Multi stakeholder Involvement in Scaling-up
Low Carbon Technology Developmentin Developing Cities:
A Framing Presentation & Empirical study

Sudarmanto Budi Nugroho
IGES
Kawasaki, February 4th, 2015

Roadmap• Starting Point: Cities• Scaling Change• Empirical Study• Key Messages

Where Do We Start?
• New climate mechanisms like JCM: transfer
low carbon technologies• Raises critical question
• How do we scale technologies and sharewhat was learnt in the process?

Start with Cities…
• Cities are hubs of innovation• Concentrate people, goods, services, and knowledge• Compared to “ecosystems” with “metabolisms”. The Urban
Ecosystem : A Good Metaphor for Climate ChangeImportant Roles of Cities…
• Especially Important in Emerging Economies in Asia
• Even more important in ASEAN• However: (i) Cities do not always grow sustainably; (ii)Expanding ecological footprints; (iii) Signs of unsustainablegrowthScaling to Sharing• Beyond transferring technologies to enabling a process• A process that is supported by institutions and made fluid by knowledge• Spreads change not only within but across cities• This Process can be Messy  need to be simplified

Source: World Economic Forum, 2014

Can we Simplify this Process?
1. Build capacity

2. Engage stakeholders

1. Build Capacity

2. EngageStakeholders• What are existingand needed
capacities?

• Who are the key
actors andorganizations?

• How can needed
capacities be built?
• What processes canhelp build thesecapacities?
• What processes canconsolidate existing
capacities?

• What are theirinterests andresources?
• Is there sufficient
coordination andcommunication?
• What are possible
points of contention
and how might they
be reconciled?

3. Mobilize resources

4. Share learnings

3. Mobilize Resources

4. Share Learnings• What are the main
sources of funding?
• Are these sources
sufficient or areoutside resources
needed?
• What is the funding
cycle?
• What about otherhuman andtechnologicalresources besides
funding?

• How will
performance beassessed?
• What processes andmechanisms are inplace for sharing
performance andexperiences?
• Do existingprocesses andmechanisms reachall necessary
stakeholders?
• How can they reachother cities?

Empirical Study – 1: Transport Sector in Indonesia
BRT Program in Indonesia offers a good example to analyze
scaling-up technology transfer

BRT (Semi-BRT) already implemented in 15 cities in Indonesia
as of January 2014

Scaling-up Technology Transfer BRT in Indonesia• Originally from South America (Curitiba-Brazil and BogotaColumbia)• Started to be implemented in Indonesia in Jakarta since January
2004 (Jakarta’s First Corridor)• Scaling-up within the city (Jakarta): up to 12 Corridors in 2015
• Scaling-up across city: 15 cities in Indonesia (as of January 2014)– a joint cooperation between National and Local CityGovernment

Overview of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)• BRT has many “Pros” : Flexibility (can change the route andeasily expanded); Low capital cost but high capacity; very short
construction period.
• BRT has many technical merits: exclusive/segregated lanes;
elevated boarding; good ticketing system; efficient scheduling• But not all BRTs perform up to their potential. Many of thereasons for the varying performance appear to be technical innature.

• However, technical issues are often a symptom of deeper
problems in underlying governance structures

The Cooperation between National Government and City Government(sub-national level) (MOT, 2014)

Consolidation

Interaction
betweenCentral andLocal
Government inFormulation
Urban
Transport
master plan

Memorandumof
Understanding

Establishing
Joint
Commitment
betweenCentral andLocal
Government

DetailEngineering
Design (DED)

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.

