The great potential of NAMAs to move to implementing transformational change is promising. Developed countries’ support to developing countries is central to this task. The vague international consensus on NAMAs, resulting from different prioritisation of objectives for NAMAs among developed and developing countries is both a blessing and a curse. As discussed in Section 2.1 the flexibility of the NAMA concept encompasses a broad spectrum of potential actions but it also raises questions as to whether the priorities of donor institutions providing financial support to explicitly target NAMAs and NAMA design correspond to the challenges posed by spurring transformational change.
In a recently published article (Fridahl, Hagemann, Röser, & Amars, 2015) , we compare (mis)alignments in support providers’ priorities for NAMAs and actual NAMA designs.
Although the findings should not be overemphasised, lack of information impedes more authoritative statements, two warning flags were raised: 1) misalignment between the priorities of bilateral support providers and countries with a low capacity to act, and 2) the emphasis given by support providers to short timeframes and to measuring direct emission reductions, which can become an obstacle for spurring longer-term transformational change through NAMAs.
Cologne and Patten: Ecofys and ECN , 2015. 47-49 p.