Post-2012 mechanisms for transport

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