Phase 1: Feedback on NDC Implementation Guidance Outline

9 Nov - 9 Dec 2016
Go back to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and Implementation of the Paris Agreement

UNDP ,  UNEP ,  UDP , and the  WRI , in cooperation with the UNFCCC Secretariat, are currently developing joint guidance to be used by countries as they prepare for NDC implementation. The guidance will be informed by real-world country examples and a public draft will be available for comment by countries in early 2017. In order to seek early feedback on the guidance, we have developed a draft outline, available here. We kindly request that you read the outline and respond to the questions below. Your feedback is instrumental in ensuring that the guidance is as practical as possible and grounded in national experiences. 

1) Country Experiences

How has the Paris Agreement and the (I)NDC process catalyzed progress on climate action in your country?  What are the key areas in which your country will need support or guidance as you prepare for NDC implementation?

2) Scope of the Outline:

Does the draft outline for the NDC implementation guidance reflect the key areas identified above?  What other thematic areas (if any) would you suggest including to make the guidance as practical as possible for countries in the process of preparing for NDC implementation?

2) Additional Suggestions:

Based on your professional experience (and experience in using Designing and Preparing INDCs, if applicable), what suggestions would you have for ensuring that the NDC implementation guidance is concrete yet applicable to a wide spectrum of countries, stakeholders, and types of NDCs?  


Comments (25)

E-discussion Facilitator

The Summary of Phase 1 is now available here: would like to thank everyone who took the time to participate in the first phase of our e-Discussion on NDC Implementation!

It has been interesting to hear first-hand of the impressive work done in countries around the world, and to receive suggestions on how to improve and structure the upcoming NDC Guidance Document, which we are developing with our partners UNEP, UNEP-DTU and the WRI, in cooperation with the UNFCCC Secretariat.

The e-Discussion is being carried out in 6 phases from November 2016 – March 2017. In the coming weeks, we will share with you the input we have received. In this summary you will find the results from Phase 1 - Feedback on the Outline for the NDC Implementation Guide.

Rebecca Mary CARMAN • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Colleagues, welcome to UNDP’s e-discussion on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)! The last year has seen several important milestones on climate change, including the adoption and entry into force of the Paris Agreement. Countries are already starting to make impressive progress in preparing for implementation of their NDCs in the context of the agreement.

This e-discussion provides a forum for countries to exchange early experiences in this process so that we can learn from one another. In particular, we are seeking your feedback on an NDC implementation guidance document that UNDP is developing in collaboration with the UNFCCC Secretariat, UNEP-DTU, and the World Resources Institute. Our hope is to make this guidance as concrete as possible, by understanding and incorporating your national experiences.

Thank you ahead of time for your contributions to this important discussion!

Rebecca Mary CARMAN • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Dear colleagues: Phase 1 has officially closed and we will post a summary shortly. Meanwhile, please join our discussion on institutional arrangements, engagement and awareness raising here:

Rebecca Mary CARMAN • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

I would like to thank everyone who took the time to participate in the first phase of our e-discussion. It has been extremely interesting to hear of the impressive work in developing countries, as well as suggestions for how to improve and structure the NDC guidance document.

Country experiences

One of our main objectives was learning how the Paris Agreement and the (I)NDC process had catalyzed climate action in countries, and what support was still needed in preparing for NDC implementation. Representatives from Moldova, Brazil, Guatemala, Ecuador, Colombia, Lebanon and Uganda shared their thoughts and I highly recommend that you read their very insightful examples, if you have not done so already. Both Lebanon and Ecuador have prepared high-level roadmaps for NDC implementation – you can find Ecuador’s (in Spanish) here:

It was clear from the examples provided that developing countries put a lot of effort into preparing their INDCs – undertaking extensive stakeholder consultations and drawing upon existing climate change policies, strategies and legal frameworks, as well as adaptation and mitigation actions and strategies, to define their NDC vision and/or targets. The National Communications were also a key resource. 

There was general agreement that the INDC design process and subsequent Paris Agreement had provided momentum and given a higher level of priority to climate change in national governments, although it was noted that more than goodwill is needed to sustain these efforts – namely, mechanisms by which to truly enforce laws and targets. Another key benefit identified was that the INDC served to bring together a range of national climate change efforts into a more comprehensive single vision.

Scope and content of the NDC implementation guidance

In addition to the country representatives listed above, we also received comments from Ricardo-AEA, World Bank and GIZ on the proposed outline for the UNDP/WRI/UNEP/DTU NDC implementation guidance document. Overall, the proposed outline resonated with reviewers. It was noted that while the document would need to be generic to be applicable to a wider number of countries, including detail was important in order to the document to be really useful.

