6th Call

Main changes in the 6th Call of the NAMA Facility compared to the previous 5th Call

The General Information Document (GID) and application templates have undergone a revision for the 6th Call. These revisions build on the feedback provided by and the lessons learnt from previous NSP application and selection processes. The following changes have been introduced:

  • The application documents (NSP Outline and Annexes) have been revised slightly. In particular, Applicants are also requested to submit a basic calculation of the GHG emission reductions as well as a basic calculation of the proposed business model(s) and financing mechanism(s) as mandatory annexes to the Outline. This will support Applicants in substantiating their NSP rationale and design, and at the same time, facilitate a better understanding of the proposed mitigation and financial ambition as well as feasibility of the NSP during the assessment process.
  • An in-depth assessment of short-listed NSPs has been introduced. It extends the scope of the assessment process for shortlisted NSPs by allowing for written clarifications with the NSP Applicants, in addition to the on-site assessments. This serves to further smoothen the assessment process. (see GID, section 5.1.4)
  • The additionality of the NSP is from now on considered an eligibility criterion rather than a feasibility criterion. As a result, NSPs are not eligible for funding if they cannot demonstrate their additionality to previous, ongoing and/or planned public and private interventions. While the additionality principle has been applied in all previous Calls of the NAMA Facility, it will no longer be assessed as part of the 50-points scale. (see GID section 5.1.3)
  • The contributions of other development financiers will no longer be a separate assessment criterion for the financial ambition. The reason is that additional donor contributions may not be relevant for all NSP financing structures, as some NSPs might be able to mobilise sufficient financial resources from private and national public budget sources. Additional donor contributions can continue to be a part of the overall financing scheme of an NSP, but it will not be awarded extra points in the ambition assessment. (see GID section 5.1.3)
  • The duration of the DPP is limited to a maximum of 15 months, which is slightly shorter than in the previous two Calls. This is to signal that, while there is sufficient time and support for the detailed preparation, the NAMA Facility expects a distinct level of readiness for implementation. At the same time, it underlines the NAMA Facility‚Äôs ambition to quickly deliver implementation finance. (see GID section 5.1.3)
  • The submission of NSP Proposals is expected in one of two timeframes: at the end of month 10 or 15 of the DPP. This serves to provide greater clarity for Applicants and better alignment in the NSP Proposal assessment and decision-making process on implementation funding. (section GID 5.2)
  • The NSP design should ensure the support of proper monitoring that involves national partners. This could include, where necessary, the development of capacities at national level and should ensure that monitoring is institutionalised with national institutions. (see GID section 6.1)
  • The proposed concept for knowledge management and communication will be part of the NSP Proposal assessment. This reflects the importance of both as the NAMA Facility strives to strengthen its role as a learning hub. (see GID section 5.2.3)

Read more on relevant topics