national climate change awareness-raising workshop - UNDPCC.org

NATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE
AWARENESS-RAISING WORKSHOP
Safari Hotel, Windhoek, Namibia
23-25 September 2008
WORKSHOP REPORT
The National Climate Change Awareness-raising and Capacity Development Workshop for Namibia was held
from 23-25 September 2008 in Windhoek. On the national level, the workshop sought to enhance national
planning efforts on all levels—between all ministries and across all economic sectors—to be prepared for the
impacts of climate change and discuss what climate change will mean for Namibia. On the international level,
the workshop sought to provide information on future cooperative action on climate change currently under
discussion by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These new
negotiations, known as the Bali Action Plan, will chart the course for future long-term cooperative action and
it is vital that developing countries actively participate to ensure that any agreed outcome reflects their needs
and interests, both in the short and long term. The workshop focused on three key objectives:
• Awareness-raising for policy makers on strategic issues relating to climate change—how they in turn
relate to key national priorities and how people on the national level understand the issues,
• Capacity development for negotiators on the building blocks of the Bali Action Plan, and
• Capacity development for technical experts to conduct assessments of investment and financial flows
for climate change of two major sectors relevant to Namibia.
The workshop included presentations on the four building blocks of the Bali Action Plan—mitigation,
adaptation, technology and finance—as well as issues relating to land use, land-use change and forestry
(LULUCF). The workshop also provided a forum for in-depth discussion of key national sectors regarding
climate change, including a focused exchange on the sectors energy (mitigation) and forestry (adaptation) and
to provide a concrete understanding of the investment and financial flows relating to these sectors.
Participants included a broad range of representatives from government ministries, as well as representatives
from the national power company, private sector companies, academic institutions, journalistic publications
and non-governmental organizations. The workshop took a participatory, country-driven approach based on
prior consultations with national representatives. For each of the main topics, the workshop included a
presentation highlighting key issues and questions, followed by a plenary discussion to further consider the
issues. Participants then met in smaller working groups to consider specific questions and provide their views
in more detail. The workshop was followed by a special training session on how to undertake an assessment
of investment and financial flows for selected economic sectors.
Mr. William Kojo Agyemang-Bonsu, UNFCCC/DNA Focal Point, Ghana, served as facilitator for the workshop.
1

Overview of the Bali Roadmap
Presentation by Maria Netto, UNDP
At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali in December 2007, governments agreed to step up
their efforts to combat climate change and adopted the “Bali Road Map”, which consists of a number of
forward-looking decisions that are essential to reaching a secure climate future. The Bali Road Map takes a
“two-track” approach. One track includes the Bali Action Plan, which charts the course for a new negotiating
process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or “the
Convention”), with the aim of completing this by 2009. It focuses on four “building blocks”: adaptation,
mitigation, technology transfer and deployment, financing. The second track includes the current negotiations
under the Kyoto Protocol, and their 2009 deadline, which focus on further quantified emission reduction
commitments for industrialized countries (except for the U.S., which did not ratify the Protocol and currently
has no legally binding target). The future relationship between these two tracks (i.e., will they remain separate
or will the discussions be brought together) is another question being considered in the negotiations.
Mitigation
Presentation by Massamba Thioye, consultant for UNDP, Senegal
Mitigation—the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions or enhancement of carbon “sinks”—is the most
controversial issue under the Bali Action Plan. Human activity is contributing to climate change and all
countries must reduce emissions to avoid the worst predicted damages: developed countries by 0 to -25%
(smaller) to -25 to -40% (larger) in 2020 and developing countries "substantially" from baseline. Significant
technological progress has been made, but annual investments of $200-210 billion are needed by 2030. In
addition, forests and land use will be a big part of the solution. The Bali Action Plan calls on developing
countries to identify mitigation actions that are: “measurable, reportable and verifiable” (MRV). The
discussion on mitigation can be particularly difficult, since its outcome differs depending on which
greenhouse gases are to be reduced, from which sources, by when and by how much (national vs. per capita
emissions). A number of proposals are currently on the table, such as the “evolution of Clean Development
Mechanism” (i.e. move to a sectoral approach) to “sustainable development policies & measures” (SD-
PAMs). Developing country ministers will need to carefully consider which option(s) they can support.
Plenary discussion on mitigation
In the plenary discussion, participants noted that Namibia had different priorities than the larger developing
countries and would therefore need a better understanding of the positions of countries with circumstances
similar its own. Participants also raised questions on the types of compliance systems that would accompany
the proposed mitigation options for developing countries, noting that these systems are often complex and
burdensome. On mitigation action for Namibia, a number of participants highlighted the need for structural
reform. For example, the selling of electricity includes a mark-up to cover other costs, such as salaries and
local community cost. Therefore, there is resistance to reducing usage. Others highlighted the need for a
national body to discuss the problem and develop an integrated national approach.
Working Group discussions on mitigation
What nationally appropriate mitigation actions, in the context of sustainable development, would have most support in Namibia
Participants suggested a number of possible actions, including:
• Promoting energy efficiency in all sectors of energy production. This requires assessing the entire
chain of energy production. Structural reform and financial incentives for change are also needed.
2

