Assessing transformational change potential: the case of the Tunisian cement Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA)

ABSTRACT

To effectively address the root causes of carbon lock-in across developing countries, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) with transformational change characteristics are being supported by donors and finance mechanisms as a means to achieve ambitious nationally determined contributions (NDCs). However, there is still a scarcity of empirical studies on how transformational change policies and actions are designed and supported in practice. This article addresses such a gap in knowledge by combining theoretical insights from the multi-level perspective and transitions management literature to examine a donor-supported cement sector NAMA in Tunisia developed during 2012–2013. A narrative is constructed to analyse the adequacy of the NAMA design to promote structural shifts towards low carbon development in the cement sector. Data collection is based on semi-structured interviews and documentation gathered during field work in Tunisia 2014–2015. The study finds that the NAMA design is not likely to lead to transformational change of the cement sector, since underlying factors accounting for lock-in are not properly tackled. Although the NAMA has enabled new and promising sectoral partnerships across the cement sector, the analysis suggests that the NAMA’s transformational potential is currently limited by a number of factors not being adequately addressed. Measures are proposed to reorient the NAMA towards promoting system innovation, building on further research and experimentation with the policy entrepreneurial role of donors.

Key policy insights

• Underlying factors such as the absence of local finance institutions and the lack of reflexivity features in project design restrict the potential of the Tunisian cement NAMA to spur transformation to low carbon development.

• To tackle underlying causes of carbon lock-in and reorient policies and actions for transformational design, the promotion of feedback loops and self-contemplation needs to be based on a long-term vision, experimentation, social learning and information gathered during implementation.

• Donors need to re-think their existing modalities to better support unpredictable and highly political changes for sustainability transitions in developing countries.

KEYWORDS:

• Carbon lock-in
• cement sector
• low carbon
• mitigation actions
• transformational change
• transition management

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to GIZ Tunisia, as well as local experts for their availability for interviews and access to pertinent information. We also acknowledge comments from Dr Ulrich Elmer Hansen on various aspects of this article at different stages of research and writing, as well as the comments from the editor and from anonymous reviewers.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Zyaad Boodoo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5676-8399

Karen Holm Olsen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2385-0326

Notes

1. Note that neither ‘transformational change’ nor ‘NAMAs’ are terms that occur in the Paris Agreement. However, since NAMAs by developing countries were agreed in the Bali Action Plan 2007, negotiations have gradually changed from a primary focus on developed country mitigation actions to a focus on mitigation actions by all Parties including developing countries. Given that the commitments laid within NDCs require sustained increases in levels of ambition over time, paradigm shift (or transformational change) in designing policies and actions are increasingly seen by donors as a way to assess and promote ambition in NDC implementation to achieve the global temperature goal. In the absence of an official, authoritative definition of transformational change or paradigm shift within the climate community, the terms and their derivatives are used interchangeably in this article and equated to the focus of academic work covered within theories of sustainable transitions.

2. In essence, new market mechanisms (NMMs) were envisaged under the UNFCCC in the negotiations leading up to the Paris Agreement as tools to improve the cost-effectiveness of climate change mitigation. Building on these negotiations, three voluntary cooperative mechanisms were established in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement with the objectives to raise climate action ambition, promote sustainable development and ensure environmental integrity, however, without any verbatim reference to NMMs. The three mechanisms established in Article 6 are: 1) Cooperative approaches under Art. 6.2, 2) A new mechanism to promote mitigation and sustainable development under Art. 6.4, and 3) A framework for non-market approaches under Art. 6.8.