Global Good Practice Analysis on LEDS, NAMAs and MRV:
Conclusions and Lessons Learnt

It is encouraging to note that across all regions there is a broad diversity of mitigation actions underway and many examples of effective practice at various stages of implementation. The learning documented in the accompanying case studies provides the reader with useful background, practical insights and further resources to understand the what, when, who and how of some of these practices. The cases highlight lessons learned from country experience of designing and delivering mitigation actions across a wide range of cultural, political and socio-economic contexts. We have highlighted in the previous section a range of cross-cutting factors which appear to have contributed to success in many cases. These include having effective leadership and political commitment; engaging and managing stakeholders; using appropriate processes, frameworks, targets and incentives; mainstreaming and institutionalising mitigation actions; and having sufficient finance and technical capacity.

Although the lessons learned from the cases are often context specific, several common factors did emerge which are noteworthy when considering designing similar actions elsewhere. They include:

  • Financial support: Not surprisingly, securing adequate financial resources and implementing the right incentives is an important lesson highlighted across many of the cases (8). Ensuring financial transparency (e.g. Viet Nam) and active stakeholder engagement (e.g. South Korea) are also important considerations in this respect. 
  • Involving the right partners at the right time: Having the right people and institutions on board can have a large impact on the success of projects and as experience from the cases in Chile, South Africa and Colombia emphasise, investing time in engaging the right people at the right time can avoid problems later. Deciding on ideal size of the group is also an important consideration, as highlighted in the case of Lebanon.
  • Involvement of subnational actors: Sub-national actors play a vital role, largely due to their proximity to local conditions and that they can implement certain actions more effectively (e.g. the role of enforcement in preventing deforestation in Brazil). The value of giving subnational governments more power to act and support delivery of national policies is noted in a number of cases (e.g. Georgia, Brazil and Colombia). The cases in Kenya and India also highlight some of the advantages of a more bottom-up approach with regards to better information for national adaptation and mitigation planning.
  • Providing a long-term perspective: Actions that are framed within a long-term perspective can be important to reassure and convince private companies and other stakeholders about the benefits and potential return on investments (e.g. Chile, China). Making clear links with immediate and long-term development goals can enhance political acceptability (e.g. India).
  • Building on existing policies/structures: Integrating actions with existing policies, for example to implement NAMAs (Colombia) or building on existing institutions or ministries ensure the necessary political buy-in and institutional ownership to secure implementation and follow up (e.g. Ethiopia, India). 

We encourage the reader to explore the cases in more detail by accessing the online resources which accompany each case and reaching out to the country contacts provided to further understand the important actions to replicate (and avoid) when designing and implementing similar mitigation actions elsewhere. 

See more information on background and methodology of the Good Practice Analysis here.
See more on success factors of mitigation initiatives here.