Opportunities and obstacles for co-benefits in transportation policies in developing Asia

Shobhakar DhakalExecutive Director, Global Carbon ProjectNational Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

Shobhakar.dhakal@nies.or.jpwww.globalcarbonproject.org

The US – Japan Workshop on The Co-Benefits of Climate Actions in Asia, 22 April 2008, UN Conference Centre, Bangkok

Contents

A. What types of transportation strategies offer the greatest co-benefits in developing Asia?

B. What are the chief obstacles to incorporating an analysis of co-benefits into the transport policy designs and implementing them in developing Asia?

C. How to overcome these obstacles?

Developing Asia as challenge and opportunity

Rapid motorization in Asia: China and India as major influencer

India (WEO 2007)Energy from transport sector to increase by double by 2015 and more than four times by 2030 (162 Mtoe) from 2005Vehicle stock to increase from 68 million in 2004 to 295 million by 2030 (50% two wheelers, little less than 50% in LDV) CO2 from transport sector in India to increase from 8% in 2005 to 13% in 2030

Developing Asia as challenge and opportunity

China (WEO 2007)Energy from transport sector to increase close to four times by 2030 (460 Mtoe) from 2005 Vehicle stock has increased by 7 times in 1990-2006; it will increase from 37 million in 2006 to 270 million by 2030 (75% LDV) CO2 from transports sector in China to increase from 6.6% in 2005 to 11% in 2030

India and China collectively accounts roughly about 20% of global transport energy demand by 2030 and each will exceed USA by 2025 by volume of vehicles

Rising transport energy use and associated carbon emission in selected Chinese cities

Dhakal (2008), draft, please donot quoteFigure belongs to transport and telecommunication

Selected mega-cities

Trend of per capita energy consumption

Trend of per capita CO2 emission

Sources: IGES 2004

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

CO

2to

n/p

erso

n Beijing

Tokyo

Shanghai

Seoul

0.00

0.40

0.80

1.20

1.60

2.00

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

TO

E p

er p

erso

n

TokyoShanghai

SeoulBeijing

Reality of developing Asia

Most of the decision-makers are not interested:

Less or no awareness and priority to make GHG friendly transport policies or to assess GHG co-benefits of their transport policies

Those moderately show interests are:Interested from possible financial assistance

“Just linking” to talk green and other reason but not doing in a meaningful way

Co-benefitKey co-benefit attributes in transportation

Better mobilityAir pollution controlEnergy securityCongestion mitigationImprovement of public transportCO2 mitigation

RememberCO2 mitigation is “co-benefit” of local actions if we ask developing Asia to put their resources and serious efforts

Co-benefit needs to be looked from local perspectives in developing Asia

Method:Streamline greenhouse gas mitigation concerns into urban transport while addressing local priorities such as pollution, energy security, congestions and economy

Operationalizing co-benefit policy/strategies:1. Implementing locally-competitive measures that are

“synergistic” in nature (Do-It-Yourself)(a): Awareness creation, better assessments, actions on ground

2. Uplifting measures with more-GHG-mitigating-potentials within the portfolio of locally-prioritized measures

(b): (a) + Additional financial push and technology facilitation

3. Avoiding measures that are high on priority list locally but are detrimental to climate concerns

(C): (a) + (b) + assessments of alternatives + financial and policy dis-incentives

Co-benefits can be realized through selected transport strategies

Upstream strategies (pre-emptying): Mobility management: Better access and reducing need for travelClean transport system: Push-pull strategies for carbon friendly modal shift (public, private, NMT)

Downstream strategies (reactive): Clean vehicles: Energy efficiency enhancementsFriendly fuels: Shifting to GHG friendly fuel-system

Policy instrumentsA combination of detailed instruments: regulatory, economic, voluntary and informational Rebound effect and life cycle perspectives key

Are those strategies being practiced successfully in developing Asia?

Urban planning measures for better access- NoTravel activity reduction measures - No

Car restraining- No (few exceptions)Non-motorized travel models- NoInherently clean options such efficient mass public transit/transportation – Yes

Energy efficiency improvement – Yes

Bio-fuels – Considerable interests but potential is yet unknownDieselization – Emerging but unclear given PM and NOxpenaltiesElectric and hybrid vehicles with clean electricity – No

Co-benefit assessment as a first step

Clarifying co-benefits opportunities and gaps quantitatively (there are many conflicts too)

Creating positive awareness by showing benefits and opportunities and stimulate interests of decision makers

Enhances local technical capacity to assess

Potential obstacles to incorporating an analysis of co-benefits into the design of transportation policies

Serious co-benefit assessments of local policies are fewAcademic exercises away from reality Shallow analyses and lots of “talk”

The legitimacy of assessment Who assessed? Did anybody asked to assess? Are they comprehensive and look all options on-board? Shallow depth of analyses (for air pollution limited to annual “average emissions” in contrasts to concentration and health)Are alternatives and options shown reasonably?