Several commenters were curious as to whether mitigation and adaptation would be treated separately, noting the importance of adaptation as a priority issue in many developing countries. The interplay between political, technical and stakeholder participation processes was also highlighted as important for raising ambition. Other recommendations included: how to link NDCs to the sustainable development agenda; including indicators of quality or progress, as well as potential corrective measures that could be used if not meeting targets; and including a toolbox of financial tools and approaches.

Ricardo-AEA also shared the quick-start guide to planning for NDC implementation that was developed in collaboration with CDKN:


Kenneth Barungi (not verified)

The draft outline looks good. 

Rebecca Mary CARMAN • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Thanks Kenneth. Do you have any thoughts on the format of the guidance? What works well in your experience in Uganda for sharing knowledge?

Kenneth Barungi (not verified)

Yes, the Paris aGreement has induced a degree of awareness in the elite sections of the society, increasing debate, some action and proposals for mitigation are emerging. 

NEEDS include :

1. Creating awareness about realities of climate change and impacts on communities 

2.Adaptation technologies which are affordable and sustainable 

3. Subsidies towards substitute of fossil fuels, wood, etc


Vahakn Kabakian

The Paris agreement (PA) and the (I)NDC process contributed tremendously in kick-starting a different type of climate action in Lebanon. Prior to the PA (and the INDC development process), Lebanon had a 2020 voluntary 12% RE target. This 12% target was Lebanon’s Copenhagen COP-15 contribution. It was a single-sector contribution towards lowering national greenhouse gas emissions, stemmed from a single ministry. Though, at the time, this was a big step forward for Lebanon, it had not captured the real GHG reduction potential of Lebanon. Nevertheless, this was the first stepping stone.Merits should also be given to the NAMA development process initiated in Lebanon following the Copenhagen COP-15. The process being inclusive by nature (and multi-sectoral) had served as a platform in starting wider discussion on available options in terms of emission reduction options in the country. Lebanon had set up a mitigation working group (where various sectors were represented). The mitigation working group conducted prioritization for NAMA selection. This helped the identification of potential GHG emission reduction NAMA-ble sectors. When INDC preparation process started, an inter-ministerial committee was formed. Most of the mitigation working group members became part of this new inter-ministerial committee; therefore, the inter-ministerial committee, while it made use of the already internalized process of mitigation action (in the form of NAMA), it also allowed to expand the sectors (e.g., Lebanese Petroleum Authority) and stakeholders (Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs), in addition to considering adaptation options to formulate the INDC.  in terms of climate action catalyzed from the INDC process, in general terms, it provided an opportunity to draft a national 2030 outlook in terms of national emission reduction targets (in various sectors) and in terms of adaptation needs. Therefore, the process served as a vehicle in pinning down several sectoral targets (e.g., 15% RE by 2030; as opposed to only having a voluntary 2020 RE target), but also allowed to interact with various sectoral strategies (e.g., Transportation, agriculture, water) and incorporate climate change related aspects and vice-versa, where targets within national strategies and plans became part of the INDC (e.g., land degradation neutrality).With respect to the outline suggested, a comparision to our implementation process might be useful. After COP-21, we have started preparing a higher order roadmap, where the various needs for the implementation of the INDC are outlined. This is linked to the provisions of the Paris Agreement, including linkages with the timelines and the cycles stipulated by the PA. Following, that, we organized a INDC implementation stocktaking meeting, where each ministry has presented status of the various plans/strategies making up our INDC, including identified needs and gaps which will hinder the implementation phase. Based on the information obtained, we have prepared in a tabular format,  a workplan, which will eventually be circulated back to the various ministries for their validation. This includes information on progress of the sectoral plans, costing, timeline, needs and gaps (financial/regulatory/etc). Once this step in completed, we are planning to use that as the baseline against which progress will be measured. Therefore, we have also included progress indicators, after assessing whether the ministries’ indicators are adequate and whether they could serve as progress indicators towards achieving the INDC targets (i.e., if the indicator is in terms of carbon reduction; if  not, if it can be converted to a carbon reduction result; if not, then what is needed to convert it to a carbon reduction metric). Linkages were also provided with the relevant national strategies and plans for each sector (if available). In Fact, looking at the draft outline, it does cover the above, with certain additional guidance, such as potential financing sources (and mobilization).In order for the guideline to be used by a wider number of countries, it needs to be generic, yet detailed enough to enable those countries to use it. Therefore, perhaps a step by step process description, with links to already existing tools would be useful. A decision-tree approach might also work, however this requires that all possibilities are covered within the decision-tree. it doesn't need to be perscriptive, however, the less abstract it is, the more useful it will be for the countries.Hope this helps. Vahakn

Rebecca Mary CARMAN • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Thank you for the detailed response, Vahakn. I am curious as to whether you think that any of the proposed sections of the Guidebook (i.e., cycles and long-term planning, governance, implementation plan, financing, monitoring and reporting, review and revision) is a particularly "grey" area where more guidance would be useful because experience is lacking? Also, do you have a preference for length of guidance?

