[sustran] GEF Transport Strategy needs revision

[Brian.Williams at unchs.org]

Dear Colleagues,

     As I was in attendance at and participated in a number 
of panel discussions during the STAP workshop on 
developing criteria and guidelines for including GEF 
transport programming within the Climate Change Tranche, I 
feel compelled to comment on the apparent final outcome as 
previously outlined by Dr. Hook at ITDP and Christopher 
Herman from the US Dept. of Treasury.

     The expert group panel that was convened to discuss 
these issues in Nairobi in March of this year represented a 
well-balanced cross-section of GEF partners as well as 
regionally-balanced representation from a cross-section of 
stakeholders.  It was clear from the outset that the terms of 
reference for the meeting was that we were charged with the 
responsibility to evaluate ALL potential GHG mitigating 
strategies vis-a-vis transport.  This included not only 
alternative vehicles/fuels but strategies to limit travel 
demand for trips by polluting modes; land use measures (e.g. 
promoting mixed uses); non-motorized transport etc.  For 
example, one very key issue that arose was the degree to 
which the poor are currently underserved by transport 
generally.  In response, it was suggested that a 
comprehensive and long-term strategy withing the GEF's 
transport programming needed to embrace both supply side AND 
demand-side measures as the costs of bringing the poor into 
the failed consuption patterns in transport currently in 
evidence would be prohibitive (and certainly out of the realm 
of the GEF).

     For your information, and for example, among the key 
papers presented during the meeting was a case-study of 
busways in Curitiba by one of the GEF partners, UNDP;  
Transport-demand management measures in Singapore 
highlighting emissions reductions in Singapore through 
various pricing mechanisms;  Mobility and Sustainable 
Development in Gabarone, Botswana;  A comprehensive study of 
emission impacts and energy consumption of travel in India 
under various scenarios, one of which were changes in modal 
composition (i.e. increases in public transport as percentage 
of modal share).  Two papers were also presented on emerging 
and advanced transport technologies with respect to 
hydrogen-based fuels, fuel-cell batteries, etc.

    Given the above, I too am rather concerned about the 
apparent final outcome of the review process as it does not 
seem to adequately reflect the comprehensive nature of the 
discussions.  While transport technology transfer from North 
to South presents numerous opportunities for GHG emissions 
reductions in the long-run, I do not believe it can be viewed 
in isolation from other strategies more appropriate for 
balanced urban development generally in the here and now, 
which, if taken, would reduce the financial burden on 
developing countries for actions which need to be undertaken 
in this sector.  

     As I representative of  a United Nations organization 
involved in sustainable developoment and human settlements  
generally and not directly involved as a GEF partner, my 
abilities to dirctly influence the final outcome of GEF's 
transport-related interventions have been and are limited.  
Nevertheless, I felt compelled to at least express a 
reporting of the technical meeting  I was in attendance at in 
Nairobi which I believe was a candid and open discussion of 
the issues (among all technical experts invited as well as 
GEF representatives from the World Bank and UNEP, IIASA and 
AIT) and I am at a loss to explain the final outcome.

     It may be useful at this juncture to ensure a productive 
and useful outcome for all concerned (and in order not to 
reinvent the wheel as we are all busy people) that the actual 
discussions at the STAP meeting be referred to as a potential 
access or intervention point to encourage the GEF secretariat 
to consider additional GHG mitigation measures as 
appropriate.  I suggest this only because, while it is often 
convenient to suggest that a particular position was rammed 
through without consultations, this would be an inaccurate 
assessment of the situation in this case.  In any letters or 
other communication with the secretariat on this issue, it 
might be useful to refer the actual proceedings of the STAP  
meeting in order to immediately elevate the discussion to 
what can now potentially be included or added (why or why 
not, what was the reasoning used, etc., etc.) away from the 
(understandable) vitriolic reactions that are beginning to 
come in.

     Just a few random thoughts.  thanks.       

Regards,
         
Brian Williams, Human Settlements Officer
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT)
Research and Development Division
P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya
TEL: (254 2) 623-916
FAX: (254 2) 624-265
EMAIL: brian.williams at unchs.org