Reforms may be needed to allow for power inputs from independent suppliers. Demand side
management and energy efficiency can only be achieved when appropriate regulations are in place;
• Promoting renewable energy sources, including through tax incentives to lower to costs. Renewables
such as wind, small hydro and geothermal could hold great potential for Namibia, as well as making
it less dependent on imports from neighbouring countries;
• Setting national standards in specific sectors, especially the transport sector with emission standard;
• Setting national energy targets;
• Fuel switching in the energy sector, such as to clean coal and/or natural gas, as well as fuel switching
in the transport sector;
• Possible changes in the land-use sector;
• Improved building regulations;
• Energy recovery and other mining improvements.
There are also sector-specific actions for mitigation, such as improving pumping systems in the water sector,
and promoting different species of plants in the agriculture sector. Other possibilities include:
• Rural electrification: Introduction of appropriate technologies, including solar cookers.
• Appropriate farming systems: In Namibia, farming is mostly done on woodlands in far northeast. It
would be better to have more intensive farming, than to move onto marginal (less productive) lands.
• Sustainable forest management through communities. For example, bee keeping could be a livelihood
component of sustainable forest management.
Some mitigation options are linked to adaptation, such as improvements to mining, which is highly “water
sensitive”. Participants also stressed that public awareness is most important at this time–so that people
understand why they should take action. This needs to be top down (policy makers) as well as bottom up
(consumers), e.g. wood harvesting–cut down dead trees, not live trees (which are sinks).
Is it realistic to expect that sufficient mitigation technologies will be developed and diffused, especially in the energy sector, even if
there is no carbon cap
Participants were divided on the issue. Some agreed that a national goal of some kind was needed or
“business as usual” would simply continue. Others, however, said this was not needed, as some mitigation
actions are already underway, such as with solar power. ESCOM in South Africa is replacing more efficient
machines under demand-side management, which has already has ramifications in Namibia in the mining
sector, where they are updating machines to be more efficient.
Which measures do you consider as most appropriate or desirable for Namibia: Kyoto-style fixed targets, per capita entitlements,
the Brazilian Proposal, SD-PAMs, CDM, etc
Under the international sectors, some participants supported the “sustainable development policies and
measures” (SD PAMs) approach, but noted that implementation would give rise to questions of how they
could be “measurable, reportable and verifiable” as required under the Bali Action Plan. Any SD PAMs
3

should be based on national, rather than regional, standards. Other participants supported the “enhanced
CDM” approach, noting that some CDM activity was currently underway. Participants also emphasized that
CDM approach would require enhanced support and/or technical backstopping, as there is no designated
national authority (DNA) in Namibia. Enhanced CDM activities should start with industry, which has
capacity to implement CDM projects. All participants agreed that Kyoto-style fixed targets would be
inappropriate and, in any case, monitoring and compliance would be too difficult.
Adaptation
Presentation by Maria Netto, UNDP
Adaptation—the process of sustainable and permanent adjustment to changing circumstances of climate
impacts—is the most important “building block” for Namibia. It is closely linked to development (the more
developed a country is, the more adaptation options available) and needs to converge with disaster risk
reduction activities. Discussion on adaptation has evolved in recent years and is increasingly focused on longterm
preparedness. While impact assessments are dominated by uncertainties, it is clear that adaptation will
require substantial funding (ten of billions of dollars). Much of the costs will be borne by government, which
creates a challenge for developing countries with limited funds and few outside investments. Additional
financial flows for adaptation will clearly be needed. Adaptation will require adjustments across every aspect
of society, environment and economy. This in turn will require capacity for short- and long-term planning
and adequate institutional arrangements (systematic planning, co-operation, and regulatory frameworks).
Under the Bali Action Plan, four discussion topics have been identified: national planning for adaptation;
streamlining and scaling up financial and technological support; enhanced knowledge sharing (there a lot of
traditional knowledge, but its not well known); and institutional frameworks for adaptation.
Plenary discussion on adaptation
The plenary discussion focused on a range of topics relating to adaptation, which highlighted that Namibia
already deals with a highly variable climate. Many speakers stressed the importance of agriculture, particularly
referring to crop production, since 70% of the population depends on it for a livelihood, mostly for
sustenance. Production for a market economy is problematic. The water sector, as far as rainfall changes or is
delayed, is also vulnerable. In terms of water demand management, there are examples in Namibia of water
banking, rain harvesting and subsidizing water for poorer parts of the country. The discussion also focused
on institutional arrangements, and the lack of a coordinating body with regard to climate change.
Adaptation Working Group Discussions
For what key development priorities in Namibia would adaptation be necessary What are the first steps to integrate adaptation
into such development priorities
Participants highlighted many key development priority areas for Namibia, including agriculture, water, health,
fishing, wildlife conservation, agro-tourism and mining. Namibia strives to be an industrialized country by
2030, but adaptation measures to address climate change are needed in order to achieve this goal.
Agriculture is relied on by 70% of the population. This sector should also be considered in context of agrotourism/conservation
management. Proposed measures and policies included:
• Broad-based strategies to help people change to livelihoods that benefit all communities and
households. Provision of subsidies may be needed to implement some changes;
• Agricultural diversification to include more species and crops adapted to Namibian conditions;
4

