Phase 3: NDC Implementation Planning

9 Jan - 29 Jan 2017
Go back to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and Implementation of the Paris Agreement
  • ow has your country begun to develop an NDC implementation plan to translate NDC goals into concrete actions? What advice or lessons learned would you share with other countries in this process (e.g., related to undertaking technical analyses; prioritizing mitigation and adaptation actions; defining roles, timeframes, work plans, etc.)?
  • What types of information does your country feel are necessary to include in an NDC implementation plan (e.g., specific prioritized actions, implications of actions, costs, support needs, timeframes, roles/responsibilities, etc.)?
  • How, concretely, can NDC implementation plans be embedded in development plans or be used to articulate a new development trajectory? How is the process of developing an NDC implementation plan linking to and building on existing efforts (e.g., national adaptation plans, low-emission development strategies, sectoral development plans, etc.)?
  • How does your country see the link between NDC implementation, development of a mid-century development strategy (as invited by the Paris Agreement), and achievement of the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? What advice would you offer policymakers in the process of developing NDC implementation plans given this context?
  • What are the roles of key stakeholder groups (e.g., relevant ministries, private sector, national assemblies, etc.) in developing an NDC implementation plan and ensuring buy-in or support?
  • What challenges and support needs are envisioned in your country in moving from planning into implementation of its NDC?

Comments (14)

Allison TOWLE • Programme Specialist, Low Emission Capacity Building Programme, UNDP at UNDP from United States

Welcome to Phase III of the UNDP e-discussion on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).  Over the past 2 months, this discussion forum has focused on country experiences during preparation for NDC implementation and feedback on the draft UNDP NDC Implementation Guidance document (e-Discussion Phase 1), as well as on NDC implementation strategies on institutional arrangements and institutional capacity needs (Phase 2).  During this 3rd phase of the series, the focus is on design of an NDC implementation plan.  Specifically, the discussion forum addresses real-world country experiences in this process, information needs, roles and responsibilities, links with national development plans and SDGs.

Sample questions regarding the above issues are provided to start the discussion, but we welcome your inputs if there are related topics we do not include.

Thank you ahead of time for your contributions to this important discussion.  As with the first 2 phases, your feedback and insight contribute significantly to strengthening UNDP’s efforts to provide NDC support!




Srikanth Subbarao (not verified)

Hello Everyone,

I’m an energy & climate change consultant based in New Zealand and working in the South Pacific. I would like to participate in this discussion to share my experience from the region in particular from one of the most beautiful island nations in the region, Vanuatu.

Vanuatu with support from UNDP successfully submitted the INDC to UNFCCC during September 2015.  The mitigation contribution for the Vanuatu NDC is a sector specific target of transitioning to close to 100% renewable energy in the electricity sector by 2030.

Vanuatu parliament ratified the Paris agreement on 18th June 2016. However, implementation of this new climate change action plan is still a challenge.  In order to achieve the goals and objectives under NDC, a clear roadmap to guide its implementation is essential. UNDP is providing further support under the LECB Phase II programme to formulate the NDC roadmap including designing and implementation of MRV systems.

In my view, under the NDC implementation plan for a country its key to: do a stock take on sectoral and background data, available studies, data gaps; consult stakeholders to identify and get consensus on the action plan; assess the institutional capacities and organizational needs for implementing NDCs; identify and develop appropriate mitigation measures for sectors prioritized under NDC including indicators, main risks, assumptions, targets and timeline to be achieved; estimate the GHG emissions reductions in the BAU and project alternate scenarios including the cost effectiveness of the activities and highlight technical, financial and capacity building support needed.

Vanuatu’s  National Sustainable Development Plan 2016-2030 (also called as “Vanuatu 2030 - The People’s Plan”) charts the country's vision and overarching policy framework for achieving a Stable, Sustainable and Prosperous Vanuatu within the next fifteen years, and in doing so sets out the national priorities and context for the implementation of the new global Sustainable Development Goals over the same period. The key goals and policy objectives under the Vanuatu 2030 also include enhanced resilience and adaptive capacity to climate change and natural disasters (adaptation) and Prioritising renewable sources of energy and promote efficient energy use (mitigation). The Ministry of Climate Change through its departments and the National Advisory Board (NAB) on climate change ensures that climate change priorities are streamlined and linkages made under the broader national development priorities and policies.

