[sustran] GEF Transport Strategy needs revision

[Institute for Transportation and Development Policy]

Dear Sustran Discussion List, 

The Global Environmental Facility, which funds major projects related to
greenhouse gas emissions reductions and is controlled by the World Bank is
about to come out with their funding criteria for the transport sector, and
as we feared the news is grim.  An 'expert panel' was selected to identify
legitimate interventions, and this panel was completely captured by the
electric vehicle and fuel cell battery industry and research types.  The
guidelines virtually foreclose projects for bike lanes, bus lanes, and
capacity building and advocacy campaigning.  

We need to mobilize a letter of complaint to Mr. Dilip Ajuta from the World
BAnk GEF office.  I will search the Web to see if the official draft is
already on there, but in the meanwhile, here are the comments from our man
at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency based on the briefing of U.S.
Treasury Dept. officials...


Rgds, 
Walter Hook, ITDP 



>
>Subject:  GEF Transport Strategy
>
>This is a brief synopsis and discussion of  Dilip Ahuda's presentation of
>the draft GEF transportation operational policy (OP11).
>
>NB:  The draft OP would become the sole OP  for GEF transport project
>purposes.  Dilip proposed that transport sector projects currently eligible
>under otherOPs (6,7,8?) should be no longer be GEF-eligible unless they met
>OP11 criteria.
>
>Process. The OP was developed this summer on the basis of a STAP workshop
>and papers commissioned from IIASA (on transport sector intervention
>opportunities) and from AIT (on Bangkok transport sector opportunities).
>It has been circulated to IPCC consultative group and to STAP for comment.
>Comments have been received and reviewed (and apparently, largely rejected
>at least with respect to the major issue of a narrow focus on vehicle
>technology).
>It is planned that the draft OP will be placed on the WEB for public
>comment in December.
>In a comment,  I urged that the background papers  as well as the World
>Bank Transport Policy be posted on the web along with the  OP draft.  I
>suggest we request  a copy of the background papers, i.e., the IIASA, AIT
>papers and  STAP comments.
>
>Substance.   The "bottom line" for GEF support is basically that it would
>focus on reconfiguring bus and motorized bike/trikes motors for non-GHG
>fuels, e.g., hydrogen and fuel cells.    More broadly,  the focus is on
>what is inconsistently termed urban "infrastructure" or
>"technology"--really motor engine fuel shifts.    Brief reference was also
>made to GEF support for fossil fuels, e.g., natural gas, where in the "long
>run" it could be expected to assist evolution to non-fossil fuels (whatever
>that means).
>
>Rationale.    The argument went somewhat as follows.   Going in, it was
>assumed that GEF should focus on urban transport and on paying the
>"increment" needed to reduce technological cost to achieve GHG benefit.
>Next step was to eliminate GEF-ineligible projects.  Ineligible are: Urban
>mass transit (too expensive for GEF);  promoting electric and hybrid cars
>(would help first world countries more than developing countries); road
>efficiency improvements (would only serve to lock in country commitment to
>an unsustainable transportation paradigm, i.e.,internal combustion
>engines).   Third step: GEF eligibility criteria should include:  benefit
>to "multiple" technical chains (one technology with several applications,
>e.g., fuel cells); "conducive" local policies that would help to lock in
>the change; multiple local benefits (to make the change sustainable
>locally--although such multiple local benefits would given GEF
>predilections would  not counted in calculating net incremental cost),
>local constituency support.    A corollary is that  cities already locked
>into internal combustion, e.g., Bangkok, Manila, would not be GEF eligible;
>eligibility would be limited to cities such as Shanghai where the "die was
>not yet cast".
>
>     By elimination, Dilip's logic leaves GEF with bus engines and
>motorcycles/tricycles in cities other than those already heavily motorized.
>
>     More specifically,  GEF would fund the increment needed to enable
>municipalities procurement of fuel-cell powered bus fleets where there was
>municipal demand; and would fund increment needed to induce motorcycle
>manufacturers to install similar non-GHG technology.
>
>General reactions.    Audience reaction to the presentation seemed
>distinctly cool judging by the four or five comments made (including those
>of a German and a Dutch observer).   All seemed puzzled by the message that
>GEF should focus seemingly exclusively on bus/motorcycle engine technology
>in less-motorized cities.
>
>Comments. The logic train just leaves me shaking my head.  It seems classic
>Bank  missing-the- forest- for- the- trees.
>
>--Without having any numbers, I would assume that--however large third
>world bus fleets in relation to first world fleets--third world urban bus
>and motorcycle emissions comprise a miniscule portion of projected
>transportation-based GHG emissions in GEF eligible countries.
>
>--Dilip's approach utterly fails to address major transportation policy
>problems--mobility provision, automobile usage--and conspicuously fails to
>address maintaining/growing the share of non-motorized vehicles
>(non-GHG-emitting)  which still comprise a large part of vehicle fleets in
>developing countries.
>
>--When asked about cars, Dilip's responses are contradictory and
>unsatisfying, regardless of whether one happens to think GEF should or
>should not fund fuel cell car technology. He says doing car engines would
>impermissibly help first world customers--but also that  promoting fuel
>cells in buses is strategic because it would help commercialize the
>technology for application to cars.   Assuming without knowing whether the
>latter point is true, it seems to me that IF fuel cell commercialization
>for cars is the underlying (however debatable) GEF objective here, THEN
>GEF support for fuel cell passenger  vehicles should be direct, not
>indirect.   After all, personal motorized vehicles, not buses, are the
>unignorable crux of the problem, South as well as North.  To argue that the
>latter would incidentally be benefited seems a bit purist (and doesn't
>"prove" that GEF should therefore support buses and motorcycles).  It also
>ignores that car manufacture is relocating to Asia and other "southern"
>regions  for sale into southern, not northern,  markets; by extension,  for
>GEF to address these manufacturers would not "benefit" northern consumers
>absent technology transfer.  A second argument--that GEF resources are too
>small to make much difference in the growing fuel-cell car market may be
>true but does not "prove" that the only other kind of, or most appropriate
>form of , GEF investment is fuel cells for bus and motorcycle engines.
>
>--Dilip's approach rules out GEF support in rural transport issues ab
>initio.   There may be good reasons for this but  the question warrants
>further exploration.   Is there nothing GEF might usefuly do?   How much of
>the future GHG  problem might be associated with highway extension in the
>name of market integration, with urban migration associated with lack of
>farmer access to markets?   How catalytic might GEF be in regular Bank
>programming given the renewed emphases on rural poverty?
>
>--To avoid being misunderstood,  let me clarify that I am not saying that
>GEF should not be involved in the kinds of things Dilip described.  What
>perplexes me is the notion that these should be the exclusive or even major
>focus of GEF work in the sector.   I would have thought, for instance, that
>
>     -- given planning and research sector capacity constraints throughout
>GEF-eligible countries,
>     -- the broadening understanding that motorization "strategies" in
>cities like Bangkok are unsustainable,
>
>     -- emerging demands to "do something" to protect health, etc.,
>
> that  a GEF strategy to catalyze domestic urban planning action to achieve
>domestic and global benefits could be well-received.    I know you will
>want to get other reactions and impressions.  I  would welcome an
>opportunity when appropriate to discuss the general subject further.

>Cheers.
>
>
>
>

________________________________________________________________________________

	The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP)
	115 West 30th Street,  Suite 1205
	New York, NY 10001
	Tel 212-629 8001, Fax 212-629 8033  
	mobility at igc.apc.org