o Awareness of increasing rate of foot-and-mouth, other diseases, effects of increased heat;
o Genetically modified crops, e.g. sorghum, to increase overall crop resilience;
o Land use planning–appropriate livelihoods for each area, e.g. not urban communities or
livestock in marginal lands;
Integrated national rangeland policy, in particular rangeland restoration, is needed;
Wildlife relocation and biodiversity preservation (much of the basis of tourism)
could require creating corridors for migration and enlarging protected areas. This
would need to be incorporated into planning for parks and game preserves;
Livestock breeds that can cope with limited grazing, beyond indigenous breeds, are
needed. However, it is difficult to convince local farmers to do this.
Urban development and land-use planning, which is primarily affected during floods and droughts, needs
to consider adaptation and climate change impacts. In terms of impacts on present infrastructure, most
buildings and other infrastructure are unprepared for extreme weather events. Proposed measures include:
• Improved training for civil engineers/urban planners;
• Increased funding for improved development;
• Ensure that climate change risk assessments and/or environmental impact assessments are
conducted before any infrastructure projects are carried out. This includes thorough consideration of
planning and zoning issues with regard to where infrastructures are built.
Health measures to combat the risk of widespread cholera and malaria are also adaptation measures, as
changing climates such as flooding create the conditions for spreading these diseases. Improved composting
techniques can also lower health risks. Dryness can also bring diseases, like through heat waves. Droughts can
also affect nutrition.
Tourism could also be subject to adaptation measures. A move towards a mix of animal husbandry with
wildlife management could increase of tourism by making Namibia an environmental showcase.
Mining is largest contributor to the national economy. Scarcity of water and energy can have major effects
on this sector. Proposed measures therefore should focus on more cost-efficient, long term water
management strategies, such as water harvesting, recycling and improved water conservation.
Research and development should be improved to develop further adaptation techniques applicable to
Namibia. These should also tap into indigenous knowledge at local level.
What mechanisms should be put in place, nationally and internationally, to provide effective means for adaptation to climate
change, including financing What policy changes should be made to cope with the current and expected impacts of climate change
• Climate proofing the national development goals (Vision 2030) will be needed to ensure their
achievement. This means implementing a range of policies, which need to be harmonised –
sometimes policies conflict or undermine each other, e.g. settlement vs. conservation.
5

• Country Pilot Partnership Programme (CPPP), which currently tries to make land use planning
harmonised and integrated, could be maximized. It involves six ministries, including mining,
agriculture, and tourism.
• Settlement planning could prevent incidents such as the losses resulting from recent flooding, which
were made worse by poor planning. As a result, insurance is no longer available for that area. Microinsurance
schemes could also be used to deal with the results of hazards.
• Financing is a key issue, particularly for local communities. International and national funding are
needed.
International
• Developed countries should provide adaptation costs to developing countries. This is fundamental to
any proposal. Funding is needed for the improvement of early warning systems, which are linked to
disaster risk reduction. Funding is also needed for capacity building. Several institutions are currently
designing a capacity building strategy on climate change issues.
• Well-informed negotiators are needed in the international process to ensure that Namibia’s needs are
reflected in the outcomes.
• Further work is needed on the costing for adaptation in order to convince policymakers and others
that climate change is here to stay. Namibia already has a centre for excellence that could help.
National
• Better cooperation with the Meteorological Services to inform farmers in a timely manner. SADC as
a region is working with farmers on impacts and possible planning.
• Improvements to water farming and storage, rather than relying on dams, would help. Large-scale
investment in water pumping for water storage in ground water levels and additional external grants
for smaller water towers would be needed.
• Taxation policies as a tool to promote adaptation should be considered.
• Campaigns to raise awareness of inaction on climate change could also support national action.
What further analysis would be needed to support Namibia in preparing to adapt to climate change What are future actions
and key considerations at the national level for adaptation
• Modelling—Namibia needs a better understanding of its overall rainfall patterns (also at sub regional
level). Not only for the distribution of rain in different regions, but over time as well.
• Insufficient data for robust analyses of overall trends resulting from climate change. Sometimes
information is available, but not accessible.
• More in depth understanding of climate variability and vulnerability mapping, i.e. making database of
which areas are most vulnerable. This would include better use of GIS systems and promoting
participatory approaches.
6

• More national studies, e.g. national communications. Private sector also does modelling – in mining,
which may have looked at climate change impacts
• Strengthen institutional coordination. This would bring in policy makers to support stakeholders.
• Capitalise on national competitive advantages and add value, e.g. fisheries, beef, create markets for
game meat
For all adaptation measures, participants stressed the need for improved awareness raising efforts. Climate
change messages must relate to people in terms that are relevant to them and increased extension efforts are
needed to reach people.
Some efforts to reduce poverty are also linked to adaptation. For example, efforts to spread the risk of
income loss by diversifying livelihoods options into sustenance crops, market crops and other sectors can
lower vulnerability risks to climate change and decrease poverty.
Technology
Presentation by Mr. William Kojo Agyemang-Bonsu, UNFCCC/DNA Focal Point, Ghana
Combating climate change will require improvements in all aspects of technology transfer—research,
development, deployment, demonstration and diffusion. While investments in clean energy are growing fast,
including new financial products and markets, there is a substantial financing gap for the required scaling up
needed to address climate change. The most favoured technologies in recent years including: wind, solar,
biofuels (renewables increasingly relevant), cleaner fossil fuels generation and (especially for Africa) energy
efficient building and appliances. Carbon markets (including the CDM) can play important role for
developing countries, although smaller and lower-income countries have yet to see benefits. Technology is a
key modality for mitigation and adaptation, and is gaining momentum in the international negotiations.
Developed countries are obligated to support transfer of technologies to developing countries under the
Convention. The extent to which they can undertake both mitigation and adaptation will depend on this.
Important aspects of the current discussion include the dissemination of technology information and
networking, as well as strengthened research and capacity building. Key barriers can be financing, intellectual
property rights and tariffs. A key future concern would be to consider not only developed country action, but
also improvement to cooperative action so that countries can work together.
Plenary discussion on technology
Participants discussed possible problems with the sectoral approach to developing mitigation targets,
particularly with regard to market restrictions. Some viewed this as a means of hindering development that
could turn into a trade barrier, as it implies an international standard and their companies may not be able to
compete in the market. Speakers stressed that technology transfer will require more training. Some thought a
training component should be obligatory with any transfers. The discussion also focused on Namibia’s
technology needs assessment (TNA), completed in 2005. The TNA identified priority technologies, including
water and energy efficiency, as well as solar water heaters. Key barriers included insufficient awareness,
social/cultural barriers and financial barriers. There was also a lack of institutional awareness on the CDM.
7

