Policies towards a low carbon future for transport

Insert the title of your presentation here Presented by Name Here Job Title - Date Policies towards a low carbon future for transport Holger Dalkmann 16.01.2009

Table of contents Page  Introduction Policy Instruments to tackle climate change Existing and future UNFCCC instruments Policy Scenarios for a low carbon future Recommendation: Process Steps 1 2 3 4 5

Transport Trends in Asian Countries

Urbanization leads to growing traffic and reduced accessibility.

Urban transport is shifting from non-motorized to motorized transport.

Private transport is growing while public transport looses attraction.

Only minority of car-owners profits from car-friendly transport policies.

Consequences: Increase of GHG gases, Air pollution, accidents, etc.

Access to employment, health and education is a basic need but roads alone can not fight poverty

North-South-Transfer of technology and way-of-life is not sustainable.

The extension of road networks is not always a the appropriate option, maintenance of existing roads would often be better.

Central planning without a participatory approach neglects the needs of people and is not efficient.

Transport is still considered as a driving force to economic growth

Supply of transport infrastructure is often seen as role of governments (infrastructure as a merit good)

Transport sector is a common playground for politicians

Problems arise from the multitude of stakeholders and divided responsibility in financing

Growing demand since private costs of transport don´t cover total social and environmental costs (negative external effects are not internalized)

Lack of Integrated Transport Planning (ITP)

Climate Change does not play any role in national as well urban decision-making

Barriers: Main Factors for Transport Growth

Sustainable Transport Strategy Responses Carbon Emissions CHOICE POTENTIAL STRATEGY RESPONSES – REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS AVOID IMPROVE SHIFT I I I R R R T T E E E P P NON-MOTORISED TRANSPORT Walking and Cycling PUBLIC MOTORISED TRANSPORT Public Transport - Bus, rail TRAVEL DOES NOT TAKE PLACE Need/desire to travel has been reduced INDIVIDUAL MOTORISED TRANSPORT Car, taxi Decision to travel or not to travel and by which mode affects fuel consumption, and therefore carbon emissions - Number of vehicles, level of congestion, driver behaviour, vehicle condition, fuel type REGULATORY INSTRUMENTS (R) , PLANNING INSTRUMENTS (P) ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS (E) INFORMATION INSTRUMENTS (I) TECHNOLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS (T) AVAILABLE INSTRUMENTS

Reforms in Transport Policy Needed

Strategies of Sustainability

reduce traffic,

shift traffic,

optimize traffic,

and change behavior of users

Principles of Integrated Transport Planning

Priority to:

the weak over the strong

the slow over the fast

the non-motorized over the motorized

the nearness over the distance

Some Instruments

Polluters-Pay-Principle and integration of all social and ecological costs

Subsidiarity-Principle (decisions close to the people concerned) and participatory approach

Educating and promoting guiding principles of sustainability

Stages of Transport Planning in Europe Goals Target-Group Financing Decision-making Process Historical Perspective Stage 1 before 1945 Own (military) interests of the state “ Benefit of the people” state budget Top-down Infrastructure as a merit good Stage 4 near future ? all stakeholders including future generations following the polluters-pay principle economical, social, and environmental accountable Full integration Stage 3 70´s – today Stakeholders (users and directly affected people) taxes and fees rational-political CBA with political bargaining Multi-stakeholder process Stage 2 1945 - 70´s state and all users of transport infrastructure (especially economy) general and petrol taxes rational-scientific Cost-Benefit-Analysis (CBA) attractive (car-) traffic as location factor

Leapfrogging of Transport Planning & Policy participatory sustainable Stage 1 Europe bevor 1945 Stage 2 Europe 1945-70‘ Stage 3 Europe 70‘ - today Stage 4 Close future? most Least Developed Countries (LDC) today Developing and most Emerging Countries today Leapfrogging-Process Reproducing-Process

Leapfrogging:

Catching up in development while skipping false steps in between

Focus not only on technology but also visions, policy, and instruments

Motorization ADB estimates 2005, 2008, 2015 Trend Leapfrogging

Delhi Transport Source: ADB 2008

Role of transport under the current Kyoto Protocol

CDM does not work:

2 transport projects out of 1186 registered projects!

8 out 4151 projects in the pipeline

5 approved methodologies

0.1 % of all CERs

No projects under Joint Implementation

Transport excluded in ETS

No specific link between Adaptation and Mitigation in the Adaptation Fund (Transport)

Future options for Mechanisms under 2012 regime

CDM - Bundling of projects: Initiative to apply same methodology in different cities (e.g BRT)

Policy/Programmatic CDM: CERs to public actor for the application of an instrument towards a sustainable transport system

Sectoral no lose Targets: CERs for meeting ambitious reduction targets for GHG emission in the transport sector on local level (NAMA as a potential set-up for Sectoral Approach)

New transport design Mechanism (Clean Transport Mechanism)

Integration of Transport Mitigation into Adaptation Fund

ETS: Investing income in Transport project in Developing Countries

(Post-)Kyoto Instruments and their (upscale) potential Status-Quo Post 2012 CDM + + Programmatic CDM + ++ JI + + ETS 0 ++ Adaptation Fund 0 ++ Sectoral no lose 0 +++ CTM 0 +++

Page  Scenario 1 Trend Weak Link Scenario 2 Upscaling Strong Link REGULATORY INSTRUMENTS (R) , PLANNING INSTRUMENTS ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS (E) INFORMATION INSTRUMENTS (I) TECHNOLOGICAL INSTRUMENTS (T) SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT INSTRUMENTS POST CDM , ETS POST JI Sectoral No lose Adaptation Fund POST 2012 INSTRUMENTS

Policy Scenarios: TREND vs Upscaling Post 2012 Success - Upscaling Strong Link between Post 2012 instruments and Sustainable Transport No lose sectoral targets in place (NAMA as a framework) Carbon Finance as a important driver for implementing Sustainable Transport Policy (High Incentive) National Target in place Urban Target established Adaptation Fund combined with mitigation actions Post 2012 Trend Weak Link between Post 2012 agreement and Sustainable Transport Extended flex mex (PoA CDM) but no major transport recognition Carbon Finance as a minor driver for Implementing Sustainable Transport Policy (Low Incentive) New methodologies, additionality no further barrier Adaptation Fund plays no role for transport

Policy Scenarios – Consequences for enabling Sustainable Transport Policy Post 2012 Trend Post 2012 Success - Upscaling Main responsibilities on national level – strong support from donor organisation needed Key role for international community – Implementation and Monitoring Strong shift of national financial investment towards low carbon transport solutions (carbon tax etc.) National government and urban decision-maker to set framework to combine carbon finance with local/national actions Integrate Climate Change into Transport Planning and Policy National Action Plans, Local Transport Plans needed

Process under Scenario 1 - Trend

Process under Scenario 2 - Upscaling

Reforms in International Development Cooperation

Development policy must shift from pure growth-orientated (transport-) infrastructure approach to an integrated strategy which aims more directly at resource efficiency and poverty reduction.

Transfer of technical know-how needs to be complemented by visions, policy, and instruments to sustainability (e.g. Leapfrogging, South-South-Cooperation).

Balance between development of new alternatives (fuel-cell engines) and the preservation of “old and simple”, but sustainable and sufficient solutions (non-motorized transport) must be fund.