Setbacks to the implementation of the nationally appropriate mitigation actions. Case studies of the NAMAs of Ethiopia, Georgia and Indonesia.

Main Article Content

Sule Ayannor Issaka

Abstract

The lack of implementation of the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) of the non-Annexe I Parties registered in the NAMA Registry of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a worrying situation in the sense that it is limiting the contributions these NAMA projects would have made towards mitigating global climate change. There is however little research on the reasons behind the lack of implementation of these NAMAs projects and this is the knowledge gap that this paper seeks to fill based on a critical overview of the NAMAs of Ethiopia, Indonesia and Georgia. The source of data for this paper is mainly from the focal persons for the NAMAs of the countries under study, which was obtained via telephone and Skype interviews with the respondents. Our findings show that lack of funding, complicated financial mechanisms, lack of technical expertise, fringe condi- tions to donor support and policy issues according to the findings of this study are the main hindrances to the implementation of NAMAs. International organisations, donor partners, developed countries and local governments alike are therefore encouraged to channel some of the funds meant for fighting global climate change into sponsoring the NAMAs of poorer countries, as this will see to the successful implementations of these NAMAs and their subsequent impacts on mitigating global climate change. The paper is also timely considering the scarcity of literature on NAMAs related issues.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Issaka, S. A. (2021). Setbacks to the implementation of the nationally appropriate mitigation actions. Case studies of the NAMAs of Ethiopia, Georgia and Indonesia. Quaestiones Geographicae, 40(3), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2021-0022
Section
Articles