Technology Working Group Discussions
What role could the Namibian government play in the development, deployment and transfer of technologies
Government has several key roles to play with regard to technology, including:
• Creating favourable policy and legislative conditions, such as setting national goals and realistic
development targets. This can also include provision of funding and/or tax incentives, as well as
removing tariffs. In addition, this includes improved protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs)
and adjustments to limited foreign exchange rules (which limits the willingness of foreign investors);
• Selecting and promoting key technologies, as well as identifying those capable of deploying
technologies; Providing investment vehicles to start businesses that use international technologies;
• Assisting with access to international resources, possibly by having a national focal point for
technology; facilitate access to external experts (make it easier for them to come in and train);
• Take steps to prevent “brain drains” of technologically trained people. (This also pertains to the
private sector, which provides incentives to retain highly trained personnel).
• Supplying the training for local workforce on new technologies. Improvements are needed for
vocational training centres, to the extent they are involved. Also, universities need to build
programmes geared toward technology with clear research mandate and appropriate resources.
• Undertake pilot projects and demonstration projects, including CDM projects, that bring in new
technologies;
• Facilitating public awareness.
A number of challenges were also identified, such as:
• Government does not really undertake research, which implies they may not be the best decision
makers on technology.
• Conflicts between government and private sector approaches, e.g. government is interested in
nuclear power, but nuclear is not part of the national power company’s short term planning.
Are there specific roles for the private sector in the development, deployment and transfer of technologies, and would the private
sector on its own be motivated to fulfil these expected roles
• Development of “hard” technologies will largely be driven by private sector. In Namibia, mining can
play a key role in technology development, but still technologies are often external.
• Private sector can be motivated to act on its own if solutions are cost-effective. The national power
company is also raising awareness on demand side (not just supply side).
How can Parties accelerate the progress in all stages of the technology process from technology innovation to application
• Main barriers are financial: but who will pay There is a need for an international coordinating body
with funding to be established to encourage technology transfer.
8

• In parallel, there is also a need for a leading agency at the national level that is driving technology
development that is nationally appropriate, e.g. Ministry of Trade & Industry.
What are the opportunities for exchange of experience at the regional level; what would be the role of regional centres of excellence,
as recently proposed by the G-77/China.
• There is some concern that a single centre of excellence, e.g., in South Africa, would be dominated
by the concerns of the host country.
• Many countries are too small to fund research on their own and inter-disciplinary exchange of
expertise is needed. The centres can play a key role in technology dissemination.
Finance
Presentation by Maria Netto, UNDP
Considerable amounts of additional investment and financial (I&F) flows will be needed to assist developing
countries in addressing climate change. Mitigation measures will require additional I&F flows of $200-210
billion in 2030. Adaptation measures will require additional I&F flows in 2030 of several tens of billion of US
dollars. While these amounts are amounts are large in absolute terms, they are small relative to global GDP
and investment. Both the Convention and Kyoto Protocol foresee financial assistance for developing
countries, and address the issue in many of their provisions. Current financial assistance can come through
the “Financial Mechanism” (i.e., GEF) or bilateral, regional or other multilateral channels. Parties have also
established two new GEF funds: the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund.
An Adaptation Fund has also been established under the Kyoto Protocol. Key issues currently being
discussed under the Bali Action Plan include: improved access to adequate, predictable and sustainable
financial resources; new and additional funding; positive incentives to implement mitigation and adaptation
actions; innovative funding means to meet adaptation costs; and, mobilisation of public and private sector
funding. At the most recent talks in Accra in June 2008, the G-77/China proposed a completely new fund
under the COP.
Plenary discussion on finance
Participants highlighted the difficulties in calculating the additional financial flows needed beyond “business
as usual” investments annually. Even more difficulties arise with regards to costing. As important as getting
new money is showing accountability. The criteria for expenditures and disbursements will be difficult to
agree. It was also noted that many national communications so far were not looking at long-term preparations,
so considerable work is needed to demonstrate that they need these funds. Capacity building is an important
part of this. Some participants stressed accessibility as the key issue—while more funds may be established,
this may only make the process more complex. It was noted that few countries from Africa actually benefit
from the existing windows.
Working Group Discussions on Finance
What could be the main mitigation options in Namibia What could be the main adaptation options in Namibia What
changes to the investment and financial flows would implementing these options entail
• For mitigation, the main options involve the energy sector. This includes electricity production and
transport, which hold the greatest potential for tapping into international funding. Mining will also
play a key role in mitigation, but is largely private sector and profit driven.
• For adaptation, the main options involve agriculture, land use and health.
9