The key factor that I see which could help linking NDCs with SDG’s is through aligning the policies and priorities for climate change mitigation & adaptation with the national development goals as it has been done with Vanuatu 2030 plan. This would also help in terms of avoiding duplication of efforts and getting the required support for implementation at the highest political level.

One of the key issues generally encountered by many countries is ensuring proper coordination between the line ministries to manage the NDC implementation process. Vanuatu has a strong existing institutional and governance mechanism. However, the key challenge for is to build on the institutional arrangements that is already in place for climate action and improving coordination at the level of national implementing institutions. The lack of awareness and knowledge about the Paris Agreement, climate change, and NDCs also provides a significant obstacle in increasing the ownership among line ministries for successful NDC implementation. In addition, the lack of clarity among stakeholders and policy makers with respect to international support for finance and knowledge of NDC implementation is one of the key issues. Technical support for education and awareness raising among political leaders, decision-makers, and the general public is very essential. It’s also essential to strengthen the capacity of lead institutions involved in climate change activities in Vanuatu to develop and implement NDC-related policies and programs, coordinate with sectorial line ministries, and engage stakeholders in the NDC implementation process. 

Planning and management in many sectors is constrained by poor information about current conditions and likely future changes proving to be one of the key challenges. Lack of financial resources is also a key constraint in moving from NDC goals to actions, constraining the implementation of adaptation & mitigation actions, important for building the resilience of Vanuatu to climate change and disaster.  Accessing dedicated climate funds can be challenging for a small country like Vanuatu, given the high transaction costs involved, lack of capacity and expertise in this area. Limited human and technical capacity are also major challenges for delivering on sustainable development aspirations in Vanuatu. Finally, issue of  lack of institutional capacity & coordination between stakeholders needs attention. 

Implementation of NDC will be heavily dependent on resources (technical & financial)  being made available by external development partners, to supplement limited domestic funds. Vanuatu intends to place considerable emphasis on working with its bilateral partners, regional agencies, for the financial and technical resources needed to implement its NDC, including the improvement of access and facilitation to international climate finance. Institutional capacity building and training needed for efficient and effective tracking progress on the implementation of climate change actions, priorities and goals are crucial.

Vanuatu is a small developing nation with absolute levels of CO2 eq emissions very small at under 0.0016% of world emissions. For Vanuatu and other Pacific island nations, climate change is an existential issue. These islands will cease to exist as viable human settlements if climate change is allowed to continue in the way it is occurring now. Small islands like Vanuatu reducing their emissions will do absolutely nothing in the global fight against climate change. You could add up all the emissions of small islands and they would probably still be less than half a percent of what the global emissions are.

Nonetheless, Vanuatu is also keen to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels for the energy needs. The updated National Energy Road Map, which sets out a clear strategy and action plan for the development and use of alternative and sustainable energy sources, has an ambitious goal of reducing the country’s high reliance on imported fossil fuel. Vanuatu’s adaptation plans and programmes intends to support progress towards the country’s national development priorities and the goal of environmental sustainability, by ensuring that a focus on reducing vulnerabilities and risks is incorporated into planning and activities across all sectors of the economy and society.


Alexandra SOEZER • Climate Change Technical Advisor, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Dear Srikanth,

Many thanks for your excellent contribution to this important discussion.

You mention that NDCs and SDGs could be linked through aligning policies and priorities for climate change mitigation & adaptation with national development goals to streamline efforts and obtain highest level political support.

I have two quick follow-up questions related to this statement:

Firstly, do you think that a tracking tool that identifies and quantifies sustainable development impacts of mitigation and/or adaptation actions and links these impacts with the SDGs and national development policies/strategies could help to systematically engage all line ministries in the broader the development agenda?