Vahakn Kabakian

Hi Rebecca, 


Definitely more guidance is required, specially for those who are not very much involved in the negotiations and therefore the PA text is rather obscure for them. The more detailed and explanatory the guidebook is the more useful it would be, in my opinion. I think linking the required (or recommended) actions/steps in the guidebook to the cycles would be useful - it might give an idea on the timelines required for actions/steps to be taken at the national level in order to fit the global process. I would say cycles, revision and review are the sections that are rather directly linked to the global stocktake (which is being negotiated in Marrakesh and depends on the outcome of the Marrakesh sessions and beyond) - so that would be a rather "greyer" area than the rest. 


As for the length, I think it is better not to restrict it upfront, but give the guidebook the length that it requires to provide as much details and appoaches as possible. Vahakn


Hi, Everybody

In Colombia the NDC is to reduce our emissions on 20% to the 2030, based on the calculated emissions of 2010 (calculated for the First Colombian BUR), and reduce 30% if we receive international cooperation. However, the implementation of that target has not been a simple processes whithin the country because productive sectors are really concerned about the goal and what will be their commitment to help on their achievement. As a country we have now a tough disussion about how to distribute the 20% among economic sectors, and I think this is a discussion that not only Colombia has, then perhaps some capacity building is needed.

Furthermore, the national discussions about the NDC's implementation should be based on transparency, for instance in Colombia a problem is that the Ministry of Environment contract a University to make projections and have the 20%, but now for economic sectors nobody knows how that projections were made, and this of course increase the discussion about implementation.

Finally, I think is very important to include in this work group discussions about Adaptation NDCs. Colombia made his commitment, but I think we should advance on thnk about how to orientate the countries on how to measure the achievement of this kind of NDCs.

These are just a few initial reactions about NDCs, and needs for implementation within the countries.




Michael Comstock • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Thanks very much for your post, Javier, and for highlighting some of the challenges Colombia is facing as the country moves toward implementing its NDC.  Would you be able to speak to how the Paris Agreement and (I)NDC process have encouraged engagement with the economic sectors you mention?

Also, Colombia has undertaken quite an impressive process of developing eight Sectoral Mitigation Action Plans (SMAPs) under its Low Carbon Development Strategy.  Could you share any initial thoughts on how Colombia will build on this work in planning for NDC implementation and what next steps may be needed?

Finally, I wanted to mention that in this discussion forum, as well as in the NDC implementation guidance, we intend to address both mitigation and adaptation.

Christian Parra (not verified)

1) Country Experiences

Before Paris agreement, mitigation actions were developed as isolated efforts in Ecuador. The LECB program since January 2015 was asked to integrate all the mitigation initiatives in the energy sector of the country and to determine the conditional and unconditional contribution of the country.

After nine months of work with several counterparts the program delivered the requested products to the Ministry of Environment. In addition, an additional external verification was asked in order to approve the data obtained. In this regard, the Spanish association of Normalization (AENOR) was hired for verifying the methodology and the results obtained by the LECB program in Ecuador. On august 2015 the satisfactory certification was issued. On October 1st the INDC of Ecuador containing the technical information provided by the LECB was uploaded in the UNFCCC registry platform.

Nowadays the LECB program in Ecuador is leading the work in order to expand of the NDC to all the IPCC sectors this work will be developed during 2017 and integrates the support of additional multilateral cooperation. In addition, the LECB is programing to link the CPEIR process to the NDC in order to establish the investment needed to reach the objectives for the NDC.

Ecuador currently needs technical, and financial support in the new phase described above.


2) Scope of the Outline:


In our developing countries the adaptation issue is very important, for this reason I would recommend to integrate a section dedicated to adaptation because this area is much wider and complicated.

