the influence of mitigation policies of the international climate change regime in the reduction of...

The Influence of Mitigation Policies of the International Climate Change Regime in the Reduction of Greenhouse

Gases in the Area of Transport

Rosane Monteiro BorgesChemical Engineer, Environmental Specialist, Master Degree in International Relations, PhD Student in

International Relations

21st International Conference onUrban Transport and the Environment

2nd – 4th June, 2015Valencia, Spain

General Scheme of the Presentation

R. M. Borges - International RelationsPontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais - Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação

Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais State, Brazil 2

• Objectives and assumptions at work

• Methodology

• Countries and Megacities

• GHG Emissions: Japan, France, USA, Turkey and Russian Federation

• Evolution of GHG emissions in Transportation Sector in countries listed in non Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol

• National and Local Policy Instruments used by Countries from Annex I of Kyoto Protocol and USA

• National and Local Policy Instruments used by Countries from non-Annex I of Kyoto Protocol

• Policy Instruments used by Megacities

• Conclusions and Suggestions

Objectives and assumptions at work


Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais State, Brazil

General: Evaluate the evolution of policiesfor controlling GHG emissions to discuss theeffectiveness of the ICCR – TransportationSector in Megacities and their countries.

Hypothesis 1: The existence of such policiesindicates the effectiveness of the Regime.

Systematize ICRR guidelines on the actions to reduce GHG emissions.

Hypothesis 2: In general policies adopted meet the ICCR guidelines.

Analyze the convergence of ICCR guidelines and policies in transportation setor in Megacities and their countries.

Hypothesis 3: Given HP2, it’s expected that the existence of policies to mitigate GHG had driven actions of national and local governments for projects that include ICCR guidelines.

Identify trends in emissions in the period of 1990-2011 and discuss the results.

Given Assumptions 2/3 it’s expected that the adopted mitigation policies were effective.

Identify actions and goals related toMegacities’ transportation sector after year 2012.

The Megacities include in their GHG’s emissions reduction targets corresponding policies and actions for the transportation sector.

Methodology

The study adopts the selected Megacities as being the World's 30 largest settlements in 2015, defined by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs - Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections Section of the United Nations and the city of Hong Kong - indicated as a model for the Chinese Government in the Transportation Sector.

The search for information on PMAs - Policies and Mitigation Actions andresults of GHG emissions for the transportation sector covered the National Inventories Communications for UNFCCC from all countries of the 31 Megacities and also all Megacities that have information available in International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives – ICLEI and C40Cities sites.

Documental analysis techniques and statistical analysis techniques were used for the treatment and organization of information, in order to test the hypotheses presented in the Introduction of this article.

4 4


Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais State, Brazil

Countries and Megacities

Countries Megacities

Argentina Buenos Aires

Bangladesh Dakha

Brazil São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro

China Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chongqing, Wuhan, Hong Kong

D. R. Congo Kinshasa

Egypt Cairo

France Paris

India Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai

Indonesia Jakarta

Japan Tokyo, Osaka-Kobe

Pakistan Karachi

Philippines Manila

Mexico Mexico City

Nigeria Lagos

Russian Federation Moscow

Turkey Istanbul

USA New York, Los Angeles, Chicago 5

GHG Emissions: Japan, France, USA, Turkey and Russian Federation

Country Percentage HDI / Notes

Japan - 14.3 12 (very high)

France - 5.3 20 (very high)

United States of America

- 2,8 4 (very high)

Turkey + 36 92 (high) with ascending curve since 1990.

Russian Federation + 84 66 (high) with GHG emissions of 2011 below the year of 1990.



The above table shows the evolution of GHG emissions in countries listed in Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol and country signatory to the UNFCCC in the

period of 2000 to 2011

Evolution of GHG emissions in Transportation Sector in countries listed in non Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol

Country Period Percentage in the period

Annualizedpercentage

HDI / Note

Argentina 1994 a 2000 + 11.7 + 1.9 45, VH*

Mexico 1990 a 2010 + 87 + 4.4 57, H*

Brazil 1994 a 2005 + 41.5 +3.8 84, H*

China 1994 a 2005 + 151.1 +13,7 101, M*

Egypt 1990 a 2000 + 27 + 2.7 113, M*

Indonesia 1994 a 2000 + 18.4 + 3.1 124, M*

India 1994 a 2000 + 22.2 + 3.7 134, M*

Bangladesh 2001 a 2005 + 21 + 4.2 146, L*

Democratic Republic of Congo

1999 a 2003 + 2.9 + 0.72 187, L* - Country with internal armed conflicts from 1999 to 2004.