Secondly, do you believe that circularity approaches which emphasize resource efficiency and circular material and energy flows towards net energy producing systems could help to achieve the global climate goals? Instead of selecting the low hanging fruits and focus on emission reductions, the focus of countries could be on those sectors that are considered most important for mid- and long-term economic growth and propose circularity strategies for these sectors to de-couple growth from GHG emissions by putting an equal  emphasis on growth and sustainable development.

Furthermore, I would be interested to hear from other experts and practitioners their views on key issues for implementing NDCs, e.g. the need for significantly more technical and financial resources being made available by development partners. Also, in your opinion, which donor funding strategies should a SIDS like Vanuatu prioritize, e.g. a finance mechanism with the goal to incentivize private sector to invest in clean energy solutions, or the classical model of project-based grant support from donors. Where do you see more cost-effective opportunities for transformational change?

Thanks a lot!



James Vener • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP/BDP from United States Moderator

Dear Srikanth,

Thank you for the summary of your experiences in Vanuatu toward implementing the NDC and Paris Agreement.  These perspectives do a great job to set the stage on issues many countries are encountering in terms of what are national priorities, challenges, gaps, and expectations during deliberations on possible NDC strategies.  Based on your reply and to build on my colleague Alex’s discussion points, I’ll highlight a few points you make on securing proper coordination and political awareness amongst policymakers.

You hit upon several useful priorities for securing political buy-in that reflect the need for making such efforts systemic and ongoing to change the status quo and ensure long-term climate change visibility and raised awareness.  Linking NDC implementation aspects to priority focus areas for individual policymakers such as the SDGs (e.g., jobs creation, poverty reduction, energy access, resilient infrastructure) is a good approach.  Encouraging partnerships with bilateral and regional organizations and donors to develop sustainable NDC systems can attract the attention of policymakers who see this as an opportunity for future climate financial resource mobilization.  Securing a local ‘champion’ to usher NDC-related proposals between line ministries, being persistent, encouraging cross-sector participation, and potentially coordinating efforts should not be overlooked as a critical behind-the-scenes component.

In summary, I’d note that to build a sustained effort that is reflective of the required 5-year cyclical ‘ratchet mechanism’ of NDC review and re-submission of targets, countries benefit from diverse and integrated participation of line ministries in NDC design and review, and this should active involvement and contributions to such platforms as NDC project-related technical working groups, steering committees, and board meetings.  Building on existing structures already in place such as UNFCCC Focal Point offices, CDM or NAMA project evaluation systems, GHG inventory reporting methodologies, etc., and scaling up partnerships within government are both key steps in achieving consensus and attracting consistent support among policymakers that NDC design and implementation remains a priority.

Thank you + Best regards,


Srikanth Subbarao (not verified)

Dear James,

Many thanks for your very useful comments.

I fully agree with your point of view on securing a local “Champion” for effective and efficient coordination and implementation of NDC related activities between the line ministries. As you also rightly mention, building on the existing structures and up-scaling the collaboration between the ministries could avoid re-inventing the wheel and immensely benefit in terms of saving crucial resources, time and effort.

Dear Alexandra,

Thank you for the follow up questions.

Yes, I think some kind of a tracking tool could certainly help in engaging the concerned line ministries under the country’s development agenda. In addition, the tool can also assist to keep track of the progress, identify potential issues and come up with appropriate mitigation measures.

The circular economy idea seems to have come from last year’s Davos meeting and is being adopted by the EU and many other countries including here in NZ  as a way of keeping growth and lowering emissions at the same time (

Recycling materials makes sense and is doable. However, recycling energy doesn’t really work as it has the second law of thermodynamics to deal with and must lead to increasing entropy and decreasing available energy. Overall- recycling materials can lead to decreased emissions as metals don’t have to be reduced from ores and mined. 