Network
Shelter
PoolService
capacity andQuality
Cost and Tariff
TicketingPark and ride
Institutional
Arrangement

Implementation

1. Fund Sharing
betweencentral andlocal
government
based onannual workplan
2. Handling overbus fleet(technicalassistant forpilot)

Developmentof Urban
PublicTransport
System(pilot)MonitoringandEvaluation

The National Guidelines for Scaling-up BRT System
1. Ministry of Transport- Directorate Land Transportation
SK.687/AJ.206/DRJD/2002 on “Technical Guidelines on Fixed
Route and Schedule of Public Transport Services in Urban Areas
2. Guidelines for Improvement of Public Transport in Medium SizeCities

3. Financing Mechanism for development of urban transport system
4. Standardization of transfer facilities and supporting facilities ofroad based public transport system in Urban Areas
5. Guidelines for Implementation of Smart Card System

Current institutional arrangement of BRT in Indonesia
Location

InstitutionOperator

Jakarta (2004)

Special Task Unit (UPTB) Under transport agency *Consortium of Existing Public Transport Operator

Bogor (2007)

Special Task Unit (UPTD) –Under transport Agency

City-owned Company

Bandung (2007)

Special Task Unit (UPTD) –Under transport agency

Private company and Stated-owned company(DAMRI)

Yogyakarta (2008)

Special Task Unit (UPTD) –Under transport Agency

Private Company (consortium of existing operators/4 cooperation) and stated-owned company (Damri)

Pekanbaru (2009)

Special Task Unit (UPTD) –Under transport Agency

Palembang (2010)

Special Task Unit (UPTD) –Under transport Agency

Sub-National (Provincial) owned Company(Province)

Gorontalo (2010)

Special Task Unit (UPTD) –Under transport Agency

Stated-owned company (DAMRI)

Surakarta (2010)

Special Task Unit (UPTD) –Under transport Agency

Stated-owned company (DAMRI)

Bandar Lampung(2011)

Special Task Unit (UPTD) –Under transport Agency

Private Company (Consortium of 37 AngkotOperator)

Case Study 1: Trans Metro Bandung

Case Study 2: Transmusi Palembang

Application of Analytical Framework
NoComponents

Trans Metro BandungTrans Musi Palembang

1

Building Capacity-Technical cooperation withInternational Agencies.
• Infrastructure development- INDII• Operation and Maintenance
- GIZ

2

Stakeholder
engagement

Horizontal conflict withincumbent operators(Angkot-Minibus type)

No conflict3

Mobilize Resource• Within the city
• Involvement of provincial• Horizontal
owned company (BUMD)
Coordination within • Horizontal coordinationcity governments
within city governments.
• Vertical Coordination with
Provincial Government

Results 1: Technical Differences and Operational Performance
NoAComponents

Trans MetroTrans Musi

Bandung

Palembang

No (mixed traffic)

No (mixed traffic)(2) No of corridors (2014)

28(3) Integrated facilities with othermodesNoYes(4) Integrated facilities with otherfacilities (commercials, office, etc)

NoYes(1) No of Fleet (unit)

20180(2) Headway (minutes)

20-30

10-15

(3) Onboard GPS system

No (Manual withHandy Talkie)

Yes

Infrastructure(1) Dedicated right of way (lane)

B

Level of Services

Results 2: Technical Differences and Operational Performance

No Components
CTrans Musi

Bandung

Palembang-Supporting System(1)Automatic fare collection

DTrans Metro(2) Information system

NoYes –Integrated withseveral banks
Yes(3) Fare subsidy

Yes

NoService Performance(1)Ridership (passengers/day)

120015,000-17,000(2) CO2 Reduction (ton/year)

3,196

4,939

Results 3: Estimated Differences in CO2
CO2 saving due to Mode Shift (estimated by using TEEMP tool)Trans Metro BandungTrans Musi Palembang

Empirical Study-2 (Waste sector in Bandung)
A. Target Study
Technology: Large Scale Biodigester (organic waste)

15 ton/day

60 ton /dayby 2020

Project : JCM Project for developing a low carbon Society under
Collaboration between Bandung and Kawasaki
・Japan Environmental
Technology
Sanitation Center・Hitachi Zosen
・Kawasaki City

