Institutional arrangements for NAMAs Rebecca Carman, UNDP
UNFCCC Regional Workshop on NAMAs 16-19 April 2013, Maseru, Lesotho
Presentation overview 1. UNDP’s Low Emission Capacity Building Programme 2. Key considerations for institutional arrangements 3. African context
Low Emission Capacity Building Programme: overview • • •
•
Timeframe: 2011-16 Size: 25 countries; €32 M (EC, BMU, Australia) Objective: Build capacities to design and implement Low Emission Development Strategies and national mitigation actions in the public and/or industry sectors Five main work areas: National GHG inventory systems, NAMAs, LEDS, MRV, private sector /industry mitigation
Countries benefit from global exchange of experiences & lessons Phase Phase 1
Africa
Asia
LAC
Arab States Europe/CIS
DRC
Philippines
Argentina
Egypt
Kenya
China
Chile
Morocco
Uganda
Colombia
Zambia
Ecuador Mexico Peru
Phase 2
Ghana
Bhutan
Costa Rica
Tanzania
Indonesia
Trinidad & Tob.
Lebanon
Moldova
Malaysia Thailand Vietnam Total #
6
7
8
3
1
Presentation overview 1. UNDP’s Low Emission Capacity Building Programme 2. Key considerations for institutional arrangements 3. African context
NAMAs: Should emerge from/align with broader national development planning
Source: UNEP, 2011
Aligning NAMAs with domestic processes: LECB country perspectives •
Chile: To engage policy makers on NAMAs, focus must be economic & sustainable development and co-benefits, rather than the GHG emission reductions
•
Colombia: Important to secure participation of sectoral representatives at all levels from outset
•
Lebanon: National actors that will take lead on NAMAs must be trained; information must be publically available to ensure transparency for potential beneficiaries and investors
•
Peru: Need to maintain cadre of public officers so that institutional capacities are not lost
But there are many other pieces of the puzzle to consider when designing NAMAs
Policies Voluntary targets Institutional coordination
Investors PPPS
Stakeholder engagement
National registry DNA
MRV
NAMA governance can be centralised or sector-specific Central NAMA office External service provider / consultants Outsourcing of tasks
Verifier/auditor
Sector specific NAMA office
Donor, fanaciers / UNFCCC NAMA registry
MR / verification
UNFCCC NAMA registry
Funds/ Reporting
Centralised NAMA office/authority, e.g. DNA, ministry for environment or environment protection agency
Reporting
DNA
Funds/MRV
Sector A specific entity, e.g. ministry or agency Implementation
NAMA measures in sector A
Sector B specific entity, e.g. ministry or agency
Sector C specific entity, e.g. ministry or agency
Monitoring
NAMA measures in sector B
NAMA measures in sector C
Outsourcing of tasks
External service provider / consultants
Verification of monitoring
Verifier/auditor
Funds / reporting
Donors, financiers, investors / NAMA registry
Reporting
Specific NAMA office for Sector A Implementation
NAMA measures in sector A
Specific NAMA office for Sector B
Specific NAMA office for Sector C
Monitoring
NAMA measures in sector B
NAMA measures in sector C
Source: Perspectives, 2013
General tasks of a NAMA office/lead institution General guidance to the NAMA development process
Administer NAMA registry
NAMA Office / Authority / Institution
Ensure the alignment of NAMAs with national development priorities
Facilitate mainstreaming of mitigation into all stages of policy making
Reflection on progress and adjustment to new circumstances
Collect and aggregate information on mitigation actions
Source: Perspectives, 2013 adapted from BAPPENAS, GIZ (2012)
Example: Mexico
Sustainable housing NAMA led by National Housing Commission (CONAVI) – sets policies, MRV coordinator
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) serves as central steering entity for all NAMA activities in Mexico, coordinating activities and promoting development of future NAMAs (GIZ, 2011)
Example: Indonesia NAMA framework •
Voluntary commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 26% using domestic resources and up to 41% with international support against BAU by 2020 National Action Plan on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction (RAN-GRK)
•
33 provinces elaborating Local Action Plans for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions (RAD-GRK) to identify priority mitigation actions
•
National Planning Ministry (BAPPENAS) has mandate to lead & coordinate NAMA development process to deliver RAN-GRK targets – also ensures CC policies & measures are aligned with national development planning
Example: Indonesia NAMA framework (2) BAPPENAS coordinates implementation of line Ministries & reports results to Ministry for Economy
National Council on CC
Sectoral ministries review Provincial Action Plans; provide GHG data to Ministry of Env.
Ministry of Environment coordinates national MRV of GHG emissions
Example: Colombian institutional framework for CC & Low Carbon Development Strategy Executive Secretary Consultative groups Advisory group
In charge of preparing Low-Carbon Development Strategy
Climate Change Executive Commission Chair: Planning (DNP)
Financial committee (Subcommission Secretaries) Technical Secretary:DNP
Sectoral subcommission
Territorial subcommission
International affairs subcommission
Interdisciplinary working groups (Mit and adapt)
Interdisciplinary working groups (Mit and adapt)
Interdisciplinary working groups (Mit and adapt)
Cross-sectoral info & CC impact studies Interdisciplinary working groups (Mit and adapt)
Presentation overview 1. UNDP’s Low Emission Capacity Building Programme 2. Key considerations for institutional arrangements
3. African context (UNDP survey of participants)
Have countries in Africa identified a NAMA focal point? (n = 25)
28.0% 44.0%
28.0%
Yes
No
In process of identifying
Ministry of Environment is the NAMA focal point identified in all cases
Have countries in Africa established a national NAMA committee? (n = 25)
28.0%
36.0%
36.0%
Yes
No
In process of identifying
Typically, is National InterMinisterial Committee on Climate Change
Is there a successful institutional structure for implementing CDM? Can CDM structure be applied to NAMAs?
24.0%
Very relevant
Relevant
Not relevant
76.0%
27.3% Yes
No
36.4%
(n = 25)
36.4%
What is biggest barrier for establishing a strong institutional framework for NAMAs? No. of countries
Barriers
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
No clear mandates or roles for institutions to lead on or support NAMA development
9
10
5
Low political/stakeholder engagement and/or awareness about NAMAs
3
Inadequate regulatory/policy framework for encouraging NAMA development
(n = 20)
8
9
Lack of institutional capacities and information for elaborating robust proposals
Lack of incentives for institutional coordination and information sharing
7
2
1
Identified by six countries as 2nd biggest barrier
Proposed solutions for overcoming barriers •
• • •
• • •
Raise awareness of NAMAs as vehicle for achieving sustainable development goals and priorities Enact climate change legislation/policy to create enabling environment at national and local levels Create national/sectoral institutional framework for NAMAs: identify NAMA focal point and coordination mechanisms Enhance institutional capacities for NAMA and MRV design: try to minimise staff turnover (guidelines needed) Effectively engage private sector: improve awareness of investment opportunities emerging from NAMAs Learn from CDM experiences: what worked, what didn’t work, what can be scaled up Identify incentives for follow up and pro-active engagement by range of national stakeholders