Decoupling emissions from growth is difficult. However, the coupling constant can be made smaller but it would be very difficult to decouple entirely. Growth as mentioned is the real problem (there is a wealth of information on line on this). Low hanging fruit is exactly the easiest way to reduce emissions cost effectively and should come first for short term reductions.  Focusing on important economic sectors would be good for mid and longer term emissions reductions but they would be very sector specific.

For eg. Its very difficult to implement circular economics or recycling in the tourism sector as most of the emissions are in the air transport although some opportunities for ecotourism exits in country.

Transport: feasible for larger countries to recycle vehicles but difficult for small Pacific countries

Service sector: some savings ie recycling paper and water but difficult to achieve larger savings

Heavy industry and mining: good opportunities here but not so applicable to Pacific.

Housing: some opportunities at the local level ie recycling timber and iron materials after cyclones, difficult for masonry.

Business  and commerce – energy auditing and some recycling

Agriculture: good opportunities in Pacific and elsewhere - move to organic farming and reduce fertilisers and pesticides. Less agribusiness and heavy machinery and more local farming.

Giving equal emphasis on growth and sustainable development could be difficult as often they are exclusive ie an emphasis on growth will hinder sustainable development and emphasis on sustainable development will hinder economic growth. There are of course other approaches/school of thought used to suggest that both can happen simultaneously.

There is a very limited private sector presence in the Pacific Island counties mainly due to small size, dispersed nature of islands and population.  This brings up the key issue of economies of scale which is crucial for active private sector participation. Small size and remoteness lead to high costs of production and trading and hence lower price competitiveness. Nonetheless, I think there has to be some kind of support mechanism for the private sector incentivization to keep up and build-on the current level of participation.

In my view, there is no silver bullet for this issue. A mix of both grant funding as well as incentives for private sector participation could work depending on the type and nature of the project/programme and the host country government’s policies and priorities.

I look forward for views and comments from other experts.

Thank you and Regards



Pavlina Zdraveva • Project Assistant at UNDP


I would like to present Macedonian experience per the forth question related to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Appologies for the long text.

The continuity in preparation of National Communications and the First Biennial Update Report (supported by GEF and implemented by UNDP) has enabled timely submission of the Macedonian INDC, which is based on a profound analytical work and has been determined in an intensive dialog with the relevant policy makers and other stakeholders. The country’s ratification of the Paris Agreement has been delayed due to governmental changes in 2016. But that did not prevent the country to continuously work with UNDP support on other important issues that shall significantly reinforce NDC implementation, such as SDG Mainstreaming into the National Sustainable Development Planning for the Period 2016-2030, Development of National SDGs Implementation Plan 2016-2030 and SDGs Action Plan 2016-2020.


Through a consultative process of prioritization and localization of the SDG targets, 17 SDG gap analysis were prepared, including Climate Change as SDG 13, focusing on a number of aspects including:

·        Analysis of the current policy and legal framework/national priorities relating to the specific SDG.

·        Analysis of the level of integration of the specific SDG targets in the current national strategies/action plans.

·        Analysis as to whether a specific SDG (and its targets) is well (or not well) addressed in the national strategies/policies. This analysis also requires an assessment on the expected complexity, level of stretch and potential level of adjustment that would be needed for the existing strategies/action plans to be aligned with the SDG agenda.

·        Analysis of any identified cross-sectoral linkages relevant for the planning and implementation of the SDGs.

Overall, the assessment related to SDG 13 indicate that the awareness about Climate Change and the need for its diffusion in the national policies and strategic planning, as well as in a daily life of every individual is considerably rising among the policy makers and other relevant stakeholders, including citizens themselves. The SDG13 is relatively well addressed when it comes to mitigation due to Macedonian INDC. Also, there is an adequate linkage with the national strategic planning in the relevant sectors since the Macedonian INDC is not a separate plan, but maps all the existing and planned activities in the country which lead to GHG emission reduction.  As such, it is in compliance with the existing strategic and planning documents, and reflects the policies in the relevant sectors, mostly in the energy and transport sectors.

