Mobility, mitigation of gas emissions and quality of life in Asian and Latin American Cities

Measures to Mitigate Energy and GHG from Transport Sector in Korea

Lima, Peru May 28-29, 2012 Sangjin HAN Sangjin.han@oecd.org Seconded to International Transport Forum

CONTENTS

I. II. III. IV. V. VI.

Country Comparison Measures in Transport :ASI Which Measures First? NAMA in Transport (Seoul, 2011) Recent Measures in Korea Success of Transport NAMAs

I.Country Comparison: Reduction Potential

GHG in transport per person by country (2007)
ton/person 7 6.48

Highest 6.48 (USA), Lowest 0.12 (India) :

Huge gap between developed and developing countries More responsibility of developed countries Developed countries make a target with reference (Germany)
4.27

3 2.2 2 2.16 2.15 2.08 1.85

0.83 0.37 0.12

USA

Australia

France

Japan

U.K.

Korea

Germany

Brazil

China

India

I.Country Comparison: Reduction Potential

GHG in transport per vehicle (2007)
ton/vehicle
12

Highest 9.57 (India), Lowest 2.95 (Germany):

Relatively smaller gap between developed and developing countries Fuel efficiency/scrapping old cars can be high priority measures

10

9.57
8.08

7.79 6.33 6.31

6.14 5.51 4.04

3.64 2.95

India

China

USA

Brazil

Australia

Korea

Japan

U.K.

France

Germany

I. Country Comparison: Reduction Potential

GHG in transport vs. GDP per person (2007)
Transport Emission Volumes (MtCO2) 600
China USA(1953.62)

500

400

300

Japan

200
India

Brazil

Mexico Italy Korea Portugal

Germany France U.K. Austrailia

Canada Netherland Norway

100

0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 GDP per capita

Sweden Switzerland Austria Ireland

40,000

50,000

60,000

I. Country Comparison: GHG Reduction Model

GHG in transport vs. GDP per person, No. of vehicles
E = Emissions in transport sector I = GDP per capita N = Number of registered vehicles
R2 = 0.9781 (20 samples) T-statistics: I= -7.3353; N=11.7947 at fixed alpha=1.0

Forecast future GHG emission in transport sector for target setting

II. Measures in Transport Sector: ASI

Video: Sustainable Transport for All

III. Which Measures First?

Emission reduction per cost : USA

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation's Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Volume 2: Technical Report, 2010

III. Which Measures First?

Emission reduction per cost: UK

Source: The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan 2009.

III. Which Measures First?

Public Compliance Category I (High) Measures

10

VA (fuel-efficiency), RTFO, ITS

Eco-driving, Travel information, Pay-as-You-Drive Insurance, Remote-work Speed enforcement, Speed limit reduction, Mobility Management, Compressed work, Land use policy VMT fees, Congestion pricing, Cordon/area pricing, Fuel Duty Escalator

II (Moderate)

III (Low)

III. Which Measures First ?

Emission reduction per cost (low cost, high effect) (low cost, low effect) (high cost, high effect) (high cost, low effect)

11

(High)

Eco-driving

ITS

Improving fuel-efficiency, Promoting low-pollution vehicles

Biofuels

Public Compliance

(Modera te) (Low)

Pay-as-youdrive insurance Congestion pricing

Encouraging walking & bicycles, Modal shift, Car sharing

Express railways

Remote working, Public transport improvements

III. Which Measures First: Reduction Potential

Reduction Targets in Transport Sector : Available National Reports
Korea Japan 58.15 0.46 1,729 1.16 40.15 (69.0%) 18.00 (31.0%) Germany 112.8 1.37 3,280 2.19 110.7 (98.1%) 2.10 (1.9%) U.K. 36.6 0.60 1,026 1.13 36.6 (100%) USA 285 0.95 6,265 1.14 285 (100%)

12

Reduction target (MtCO2)

