and focus the NAMA concept (ensuring early precedents are ambitious and unassailable), encourage expanded funding, shape the design of the evolving GCF, and later help advance the UNFCCC negotiations. Contributing countries that disburse climate finance have traditionally been most interested in seeing significant and well-documented emissions reductions, maximization of investment impact, and accountability. Developing countries have long been interested in these funds supporting efforts that are consistent with national priorities and that advance social and economic development goals. During recent CCAP dialogues (specifically, a policy dialogue held on the sidelines of the May 2012 negotiations in Bonn, Germany), policymakers and negotiators made significant progress toward a more nuanced shared vision on what constitutes financeable NAMAs.
In general, financeable NAMAs will need to demonstrate ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, sustainable-development benefits (such as health and mobility, which also help increase domestic political support for actions), consistency with national development plans, effective use and leveraging of financing, overcoming of existing barriers, high-level political support, and visibility for funders.
CCAP’s criteria paper proposes three broad categories of NAMA selection criteria: 1) effectiveness criteria, 2) implementation plan, and 3) financing plan. Below is a summary of the proposed criteria.
|Straw Proposal of Criteria|
|1) Effectiveness Criteria||2) Implementation Plan||3) Financing Plan|
|Level of GHG reduction||NAMA description with clear boundaries, plan||Budget (with national contributions)|
|Ambition (transformational not incremental changes)||Consistency with national development plan||Maximized catalytic impact of international funding|
|Other benefits (health, sustainable development, etc.)||High-level political support, country ownership||Leveraging of private-sector investment|
|Overcomes barriers (technology, capacity, etc.)||Buy-in from stakeholders in sectors||Avoidance of duplication of efforts/funding (including no double counting with CDM)|
|Sustainability/replicability (builds support for further actions)||Capacity to implement||Clear exit strategy for funders|
|MRV plan for GHGs, other metrics (including performance milestones)||Risk mitigation|
In addition to the events during the UNFCCC negotiations, this paper is informed by CCAP dialogues with developed- and developing-country policymakers as part of CCAP’s Mitigation Action Implementation Network (MAIN), which is generously supported by Germany ICI, Environment Canada, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark and other funders. CCAP sees this paper as an evolving document and looks forward to feedback on the proposed criteria. This will allow us to better meet the needs of both developing and contributing countries and advance effective early NAMAs. Updates will be released as discussions progress and please direct your comments and suggestions to Michael Comstock (email@example.com) and Stacey Davis (firstname.lastname@example.org).