National options
• Government could establish a fund for the impacts of climate change. Other examples exist, such as
the Namibian fund for wildlife conservation. A national resource for funding would be needed to
offset uncertainty of international funding. Ensuring that companies or major polluters make
voluntary contribution to the fund in order to get a tax break could help. The money saved from
other changes to the system could be used to establish a revolving fund to pay for further efforts.
• Ministry of Finance could create incentives for people/institutions undertaking adaptation and
mitigation activities.
• The national water company could be obligated to encourage water-conservation activities and
provide incentives to users.
• Increased capacity is needed for the Ministry of Finance and other planning institutions to increase
the country’s chances of benefiting from investment in-flows.
• There is also need to base investments on partnerships, rather than be investor driven. Currently,
investors choose, then proceed. Instead, investment options need to be identified by the country.
• Mainstreaming of climate change with the government is required–the National Climate Change
Committee (NCCC) could play a stronger role in harmonising funding requests and sharing
information with all stakeholders. A full-time focal point or secretariat is needed.
• Within the national planning mechanism, any areas where climate change is identified as a major
threat, the requirements must be factored into national budgets.
• For all measures, there is a need to have the real costs of climate change adaptation and mitigation,
so that inter-sectoral discussions can take place.
International options
• Difficulties in accessing funds are a major problem. The African Development Bank has millions for
climate, but only 5% accessed annually. Awareness raising is needed on funding opportunities.
Namibian National Context
Presentation by Uazamo Kaura, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia
Key sectors for Namibia that face impacts from climate change include agriculture, fisheries, water, livestock
and health. Agriculture, which accounts for 6.5% of GDP, faces decreases in yield and a greater inter-annual
variability. Livestock farming, which accounts for 8.2% of GDP, faces drought-reduced production and
reproductive potential, as well as increased incidence of pests and livestock disease. For fisheries, which
account for 5.3% GDP, there are multiple risks to fishery dependent communities, including export revenues
losses and employment losses. These and other issues were addressed in Namibia’s second national
communication, which resulted a number of outputs, including an energy review, an updated greenhouse gas
inventory review, a vulnerability assessment, identification of research needs for farming systems,
identification of national circumstances and identification of infrastructural support to reduce vulnerability.
Some of the key recommendations from the second national communication included fuel switching for
energy, water harvesting techniques for agriculture, disaster risk preparedness and awareness raising on
climate change.
10

Namibian National Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)–Adaptation
Presentation by Dr. Juliane Zeidler, Integrated Environmental Consultants Namibia (IECN)
Activities in the land use sector will play a central role in Namibia’s adaptation to climate change. The term
“LULUCF” comes from the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol and includes six broad categories. Namibia,
on the other hand, approaches the issue of land use in a more integrated manner that addresses all key
production systems: (1) agriculture, including crops and livestock, (2) forestry, (3) fisheries (inland), (4)
tourism, (5) wildlife and (6) the underlying ecosystem services. Degradation issues are critical, as the expected
impacts of climate change will exacerbate already pressing environmental problems. Namibia is the most arid
country in sub-Saharan Africa and already deals with climatic extremes. Some autonomous adaptation
measures, such as conversion from livestock to wildlife-based farming, are already occurring. Some of the
required measures for strengthening adaptation include: ensuring access to high-quality information about the
impacts of climate change and carrying out vulnerability assessments; increasing the resilience of livelihoods
and infrastructure using existing knowledge and coping strategies; and improving governance, including a
transparent and accountable policy and decision-making process and an active civil society. Conducting an
assessment of investment and financial flows for adaptation will require some key information, including:
reliable information on expected impacts; the costs and benefits of action vs. inaction to make a good
business case; key adaptation options to be strategized and costed; identification of opportunity cost of
upgrading and climate-proofing existing investments, policies and project interventions; and information on
current investments and financial in order to form a baseline.
Working Group Discussion on Land Use–Adaptation
What are future actions and key considerations at the national level for adaptation in the land-use sector (in terms of prioritising
sectors/planning/policy development/opportunities)
• Land-use zoning and integrated ecosystem management planning is critical: government is currently
developing a land-use zoning strategy–but is there sufficient coordination between Ministries
Government should make land available for resettlement for those currently living on marginal lands.
• Promotion of indigenous land-use systems and diversification of farming are needed. In Namibia,
only 10% of land is suited to intensive agriculture and many crops grown are not indigenous. Are the
crops grown here are the best option for Namibia, while also addressing the issue of markets Are
the crops are cost-effective in context of water
• New management schemes are needed for livestock management. Owners do not change when the
climate does. They still keep really large farms and herds even when the weather changes.
• Reforestation with indigenous species.
• Agro-tourism. Government policies that support this approach and provide ownership are needed.
What are the major barriers in Namibia for implementing land use adaptation options
• Capacity
• Land tenure issues. People need ownership rather than communal land to create a motivational effect
and the benefits of adaptation. They can also diversify rather than focusing on livestock, or remove
fences to encourage migration.
11

• Value of land-in communal sector
• Cultural norms present a barrier. Some people stick to what they know even when it does not work.
• Lack of appropriate technologies and funding to acquire them.
• Lack of access to insurance options
• Lack of political will – the Permanent Secretary is a critical stakeholder, but he or she may have
personal agendas and may change (hence the need for continual awareness-raising).
• Political consistency/institutional memory
• Ministerial co-ordination and policy harmonisation
• Lack of development loans to encourage changes in livelihoods such as agro-tourism
Have incentive mechanisms have been used in Namibia in the land use sector
• Communal area conservancy
Namibian National Report on the Energy Sector– Mitigation
Presentation by Dr. Detlof von Oertzen, Desert Research Foundation of Namibia
Accessible and reliable energy is the key to economic growth and must be addressed when considering efforts
to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Primary energy carriers for Namibia include liquid fuels, biomass,
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), hydro and renewables, which provide energy for manufacturing, power
generation and electricity. There are a number of possible measures to lower emissions in the energy sector.
In the transport sector, possible measures include enhancing the fuel efficiency of the national fleet; providing
incentives for fuel switching to LPG and biofuels; and increasing the application of energy efficiency
measures. In the electricity sector, measures could include improving energy efficiency and demand-side
management; hydro-electric generation schemes; increased use of renewables such as biomass, wind, solar,
geothermal and wave; increased use of natural gas; and possibly increased use of clean coal. There are a
number of issues and concerns to be considered when assessing investment and financial flows for Namibia.
Energy needs to be treated as a crosscutting economy-wide theme and should be reflected in Vision 2030 and
other policy documents. There are also problems with feeding in energy into the overall network. In addition,
little is done to provide incentives for foreign investments in the energy sector. Namibia needs to make the
energy sector more productive, provide incentives to reward smart production and attract new investors.
Working Group Discussion on the Energy Sector
What tools do you consider as most appropriate or desirable for Namibia: taxes and charges, financial incentives, voluntary
agreements, information instruments, tradable permits, research and development, etc
• Carbon tax would be useful to encourage movement away from fossil fuels and towards more
energy-efficient options;
• Voluntary agreements;
12

