Technical Overview of NAMAsUnderlying assumptions and methodologies,

greenhouse gases, sectors and GWPs

SBI workshop on facilitating the preparation and implementation of NAMAs

John Christensen UNEP Risø

Processes and activities in three phases of NAMA development (UNFCCC, 2013)

Concept

phase

Develop-

ment phase

Implementat

ion phase

On - going Measurement , Reporting and Verification of

NAMAs

Scoping and selection of

NAMAs

Preparing a NAMA Concept

Note

Detailed description

of NAMA

Defining BAU scenario,

identification of emission reduction

potential & estimation of costs

Defining the NAMA

evaluation and MRV process

NAMA governance

Identification of financing

options and preparation of

financing proposal

Enabling implementation of measures –

define responsibilities

NAMA operation – implementing

institutions

MRV of NAMA support

framework, if applicable

Reactions and adjustments according to

NAMA progress and verification

outcomes

Prioritisation of measures

Identification & selection of

NAMAs Stakeholder engagement

NAMA reporting and upload of NAMA progress reports to registry

Upload of NAMA concept to registry

Insti

tutio

nal d

evel

opm

ent &

stak

ehol

der c

onsu

ltatio

ns

NAMAs submitted to UNFCCC 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 (Maldives) 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: )

V. Analysis of NAMAs submitted to UNFCCC

Scope Example to illustrate the scopeEconomy-wide Goal

s

Absolute reduction target

Antigua and Barbuda: reducing GHG emissions by 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

BAU Deviation Target South Korea: reduce national GHG emissions by 30 per cent from the ‘business as usual’ emissions in 2020.

Intensity target India: reduce the emissions intensity of GDP by 20–25 per cent by 2020 compared with the 2005 level.

Sectoral Goal Togo: increase forest cover from 7 per cent in 2005 to 30 per cent in 2050.

Focus areas 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.

Measures 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 Network.

Others 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

Analysis of submissions and workshop outcomes

Information included on political and financial assumptions underlying NAMAs: 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

assumptions Strategic context and SD contributions covered better than for many

CDM projects

Results of analysis – good news

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:

Results of analysis II - weaknesses

Information on baseline assessment is very sketchy, if provided.

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.

What is the situation for NAMAs in the registry

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

NAMAs uploaded in Registry – level of information 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 reduction

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.

Analytical and methodological issuesfor NAMAs in registry

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

sectors Some have provided information on assumptions for

BAU – economic, demographic, technology Some have provided information on the models used in

establishing the BAU

Quantification Challenges I

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

Quantification Challenges II

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.

Quantification Challenges III

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.

Broader analytical challenges

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 changes

Key Issues for Baseline Development I

Transparency 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 guidance

Key Issues for Baseline Development II

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

Elements of good practice INational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline Scenarios

Learning from Experiences in Developing CountriesReport by Danish Energy Agency, OECD and UNEP Risø

Elements of good practice II

Elements of good practice III

Example of pilot standardized formatfor NAMA presentation (URC NINO)

Issues for discussion

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