It is also important to recommend the application of methodologies dedicated to analyze the expenditure, institution and political situation of the country regarding climate change on whose basis financial , institutional and political gaps could be addressed.  The CPEIR and PCEIR methodologies are being applied in our country and is consider the departure point regarding this approach.


2) Additional Suggestions:

It is prevailing the compromise of the stakeholders involved in determining the scenarios, the technical and financial capacities in order to address the compromises should be evaluated. Regarding financial mechanisms, the countries should have clarity regarding the conditions of possible donors ( GCF, multilaterals among others).

Finally the possibility to analyze new unilateral funding mechanisms as ITMOS should be addressed mainly for developing countries.

  • An initial draft of the NDC preparation approach in Ecuador is shared

Michael Comstock • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Christian, thank you very much for sharing these national experiences from Ecuador and, in particular, for posting the country's draft NDC roadmap.  This will be very useful for other countries.  It's also encouraging to hear how the Paris Agreement helped integrate what were previously isolated climate efforts in the country.  

Thanks also for the concrete suggestions related to the guidance.  From your perspective, would it be more useful to have a separate chapter on adaptation, or to incorporate adaptation into the other thematic chapters that are included in the outline (e.g., governance arrangements, implementation plans, funding, monitoring, etc.)?

Michael Comstock • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Colleagues, we look forward to any additional comments you have on the outline of the NDC implementation guidance.  Please recall that the outline is available via the link in the introduction paragraph at the top of this page.  In particular, we look forward to hearing whether there are any additional thematic areas that you would recommend including in the guidance, as well as any suggestions you have for making the guidance concrete yet applicable to a wide variety of countries and stakeholders.  Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the discussion up to this point.

Sebastian Wienges

The sections of the outline make sense and reflect what we (GIZ, World Bank) learned from the processes in the countries.

Perhaps in section I, there are specific steps which should be included:

  • Analysis of (technical) mitigation potential

  • Prioritization of actions and sectors

  • Analysis of political feasibility

  • Analysis of technical, economic, social feasibility

  • Quantification of target

  • Identification of sectoral targets

In general, there seem to be three strands of work in the NDC development and implementation process: the political, the technical, and the stakeholder participation processes. All of them address in some way the sections of the NDC Implementation Guidance. And these intertwined processes influence (and facilitate) each other, and develop iteratively (thereby ratcheting-up the targets, from unconditional to conditional).

Transparency is the mechanism to facilitate implementation by enabling countries to learn from each other and to identify which information and what planning is needed to propel implementation, as well as transparency is the mechanism to ratchet-up ambition and targets. This relevance and function of transparency should therefore be highlighted along the whole process, i.e. mentioned in every section in the specific context, not only in the Monitoring section.

From discussions in the World Bank and with our clients, it seems that in section III the preparation of an implementation plan requires to identify actual support needs and more systematically identify sustainable development benefits of NDC implementation (based on the SDG linkages discussed in section I). Thereby, countries’ priorities and opportunities can be identified and, thus, possibilities for mobilizing resources (section IV) can be identified. Priorities and opportunities mark which available (public and private) resources and existing pipelines can be harnessed for implementation, and which NDC sectoral targets will contribute to other development goals, coordinating NDC implementation with sectoral approaches and public and private initiatives. (Considering unconditional and conditional components of the NDC, this implementation planning and resource mobilization shows the iterative nature of the process of what countries are already doing and capable of doing (unconditional) and what countries will need international support for (conditional).

In section IV the costing-out needs to include (and differentiate) the implementation costs of technology investments etc. (CAPEX), the costs of capacity building to enable countries to manage the whole implementation process, and the economic costs including impacts on jobs, growth, income, poverty etc. These different types of costs require different levels of data collection, collaboration with (national and international) non-governmental actors, and economic modelling. Available tools for these different requirements should be linked in the Guidance.

Rebecca Mary CARMAN • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Very useful insights, Sebastian. Thanks!

Alejandra Sobenes (not verified)

 Country Experiences

1. I am pleased to present to you the National Action Plan on Climate Change and show you how it is inserted into the National Planning and Programming system. The National Action Plan for Climate Change was prepared by the National Council on Climate Change and the Secretariat for Planning and Programming of the Presidency of the Republic of Guatemala.


2. In 2009, Guatemala approved a National Policy on Climate Change. This policy was the basis for the development of the Framework Law on Climate Change, one of the first in Latin America, and being enforced since 2013. The law contains the most important guidelines for state planning in the face of climate change.


Under this law, it specifically creates

• the National Climate Change Council

• Orders the elaboration of the PANCC

• Orders the preparation of PEIS

• orders the integration of CC into public investment planning and programming  and in the national planning system.


