Scoping Post 2012 Climate Instruments:Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions NAMAsCase Study for...

Scoping Post 2012 Climate Instruments:Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions

NAMAsCase Study for Opportunities in Urban

Transport in Brazilian Cities

Transforming Transportation 2010

Washington DC, USAJanuary 2010

Principles

Developing countries offer great climate change mitigation potential by shifting to a low carbon strategy (as opposed to Business as Usual)

Low carbon strategies should also support local environmental, economic, transport, social, health and urban development objectives

Climate change mitigation instruments can contribute in rising financial and institutional barriers for mitigation efforts, while greatly contributing to the local development goals

Sustainable Transport Co-Benefits MatrixBenefits Description Health Benefits

Environment • Reduced GHG emissions• Reduced air pollutants Reduced

Noise • Reduced impact in water and

protected areas

• Reduced health impacts due to global warming

• Reduced deaths and disabilities from air pollutants

• Reduced stress and hearing losses

Social • Reduced accidents• Equitable accessibility• Increased pride

• Reduced deaths and disabilities from traffic accidents

Transport • Reduced travel time (walking, waiting, transferring, in-vehicle)

• Reduced travel time uncertainty• Reduced transport costs

• Reduced stress

Economic • Increased economic productivity • Increased employment• Better labor conditions• Increased business opportunities

Urban Development

• Increased density/mix uses• Creation of public spaces• Reduced cost in utilities’ and social

networks

• Increased physical activity (reduced obesity and other illnesses from sedentary lifestyles)

The main challenge for local quality of life and competitiveness and for the global environment is

motorization

Source: Lee Schipper, Univesirty of California, Berkeley, 2009

NAMAs: Support GHG mitigation efforts AND development goals

1. Actions that are undertaken by developing country Parties and are not enabled or supported by other Parties (unilateral NAMAs);

2. Actions that are supported by developed country Parties that could include additional financing support for capacity building and knowledge/ technology transfer; and is likely to be supported by fund-type instruments (supported NAMAs);

3. Actions that are undertaken to acquire carbon credits that would be enacted through a crediting scheme. Include up-scaled CDM (very contested).

http://www.transport2012.org/bridging/ressources/documents/1/68,Discussion_Paper.pdf



ObjectiveWe use the specific case of a mid-size Brazilian city to provide understanding of the needs, methodological and practical issues of application of NAMAs in the urban transport sector

Main questions: • Which are the GHG mitigation and co-benefit potentials of

sustainable, low carbon transport in a mid size Brazilian? • What would an Avoid-Shift-Improve oriented NAMA for Brazilian

city/cities look like?• How would it be organized?• How would it be financed?• How would it be Monitored-Reported-Verified?• How could it be scaled up?

Why a NAMA for Urban Transport?Help remove barriers

FundingIncrease likelihood of receiving funding from Federal/State level as the plan contributes to the National/State GHG mitigation objectivesParticipate in international financial flows: supported NAMA (outside offsetting mechanism)

Public AcceptanceMaking explicit the local benefitsGrowing concern on climate change mitigation

ContinuityIncreased likelihood of “surpassing” local/state/national election cycles

A model NAMA Structure

Policy Objective

NAMA Description

Green House Gas Emission Reductions

Co-Benefits

Monitoring, Reporting and Verification

Risk Analysis

Financing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/South_america_%281%29.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u252/rmcastanheira/BelaFoto.jpg

“Road Testing”

Belo Horizonte Brazil

Case Study: Belo Horizonte

Capital of Minas Gerais – Southestern Brazil

Third-largest metropolitan area in the country: 2.4 million inhabitants with 5.4 million in the Metropolitan Area

Is developing a comprehensive mobility plan Extensive data collection

Adequate transport modeling techniques

Transport oriented indicators


Policy Objective

NAMA Description


Co-Benefits


Risk Analysis

Financing

Policy Objective (example)

The NAMA for integral urban mobility seeks the reduction of GHG emissions from urban transport and the improvement of transport conditions, the local environment and the population’s health.

The NAMA seeks to avoid the increase of vehicle kilometers, shift passenger and cargo movements to efficient modes, and improve the energy efficiency of the vehicle fleet. Actions under the plan are also expected to increase the city competitiveness and the quality of life.