Knowledge
Experience

Governance・IGESCapacity

Funding・Ministry ofEnvironment Japan

Small To Large scale
B. Current Situation  Future Expectation
Small scale biodigesters (250-500 kg/day) & Under construction of 2ton/day (ADB Project)

CurrentFuture(eg. Biodigester Plant in Niigata, Japan)

Quick Study – 3 Components of Scaling Technology• Interview survey was conducted from 6 – 16 January 2015
• Questionnaire consist of 4 sub-project in Waste Sector : Biodigester ADB,Biodigester CSR, PLTSA (Insinerator) and Eco-Office• Focus on: (a) Building Capacity; (B) Stakeholder engagement and (C) mobilizeresources• Questionnaire distributed to 7 agencies:
 Environmental Management Agency (EMA/BPLH) City owned company on solid waste management (PD-Kebersihan) City Planning Agency (Bappeda)
 Parks and Funeral Agency (Diskamtam)
 Road and Drainage Agency
 International Cooperation Office Law Division
 Spatial Planning (Distarcip)

Building Capacity (1)Current Situation:
There is a problem of operator for small scale biodigester:• Operator by community (high uncertainty)• Ownership and Responsibilities
Large Scale Biodigester:• Need a working group – dedicated team (with City Mayor Decree)• International Consortium - need a guidelines• Regulator to support operation of biodigester• Operator for Biodigester  need training on the competency• Waste separation:(1) Step by step process on the regulation(2) Awareness and campaign• Selling by product: (a) Energy and (b) Fertilizer

Stakeholder Engagement (2)Current Situation:• Bandung has no agency for solid waste management• Operation on solid waste management: PD Kebersihan (City Owned Company)
Identify the Stakeholder for Large Scale Biodigester• Planning: Bappeda; BPLHD• Construction: PD Kebersihan, Distarcip• Waste Separation & regulation: BPLHD• Operator: PD Kebersihan & SPC• Others: International Cooperation Division; Law Division• Selling by product Energy: ????? (Bappeda, PLN, MEMR)• Fertilizer: Agricultural Agency and Parks Agency
Key Important points for Biodigester Project (JCM)• No clear rule on ownership of new development. Cross-sector coordinationmust be done properly to avoid Conflict of Interest• Leadership of city mayor is important to solve the conflict among agencies

C.

Potential Resource for Project?

Current Situation:• Biodigester-ADB: Loan at National Level and grant from national (sub-national)
to city Government• Biodigester-CSR: CSR fund from the company (national companies)• Incinerator: Private Investment – Public Private Partnership (PPP) SchemeCurrent Problem• Grant & CSR fund: Hand over the asset  maintenance & operation cost?
• PPP: Tipping Fee must be calculated carefully to avoid overburden to Annual
City Budget (APBD)Key Important points for future Biodigester (JCM)• Use the local components efficiently to reduce construction cost (capitalexpenditure)• Tipping Fee must be calculated carefully to avoid overburden to Annual City
Budget (APBD) (operational expenditure)• Harmonizing the cycle of annual budgeting system in local city & multiyear
project with international consortium• How to create an SPC & International Consortium between BUMD (PDK) &International company

Key Messages• New tech transfer mech. raises question how do we scaleand share?
• Cities increasingly important for low carbon tech transfer,especially in Asia
• They can enable process focused on scaling and sharing• It is useful to map this process and simplify with four setsof questions• BRT Program in Indonesia can be a good example oftechnology transfer in mitigation on transport sector

Key Messages• Building technical capacity is key element and capacity building byexternal organization may help; learning the experiences from othercities also important. A City to City Cooperation could play animportant role for Share Learning of Technology Transfer• Stakeholder engagement: Engagement of existing agencies, operatorsand marginal group from the beginning stage may remove conflict• Mobilize resource such as vertical collaboration with provincial
governments are helpful to solve the local problems• Performance evaluation of current project is necessary to improve theservices and expand the programThank you so much!
nugroho@iges.or.jp