Overview of Technical issues by UNEP Risoe

SBI workshop on facilitating the preparation
and implementation of NAMAs
John Christensen
Scoping and
selection of
Prioritisation of
Identification &
selection of
Preparing a
NAMA Concept
Upload of NAMA concept to registry
Development phase
ion phase
Defining BAU
identification of
emission reduction
potential &
estimation of costs
NAMA operation–
Defining the
evaluation and
MRV process
Identification of
options and
preparation of
of measures –
Reporting and
Verification of
framework, if
Reactions and
according to
and verification
NAMA reporting and upload of NAMA progress reports to registry
Institutional development & stakeholder consultations
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
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: )
Economywide Goals
Example to illustrate the scope
reduction target
BAU Deviation Target
Intensity target
Sectoral Goal
Focus areas
Antigua and Barbuda: reducing
GHG emissions by 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.
South Korea: reduce national GHG
emissions by 30 per cent from the ‘business as usual’ emissions in 2020.
India: reduce the emissions intensity of GDP by 20–25 per cent by 2020 compared with the
2005 level.
Togo: increase forest cover from 7 per cent in 2005 to 30 per cent in 2050.
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.
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
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
 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
 Strategic context and SD contributions covered better than for many
CDM projects
Information generally included:
 Goals for reduction or measures
 Estimates of CO2 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
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
 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
 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
 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
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

similar documents