Despite adequate coverage of the SDG13 targets into the national strategic documents in the areas of mitigation, vulnerability assessments, awareness and dissemination, still there are gaps with regards to the SDG 13, related to the adaptation and resilience sectoral planning, as well as appropriate monitoring framework and quantifiable and measurable indicators of achievements in both, mitigation and adaptation.

In Macedonian conditions, the most important cross-sectoral linkages of SDG13 have been identified, as well as linkage with other SDGs.


Moreover, aiming to maximize the benefit from Open Government Partnership (OGP) at national level, and keeping up with the developments of the International OGP, the Ministry of Information Society and Administration, in cooperation with the Center for Research and Policy Making and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), embarked on the mainstreaming of the SDGs in the 2016-2018 OGP Action Plan. The wide participatory process encouraged stakeholders to propose how measures of the Open Government Partnership Action Plan may be relevant and adjusted with the Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The process helped identify three ways of linking the OGP and the SDGs:

1) Open government principles are clearly addressed in Goal 16, which aims to “build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels,” and in other targets across other goals;

2) The principles of open government are embedded across many SDGs where transparency, participation and accountable institutions are key to achieving a particular target.

3) The implementation of the 2030 Agenda rests on core OGP principles. The 2030 Agenda calls for follow-up and review processes that are “open, inclusive, participatory and transparent for all people and will support the reporting by all relevant stakeholders.”

 Furthermore, the OGP National Action Plan (NAP) 2016–2018, now contains two additional important commitments that did not exist before: public services and climate change. This pioneering effort (only few countries in the world have included climate change in OGP) clearly paves the way for future similar efforts to be undertaken at both national and regional level.

 These events have significantly contributed to broad awareness raising of both the OGP and the SDGs among civil society, academia and the private sector.

Pavlina Zdraveva, Project Manager - Second BUR

James Vener • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP/BDP from United States Moderator

Dear Pavlina,

Thank you for your insights on Macedonia's experience with NDC implemenation planning, specifically as it pertains to SDG tracking and linkages.  You mentioned gaps related to adaptation and resilience sectoral planning and an appropriate monitoring framework.  Would you be able to elaborate on discussions your team might have had on ways to better integrate mitigation and resilience / adaptation monitoring frameworks cost effectively?

As a second follow-up question, would you be able to elaborate on how the country envisions further participation from civil society and public services in the area of NDC implementation, e.g.,  in the capacity of project implementation or stakeholder inputs?

Best regards,


Daniel Tutu Benefoh • Principal Programme officer at Environmental Protection Agency

In last the quarter of 2016, Ghana started a multi-sectoral process to develop its NDC implementation and investment strategy. In this process we're exploring the practical options to leap-frog early implementation of its 31 sectoral climate actions. We are looking into how to adopt time-tested concrete approaches on how to: (a) priortise sector NDC actions  and embed them into the medium-term development plan as well as further align to the preparation of a national 40-year development; (b) put up and put to work a durable sector-led institutonal arrangment; (c) mobilise early and long-term innovative finance to support NDC implementation; (d) mobilise and engage stakeholders at the national and sub-national level for action (local partnership including private sector); (e) explore possibility of promulgating a special law/legislation to back NDC implementation and (f) awareness, capacity and knowledge managment.  

We are sure that the development of these work strands together with the sector ministries at the fore front is crucial for couple of reasons. Firstly, we believe that implementation of the NDC action must be led by the sector Ministries. At this stage, it is important to allow the Ministries to lead the process on how to  select, elaborate, mobilse finance, implement and report priority NDC actions in thier repective sectors.  In this respect, we have formed a multisectoral thematic group dedicated to priortise and elaborate on sector NDC action plans using a set of agreed templates. 

