, Volume 41, Supplement 1, pp 56–67 | Cite as

A Registry of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions: Goals, Outcomes, and Institutional Requisites

  • Björn-Ola LinnérEmail author
  • Neha Pahuja


This article examines key issues in operationalizing a registry of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) undertaken by developing countries party to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. It analyzes goals, outcomes, and institutional prerequisites underlying various proposals to determine how a NAMA mechanism could work in international climate cooperation. The different proposals for how NAMA shall be designed relate to three basic effort-sharing arrangements in a future climate regime: binding commitments for all Parties, purely voluntary commitments for all, and legally binding commitments for Annex I countries but voluntary ones for others. We conclude that a NAMA registry could be designed so as initially to suit all three types of effort-sharing regimes. The article identifies three areas of potential common ground in a registry irrespective of effort-sharing type: the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, the sustainable development objectives of the Convention, and the need for a systemic transition toward low-carbon energy technologies.


Registry NAMA Climate policy Effort sharing Sustainable development 



This research was supported by the Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra) through the Climate Policy Research Programme, Clipore (Grant no. 2003-194) and the Swedish Energy Agency. Special thanks for comments from panellists and participants at UNFCCC side event on NAMA registry at COP 16, Clipore colleagues as well as Mathias Friman, Mattias Hjerpe, Naghmeh Nasiritousi, and Eva Lövbrand.