Policy Objective

NAMA Description


Co-Benefits


Risk Analysis

Financing

Component Committed Investments

(BAU)

Intermediate Development (BRT)

Complete Development (BRT+Metro)

Roadways Construction/Improvement

Limited Interventions VIURBS Complete interventions in VIURBS and Central Area Plan

Bus Rapid Transit Implementation

9 corridors with reserved bus-lanes

9 corridors with full BRT and 6 corridors with reserved bus-lanes

Metro Expansion Headway reduction to 4 minutes and train expansion to 6 cars in Line 1. New Metro Station

Expansion L1, L2, L3

Integration 12 Integration stations including 2 metropolitan stations

All integration stations, 5 connections between BRT corridors, priority for metropolitan bus

Bicycle Infrastructure 110 Km bikeways 365 Km bikeways

Pedestrian Facilities Improved sidewalks in downtown and the 9 corridors with bus-lanes

Improved connections in downtown, sub-centers and BRT

Land Use No action. Transit Oriented Development regulations along transit corridors

Parking Policies Increase in median daily parking charges in Central area to R$15,00/dia

Source: Prefeitura de Belo Horizonte “Plano de Mobilidade Urbana de Belo Horizonte: Diagnóstico, Cenários e Resultados”, Logit Consultants, October 2009

Modal Split 2020

Source: Prefeitura de Belo Horizonte “Plano de Mobilidade Urbana de Belo Horizonte: Diagnóstico, Cenários e Resultados”, Logit Consultants, October 2009

50.6% 52.1% 49.7%

49.1% 47.5%44.1%

6.2%0.3%0.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CommittedInvestments (BAU)

IntermediateDevelopment (BRT)

CompleteDevelopment(BRT+Metro)

Bicycles

Private Transport

Public Transport


Policy Objective

NAMA Description


Co-Benefits


Risk Analysis

Financing

TransportModel

CalibrationBase Year 2008

Roadwayand TransitNetworks

(Supply 2008)

Socio-EconomicCharacteristics

Origin-DestinationMatrix

(Demand 2008)

Travel Time Vehicle Kilometers

Emissions Factors2008

GHG Emissions2008

TransportModel

ApplicationBase Year 2008


(Supply 2020)

Socio-EconomicCharacteristics(Demand 2020)


GHG Emissions2010


Structure and Parameters

TransportModel

CalibrationBase Year 2008


(Supply 2008)

Socio-EconomicCharacteristics

Origin-DestinationMatrix

(Demand 2008)



GHG Emissions2008

TransportModel

ApplicationBase Year 2008


(Supply 2020)

Socio-EconomicCharacteristics(Demand 2020)


GHG Emissions2010


Structure and Parameters

Direct GHG EmissionsCO2eq (tonnes/year)

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Baseline 2008 Baseline 2020 Intermediate Complete

Public Transport Private Vehicles

Direct GHG Emissions Savings 2020 (CO2eq tonnes/year)

ModeIntermediate Development

(BRT)


Public Transport (86,446) 88,046

Private Transport 146,637 344,843

Total 60,192 432,889


Policy Objective

NAMA Description


Co-Benefits


Risk Analysis

Financing

Travel Time Savings User Benefits (example Public Transport)

56.2

50.7

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

Demand (pax/year*1000)

Tim

e (m

inu

tes/

pax

)

(56.2 - 50.7)*(204,304 + 236,427)/2 ~ 20.2 million hours/year

Travel Time Savings 2020 (Million hours/year)

ModeIntermediate Development

(BRT)


Public Transport 20.2 33.2

Private Transport 51.8 77.3

Total 72.0 110.5

Criteria Pollutant Emissions

-

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

30,000.0

35,000.0

40,000.0

45,000.0

50,000.0

Baseline 2008 Baseline 2020 Intermediate 2020 Complete 2020

CO (Ton/year) HC (Ton/year) NOx (Ton/year) PM (Kg/year)

CO (Ton/year)

HC (Ton/year)

NOx (Ton/year)

PM (Kg/year)