Reduction per person Reduction per GDP per capita Reduction per vehicle Reduction for passenger (MtCO2) Reduction for freight (MtCO2)

46.52 0.96 1,876 2.83 39.75 (85.4%) 6.77 (14.6%)

III. Which Measures First: Reduction Potential

Reduction Potential by Pillars : Improve> Shift> Avoid
Korea Traffic demand management Avoid (16.7) Congestion pricing Remote working Car sharing Walking & bicycle Shift (19.2) Improving pubic transport Modal shift Improving fuelefficiency Biofuels Eco-driving ITS 3.7 2.3 0.4 0.9 1.9 8.1 14.6 53.7 4.3 8.4 5.0 9.5 5.6 31 49.2 Japan German y 24.7* 3.5 6.9 6.2 2.9 24.6 14.0 8.8 U.K. 7.1 53.3 32.8 1.1 USA 38.6* 8.6 4.0 1.1 2.8 5.4 19.6 2.6

13

Impro ve (59.6)

IV. NAMA in Transport : Seoul Meeting, 2011

General Profile
NAMA as Catalysts for Environmentally Sustainable Transport 12-13 April 2011, Seoul 60 participants 23 different countries

14

Main conclusions and recommendations

Support for Avoid-Shift-Improve approaches for Land Transport Need inter-ministerial working group on Transport NAMAs
Environment, Transport, Land Use, Finance National, Local governments, civil societies

Capacity-building with earmarked funds in transport

IV. NAMA in Transport : Seoul Meeting, 2011

Main conclusions and recommendations
Inform UNFCCC of the potential of transport NAMAs Transport measurement/evaluation models are important
Guidelines for MRV system for transport NAMAs particularly in devleoping countries

15

Reliable transport data for GHG assessment

Number of vehicles and activities

NAMA can overcome limitations in CDM for transport sector

Acknowledge difference between transport and energy

IV. NAMA in Transport : Seoul Meeting, 2011

Main conclusions and recommendations (continued) Linkage technical discussion and political discussion
Considerations of transport in general NAMA modality
Capacity building of UNFCCC for Transport NAMA

16

Implementation of pilot transport NAMAs Ongoing join working group : SLoCaT, Bridging the Gap...

UNDESA

IV. NAMA in Transport : Seoul Meeting, 2011

17

V. Recent Policies in Korea

Income tax deduction for public transport use
- When paid by credict card - 1 million WON (850 USD) per year

18

Voluntary Agreement with public transport/freight operators

- Large trasnport operators - rail, metro, airliners, and bus companies - major logistics comapnies - set energy and emission reduction targets, and - monitor progress

Old truck scrappings

- Govenrnment subsides for replacing old freight trucks - Scrapping old diesel trucks - Replace into LNG trucks

V. Recent Policies in Korea

Higher Fuel Eficiency Standards Bonus-Malus Pay As You Drive Insurance Promoting Eco-Driving Public Transport Only Zone Korea Transport Emission Management System

19

KOTEMS Data Structure

ROADS
Local Governments Vehicle Types Acivity Data Mgt. Default Parameters

20

RAIL

National Rail Metros Locomotive types Activity Data Mgt. Default Parameters

AVIATION

Airliners Year Flight Type Airports Regions Routes IPCC guidelines Aviation Data Mgt. Default Parameters

MARITIME

Activity Data Mgt. Default Parameters

INTEGRATION

Fuel Types Modes Direct/Indirect GHG types Year

Legends
Modes/Func. Parameter Activity Data Management

Analysis

VI. For Success of Transport NAMAs

Understanding Interests of Stakeholders - Developing Countries: find investments in transport infra./service - International Development Banks: find investment for growth - UNFCCC: Carbon mitigation - UNDESA: Sustainable development Status Quo - No reliable transport database/No standard - No scientific evaluation - No tangible output yet: Proof of GHG reduction We need a success story - Strong government Initiation/leadership - Make successful Transport NAMA - With international organisations, development banks etc. - Again, strong political leadership

21