Unclear or lack of incentives to incorporate analyses of co-benefits into policy designs

Extra possible funding (such as CDM money) could be far smaller than the scale of the transport projects

CDM projects’ benefits

CDM projects as experiences for co-benefitMode sift

BRT Bogotá, Colombia: TransMilenio Phase II to IVLocation: Bogotá, ColombiaCDM project registered at UNFCCC on 07 December 2006Reduce 246,563 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions per year (average)Reduce 7,000 tons of PM over the first crediting period (2006-2012)Reduce more than 50,000 tons of NOx over the first crediting period (2006-2012)Reduce more than 800 tons of SO2 over the first crediting period(2006-2012)

Source: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/

130 km of new dedicated lanes (trunk routes) including new bus-stations, around 1,200 new articulated buses with a capacity of 160 passengers, operating on trunk routes and 500 new large buses operating on feeder lines, daily 1.8 million passengers transported.

CDM projects as experiences for co-benefitTechnology

Installation of Low Greenhouse gases emitting rolling stock cars in metro systemLocation: New Delhi, IndiaCDM project registered at UNFCCC on 29 December 2007Reduce 41,160 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions per year (average)Use of regenerative braking system in the rolling stockLower SO2 emission

Envirofit Tricycle-taxi Retrofit ProgramLocation: City of Vigan, PhilippinesCDM project at validation stageReduce 7,708.2 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions per yearRetrofitting 6000 carbureted two-stroke engine tricycles with direct in-cylinder fuel injection (Direct Injection)Field tests indicate that there is a significant reduction in air pollution; 89% reduction of hydrocarbons, and 76% reduction in carbon monoxide

Source: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/

CDM projects as experiences for co-benefitFuel Switch/Technology

Trolley bus development in Ring road of the Kathmandu ValleyLocation: Kathmandu valley, NepalCDM pre-feasibility study carried out in 2004Reduce 128,927 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions during the project period (2005-2025).50 trolleybuses in 2005 replace 34 diesel buses and 33 diesel minibusesTotal 125-trolleybus during the project period (2005-2025) replace 85 diesel buses and 83 diesel minibuses 1.8 million liters of diesel can be reduced from total fuel imports by replacing 67 diesel buses in 2005 alone

Development of an East-West Electric Railway in NepalLocation: NepalCDM pre-feasibility study carried out in 2006Reduce 9.5 million tons CO2 equivalent emissions in 21 yearsDevelopment of 1027 km long single-track electric railway system, with maximum power demand of18 MW supplied by hydro electricity plantReduce 449 tons of particulate matter (PM10) in 2011, and over 4,000 tons in 2034Reduce 30 million litres of diesel per year at its inception in 2011 and 274 million litres per year by 2034

Source: http://www.adb.org/Clean-Energy/prega-links.asp

Overcoming obstacles

Awareness creation on GHGs, transport sector and co-benefitsDemonstration of co-benefits quantitatively with a serious engagements with decisions makers Additional international, multilateral and bilateral financial mechanisms to address a wide gap in local-priority with GHG“Implementation” of policies for co-benefits

Creating political champions locally and globallyLobby to agree upon climate assessment as mandatory in all local measures, ODAs and investments (even though the result of assessment and information disclosure could be non-binding in developing countries)

Opportunities

Debate on role of developing countries in post-Kyoto debate can be enhanced through co-benefits

Meeting point between any form of targets of developing countries and assistance from developed countries

Growing pressure on and interests of multilateral agencies such as development Banks and ODA agencies to have greater climate portfolioGrowing interests amongst international organizations, though slowClimate community have started realizing the need for sectoral leadership rather than talking “too much climate” from top

Thank you

For more information

Shobhakar.dhakal@nies.go.jp

Not always synergies

Economy (high priority in some countries):Automobile industry is a pillar of national economic development in many countries that promote motorization locally

Transport infrastructure (high priority in all countries):More and better transport infrastructure invite more travel activity of private-motorized mode in developing country

Air pollution mitigation (high priority in all countries)Technological-fix at vehicle tailpipe which is priority in Asian cities for air pollutant mitigation (catalytic converter, particulate traps) –does not work for GHGsFuel quality improvement - does not necessarily reduce GHGsNOx and particulates that are more problematic for cities comes from diesel – phasing out will reduce GHG reduction benefits

New technology (low priority in all countries):For new technology, life cycle CO2 is more important – need a careful look

Share of transport sector small but rapidly rising in Chinese cities (34 cities)

Per capita Income Vs. Per capita Energy Use in 34 Largest Chinese Cities in 2006 (Shenzen removed from previous figure)

Chongquin

Fuzhou

Taiyuan

Xining Ningbo

Shanghai

Hohhot

XianGuangzhou

Beijing

Yinchuan

China

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

Per Capita Gross Regional Product in Yuan

Pe

r C

ap

ita

En

erg

y C

on

su

mp

tio

n in

To

n o

fS

CE

Dhakal (2008), draft, please donot quote

Synergies in Kathmandu Valley

A package of air pollution control measures that suits local condition has equally good prospects to reduce CO2 too.

Caution: those are emission based analyses but not exposure and health based analyses