7*VH – Very High; *H – High; *M – Medium; *L - Low

8

Financial incentive (subsidies and other incentives)

X-x-x-

Improvement of Managerial Process in the Use of Modes of Transport and Air Quality Management in Cities

X-x-x-

Incentive for using Non-motorized forms of Transport

USA, France

Information Instruments All countries

Infrastructure Planning All countries

Integration of Climate Policies Japan, USA, France

Investment in Public Transportation All countries

Regulations and Standards All countries

Research and Development Japan, USA, France

Taxation and definition of financial charges USA, France

Tradable Permits No countries

Voluntary Agreements No countries

National and Local Policy Instruments used by Countries from Annex I of Kyoto Protocol and USA

9


Almost all countries





Information Instruments All countries

Infrastructure Planning All countries

Integration of Climate Policies All countries

Investment in Public Transportation Almost all countries

Regulations and Standards Almost all countries

Research and Development Almost all countries

Taxation and definition of financial charges X-x-x-

Tradable Permits No countries

Voluntary Agreements No countries

National and Local Policy Instruments used by Countries from non-Annex I of Kyoto Protocol

10


Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Hong Kong


Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo


Paris, New York, Chicago, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Dhaka

Information Instruments All Megacities

Infrastructure Planning New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Beijing, Hong Kong, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, and Dhaka

Integration of Climate Policies to Municipal Development Policies

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Mexico City, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Hong Kong

Policy Instruments used by Megacities



Investment in Public Transportation New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Beijing, Hong Kong, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, and Dhaka

Regulations and Standards New York, Chicago, Mexico City, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Beijing, Hong Kong and Jakarta

Research and Development X-x-x-

Taxation and definition of financial charges X-x-x-

Tradable Permits X-x-x-

Voluntary Agreements X-x-x-

GHG Emissions Reduction Targets

Tokyo, Mexico City, New York, São Paulo, Buenos Aires, Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro, Paris, Jakarta and Chicago

Policy Instruments used by Megacities

Conclusions

Hypothesis 1: The Regime has been effective in the disseminationof GHG mitigation policies in the transportation sector.

Hypothesis 2: Policies adopted by the countries and theMegacities meet the guidelines expressed by the Regime.

Hypothesis 3: The policies adopted by the countries and or theMegacities promoted and encouraged proceedings of national orlocal governments in projects that include the Regime guidelines.

The adoption of proceedings resulting from GHG mitigationpolicies in transportation was effective in Japan, the United Statesand France (emissions from 2000 to 2011).

Turkey and the Russian Federation, on the basis of population andGDP growths in the first and in function of the economic recoveryafter the breakup of the former USSR in the second, did not haveresults that demonstrate the GHG emission reduction in theperiod of 2000 to 2011. GHG emissions of the Russian Federationin 2011 are below the emissions reported in 1990.

12

Conclusions

Non-Annex Countries I of KP: the Regime has influence on theadoption of policies and domestic GHG mitigation actions in all ofthem. Pakistan, the Philippines and Nigeria could not be checked(first national communications).

Non-Annex I Countries: the effectiveness of the adoption of thepolicies and related proceedings, when confronted to thedevelopment needs of the countries, have not shown positiveresults in reducing GHG emissions in the studied period.

Megacities: 18 of the 31 analyzed have reported GHG mitigationpolicies for the Transportation sector and 10 of them have GHGreduction goals for the coming years. 58% of the evaluated citiesalign their climate policies with those instructed by the Regime.The effectiveness and efficiency of these policies can bemonitored in the coming years, according to the disclosed targetsand with the release of their GHG emissions inventories, thatcover the methodologies and results of the calculations. 13

Other Conclusions and Suggestions

Japan: best results – regulations and standards for the automotiveindustry and the adjustment of oil refineries emissions standards tomeet national laws related to air quality.

New York: construction of GHG emission reduction targets.

Mexico City: good example of the non-Annex I countries (5th NationalCommunication).

Megacities in Asia: importance of research and development of newsources of energy in China and India.

China: the development of the concept and the results ofeconomic growth with reduction of GHG emissions per unit ofGDP as it could have a greater impact on the reduction of globalGHG emissions.

São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro: monitoring the achievement of thedisclosed targets in the coming years.



Other Conclusions and Suggestions

Categories listed in the Kyoto Protocol - Annex I and non-Annex ICountries: new structure in the COPs about the current validity ofthe initial division that was made, in view of the results that aresubmitted by countries related to their GHG reduction emissions.It could be proposed the creation of an intermediate category,where some countries could be acting together with more strongactions to control their GHG emissions per unit of GDP. The use ofmore efficient technologies for reducing emissions could beobjectified more intensely in these countries, including those thatshow up now available for adoption in transportation.

Countries with very high HDI: keep constant control over theiremissions and also proceed in compliance with targets to beestablished in the coming years.


Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais State, Brazil15

Acknowledgements

• The author acknowledges the Foundation forResearch of the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil –FAPEMIG and the Coordination of Higher EducationPersonnel Improvement – CAPES, a Foundation ofthe Ministry of Education of Brazil, for funding partof the costs of the studies that made possible thiswork.


Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais State, Brazil16

17

Thank you for your time and

attention!

Rosane Monteiro Borges

[email protected]

the influence of mitigation policies of the international climate change regime in the reduction of...

Environment

megacities ghg emissions

general policies

iccr transportation

evolution of policies

existence of policies

pmas policies

results of ghg emissions

megacities conclusions