Another important feature of our work is the idea to align and embed the NDC implementation/investement strategy into the medium term and the 40-year development plan. This is equally important if we really want to get serious attention of the ministries and the local government authorities to abide bt the NDC action they have already committed to. By this, we have fully roped the National Development Planning Commisison (NDPC) into the NDC processes at least, to help align the NDC priority areas with the 40-year plan and go extra mile to get the sector Ministries to lock in thier sector NDC actions into the respective sections of the 40-year plan. Further to this, we indicated our intentions to use the existing national M& E result framework which is implemented through the Annual Progress Report (APR) to help track, evaluate and communicate progress of implementation (MRV framework). We will be working with NDPC to prepare NDC-specific indicators so they can incorporate into the M&E result framework. To us, this approach is the most efficient way of getting the ministries to track and report progress of implementation of sector NDC actions.

I will continue to share additional features of how work my subsequent postings. 



Alexandra SOEZER • Climate Change Technical Advisor, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Dear Daniel,

Many thanks for your contributions to the e-discussion.

It's interesting to learn from your experience in Ghana. You highlight the need for a sectoral thematic working group in order to allow sector Ministries to lead the NDC implementation process. In addition to a thematic working group, do you also see a need for a coordinating entity that coordinates and leads the overall NDC implementation process?

The approach you take for MRV of NDC implementation through NDC relevant indicators embedded in existing M&E frameworks seems to very efficient indeed. Will these indicators be sectoral indicators, defined by the sector Ministries or will they be action-level indicators? More details on how you envisage to link the existing M&E framework with NDC indicators to measure the progress of NDC implementation would be welcome.

Best regards,


Sebastian Wienges

NDC development and implementation are mutually facilitating processes and build on each other. They form an iterative process of developing the NDC and its sectoral targets, monitoring the implementation, reviewing the NDC, and ratcheting up the ambition of the target. This iterative process includes a technical strand, a political strand and a multi-stakeholder process. Based on the experiences of some countries advanced in their NDC processes, a double helix of NDC development and implementation has been developed:

The NDC development usually starts with a stock taking of what is already planned or under implementation for which a Stock Taking Tool might be useful:

The double helix process includes the following steps:

  • Identification of national lead institution, key stakeholders, establishment of inter-ministerial committee for NDC implementation

  • organization of stakeholder process

  • Analysis of mitigation potential

  • Selection of target type

  • Selection of priority sectors

  • Development of baseline/BAU scenario and GHG emission projections

  • Analysis of political feasibility

  • Analysis of technical, economic, social feasibility

  • Prioritization of mitigation actions (NAMAs)

  • Quantification of emission reduction potential of prioritized actions

  • Definition of national and sectoral targets and embedding in comprehensive strategy (LEDS)

  • Development of national tracking and accounting system for progress toward NDC implementation (MRV), including sectoral indicators to track progress of national sustainable development along with progress toward climate targets

  • Identification of financing options

  • Preparation of communication to UNFCCC

  • Analysis of sustainable development benefits of investment opportunities

  • Assessment of support needs

These iterative strands of the process run continuously in parallel to and feed into the implementation planning.

In order to help countries implement the sectoral targets of NDCs, a cross-sectoral working group was formed in the World Bank in early 2016 to pull together what information is needed from sectors to prepare implementation plans and investment plans to finance the actual implementation of the NDC. Responding to these information requests from operational units, an NDC team in the World Bank scanned all submitted INDCs for certain information which is relevant for NDC implementation planning from the perspective of a development finance institution:

  • Economy-wide information on national climate targets

  • Sectoral information on what countries intend to implement (targets, policies, actions, plans)

  • Subsectoral information on what countries intend to implement (targets, policies, actions, plans)

  • Conditionalities

  • Cost estimations for mitigation and adaptation, unconditional and conditional commitments, sectoral and subsectoral commitments

  • Plans to harness carbon pricing

  • Support needs

  • Barriers

  • Level of political decision (on submission of INDC)

