[sustran] GEF Strategy

[Institute for Transportation and Development Policy]

Further news on the GEF debate.  Central and Eastern Europe Bankwatch
Network has a full copy of the "GEF Operational Program Number 11: Promoting
Sustainable Transport Infrastructure".  They were somehow also involved in
the consultative process and they too are astounded and outraged, and would
like to participate in a joint response.  I now have about 7 out of twenty
pages of the original.  It does not appear to be up on the web yet, but CEE
bankwatch network is mailing it to me.  If I don't get the full text from
the World Bank in the next week I should have the hard copy in about ten
days, and I will put some choice comments up on the web.   We officially
have until January 5, 1998 to respond.  

paul, perhaps you should add CEE bankwatch to the email list?  at least
<tterlecki at zgpke.most.org.pl> <magdas at zgpke.most.org.pl> and maybe also
<mkk at levego.zpok.hu> which is the European Federation for Transport and
Environment's CEEC Office.

Rgds, 
Walter Hook 




At 07:01 PM 11/20/97 -0300, Christopher Zegras wrote:
>Brian, 
>
>Thanks very much for the clarification on the process of the GEF Transport
>Strategy Development, which makes the STAP's final product even more
astounding.
>
>A cohesive response, utilizing SUSTRANS members as a foundation, would be
>good. I think it is critical to expand the regional representation of the
>response (i.e., Latin America, Africa) as well as the sectoral
>representation (i.e., local developing country government officials).  The
>latter is very important, since the UNDP and GEF ostensibly make
>"developing" country-driven initiatives a first criteria for any of its
>ultimate activities.  
>
>We must also keep in mind (and in response to Eric Britton's "somewhat
>aggressive" ;^) comments), that the GEF, although primarily managed on a
>day-to-day basis by the Bank (i.e., GEF initiatives incorporated into Bank
>and IFC loans), is not an exclusive World Bank entity, and I would be very
>surprised if the World Bank actually had an over-riding role in the STAP.
>>From what I can tell, the Bank has been maintaining a distance in GEF
>policy-formation.  So, we best be very sure of the process of developing the
>STAP position before we begin criticizing the Bank (at least on this
>specific issue).  Indeed, I think we could use the Bank's own recently
>released transport policy, to help formulate criticisms of this GEF
>Transport Policy.
>
>Best wishes, 
>
>Chris Zegras
>
>
>Date: Thu, 20 Nov 97 08:24:50 GMT
>From: Brian.Williams at unchs.org
>Subject: RE: [sustran] GEF Transport Strategy needs revision
>
>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
> Christopher Zegras       http://www.iiec.org                 /\   /^\
> Instituto Internacional para la Conservacion de Energia /^\ /_o\ /   \
> General Flores 150, Providencia, Santiago, CHILE       /^^^/_\< /^^^^^\
> Tel: (56 2) 236 9232 Fax: 236 9233                    /   (*)/(*)      \
>
>

________________________________________________________________________________

	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