150 likes | 265 Vues
Mapping objectives with NAMAs [ modified for online publication ]. Thank you!. Mathias Friman and Björn-Ola Linnér Linköping University. Support providers head offices (dark grey) A2 countries (light grey). Implications for 2015 consensus.
E N D
MappingobjectiveswithNAMAs [modified for online publication] Thank you! Mathias Friman and Björn-Ola Linnér Linköping University
Support providers head offices (dark grey) A2 countries (light grey)
Implications for 2015 consensus • identify convergence and divergence between Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 • Broad convergence on the importance of developing country mitigation • Greater divergence on other objectives for NAMAs • In general large expressed support for all non-mitigation goals. • In particular transfer of finance, but also the other goals, display a clear divergence in level of priority.
Implications for implementation • Greatest difference between non-Annex 1 and support providers in: • Developing country mitigation • Transfer of technology • R&D • Convergence between non-Annex 1 and support providers on nationally defined sustainable development goals. • Implications for bi-lateral support. • The wide divergence on prioritized objectives is a challenge for multilateral support institutions, e.g. Green Climate Fund.
ThankYou! Thank you!