3. In compliance with the law, in 2014 the preparation of the National Action Plan for Climate Change began. It was a process that took two years of consultations, coordinated by the Secretary of Planning and Programming of the Presidency of the Republic of Guatemala. It involved all sectors of the country, represented in the National Climate Change Council, the government sector, civil society, indigenous peoples, universities, municipal governments and the private sector.


4. In September 2015 Guatemala presented its INDC and in December of that same year, Guatemala signed the Paris Agreement and the objectives of Sustainable Development. These circumstances made it necessary for Guatemala to adjust its National Action Plan on Climate Change to incorporate its international commitments. It represented an enormous effort for all sectors of the country that are present today.


  5. The objective of the Plan is Define in a clear and organized way, the main actions and  guidelines that must be followed by the Governmental Institutions and its sectors, in order to contribute in an efficient manner to the reduction of vulnerability in which most of the population is.  To extend the adaptation capacity of the country and reduce the emissions of the greenhouse effects in the face of the threat of climate change and climate variability. 

 6. The National Action Plan on Climate Change contains guidelines for adaptation and mitigation. It is developed by sectors. For each sector, an action plan is drawn up containing a frame of reference and a matrix that specifies the objectives pursued, the results, the indicators, the term, the prioritized territory and those who are responsible.

 7. Summarizing it, we can assure, that with a great effort from our country, climate change has been considered in the national planning system and it goes as follows:

-We developed a national climate change policy and based on it, we developed a Framework Law on Climate Change that mandates the national planning process.

 The law allowed to give the guidelines to build a National Development Plan and this, together with the second national communication on climate change were the basis for Guatemala to present its INDC in 2015.

 In that same year 2015, Guatemala assumed the commitments to achieve the sustainable development objectives and the Paris Agreement. The commitments were made in the INDC, the SDGs, and the Paris Agreement and were collected and taken into account in the construction of the first National Action Plan on Climate Change.

 Our Climate Change Law mandates that all public institutions develop their Institutional Strategic Plans (PEIs) based on the National Action Plan. The law also mandates that the National Action Plan be updated according to upcoming national communications. As from the validity of the Paris Agreement, the National Action Plan will also be updated according to the new NDCs.

 The National Action Plan provides for a monitoring and evaluation mechanism.

The National Planning System will be guided by the principles and safeguards established by the Framework Law on Climate Change.

We considerate extremely important the estimation of NDC implementation costs, identification of potential funding sources (public, private, international), and assessments of current public expenditures and private investments related to climate change. Our INDC and our National Action Plan  shall include in the future this topic.

Rebecca Mary CARMAN • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Dear Alejandara,

This is a very interesting example -- thanks for taking the time to describe in detail the plans of Guatemala. We are  actually discussing institutional arrangements, engagement and awareness raising in Phase 2. Please go here to comment: In particular, I'd love to hear more about how you will ensure the institutional framework operates as you envisage -- will Ministries sign MOUs, make decisions through committees, etc.

thanks again!

Higor Rafael Lopes do Nascimento

The important thing is not just to pass laws! But we need measures and solutions that can mitigate the effects of gases. In Brazil, for example, it has the National Air Quality Program. But in practice, nothing works. And in other countries it's all the same.

Therefore, the most necessary are effective actions to really be able to change.

We are waiting for changes, not just in Brazil. But in every country. We all need to unite to decrease more and more with pollution, be it Air, Water and Soil. For it is only enough to have one of these polluted systems that already can be verified the changes in nature.

Rebecca Mary CARMAN • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Dear Higor -- thank you for your insights. Do you think it is not worth putting time into legislation, or rather that legislation is needed PLUS the commitment to enforce the laws? What would be a plausible and workable alternative to legislation? Is there any successful experiences on addressing environmental or pollution issues in Brazil that you can think of and what it was that made them successful?

We are discussing some of these themes in our Phase 2 discussion on the institutional arrangements that countries are putting in place to support NDC implementation, as well as how to continue engaging and raising awareness of key stakeholders to ensure that the momentum from Paris can be maintained. We'd appreciate your hearing your thoughts if you have time. Please go here to comment:

Sergiu Ungureanu

Dear Colleagues, 

The Republic of Moldova has started to draft its INDC in the context of COP agreement of Paris in 2015. By end of September 2015 the INDC of Moldova were approved by the Ministry of Environment and presented at COP Paris.

