Abstract

National Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) have gained a reputation as an effective tool for mitigating emissions in developing nations while supporting their economic growth. These actions, an outgrowth of earlier similar initiatives, have been rising in popularity in the last few years. There are currently 17 NAMAs in implementation out of 178 in development and 31 feasibility studies (numbers as of October 2016) and that number is constantly growing. As more and more countries get involved, it is important to examine what criteria comprise a “successful” NAMA. Successful in this context means one that is successful in attracting the investors and technical supporters it needs to get implemented while effectively mitigating emissions (the main inherent goal of a NAMA). The mitigation question though need not be addressed as by definition when implemented all NAMAs do effectively mitigate emissions. With the vast majority of NAMAs still not implemented, this question is difficult to answer. Additionally, NAMAs are viewed differently by different entities such as supporting organisations and financiers. The definition of NAMAs provided by the UNFCCC itself includes several criteria that must be met by a project in order to be considered a NAMA. However, these criteria are not necessarily related to a NAMA’s success but refer more to environmental, social or economic development. So what criteria actually influence the acquisition of successful NAMA support? This paper examines this question through key player interviews, surveys, analysis of NAMAs in implementation, and case study analysis. I examine different criteria influencing NAMAs as well as those comprising a NAMA; both inherent in the NAMA definition such as the potential for mitigation and others such as the role of financing and supporting organisations. The purpose is to determine what in essence allows NAMAs to be deemed attractive enough to financiers and all supporting bodies that they can finally make it to the implementation stage without compromising their goals. By following the patterns revealed through this research, rating both the importance of inherent criteria to NAMAs definition and the rest of the criteria addressed in NAMA proposals, and then comparing these two groups, a trend emerges, one that very likely holds the key to effective NAMA implementation. The problem lies in a struggle for the initiatives to leverage private finance due to the fact that they are not always structured or presented as ‘bankable’: i.e. initiatives that generate adequate levels of revenues with a strong level of certainty. When it comes to financing, the bottom line always prevails and that is that an
attractive return on investment is a requirement for investors. The principles of economics remain the same even in green economies. To ensure successful funding of NAMAs, the public sector would be wise to promote NAMAs that guarantee attractive risk/return ratios for the private investor.