• Financial incentives: This would encourage a move towards energy efficiency by both consumers and
industries. Incentives for a coordinated approach to energy projects under the CDM would help;
• Information instruments are already being used in Namibia but could be strengthened;
• Research and development is needed to understand available technology.
What further analysis will be needed to support Namibia in taking nationally appropriate mitigation actions What are future
actions and key considerations at the national level for
• A comprehensive energy strategy and development strategy that can support Vision 2030 and
encourage more energy efficiency;
• Political will to create an enabling environment and financial incentives to invite energy efficient
projects and investments, e.g. for a solar farm, biomass–especially since there is potentially a conflict
of interest with the national power company (especially if no renewable energy targets);
• The Ministry of Mines and Energy should consider a rural electrification strategy, which should
include renewables or energy-efficient options;
• Need improved information sharing between sectors and ministries, both of national information
and external projects (e.g. GTZ project on biomass in other south/east African countries);
• The Namibian White Paper on energy needs to be updated.
• Floating nuclear was not supported.
Concluding session
Participants provided feedback on the workshop and discussed next steps at the national level. Many
highlighted the usefulness of the workshop in bringing their attention to new issues, particularly aspects
relating to the international process. They also stated that the workshop provided a tremendous opportunity
by bringing together different ministries and other representatives to discuss the financial aspects of climate
change and the need to develop a long-term approach. In the future, workshops such as this will need to
reach out even further. For many, the discussions in the workshop also improved their understanding of
national issues, particularly with regard to the barriers and bottlenecks. More work is needed on the
understanding the resources needed and how best to position the country to receive funds. There are many
steps to follow as the negotiations continue.
Participants agreed that the workshop had highlighted a number of areas that needed further
collaboration, and provided some indication of the policy options that are most relevant for
undertaking an assessment of investment and financial flows (I&F). These policy options would need
to be further analyzed in the context of the national communications.
In closing, the facilitator highlighted some important steps for follow-up at the national level, including:
• Establishing a set of national goals and objectives;
• Engaging Namibia’s sophisticated private sector, which can help pilot new ideas and give Namibia
comparable advantage over other countries;
13

• Designating an office or group to provide leadership for adaptation and mitigation actions. Currently,
consideration of climate change is very piecemeal. Consolidation of information will be a key goal;
• Learning more about international benchmarking and where Namibia stands in comparison to other
countries;
• Devolving management to the local level.
Another important action will be the convening of a stakeholder meeting to follow up on the specific
topics raised during the workshop and the establishment of teams, selected on the basis of their
specific expertise, to conduct the assessment of investment and financial flows.
Day 3: Special session for national experts undertaking investment and financial flows assessment to
address climate change.
Introduction to the UNDP Approach for Assessing Investment and Financial Flows to address
Climate Change
Presentation by Bill Dougherty, Stockholm Environment Institute (USA)
This presentation sought to provide a starting point for the analysis needed to assess investment and financial
(I&F) flows to address climate change, including: an overview of key concepts; review the methodology;
application of the methodology to energy sector; and, application of the methodology to the LULUCF sector.
In discussing key concepts, it was emphasized that:
• Investment flows include investments in new facilities or equipment, e.g. renewable energy sources,
expanded water supply systems, capital cost of a gas-fired generating unit. This represents the initial
(capital) cost of a new physical asset with a life of more than one year. The focus is on investment
decisions and new physical assets, but not operating costs.
• Financial flows include on-going expenditures e.g. forest management or illness treatment. This
represents the ongoing cost related to mitigation or adaptation that does not involve physical assets.
Financial flows sounds similar to investment flows, but it is different. It is the flow of expenditures
incurred by national agencies to maintain the new investments for achieving mitigation and
adaptation goals. The approach is most useful for assessments of sectors that do not involve
investment in new facilities or equipment.
It is important to note that, for any measure within a sector, the investment or financial flows are estimated—
but not both. It was also noted that this type of assessment of I&F flows would be a new kind of analysis.
While the UNFCCC secretariat in 2007 undertook an assessment of global financial flows, this assessment
will be an opportunity to undertake an analysis on the national level.
“User Guidelines” for undertaking an assessment of I&F flows are also being prepared. The goals of the User
Guidelines are to:
• Better understand future I&F flows that simultaneously address climate change and fit within the
development priorities of a country for a specific sector;
14

