NAME OF THE COUNTRY- EXPERIENCE FROM YEAR 1 From Mitigation to NAMAs: An Introduction to the Evolution of NAMAs benoit.lebot@undp.org UNDP NAMA Webinar Boots on the Ground & Low-Emission Capacity Building Programme 28 August 2012

NAME OF THE COUNTRY- EXPERIENCE FROM YEAR 1 GHG Emissions 450 ppm ~+2°C 2012 394 ppm http://co2now.org/ GHG Concentration GHG Sinks (Sequestration)

Pathway towards a 2°C Global Warming UNDP HDR Objective for 2050: In the north, - 80% in emissions CO2/Cap/year North 16.1 tCO2eq/Cap In the south, - 20% in emissions 2020 2050 Target 50% Global Emissions Today World Average South 4.2 tCO2eq/Cap 2007 2050

All sectors & regions have the potential to contribute Note: estimates don’t include non-technical options such as lifestyle changes

IEA 2050 Energy GHG Global Forecast

NAME OF THE COUNTRY- EXPERIENCE FROM YEAR 1 Some Mitigation Options Come at Negative Cost to Society Cost of Abatement $ / tCO2e/yr 6O 4O 2O O Reduction in GHG GtCO2e per year -2O -4O -6O

More innovative (Carbon?) finance Policies & barriers removal GEF, ODA Standard Incentives FiTs, taxes, loans, CDM More innovative (Carbon?) finance PoAs, sectoral crediting Research, development , demonstration Technology transfer

NAMA: emerged in UNFCCC negotiations NAME OF THE COUNTRY- EXPERIENCE FROM YEAR 1 Bali Action Plan, 2007 “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions by developing country Parties in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner”. Cancun Agreements, 2010 Agrees that developing country Parties will take nationally appropriate mitigation actions in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, aimed at achieving a deviation in emissions relative to ‘business as usual’ emissions in 2020; Will probably not be further defined internationally An “action” may be anything - projects, programmes and policies at national, regional or local levels Any action perceived as appropriate by developing country government that reduces emissions and contributes to sustainable development

LEDS Ingredients of a low carbon pathway Framework Incentives Governance LEDS Financing Public or private funds in the form of bonds, capital, tax credit… Centralized International or multilateral Monitoring committe Transverse Policies Trading System Distribution of exchangeable allowances Sectoral Policies Decentralized Bilateral National Programme All post-Kyoto mechanisms will have to respect a regulatory framework (options in the first column), plus incentive mechanisms (2nd column) and be integrated into a centralised or decentralised governance framework (3rd column). It should be noted that emissions reduction systems are not required to take the form of a NAMA if this formalization brings more constraints than benefits for a country. For example, an international sectoral agreement like REDD+ (relating to avoided deforestation) could be put in place independently of the NAMA of developing countries. Most combinations are possible, but certain seem less probable than others. Credit Credit issuance after emissions reductions Project

NAMAs: a new concept that continues to evolve NAMAs are actions that reduce GHGs or enhance sink. NAMAs are presumed to be: voluntary country driven compatible with sustainable development Conceptually, NAMAs are no different to existing mitigation efforts What is new about NAMAs is the UNFCCC context & the need to Monitor, Report & Verify the identified NAMAs

The multiple faces of NAMAs Unilateral or Autonomous NAMAs: Actions taken voluntarily & unilaterally without external support Supported NAMAs: Actions Conditioned on financial & technology support from developed countries There are three types of NAMAs Autonomous (Unilateral) NAMAs: Actions taken voluntarily and unilaterally without external support Developing Countries intend to reap co-benefits GHGs mitigation Health benefits Sustainable development Energy security Energy efficiency Supported NAMAs Conditioned on financial and technology support from developed countries Credited NAMAs Generate credits to be sold on the global carbon market Need to meet the crediting baseline for the actions Sectoral crediting, cap & trade schemes are well-suited to credited NAMAs.

Monitoring Reporting & Verification Why MRV? ensure transparency & accountability of impact of support received track & report impact of NAMA on GHG emissions, sustainable development, poverty reduction, co-benefits, etc help monitor global effort to combat future climate change How? NAMAs will be recorded in both national & international registry systems (UNFCCC just launched prototype registry) For supported NAMAs, countries to report progress through National Communications every four years and/or Biennial Update Reports (BURs) every two years BURs will be subject to International Consultation and Analysis. Outcome will not be punitive. At COP17 in Durban in 2011, the guidelines for preparation of biennial update reports (BURs) from non-Annex I Parties were adopted. It was further clarified that these guidelines, coupled with the text on International Consultation and Analysis (ICA), were recognised as fulfilling the COP16 call for guidelines on international MRV (Decision 2/CP.17) The BUR is meant to serve as a summary of parts of the National Communication if the year is one when the National Communication is being submitted. Otherwise, it would be a standalone report submitted between National Communication submissions.   The scope of information to be provided in developing country BURs includes: a national inventory of anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks; information on “mitigation actions” and their effects, including associated methodologies and assumptions; information on domestic MRV arrangements. The first BURs are due by December 2014, although this is flexible and based on country capabilities and level of support received. Moreover, this timing does not apply to Least Developed Countries or Small Island Developing States who may submit BURs at their discretion. After the first report, BURs should be submitted every two years, with the flexibility mentioned above. The first report is to cover, at a minimum, the GHG inventory for the calendar year no more than four years prior to the date of submission (i.e., for a 2014 report, this would imply 2010) or more recent years if information is available. Subsequent reports shall cover a calendar year that does not precede the submission date by more than four years. Therefore, moving forward, it is clear that countries will benefit from creating or strengthening national inventory systems in order to streamline the updating of GHG inventories The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has been requested to make available support to non-Annex I Parties preparing their first BURs as early as possible in 2012 and on the basis of agreed full cost funding. In response to the COP decisions, the GEF has developed policy guidelines that lay out the eligibility for GEF support. Countries can access up to US$352,000 through a GEF agency or via direct access to prepare the BUR. It will be financed as part of the national communications process, either as a standalone project or as a component of a national communications project. Go to: Policy Guidelines for the financing of biennial update reports for Parties not included in Annex I to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Key differences between NAMAs & CDM   The concept of a NAMA is different to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in a number of important ways: NAMAs more suited to implementation of policies, strategies, and programmes, whereas the CDM is implemented at the project level  NAMAs are most likely to be driven by national governments, and may be undertaken in partnership with the private sector, whereas CDM projects are typically driven by firms involved directly in the carbon markets Supported NAMAs do not (at present) have any specific additionality rules, whereas the CDM has strict rules for testing each project for additionality

NAME OF THE COUNTRY- EXPERIENCE FROM YEAR 1 Key differences between NAMAs & CDM (cont.)    CDM projects generally have quite stringent MRV requirements that require demonstration of emissions reductions, whereas NAMA MRV requirements could vary significantly depending on the nature of the activity and the financing approach Programmatic CDM (PoAs) is closer to the NAMAin concept, and indeed could provide a starting point for conceptualizing a NAMA

Why undertake NAMAs? NAMAs: contribute to national sustainable economic & human development goals & poverty reduction efforts can be used to access the Green Climate Fund and other financial sources (domestic, bilateral, private) attract foreign direct investment into key sectors provide incentives for home-grown technology innovation, deployment & transfer promote local economic development, contribute to energy security, & enhance industrial efficiency

A