Savings Intermediate

4,078.0 536.6 1,102.2 19,426.2

Savings Complete

10,480.3 1,279.2 2,391.0 24,505.9

Reduction Intermediate

12% 13% 16% 41%

Reduction Complete

31% 32% 34% 52%

Criteria Pollutant Emission Savings

Other quantifiable co-benefits

Accident Reduction

Increased Physical Activity

Summary indicators Deaths avoided

Injuries avoideed

Days lost

Disability Adjusted Day Life (DALYs)

Socio-Economic Equivalent


Policy Objective

NAMA Description


Co-Benefits


Risk Analysis

Financing

Data Sources for MonitoringPrimary

Origin-destination surveys Volume and occupancy analysis Measurement of travel speeds Road network characteristics (number of lanes, parking, directions)Public transport network characteristics (routes, frequency, stops, fares)Phone interviews on principal mode of transport, trip length and trip time

Secondary

Public transport boardings and revenuesCensus data (population by census tract, socio-economic characteristics)Home based surveys (employment, level of education, income)Student enrollmentBusiness activity surveysCar registration, including type of fuel and vehicle efficiencyFuel consumptionGross Domestic Product (proxy for travel activity)Air quality monitoring data (criteria pollutants)Traffic accident data (fatalities, injuries, incidents)Hospital admissions (acute respiratory disease, heart failure)

Key Indicators

Modal Share

Total System Travel Time Average Travel Time by Mode

Demand by Mode

Kilometers by Mode Emissions (CO2eq, Criteria Pollutants) – Emission Factors – Lifecycle effects

System cost (out of pocket per km, total per trip)

Accidents

Physical Activity (min per day walking/biking)

Reporting & Verification

Annual consolidated report Update demand and supply characteristics

Verify consistency with field data

Update emission factors if applicable

Calculate key indicators

Verify quality of data collection & modeling

Contrast modeling results with secondary data Air quality monitoring data

Telephonic surveys: principal mode of travel, trip length, trip time.

http://www.bogotacomovamos.org/datos/AE_14_Bogota_Como_Vamos_2009.pdf1600 surveys, error 2.6% with a 95% confidence level

http://www.bogotacomovamos.org/datos/AE_14_Bogota_Como_Vamos_2009.pdf


Policy Objective

NAMA Description


Co-Benefits


Risk Analysis

Financing

Risks & Mitigation

Plan implementation Local political agenda, Natural resistance of affected parties (existing transit providers, community in the area of influence of terminals, businesses during construction)Funding availability.

Emission and Cobenefit Analasys

Prone to problems in data collection, modeling and lack of technical expertise to analyze and interpret the data.

Community Information,

Participation and Involvement

Formalization and standardization

and quality assurance (ISO certification).


Policy Objective

NAMA Description

Green House Gas Emission Reductions• Co-Benefits• Monitoring, Reporting and Verification• Risk Analysis• Financing

Supported NAMA

• Local funding: taxes, public-private partnerships (value capture, congestion pricing)

• Contribution of different levels of government (federal, state)

• Programmatic Loans from MDBs• Climate change funding (broad

understanding of technology funds, not limited to clean, low carbon fuels and vehicles)

Conclusions• A comprehensive policy for transport is promising in

reducing GHG and improving transport and the local environment, and thus, constitute an appropriate mitigation action.

• Formalizing a comprehensive mobility plan under a NAMA framework is likely to help in addressing the barriers and implementation risks.

• NAMA will encourage results oriented transport planning and provide a good framework for monitoring, verification and continuous improvement

Motorization trends can (and should) be reversed

Graph: Sao Paulo Municipality

Sao Paulo Success Story

Recommendations

• Continue expanding the initial suggestions under the framework presented in this study. For instance:– Develop detailed guidelines for data collection, modeling

and analysis.

– Inclusion of life cycle and leakage calculations in emission estimates.

– Training for people involved in estimation, monitoring, reporting and verification.

– Adoption of national standards on procedures, parameters and reporting requirements.

Scoping Post 2012 Climate Instruments:Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions NAMAsCase Study for...

Technology

Transcript of Scoping Post 2012 Climate Instruments:Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions NAMAsCase Study for...