  • Assessed development benefits

  • Existing national development strategies which climate policies build on

  • Involvement of multi stakeholders in the development process

This information serves as the basis for the analysis of support needs and the identification of sustainable development benefits. Each (sub-)sectoral commitment should be checked for potential benefits to one or more of the SDGs. The NDCs and SDGs are widely complementary and mutually enforcing. NDC implementation requires to identify ways to mobilize financing through existing channels as well as the current portfolio and pipeline for other than mere climate purposes. Otherwise it will hardly succeed to shift neither sufficient nor sufficiently fast the required resources to climate expenditures for achieving the NDC targets. The identified support needs and the potential development benefits will then allow to align climate actions with existing sectoral pipelines and budgets of line ministries and help mainstream climate change into existing pipelines. Thus, national lead institutions and/or inter-ministerial committees for the NDC implementation can develop an implementation plan with sectoral roadmaps and NAMAs.

(Along with the NDC implementation plan and the actual implementation, a national MRV system and a long-term GHG emission development strategy, including mid-century targets should be developed.)

Alexandra SOEZER • Climate Change Technical Advisor, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Dear Sebastian,

Many thanks for your contribution to the e-discussion and your insights from the financing perspective of a bank.

The fact that you mention that there is not sufficient additional climate finance available for NDC implementation but rather existing finance within project piplines of banks that can be linked to climate and SD impacts is an interesting input and in line with my experience in NAMA fund raising. Do you expect additional, dedicated NDC financing to materialize in the future?



Joseph Curtin (not verified)

Dear All,

Apologies for coming late to this discussion. In addition to the very useful comments above on wide variety of topics, I would like to add two points relevant when moving from the planning to implementation phase. I focus in particular on the last question:

  • What challenges and support needs are envisioned in your country in moving from planning into implementation of its NDC?

In the first case I would point to the annual review/benchmarking of progress as an important aspect of NDC implementation planning, and the involvement of as many actors in this process as possible, but especially Parliament/Parliamentary committee. Climate policy being long-term in nature can be the first thing to be postponed in times of crisis, or just within the context of 4/5-yearly electoral cycles. It is therefore vital to have an annual point where climate policy progress can/must be considered by political leaders. It is important to ascribe responsibility for target implementation (and reporting therein) to a particular line-minister (for energy, climate or environment) to be responsible for reporting on progress to Parliament.

 Furthermore, in addition to the potential for co-benefits of mitigation actions, it is very important for countries to identify barriers to implementation (of NDC or individual NAMAs) at the planning stage. While overall benefits might accrue from certain actions, concentrated costs (on particular geographic or social cohorts) can result in highly mobilised opposition to measures that might be beneficial overall. Barriers analysis can help in identifying vulnerable cohorts, and can have a beneficial impact on policy design. It could lead, for example, to particular design characteristics of a carbon tax or a grant measure focused on alleviating the negative implications for a particular cohort, or it might help a Government develop a narrative around why a particular measure is being advanced in spite of particular negative consequences. 

 It is important, therefore, that NDCs and NAMAs are "socially and rurally proofed" and the distributional impacts of policy measures are considered. These are absolutely central aspects of planning and can have a hugely beneficial impact at the implementation stage, and can help address "implementation gaps", which are evident in most countries' climate policy implementation. 

On a general point, there is a danger of NDC implementaton to be seen as a techno-economic process, whereas it is in reality a political and sociatal project, and consideration of these dimensions is absolutely critical for success. 

I hope that these comments are useful to you in your delivberations. 

Joseph Curtin, IIEA & UCC

Member, Climate Chnage Advisory Council, Ireland

Alexandra SOEZER • Climate Change Technical Advisor, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Dear Joseph,

Many thanks for your contributions to the e-discussion.

Your comments about the complex political process of the implementation of a sensitive climate agenda will be very beneficially for the audience. Your insights highlight the need for a whole-of-Government approach to NDC implementation, engagement of responsible line Ministries and regular stocktacking of progress. This is certainly relevant to all countries and will have to be reflected ealry on in the process during the institutional set-up for NDC implementation.

Best regards,


Biafra (not verified)

We unanimously could implement preferable project, we tend to be lever in collaboration