全球智库信息集成服务系统

The negotiations in the weeks and months ahead should focus on the following elements:

• How should supported actions be verified? Will unilateral (unsupported) actions be subject to a verification process as well?

• What should be the functions and governance structure of an international registry of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and support contributions?

• What principles should govern the generation and delivery of finance? Such internationally agreed-upon principles can inform a discussion on ways to ensure predictable, new, additional and adequate support for NAMAs.

• What should be the role, modalities and content of national climate action plans? Parties should also specify how such plans would complement other national climate and development planning tools. In addition, sovereignty concerns need to be alleviated and the demand-driven nature of the support allocation process needs to be guaranteed if national climate plans are to be subject to review or if their drafting is to be done in accordance with internationally agreed-upon guidelines.

In doing so, we recommend that Parties:

• Consider additional criteria to establish a gradation of MRV requirements. Such gradation could be based on (a) the type of action undertaken and (b) the ease and cost of verification itself.

• Build reporting structures and indicators on existing domestic systems.

• Set up clear treaty obligations for the provision and reporting of support. The nature of the support provided should be clarified as well as the ways in which provision of that support should be reported and verified internationally.

• Focus on delineating the characteristics of acceptable NAMAs (such as mitigation benefits, cost and timeframe) rather than types of acceptable actions. Doing so would enable countries to propose innovative, nationally specific actions in the future while meeting environmental integrity requirements.