References

  1. Aldy J.E., Pizer W.A., Diringer E., Heutel G., Houser T., Levinson A., Lewis J., Lin S., Mcausland C., Popp D., 2011. NBER working paper series the competitiveness impacts of climate change mitigation policies. The Competitiveness Impacts of Climate Change Mitigation Policies.
  2. Amars L., Fridahl M., Hagemann M., Röser F., Linnér B.O., 2017. The transformational potential of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions in Tanzania: Assessing the concept’s cultural legitimacy among stakeholders in the solar energy sector. Local Environment 22(1): 86–105. DOI 10.1080/13549839.2016.1161607.
  3. Amiranashvili A.G., Amiranashvili V.A., Gzirishvili T. G., Kharchilava J.F., TavartkilaZe K. A., 2005. Modern climate change in Georgia. Radiatively active small atmospheric admixtures.
  4. Baba N., 2010. Indonesia: A vulnerable country in the face of climate change. Global Majority E-Journal 1(1): 31–45.
  5. Badan Pusat Statistik., 2019. Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2019. Statistik Indonesia 2019 (Indonesian Statistics). Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta.
  6. Barichello R.R., Patunru A., 2009. Agriculture in Indonesia: Lagging performance and difficult choices. Choices 24(2): 37–41. Online: http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20113007308.html (accessed May 31, 2021).
  7. Bollen J., Guay B., Jamet S., Corfee-Morlot J., 2009. Co-benefits of climate change mitigation policies: Literature review and new results. OECD 693: 46. DOI 10.1787/224388684356.
  8. Büchs M., Bardsley N., Duwe S., 2011. Who bears the brunt? Distributional effects of climate change mitigation policies. Critical Social Policy 31(2): 285–307. DOI 10.1177/0261018310396036.
  9. Conway D., Schipper E.L., 2011. Adaptation to climate change in Africa: Challenges and opportunities identified from Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change 21(1): 227–237. DOI 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.013.
  10. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN): Lachlan Cameron, Natalie Harms, X. van T., Gardiner, E. A., Fridahl, C. for C. S. and P. R. (CSPR): M., Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP): Stacey Davis, H. P. – chapter Financing Nama. and Indc., GIZ: Heiner von Luepke, Lisa Herrmann, I. Z. – chapter Stakeholder engagement, NewClimate Institute: Thomas Day, F. R. – chapter Assessing impacts and benefits, WRI: Kelly Levin – chapter Measurement, R. and V. (MRV), & Frameworks, U. J. V. – chapter Institutional. (2015). NAMAs and INDCs Interactions and opportunities.
  11. Farooq M.B., 2015. Qualitative telephone interviews: Strategies for success. 18th Annual Waikato Management School Student Research Conference: 1–30.
  12. Friman M., Upadhyaya P., Linnér B.O., 2014. Supporting Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions through the Green Climate Fund: Governance capacities and challenges. Internalising Mitigation Activities into the Development Priorities and Approaches of Developing Countries 65.
  13. Gashaw T., Mebrat W., Hagos D., Nigussie A., 2014. Review on climate change adaptation and mitigation mechanisms in Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 4(15): 148–153.
  14. Georgia’s Second National Communication to the UNFCCC Tbilisi., 2009.
  15. Georgia’s Third National Communication to the UNFCCC., 2015.
  16. Government of Ethiopia., 2015. Second National Communication Report to the UNFCCC.
  17. Hussein Z., Hertel T., Golub A., 2013. Climate change mitigation policies and poverty in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters 8(3): 035009. DOI 10.1088/17489326/8/3/035009.
  18. IRENA., 2014. IRENA Handbook on Renewable Energy Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). 2nd edition (December).
  19. Jung M., Eisbrenner K., HÖHNE N., 2010. How to get Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions [NAMAs] to work. ECOFYS Policy Update 11.2010, 11.
  20. Linnér B.O., Pahuja N., 2012. A registry of nationally appropriate mitigation actions: Goals, outcomes, and institutional requisites. AMBIO 41(1): 56–67. DOI 10.1007/ s13280-011-0241-6.
  21. Lo-lacono V., Symonds P., Brown D.H., 2016. Skype as a tool for qualitative research interviews. Sociological Research Online. Online: 1–25. https://www.socresonline.org.uk/21/2/12.html (accessed May 31, 2021).
  22. MENRPG., 2015. Georgia’s Third National Communication to the UNFCCC.
  23. Metz B., 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge and New York.
  24. Metz B., Kok M., 2008. Integrating development and climate policies. Climate Policy 8(2): 99–102. DOI 10.3763/ cpol.2008.0523.
  25. Michaelowa K., Michaelowa A., 2012. Negotiating climate change. Climate Policy 5(12): 527–533.
  26. Permadi D.A., Sofyan A., Oanh N.T., 2017. Assessment of emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants in Indonesia and impacts of national policy for elimination of kerosene use in cooking. Atmospheric Environment 154: 82–94. DOI 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.01.041.
  27. Peskett L., Brown J., 2011. Climate finance in Indonesia: Lessons for the future of public finance for climate change mitigation. Development 11: 55.
  28. Rizaldi B., Retno Gumilang Dewi M., Ardiansyah Ucok W., Siagian A.F., Roland Barkey I., Wayan Suadnya I.S., Alan Koropitan Perdinan A.B., 2017. Indonesia Third National Comunication.
  29. Robinson S., Strzepek K., Cervigni R., 2013. The cost of adapting to climate change in Ethiopia: Sector-wise and macro-economic estimates. 53: 1–26.
  30. Röser F., van Tilburg X., Davis S., Höhne N., Cameron L., Würtenberger L., Bakker S., Movius D., Houdashelt M., Helme N., 2012. Annual status report on nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs). Mitigation Momentum, Ecofys and ECN.
  31. Sharma S., Desgain D., 2013. NAMAs Temperature Legal of.
  32. Sundstrom K.H., Sundstrom L.M. (Ed.)., 2010. Global commons, domestic decisions. The comparative politics of climate change. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  33. Susandi A., 2004. The impact of international greenhouse gas emissions reduction on Indonesia Armi Susandi Berichte zur Erdsystemforschung.
  34. Swithin L., 2018. Implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions Georgia Country Report.
  35. Thuy P.T., Moeliono M., Locatelli B., Brockhaus M., Gregorio M.D., Mardiah S., 2014. Integration of adaptation and mitigation in climate change and forest policies in Indonesia and Vietnam. Forests 5(8): 2016–2036. DOI 10.3390/ f5082016.
  36. UNFCCC., 2009. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. Distr. GENERAL FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1 30 March 2010.
  37. UNFCCC., 2010. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010./CP/2010/7.
  38. UNFCCC., 2013. First annual report to the Conference of the Parties on the operation of the registry of nationally appropriate mitigation actions./CP/2013/I.
  39. United Nations., 2019. World population prospects 2019. In Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Prospects 2019. (Issue 141).
  40. Upadhyaya P., Linnér B.O., 2012. Financing Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions: A phased approach. Linköping University Electronic Press.
  41. USAID., 2016. Greenhouse gas emissions in Georgia.
  42. World Resources Institute., 2017. How can Indonesia achieve its climate change mitigation goal? An analysis of potential emissions reductions from energy and land-use policies.
  43. Zerga B., Gebeyehu G., 2016. Climate change in Ethiopia variability, impact, mitigation, and adaptation. Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research 2(4): 66–84.