• Provide guidance on how to conduct the actual assessment of I&F flows, while also being a flexible
process that national teams can use to better understand the investment and financial implications of
national climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.
A presentation was also provided on the key elements of the methodology for assessing I&F flows (see full
presentation attached). Participants then discussed the kind of data needed and where to find it, how to
access and evaluate the data, how to set boundaries for the sector (i.e. only electricity or the entire energy
sector), scenario development for the mitigation and adaptation scenarios, and ways to model the information.
It was noted that technical backstopping would be provided for supporting the production of the analysis. An
additional weeklong training may also be necessary. Key pre-requisites for the assessment will be: identifying
the project team and assigning roles, clearly understanding the methodology, and defining the scope of each
sector to be assessed.
Mitigation scenario–Energy
Participants discussed the five steps for the assessment—scoping out the effort, establishing the reference
scenario, establishing the mitigation scenario, estimating incremental investment flows, and synthesizing
results. In a sample mitigation scenario, a reasonable attempt to add climate measures might be to increase
the percentage of energy received from solar or diesel (which is cleaner than coal). This would fulfil national
development aspects and address climate change. The resulting synthesis should include a summary that
provides the highlights of the broader picture followed by a detailed technical report that spells out the
assumptions and data used for arriving at numbers.
In the discussion, participants noted that possible data sources could include:
• National household income and expenditure surveys;
• Energy sector reviews;
• National resource accounts;
• Studies under the Namibia Renewable Energy Programme.
Possible institutions that may have useful data include:
• Governmental bodies, such as the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, which has been involved
with the national communication, the Ministry of Mines and Energy, the National Planning
Commission and the Ministry of Finance and the Investment Centre and possibly the Ministry of
Industry and Trade;
• Polytechnic of Namibia (which already has a good CDM scenario);
• Non-governmental organizations, like the Desert Research Foundation;
• The Electricity Control Board;
• Nampower (national power company).
A national team will be created and will get funding from UNDP to undertake the assessment. The UNDP
office in New York will come up with drafts based on inputs received at this workshop, as well as the recent
training at the “global” workshop. An ideal team could include individuals involved in planning, financial and
investment matters, and policymakers familiar with the current climate dialogue. Consultations with all
organizations will be needed to create a work programme for the assessment. It is important to involve
different institutions according to their capacity.
Adaptation–Land use
Adaptation is a more challenging issue and work on the adaptation scenario has only begun recently. The
adaptation scenario will require the same five steps and basic framework as used for mitigation, but applied to
a different set of circumstances. For example, Step 1 (scoping out the effort) will require establishing a time
15

horizon for the assessment. In the past, adaptation was discussed only in the long term. However, adaptation
is now also discussed in terms of short-term climate variability, since there are already perceptible climate
change impacts being felt by countries.
In the discussion, participants raised a number of issues and questions, such as whether the adaptation
scenario should cover managed forests or unmanaged forests, as well as whether it would include plantations
and protected areas. Some participants noted that the focus should not be limited to forestry, but include the
broader system of land use and rural livelihoods through better management. Some recalled that, unlike the
mitigation scenario which focuses on measurable emission reductions, the adaptation scenario should focus
on reducing the vulnerability of communities to climate change, which is a much more difficult concept.
Participants also discussed possible resources for helping set boundaries for the assessment. While
information is available in national accounts, it would need to be “teased out”. On forestry resources, the
UNFCCC secretariat has produced a compendium of models to assess climate change vulnerability.
After reviewing the last four steps, participants generally agreed that an indicative scenario could be created.
Previous work on inventories could provide useful information. The country team would need to establish
dynamic scenarios and produce an indicative funding gap for adaptation. Possible data sources include:
• The Ministry of Environment and Tourism, which has well established forest accounts and
enterprise-based models of investment portfolios;
• A recent detailed analysis completed for the Millennium Challenge Corporation in the US included
the “green scheme” on irrigated agriculture. This should have fairly good economic data on the
irrigation sector and livestock sector;
• An agriculture census completed a few years ago;
• Participatory surveys that look at household data;
• The Community Based Natural Resources Management Report;
• Information on forest products, which could credibly be extrapolated to other areas;
• Capacity building reports for Land Boards in the regions on land use planning;
• Detailed surveys of standing stocks done by community forest programs;
• A major study on bush encroachment (a carbon sink, but leads to loss of farming revenue);
• University of Cape Town studies on vegetation.
How does one construct a viable adaptation scenario for Namibia Possible policy options could include
dealing with variability by diversifying farming system into perennials, which could involve using local water
harvesting and storage. This in turn would require investments and financial flows, which could possibly be
offset with carbon credits. There are also options that would make use of traditional knowledge for dealing
with extreme climate variability. Other options could be drawn from the extensive international literature
available on dry land management.
Participants agreed that creativity would be needed for adaptation scenarios. All of the examples discussed
relate to making livelihoods more resilient to the impacts of climate change. There is a richness and range of
measures that could be introduced as part of this scenario. In addition, it will be important to work in “shock
absorbers” to deal with setbacks. Most of the ideas are not covered the second national communication or
integrated into ongoing adaptation work, as much of that work has been done on coastal areas and water
issues. Namibia presents a challenge, given its natural diversity, which is why options are important. The
country team will need to cost them out in sections of the assessment for delineating the scope.
Closing
UNDP noted that it would produce a report of the workshop, as well as terms of reference outlining the
technical capacities needed to undertake the assessment of financial flows and the data needed. Namibia will
16

now need to develop a work plan indicating the individuals to be hired and their responsibilities, as well as a
timeline for producing the assessment prior to COP 15 in December 2009. In addition, regional centres of
excellence, which will provide technical assistance, will need to be selected. Lastly, the importance of a solid
country team was highlighted, as the underlying idea of the project is to have different ministries working
together to ensure the accuracy of the assessment.
A representative from Namibia agreed that the process would require considerable coordination from the
organizations that host the needed data. Team members will be assigned after a meeting of the National
Climate Change Committee (NCCC). Some incentive measure may be needed for colleagues that are already
overburdened. Lastly, she thanked UNDP for placing confidence in Namibia for this important pilot project.
17