The INDCs were written in the context of LEDS of the country and prepared by the specialists under LECB program, the COP Paris has accelerated the INDC elaboration and update of LEDS. Now the INDC became NDC with another status and another approach for implementation.

The Moldova’s NDC are quite ambitious, in the best scenario with additional measures it will reduce up to 78% emissions comparing to the baseline year (1990). Now without additional measures the reduction is to about 64% comparing to baseline year. The international obligations of the country and participation to COPs are an accelerating factor for environmental strategies and international documents to be elaborated, discussed and approved by the Ministry of Environment and National Commission for Kyoto protocol.

Moldova will need support in the several key areas to implement the NDCs, these are: Capacity building for mitigation and adaptation, financial support in energy efficiency (especially residential sector), financial support in renewable energy (we have now a high energy dependence of imports) and support for implementation of afforestation projects (according to the strategy it should rise from 10.5 to 15%).

The Outline guidance are fitting well with the scope in the context of proposed goals.

Some suggestion will be: in section 1. Some arrangements to support the governments to develop and understand the development goals.

In section 5 and 6 it would be useful to indicate that some correction measures will be considered and that some indicators of quality or progress will be considered. 

Rebecca Mary CARMAN • Climate Technical Specialist, UNDP at UNDP from United States Moderator

Sergei -- Thanks for the useful suggestions and the background on the Moldovan context. We are actually discussing some of these themes in our Phase 2 discussion on the institutional arrangements that countries are putting in place to support NDC implementation, as well as how to continue engaging and raising awareness of key stakeholders to ensure that the momentum from Paris can be maintained. We'd appreciate your hearing your thoughts -- especially since you have set ambitious goals! Please go here to comment:

Regarding your suggstion for "some arrangements to support the governments to develop and understand the development goals" -- are you referring to the Sustainable Development Goals and the need to ensure alignment between the NDC/climate targets and the SDGs? Are you anticipating challenges in this respect and what do they stem from? In general, how easy has it been to mainstream climate change into the development agenda of Moldova? Are there mechanisms that you can build upon for the NDC?

Secondly, when you refer to capacity building for mitigation and adaptation, what are the main issues you are facing in terms of capacity? It is empowering sectoral Ministries to design their own climate change programmes, creating more transformational projects, addressing investment barriers? best, Rebecca

Emelia Holdaway (not verified)

Thank you for the chance to comment on the draft outline of your NDC implementation guidance. This e-discussion is a great idea and the outline you set out looks really good.

We think it might be helpful to include an introductory section on who the guide is for, what it aims to achieve, what it covers, how it can be used etc. As you know, Ricardo Energy & Environment and CDKN published a Quick Start Guide on NDC implementation in October 2016, we are currently working with GIZ on linking NAPs and NDCs, and other guidance will be coming out in the future on specific elements of NDC implementation. It could be useful at this stage to collectively consider countries’ needs for NDC implementation support, and identify which of those support needs the different guidance documents are aiming to address- so that they build on and complement each other as effectively as possible.

 One question we had was what guidance might be needed on delivery of the NDC. We note that your outline has a section on preparing the NDC implementation plan, and one on updating strategies based on reviews of progress. Might guidance also be needed on how to implement the plan? We covered this in to an extent in the Quick-Start Guide, by looking at ongoing issues such as capacity building, stakeholder engagement and coordination of climate actions. Is this an area you are planning on covering?

Other comments below:

  • Will you be addressing mitigation and adaptation separately? The Quick-Start Guide looks at these separately, considers the synergies between them and for adaptation explicitly links to the NAP process.
  • Your outline mentions monitoring and reporting of mitigation and adaptation actions - is it also intended to include the same for support? 

For information, the Quick-Start Guide to NDC implementation can be found online here:; also attached below.

We are looking forward to working with you and others as this develops.

Kelly Levin • Senior Climate Associate, WRI at World Resources Institute from United States

Many thanks Emelia. Very good suggestions here. Indeed, in the intro or an exec summary we will state who the guide is for, what it aims to achieve, what it covers, how it can be used etc. And we do want to make it complementary to what else is out there, such as your excellent guide.

You raise an important question on implementation and where this belongs. We were planning to cover but it doesn't come across in the short outline, which we will need to address. Thanks for pointing this out.

On adaptation vs. mitigation, we will not be treating these separately unless there are concepts that deserve separate treatment (e.g. MRV of mitigation vs. M&E of adaptation, but other things will be treated together).

On MRV of support, we will only be treating this in the context of support for implementation but not MRV of support at large. But good question as it is not reflected in this short outline.

Thanks for your very helpful comments!