  1. Bakker, S., and C. Huizenga. 2010. Making climate instruments work for sustainable transport in developing countries. Natural Resources Forum 34: 314–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breidenich, C., and D. Bodansky. 2009. Measurement, reporting and verification in a post-2012 climate agreement. Arlington: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.Google Scholar
  3. CAN International. 2011. Submission to the AWG-LCA1: views on new market-based mechanisms. 21 February 2011. Accessed 2 June 2011.
  4. CCAP. 2009. NAMAs and NAMA registry. Washington: Center for Clean Air Policy.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, H.-T. 2005. Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  6. Cheng, C.C. 2010. A new NAMA framework for dispersed energy end-use sectors. Energy Policy 38: 5614–5624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox, G. 2010. The clean development mechanism as a vehicle for technology transfer and sustainable development—myth or reality? Law, Environment and Development Journal 6: 179–199.Google Scholar
  8. Ellis, J., and S. Moarif. 2009. GHG mitigation actions: MRV issues and options. OECD working paper. Accessed 1 Sept 2009.
  9. Erickson, P., and M. Lazarus. 2011. The implications of international greenhouse gas offsets on global climate mitigation. SEI working paper. Accessed 20 June 2011.
  10. European Community. 2009. Enhanced action on mitigation (1bi, 1bii of the Bali Action Plan), 30 March 2009. FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/MISC.1/Add.4.Google Scholar
  11. Fransen, T., H. McMahon, and S. Nakhooda. 2008. Measuring the way to a new global climate agreement. Washington: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Fukuda, K., and K. Tamura. 2010. An analysis of non-Annex I parties NAMAs: Challenges for designing international support and implementing an effective MRV framework. IGES working paper. Accessed 24 June 2011.
  13. Glemarec, Y. 2010. Financing the transition to a low-carbon society. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 2: 031013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Höhne, N., C. Michelsen, S. Moltmann, H. Ott, W. Sterk, S. Thomas, and R. Watanabe. 2008. Proposals for contributions of emerging economies to the climate regime under the UNFCCC post 2012. Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt.Google Scholar
  15. Karlsson, C., C. Parker, M. Hjerpe, and B. Linnér. 2012. The legitimacy of leadership in international climate change negotiations. Ambio. 41(S1). doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0240-7.
  16. Kim, J.A., J. Corfee-Morlot, and P. de T’Serclaes. 2009. Linking mitigation actions in developing countries with mitigation action support: A conceptual framework. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  17. Levina, E., and N. Helme. 2009. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries: Architecture and key issues. Washington: Center for Clean Air Policy.Google Scholar
  18. Linnér, B.-O. 2006. Authority through synergism: The roles of climate change linkages. European Environment 16: 278–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Linnér, B. -O., and M. Hjerpe. 2011. The day after Kyoto: Toward an investment based regime. Paper presented at The R&D management conference 2011 R&D, sustainability & innovation, 28–30 June 2011, in Norrköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
  20. Linnér, B.-O., and M. Jacob. 2005. From Stockholm to Kyoto and beyond: A review of the globalisation of global warming policy and north-south relations. Globalizations 2: 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lövbrand, E., J. Nordqvist, and T. Rindefjäll. 2009. Closing the legitimacy gap in global environ-mental governance: Examples from the emerging CDM market. Global Environmental Politics 9: 74–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McMahon, H., and R. Moncel. 2009. Keeping track: National positions and design elements of an MRV framework. World Resources Institute, working paper, Washington.Google Scholar
  23. Mickwitz, P. 2006. Environmental policy evaluation: Concepts and practice. Commentationes Scientiarum Socialium 66/2006. Helsinki: The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters.Google Scholar
  24. Mintzer, I., J.A. Leonard, and I.D. Valencia. 2010. Counting the gigatonnes: Building trust in greenhouse gas inventories from the United States and China. Washington: World Wildlife Fund.Google Scholar
  25. Muller, B., and L. Gomez-Echeverri. 2009. The reformed financial mechanism of the UNFCCC. Part I: Architecture and governance. Oxford: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.Google Scholar
  26. Pahuja, N., and B.-O. Linnér. 2010. A global registry for NAMAs: Linking mitigation, technology, finance and sustainable development. TERI and CSPR working paper, December 2010.Google Scholar
  27. Pielke, R. 2010. The climate fix: What scientists and politicians won’t tell you about global warming. Philadelphia: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Sterk, W. 2010. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions: Definitions, issues and options Wuppertal. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.Google Scholar
  29. Teng, F., Y. Wang, A. Gu, and R. Xu. 2009. Mitigation actions in China: Measurement, reporting and verification. Washington: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  30. UNFCCC. 2007. Bali Action Plan, FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1Google Scholar
  31. UNFCCC. 2009. Ideas and proposals on paragraph 1 of the Bali Action Plan: revised note by the Chair. UNFCCC document (15 January 2009). FCCC/AWGLCA/2008/16/REV.1 Accessed Retrieved 8 June 2010.
  32. UNFCCC. 2010a. Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term cooperative action under the convention. Draft decision-/CP.16.Google Scholar
  33. UNFCCC. 2010b. Negotiating text. UNFCCC document FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/14. Accessed 5 Apr 2011.
  34. UNFCCC. 2011. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its sixteenth session. FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1. Accessed 11 Jan 2012.
  35. United Nations. 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration. UN General Assembly Fifty-fifth session, Agenda item 60 (b), 18 September 2000. A/RES/55/2.Google Scholar
  36. United Nations. 2002. Plan of implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 Au–4 Sept 2002, United Nations General Assembly.Google Scholar
  37. Upadhyaya, P. 2010. Is emission trading a possible policy option for India? Climate Policy 10: 560–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Asselt, H., J. Berseus, J. Gupta, and C. Haug. 2010. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) in developing countries: challenges and opportunities. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis (WAB) for Climate Change Report 500102 035. Bilthoven.Google Scholar
  39. Vedung, E. 1997. Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Weiss, C. H. 2000. Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? In Program Theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities—New directions for evaluation, no. 87, eds. Rogers Patricia J., Hacsi T. A., Petrosino A. and Huebner T. A., 35–45. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. World Resources Institute. 2010. Summary of UNFCCC Submissions (November, 2010). Accessed 17 Jan 2011.

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Climate Science and Policy ResearchNya Kåkenhus, Linköping UniversityNorrköpingSweden
  2. 2.The Energy and Resources Institute, India Habitat CentreNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations