Making climate instruments work for sustainable transport in developing countries

Abstract

In order to meet long‐term climate change mitigation objectives, emissions cuts are required in all regions across the globe and in all sectors, including transport. In financing this effort, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) are until now the only international climate policy instruments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that provide incentives for emissions reductions in developing countries. More recently, the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) was established. In this paper, we show that the impact of these financing instruments on transport has been very limited, due to methodological difficulties, a data‐intensive monitoring process and the limited funding available. We argue that the transport sector is not likely to play a significant role in the continuation of a carbon credit offsetting scheme, unless these methodological requirements are simplified and significantly more funding is available. In the post‐2012 climate regime, there may be substantial international funding available in addition to existing credit schemes and international funds, which could be channeled through nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs). This can provide new and better opportunities for sustainable transport in developing countries. We propose a framework for NAMAs, including types of policies and measures, measurement, reporting and verification of the actions, and an institutional and financial structure. We conclude that climate funding needs to be aligned closely with domestic and multilateral development finance flows in order to make a difference for sustainable transport.

A Registry of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions: Goals, Outcomes, and Institutional Requisites

“…Since a-NAMAs would function as a scaled-up CDM. However, the literature is divided on the how successful CDM has been in inducing emission reductions, technology transfer, and sustainable development objectives (e.g., Bakker and Huizenga 2010;Cox 2010), in particular evidence is lacking for more substantive effects on society. If NAMAs are to contribute to significant investments in developing or diffusing completely new and game-changing low-carbon technologies, evidence is meagre that carbon credit instruments will have such an effect (Pielke 2010).…”

“…Bakker and Huizenga (2010) conclude that the transport sector is unlikely to participate in a carbon credit offsetting scheme due to the required data-intensive monitoring processes and a lack of funding to set up a robust system for such monitoring. These challenges severely limit the potential for transport sector participation in a firm MRV system.…”

“…These challenges severely limit the potential for transport sector participation in a firm MRV system. Bakker and Huizenga (2010) argue that NAMAs could potentially spur a shift to sustainable transportation in developing countries, if the control requirements are less strict. There is a risk that the credited NAMAs, subject to stricter control requirements, Towards new d-NAMAs Fig.…”

“…Bakker and Huizenga (2010) analyse the potential of NAMAs to spur sustainable transport transformation in developing countries, while Glemarec (2010) examines NAMAs in relation to financial markets in support of a low-carbon transition.…”

Transport, Development and Climate Change Mitigation: Towards an Integrated Approach

“…In developing countries perhaps more than elsewhere, GHG emission reductions are often seen as a secondary policy goal compared to improving accessibility and reducing negative externalities (Bakker & Huizenga, 2010;Zusman et al, 2012). Under such conditions, LCD could be a useful concept as it attempts to serve both development and mitigation aims.…”