post-2012 mechanisms for transport
DESCRIPTION
By Stefan Bakker and Cornie Huizenga. Presented on Day Two of Transforming Transportation. Washington, D.C. January 15, 2010.TRANSCRIPT
www.ecn.nl
www.ecn.nl
Post-2012 mechanisms for transportStefan Bakker (ECN; [email protected]) and Cornie Huizenga (ADB)
In collaboration with Ecofys, Wuppertal Institute, Embarq, Transport Research LaboratoryTransforming Transportation, Washington, 15 January 2010
planetark
3 10-04-23
Study context
• Goal: provide recommendations for post-2012 mechanisms to be suited for transport sector
• Initiated by ADB and IDB, as part of the SLoCaT partnership
• Case studies by TRL, Ecofys, Embarq and Wuppertal Institute
• September 2009 – May 2010
• COP15: interim results, ADB Transport Forum (May 2010 – final results)
• Input into formulation of detailed guidelines for NAMAs and other carbon finance mechanisms
4 10-04-23
Emission reductions in transport: Avoid – Shift - Improve
•Most studies and mitigation efforts focus on improving energy and carbon efficiency ‑ Biofuels, electric vehicles, energy efficiency
•Measures to reduce transport demand (avoid) and shift to more efficient modes are now more and more acknowledged
• Appraisal of global and national climate policy scenarios often exclude local benefits
Common problems in assessment of GHG emissions in transport sector
• GHG traditionally determined in inventories through a top-down approach based on fuel-use
• Limited incentives for developing countries to develop program and (sub)-sector baselines
• Poor availability and quality of activity data: difficulties in assigning emissions to specific actors and activity
• Leakage, rebound effect
• Additionality: climate not the main reason for intervention
5 10-04-23
6 10-04-23
Current instruments (1)• CDM: currently 0.4% of CERs in transport sector
‑ Methodological problems with establishing baseline emissions, additionality and leakage
‑ Recently approved methodologies and developments provide (limited) scope for improvement
• Multilateral banks‑ Traditionally focus on road construction, slowly more
attention for sustainable and urban transport and more integrated vision
‑ Start with carbon foot-printing of investments
Current Instruments (2)
• GEF:‑ Currently developing new methodology to
assess GHG reductions
• Clean Investment Fund/Clean Technology Fund‑ Less emphasis on technical evaluation of GHG
reductions. Instead more subjective evaluation (in response to strict technical CDM process) with emphasis on transformational character of investments
7 10-04-23
8 10-04-23
Future instruments: NAMAs
• Voluntary, in context of sustainable development
• NAMAs associated with a sort of “commitment” by developing countries of reducing GHG emissions
• Three types: Unilateral – supported – credited‑ support: finance, technology, capacity building
• Less strict MRV requirements than CDM‑ Copenhagen Accord: domestic MRV, reported
through Nat. Comm., international analysis
• Scope: ‑ policy, programme, project, ‑ enabling activities (capacity building, policy support)
Case studies: 1 CDM PoA, 3 NAMAs
• Hefei (China): ‘walkable city’: urban planning for non-motorised and public transport
• Jakarta: transport demand management: road pricing, parking policies and BRT enhancement
• Belo Horizonte (Brazil): integrated mobility plan – BRT/metro, NMT, landuse and parking policies
•Mexico City: optimisation of conventional bus system – institutional framework, implementation of changes, data gathering, public awareness
10 10-04-23
NAMAs for the transport sector: MRV
•MRV: measuring impact on GHG emissions challenging‑ benchmarking, standardised assumptions / models
for baselines and additionality,‑ New approaches: input/output indicators, co-
benefits
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT OUTCOME
STAGE OF PROGRAMME
GHG emission reductions
co-benefits
change in modal split
construction of MRT, cycle lanes
capacity building
awareness campaigns
resources
NAMAs for the transport sector: finance
• Incremental cost for avoid and shift measures often low to negative from social perspective but higher from private, and implementation difficult‑ barrier removal cost‑ preparation vs implementation
• Financing approaches – which (sub)activities will be financed by whom?‑ combination of domestic and external funding ‑ grants (e.g. capacity building, preparation, monitoring)‑ soft loans (e.g. investments)
12 10-04-23
Conclusions
• Current mechanisms have had limited impact‑ Carbon finance a factor of limited importance‑ Methodological issues‑ Data intensive
• CDM post-2012 limited potential
• NAMAs could be promising
• Copenhagen Agreement has confirmed relevance of CITS project (NAMAs, mitigation funding, MRV)
13 10-04-23
Recommendations and further work
• Focus on barrier removal cost needed including capacity building‑ funding of enabling activities
• How does NAMA financing relate to other external and domestic funds?
• Activity data and emission modelling
• Optimise trade-off b/w accuracy - transaction cost
• Can co-benefits incentivise action, implications for MRV?
• Propose and develop bankable transport-NAMAs
www.slocat.net