Technical Overview of NAMAs Underlying assumptions and methodologies, greenhouse gases, sectors and GWPs

1. SBI workshop on facilitating the preparation and implementation of NAMAs Technical Overview of NAMAsUnderlying assumptions and methodologies, greenhouse gases, sectors and GWPs John Christensen UNEP Risø

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

3. 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: )

4. V. Analysis of NAMAs submitted to UNFCCC Source: “Understanding the Concept of NAMAs”, Sharma, S and Desgain, D. URC, 2013

5. 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

6. 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:

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Elements of good practice INational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Baseline ScenariosLearning from Experiences in Developing CountriesReport by Danish Energy Agency, OECD and UNEP Risø

18. Elements of good practice II

19. Elements of good practice III

20. Example of pilot standardized format for NAMA presentation (URC NINO)

21. Issues for discussion • Whatare the mainmethodologicalchallenges for the preparation and implementation of NAMAs? • National baseline information (BaU) • Detailedassessment 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/templatesfacilitating a movetowardsbettercommonunderstanding and terminology