Opportunities and obstacles for co-

benefits in transportation policies

in developing Asia
Shobhakar Dhakal
Executive Director, Global Carbon Project
National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan
Shobhakar.dhakal@nies.or.jp
www.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 2005
Vehicle 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 quote
Figure 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
C
O
2
t
o
n
/
p
e
r
s
o
n
Beijing
Tokyo
Shanghai
Seoul
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
T
O
E

p
e
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
Tokyo
Shanghai
Seoul
Beijing
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
J ust linkingto talk green and other reason but
not doing in a meaningful way
Co-benefit
Key co-benefit attributes in transportation
Better mobility
Air pollution control
Energy security
Congestion mitigation
Improvement of public transport
CO2 mitigation
Remember
CO2 mitigation is co-benefitof 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
synergisticin 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
travel
Clean transport system: Push-pull strategies for carbon
friendly modal shift (public, private, NMT)
Downstream strategies (reactive):
Clean vehicles: Energy efficiency enhancements
Friendly fuels: Shifting to GHG friendly fuel-system
Policy instruments
A 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- No
Travel activity reduction measures - No
Car restraining- No (few exceptions)
Non-motorized travel models- No
Inherently clean options such efficient mass public
transit/transportation Yes
Energy efficiency improvement Yes
Bio-fuels Considerable interests but potential is yet
unknown
Dieselization Emerging but unclear given PM and NOx
penalties
Electric 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 few
Academic 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 emissionsin 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-benefit
Mode sift
BRT Bogot, Colombia: TransMilenio Phase II to IV
Location: Bogot, Colombia
CDM project registered at UNFCCC on 07 December 2006
Reduce 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-benefit
Technology
Installation of Low Greenhouse gases emitting rolling stock cars in
metro system
Location: New Delhi, India
CDM project registered at UNFCCC on 29 December 2007
Reduce 41,160 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions per year (average)
Use of regenerative braking system in the rolling stock
Lower SO2 emission
Envirofit Tricycle-taxi Retrofit Program
Location: City of Vigan, Philippines
CDM project at validation stage
Reduce 7,708.2 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions per year
Retrofitting 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-benefit
Fuel Switch/Technology
Trolley bus development in Ring road of the Kathmandu Valley
Location: Kathmandu valley, Nepal
CDM pre-feasibility study carried out in 2004
Reduce 128,927 tons of CO2 equivalent emissions during the project period
(2005-2025).
50 trolleybuses in 2005 replace 34 diesel buses and 33 diesel minibuses
Total 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 Nepal
Location: Nepal
CDM pre-feasibility study carried out in 2006
Reduce 9.5 million tons CO2 equivalent emissions in 21 years
Development of 1027 km long single-track electric railway system, with
maximum power demand of18 MW supplied by hydro electricity plant
Reduce 449 tons of particulate matter (PM10) in 2011, and over 4,000 tons in
2034
Reduce 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-
benefits
Demonstration 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
Implementationof policies for co-benefits
Creating political champions locally and globally
Lobby 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 portfolio
Growing interests amongst international
organizations, though slow
Climate community have started realizing the need
for sectoral leadership rather than talking too much
climatefrom 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 GHGs
Fuel quality improvement - does not necessarily reduce GHGs
NOx 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
Xian
Guangzhou
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
P
e
r

C
a
p
i
t
a

E
n
e
r
g
y

C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

i
n

T
o
n

o
f
S
C
E
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