Thank you! Mapping objectives with NAMAs [modified for online publication] Mathias Friman and Björn-Ola Linnér Linköping University

Support providers head offices (dark grey) A2 countries (light grey)

Implications for 2015 consensus identify convergence and divergence between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 Broad convergence on the importance of developing country mitigation Greater divergence on other objectives for NAMAs In general large expressed support for all non-mitigation goals. In particular transfer of finance, but also the other goals, display a clear divergence in level of priority.

Implications for implementation Greatest difference between non-Annex 1 and support providers in: –Developing country mitigation –Transfer of technology –R&D Convergence between non-Annex 1 and support providers on nationally defined sustainable development goals. Implications for bi-lateral support. The wide divergence on prioritized objectives is a challenge for multilateral support institutions, e.g. Green Climate Fund.

Thank you!