Opportunities and obstacles for cobenefits 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.

B.

C.

What types of transportation strategies offer the

greatest co-benefits in developing Asia?
What are the chief obstacles to incorporating an
analysis of co-benefits into the transport policy
designs and implementing them in developing
Asia?
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
10.00

Shanghai
Tokyo
Seoul
Beijing

TOE per person

1.60
1.20
0.80

Shanghai
8.00
CO 2 ton/person

2.00

Beijing
6.00
Tokyo

0.40

2.00

0.00

0.00

1960

1970

1980

1990

Trend of per capita energy

consumption

2000

2010

Seoul

4.00

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Trend of per capita CO2

emission

Sources: IGES 2004

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 cobenefits 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-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-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:

Implementing locally-competitive measures that are

synergistic in nature (Do-It-Yourself)

1.

(a): Awareness creation, better assessments, actions on ground

Uplifting measures with more-GHG-mitigating-potentials

within the portfolio of locally-prioritized measures

2.

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

Avoiding measures that are high on priority list locally but

are detrimental to climate concerns

3.

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

Co-benefits can be realized through

selected transport strategies

Upstream strategies (pre-emptying):

Downstream strategies (reactive):

Mobility management: Better access and reducing need for

travel
Clean transport system: Push-pull strategies for carbon
friendly modal shift (public, private, NMT)
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 cobenefits 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 emissions in contrasts to concentration and health)
Are alternatives and options shown reasonably?
Unclear or lack of incentives to incorporate analyses of cobenefits 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 incylinder 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 cobenefits

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
Implementation of 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
climate from top

Thank you
For more information
Shobhakar.dhakal@nies.go.jp

Not always synergies

Economy (high priority in some countries):

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)

Automobile industry is a pillar of national economic development in

many countries that promote motorization locally

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 Energy Consumption in Ton of

SCE

Per capita Income Vs. Per capita Energy Use in 34 Largest Chinese
Cities in 2006 (Shenzen removed from previous figure)
12
Hohhot

10

Yinchuan
Taiyuan

Shanghai
Guangzhou

Xian
Beijing

Xining

Ningbo

4
China

Fuzhou

Chongquin

0
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

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