Post-2012 mechanisms for transport


Published on

By Stefan Bakker and Cornie Huizenga. Presented on Day Two of Transforming Transportation. Washington, D.C. January 15, 2010.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • But not reflected in investments avoid and shift important in all countries, but developing countries may have additional opportunity to leap frog
  • EB to prioritise transport sector, standardised aselines ACM16 mass rapid transit MDB recognise sustainable tranpsort GEF diverse portfolio, but amounts much lower World Bank established CIF/CTF michael fast loan WB ADB methodology report
  • GEF STAT scientific techn advi panel CTF more subjective approach (transformational aspects) rather than technical assessment; trust fund gaat om de tafel zitten tekort aan bankable projects
  • co-benefits: analoog aan cdm: old standard daar wordt ook meer geld voor betaald (tax payers may be more interested to pay for sustainable projects)
  • from our desk analysis and preliminary result of the case studies a couple of observations stand out
  • private: investment high, returns uncertain, often returns are for consumers which activities will be financed by whom? and how to structure the finance? heeft ook invloed op MRV hoe wordt de financiering beoordeeld? preparation - implementation
  • but issues MRV and finance need attention
  • are the case studies feasbile as nmas is it desirable
  • Post-2012 mechanisms for transport

    1. 2. Post-2012 mechanisms for transport Stefan Bakker (ECN; [email_address] ) and Cornie Huizenga (ADB) In collaboration with Ecofys, Wuppertal Institute, Embarq, Transport Research Laboratory Transforming Transportation, Washington, 15 January 2010 planetark
    2. 3. Study context <ul><li>Goal: provide recommendations for post-2012 mechanisms to be suited for transport sector </li></ul><ul><li>Initiated by ADB and IDB, as part of the SLoCaT partnership </li></ul><ul><li>Case studies by TRL, Ecofys, Embarq and Wuppertal Institute </li></ul><ul><li>September 2009 – May 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>COP15: interim results, ADB Transport Forum (May 2010 – final results) </li></ul><ul><li>Input into formulation of detailed guidelines for NAMAs and other carbon finance mechanisms </li></ul>25-01-10
    3. 4. Emission reductions in transport: Avoid – Shift - Improve <ul><li>Most studies and mitigation efforts focus on improving energy and carbon efficiency </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Biofuels, electric vehicles, energy efficiency </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Measures to reduce transport demand (avoid) and shift to more efficient modes are now more and more acknowledged </li></ul><ul><li>Appraisal of global and national climate policy scenarios often exclude local benefits </li></ul>25-01-10
    4. 5. Common problems in assessment of GHG emissions in transport sector <ul><li>GHG traditionally determined in inventories through a top-down approach based on fuel-use </li></ul><ul><li>Limited incentives for developing countries to develop program and (sub)-sector baselines </li></ul><ul><li>Poor availability and quality of activity data: difficulties in assigning emissions to specific actors and activity </li></ul><ul><li>Leakage, rebound effect </li></ul><ul><li>Additionality: climate not the main reason for intervention </li></ul>25-01-10
    5. 6. Current instruments (1) <ul><li>CDM: currently 0.4% of CERs in transport sector </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Methodological problems with establishing baseline emissions, additionality and leakage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recently approved methodologies and developments provide (limited) scope for improvement </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Multilateral banks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Traditionally focus on road construction, slowly more attention for sustainable and urban transport and more integrated vision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Start with carbon foot-printing of investments </li></ul></ul>25-01-10
    6. 7. Current Instruments (2) <ul><li>GEF: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Currently developing new methodology to assess GHG reductions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Clean Investment Fund/Clean Technology Fund </li></ul><ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul></ul>25-01-10
    7. 8. Future instruments: NAMAs <ul><li>Voluntary, in context of sustainable development </li></ul><ul><li>NAMAs associated with a sort of “commitment” by developing countries of reducing GHG emissions </li></ul><ul><li>Three types: Unilateral – supported – credited </li></ul><ul><ul><li>support: finance, technology, capacity building </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Less strict MRV requirements than CDM </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Copenhagen Accord: domestic MRV, reported through Nat. Comm., international analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Scope: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>policy, programme, project, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>enabling activities (capacity building, policy support) </li></ul></ul>25-01-10
    8. 9. Case studies: 1 CDM PoA, 3 NAMAs <ul><li>Hefei (China): ‘walkable city’: urban planning for non-motorised and public transport </li></ul><ul><li>Jakarta: transport demand management: road pricing, parking policies and BRT enhancement </li></ul><ul><li>Belo Horizonte (Brazil): integrated mobility plan – BRT/metro, NMT, landuse and parking policies </li></ul><ul><li>Mexico City: optimisation of conventional bus system – institutional framework, implementation of changes, data gathering, public awareness </li></ul>
    9. 10. NAMAs for the transport sector: MRV <ul><li>MRV: measuring impact on GHG emissions challenging </li></ul><ul><ul><li>benchmarking, standardised assumptions / models for baselines and additionality, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New approaches: input/output indicators, co-benefits </li></ul></ul>25-01-10 GHG emission reductions co-benefits change in modal split construction of MRT, cycle lanes capacity building awareness campaigns resources
    10. 11. NAMAs for the transport sector: finance <ul><li>Incremental cost for avoid and shift measures often low to negative from social perspective but higher from private, and implementation difficult </li></ul><ul><ul><li>barrier removal cost </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>preparation vs implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Financing approaches – which (sub)activities will be financed by whom? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>combination of domestic and external funding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>grants (e.g. capacity building, preparation, monitoring) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>soft loans (e.g. investments) </li></ul></ul>
    11. 12. Conclusions <ul><li>Current mechanisms have had limited impact </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Carbon finance a factor of limited importance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Methodological issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data intensive </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CDM post-2012 limited potential </li></ul><ul><li>NAMAs could be promising </li></ul><ul><li>Copenhagen Agreement has confirmed relevance of CITS project (NAMAs, mitigation funding, MRV) </li></ul>25-01-10
    12. 13. Recommendations and further work <ul><li>Focus on barrier removal cost needed including capacity building </li></ul><ul><ul><li>funding of enabling activities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>How does NAMA financing relate to other external and domestic funds? </li></ul><ul><li>Activity data and emission modelling </li></ul><ul><li>Optimise trade-off b/w accuracy - transaction cost </li></ul><ul><li>Can co-benefits incentivise action, implications for MRV? </li></ul><ul><li>Propose and develop bankable transport-NAMAs </li></ul>25-01-10