Are you a NAMA?

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA’s) orginiated during the Bali Acion Plan 2007. As the name suggests, the aim is to identify mitigation actions in line with national priorities of developing countries with support from developed countries on finance, technology and capacity building.

However as an ECOFYS Policy Briefy (Issue 11, 2010) points out, after 3 years there is still no clear indication of the format of NAMA’s, what is eligible to be a NAMA and how  these NAMA’s could be measured, reported and verified.

Day 5 featured various side events on NAMA’s including the Government of Serbia reporting back on Japan’s (JICA) support for building Serbian capacity around NAMA’s.  TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute) of India and CCSPR of Sweden presented their thoughts on the potential for a global registry for NAMA’s. And later on ECOFYS hosted an event on country level examples of NAMA’s – inluding a shining presentation from our own Mr Winkler reporting back on our work in South Africa.

There are still a long list of  questions that are open:

For example how to decide which NAMA’s receive support? Should it be NAMA’s that introduce ‘first of a kind technology’ ? Or those projects with the highest GHG mitigation potential? or should those with the highest sustainable development co-benefits be prioritised?

Also should there be a template for preparing a NAMA? While it may be necessary to have essential pieces of information included in a NAMA proposal i.e: GHG emissions, $$ required etc.  a prescriptive template may prevent flexibility for creative nationally driven actions.

Then of course how should these NAMA’s be recorded at an international level – some have proposed a registry at an international level , but would this work as a matchmaking facility (matching NAMA’s with funding) and would domestic unilaterally funded NAMA’s also have to be included? Some prefer the idea of reporting on NAMA’s in the National Communications however these are static documents that are only prepared on a biannual basis.

This issue of recording the NAMA’s leads into the issue of MRV. What will the MRV guidelines around NAMA’s look like? There will be different MRV requrements for domestic unilateral NAMA’s and multi-laterally funded NAMA’s. Is the ‘action’ being recorded (i.e. number of wind turbines being installed) or the outcomes (i.e. GHG emission reduction)? And how is it possible to compare NAMA’s with co-benefit outcomes such as ‘improved local air pollution’ with those providing ‘increased job creation’?

There are many more discussions floating around: how to deal with credited NAMA’s? how will the NAMA framework interact with the Technology Mechanism and CDM? how will local commitment to implement the NAMA’s be encouraged? etc. etc.