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Name Position Organisation Telephone no. Email address
1. Jonas Capoco Managing Director ASCA Investments 061 272 203 asca@mweb.com.na
2. J. Ndokosho Project Coordinator CCA MAWF 065 251 291 jndokosho@cppnam.net
3. Kenneth Uiseb Project Manager Consulting Services Africa 081 223 1707 kennethu@csa-org.na
4. Pierre du Plessis Consultant CRIAA SADCICEMA/NCCC 081 251 0672 Pierre@criaasadc.org
5. Detlof von Oertzen Executive Director DRFN 061 377 500 Detlof.von.Oertzen@drfn.org.na
6. Erik Dirlcx Coordinator DRFN 061 377 520 Erik.dirlcx@drfn.org.na
7. Claus Hager Land Desk Coordinator DRFU 061-377 500 Claus.hager@drfu.org.na
8. Imke van Ahee Intern GTZ 081 399 7020 Imke.van@gtz.de
9. Juliane Zeidler Managing Director & IECN 061 249 204 j.zeidler@iecn-namibia.com
Consultant
10. Asmara Kaffer IECN 061 249 204 a.kaffer@iecn-namibia.com
11. Gordon Rigg Surveyor Marine Data Consultants/IVS 27 (0)83 257 0731 Gordon.r@mweb.co.za
12. Manuel Mbuende Agromet MAWF 208 7043 mbuendemr@agriclab.org
13. Marina Coetzee Chief Agricultural MAWF 208 7077 mec@agriclab.org
Researcher
14. J. Ashipala Project Assistant MAWF CCA 065 251 291
081 369 0323
jashipala@gmail.com
jashipala@ccpnam.net
15. Uazamo Kaura Co-ordinator, SNC Ministry of Environment & 061 284 2701 uazamo@dea.met.gov.na
Tourism (MET)
061 240 339
16. Veikko Shigwedha Economist MET 250 1089 vshigwedha@yahoo.com
17. Antonia Baker OOI Fellow MET / NNF 249 015 ab@nnf.org.na
18. Benedict Libanda National Coordinator MET / CPP 284 8084 blibanda@cppnam.net
19. Sepiso Mwangala Chief, Climate Services Meteorological Service 061 287 7012 smwangala@meteona.com
20. Julius Zaya Shiweua Director MFA 282 2113 jzshiweua@yahoo.com
21. Anja van der Plas Sr. Fisheries Biologist MFMR 064 410 1000 avanderplas@mfmr.gov.na
22. Teofilus Nghitila Director MET 061 284 2701 nghitila@dea.met.gov.na
23. Erastus Shilongo Financial Planner MOE 293 3329 eshilongo@mec.gov.na
24. Maria Nampolo Investment Portfolio MTI 283 7324 kamati@mti.gov.na
Executive
25. Pearl Coetzee Journalist NAMPA 374 035 pcoetzee@nampa.org
26. Gloudina de Beer Environmental Officer NamPower 322 2004 Gloudina.de.beer@nampower.com.na
18

Name Position Organisation Telephone no. Email address
27. Danie Louw Manager, SHE NamPower 061 322 2089 Danie.louw@nampower.com.na
081 122 2740
28. Shimweefeleni H CTA NAMREP 284 8111 ghamnbrez@mme.gov.na
Hamnbrez
29. Samuel Ampero Economist National Planning 283 4112 sampero@npc.gov.na
30. Elaine Smith Manager, Research & NAU 061 237 838 Elaine@agrinamibia.com.na
Development
31. Harald Marggaraff Commodity Manager NAU 237 838 harald@agrinamibia.com
32. Remmie Moses AR NBRI 202 2015 mosesr@nbri.org.na
33. Steve Carr SAR NBRI, MAWF 202 2012 stevec@nbri.org.na
34. Alex Meroro Polytechnic of Namibia 207 2030 amerero@polytechnic.edu.na
35. Harald Schmitt Consultant Polytechnic of Namibia 081 129 1223 harald@namibnet.com
232 333
36. Theo Uvanga Climate change env. Rio Tinto Rossing Uranium 081 288 4990 Theo.uvanga@riotinto.com
specialist
064 520 2730
37. Nulitushi Teotilus SPAN 081 207 3777 t.nulituishi@gmail.com
38. Absalom Shigwedha Journalist The Namibian 279 600 absalom@namibia.com
39. Martha Mwandingi Head, Env. & Energy UNDP Namibia 061 204 6231 martha.mwandingi@undp.org
40. John Ashipala Economist UNDP Namibia 204 6358 John.ashipala@undp.org
41. Nickey Gaseb National Coordinator UNDP-GEF Small Grants 061 248 345 nickeyg@unops.org
Programme
42. John Mfune University of Namibia 081 286 5601 jmfune@unam.na
206 3743
43. Raili Hasheela Programme Officer UNDP Namibia 061 204 6229 guest.envna@undp.org
(Env. & Energy)
44. Maria Netto Climate Change Policy UNDP HQ Maria.netto@undp.org
Advisor
45. Chad Carpenter Climate Specialist UNDP HQ Chad.carpenter@undp.org
46. Rebecca Carman Project Manager UNDP HQ Rebecca.carman@undp.org
47. William Kojo UNFCCC/DNA Focal Ghana Environmental
wbonsu@epaghana.org
Agyemang-Bonsu Point, Ghana
Protection Agency
48. Massamba Thioye Expert Senegal mass.thioye@googlemail.com
49. Bill Dougherty Senior scientist Stockholm Environment
Institute – US
billd@sei-us.org
19