Developing country perspectives on ‘mitigation actions’, ‘NAMAs’, and ‘LCDS’

Abstract

The MAPS programme, which seeks to deepen mitigation ambition in developing countries, is engaged in exploring the concepts of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and Low Carbon Development Strategies (LCDS) from a developing country perspective. Here, climate mitigation practitioners in six developing countries were surveyed for their understanding of these concepts (anonymous, personal communications with climate mitigation practitioners in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, India, and South Africa). It is found that there is much scope for clarity and conceptual elaboration in this policy space. NAMAs are largely interpreted as mitigation activities packaged for submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) registry, but are not held to constitute the full set of mitigation activity in a developing country. New terminology may be needed to describe this broader set. A tighter interpretation of LCDS to distinguish between a strategic or coordinating policy action may be useful. Other themes arising include the way 'national appropriateness' is reflected in the concepts, and the role of international policy in deepening mitigation action in developing countries.

Experience with LEDS and NAMA Low Carbon Strategies: The Case of Georgia

“…As a result, the scope and aims of NAMAs vary considerably [4]. A study by Tyler et al [6] revealed that NAMAs are widely interpreted by policy makers in developing countries as mitigation activities packaged for submission to the UNFCCC registry. However, they are not held to constitute the full set of mitigation activities in a developing country.…”

“…The still-nascent nature of the concept is said to present an opportunity (with scope for flexibility, customization and innovation) for developing countries to shape NAMAs to their benefit and take action appropriate to locally-required development [4,5]. Notwithstanding the conceptual uncertainties regarding NAMA (due to the complexity of the issue and the slow nature of negotiations [4]), it is considered to be the only existing operational concept with which the international process might raise mitigation ambitions [4,6]. Moreover, in terms of reporting, the introduction of NAMAs is said to have increased the frequency and breadth of the requirements for developing countries [4].…”

“…Countries on which studies have reported include: South Africa [23][24][25], Israel [26], Indonesia [27], Thailand [15], Brazil [28], Colombia [29], Peru [30] and Chile [31]. Moreover, numerous comparative studies have been conducted to explore barriers, enabling factors and effects [5][6][7][8]. One such comparative study revealed that NAMA and LEDS appear to have positively influenced mitigation actions in smaller developing countries, but not so much in larger ones [5].…”

“…Although there are several definitions and meanings, LEDS generally mean "forward-looking national economic development plans or strategies that encompass low emission and/or climate-resilient economic growth" [6]. LEDS can serve to advance national climate change and development policy in a coordinated, coherent and strategic manner.…”

“…The comparative studies [5][6][7][8] allow lessons to be drawn discerning barriers and enabling factors in relation to the preparation and implementation of LEDS and NAMAs.…”