In context of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, developing countries are asked to contribute to greenhouse gas control objectives by proposing so-called Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Although the concept provides developing countries with complete flexibility to design NAMAs, a majority of proposals seek international support. This article improves our understanding of the matching of NAMA design and international support by exploring (mis-) alignment between support providers' and NAMA developers' prioritization for NAMAs. The article assesses survey responses from support providers in light of records of NAMAs. We conclude that there is a mismatch between support providers' primary emphasis on systems for measuring emissions reductions and the lack of such provisions in existing NAMA proposals. Furthermore, sector preferences may create structural biases in NAMA support.
The results are presented from a survey of national legislation and strategies to mitigate climate change covering almost all United Nations member states between 2007 and 2012. This data set is distinguished from the existing literature in its breadth of coverage, its focus on national policies (rather than international pledges), and on the use of objective metrics rather than normative criteria. The focus of the data is limited to national climate legislation and strategies and does not cover subnational or sectoral measures. Climate legislation and strategies are important because they can: enhance incentives for climate mitigation; provide mechanisms for mainstreaming; and provide a focal point for actors. Three broad findings emerge. First, there has been a substantial increase in climate legislation and strategies between 2007 and 2012: 67% of global GHG emissions are now under national climate legislation or strategy compared to 45% in 2007. Second, there are substantial regional effects to the patterns, with most increases in non-Annex I countries, particularly in Asia and Latin America. Third, many more countries have adopted climate strategies than have adopted climate legislation between 2007 and 2012. The article concludes with recommendations for future research.Policy relevance The increase in climate legislation and strategy is significant. This spread suggests that, at the national level, there is some movement in reshaping climate governance despite the relatively slow pace of global negotiations, although the exact implications of this spread require further research on stringency of actions and their implementation. Asia and Latin America represent the biggest improvements, while OECD countries, which start from a high base, remain relatively stagnant. Implications of regional patterns are further refined by an analysis by emissions, which shows that some areas of low levels of legislation and strategy are also areas of relatively low emissions. A broad trend toward an emphasis on strategies rather than legislation, with the significant exception of China, calls for enhanced research into the practical impact of national non-binding climate strategies versus binding legislation on countries' actual emissions over time. ; GoVNAMAs - Phase I
While energy-sector emissions remain the biggest source of climate change, many least-developed countries still invest in fossil-fuel development paths. These countries generally have high levels of fossil fuel technology lock-in and low capacities to change, making the shift to sustainable energy difficult. Tanzania, a telling example, is projected to triple fossil-fuel power production in the next decade. This article assesses the potential to use internationally supported Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to develop solar energy in Tanzania and contribute to transformational change of the electricity supply system. By assessing the cultural legitimacy of NAMAs among key stakeholders in the solar energy sector, we analyse the conditions for successful uptake of the concept in (1) national political thought and institutional frameworks and (2) the solar energy niche. Interview data are analysed from a multi-level perspective on transition, focusing on its cultural dimension. Several framings undermining legitimacy are articulated, such as attaching low-actor credibility to responsible agencies and the concept's poor fit with political priorities. Actors that discern opportunities for NAMAs could, however, draw on a framing of high commensurability between experienced social needs and opportunities to use NAMAs to address them through climate compatible development. This legitimises NAMAs and could challenge opposing framings.
