Jakarta`s Green Economy Model (JAK-GEM)

Transcription

LECB INDONESIA
FINAL REPORT
Jakarta’s Green Economy
Model (JAK-GEM)
Pavan Sukhdev, Kaavya Varma, Andrea M. Bassi,
Verania Andria, Johan Kieft, Sonny Mumbunan and Puspa Kartika
LECB Indonesia Final Report
Jakarta’s Green Economy
Model (JAK-GEM)
Final Report
Pavan Sukhdev
Kaavya Varma
Andrea M. Bassi
Verania Andria
Johan Kieft
Sonny Mumbunan
Puspa Kartika
LECB Indonesia Policy Note
© 2014 Low Emission Capacity Building (LECB)
All rights reserved
Suggested citation:
Ministry of National Development Planning/National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) and Presidential Working Unit
for Development Monitoring and Oversight (UKP-PPP) of the Republic of Indonesia. 2014. I-GEM: Mea-suring Indonesia’s Transition Towards a Green Economy. Jakarta: LECB Indonesia Policy Note.
Cover photo credit: Ayunda Swacita Manggiasih
UNDP Indonesia
Menara Thamrin 8-9th floor
Jl. M.H. Thamrin Kav. 3
Jakarta 10250
This policy note is intended to communicate initial findings or methods used in projects related to LECB Programme in Indonesia to
promote further policy discussions. Any views expressed in this policy note do not necessarily represent the views of the institutions
or the sponsors of this publication.
Table of Contents
Abbreviations
ii
Executive Summary
1
1. I-GEM and its applicability for Provinces
2
2. Green Economy Indicators for Jakarta
3
3. Jakarta Green Economy Model (JAK-GEM)
7
4. Business as Usual
10
5. Green Economy Scenarios
18
6. Policy Implications based on Scenario Analysis
26
References
29
Acknowledgement
We thank the following persons for their valuable cooperation and insightful inputs for the development of the Kalimantan Tengah
Green Economy Model and this report;
The Governor and Vice Governor of Kalimantan Tengah, Head of BAPPEDA and Assistant to the Governor on Economic and Development of Kalimantan Tengah.
The provincial officials; Warismun, Domingus Neves, Akhmad Elfiansah, Retno Nurhayati Utaminingsih, Jani Dwipriambodo, Firmanto, Indah Susanti Rosga, Edwin Adi Pratama.
The University of Palangkaraya; Yusurum Jagau, Jhon Wardi, Tri Yuliana.
Dr. Medrilzam, Dr. Muh. Tasrif, Akhmad Taufik and Hani Irwan.
List of Figures
Figure 1: Population trends of Jakarta
4
Figure 2: JAK-GEM user interface
7
Figure 3: Total population and GDP of the poor (riverside village)
10
Figure 4: Real GDP (also by industry and services, and agriculture) and its growth rate
11
Figure 5: Government revenue and expenditure, and total capital formation (public and private)
13
Figure 6: Simulation results, electricity demand and total electricity bil
14
Figure 7: Simulation results, private vehicle stock and road network
15
Figure 8: Simulation results, total vehicles and transport emissions
16
Figure 9: Simulation results, GDP and its growth rate: comparison of (1) BAU,
(2) subsidy removal and (3) removal, reallocation, energy efficiency and transport
19
Figure 10: Simulation results, electricity demand and total electricity bill (all sectors): Comparison
of (1) BAU, (2) subsidy removal and (3) removal, reallocation, energy efficiency and transport
21
Figure 11: Simulation results, per capita electricity bill (residential sector) and electricity productivity:
comparison of (1) BAU, (2) subsidy removal and (3) removal, reallocation,
energy efficiency and transport
22
Figure 12: Simulation results, total electricity generation: comparison of (1) BAU, (2) subsidy removal
and (3) removal, reallocation, energy efficiency and transpor
23
Figure 13: Simulation results, waste landfilling and waste to energy electricity generation:
comparison of (1) BAU, (2) subsidy removal and (3) removal, reallocation,
energy efficiency and transport
23
Figure 14: Simulation results, private vehicles CO2 emissions, and total transport CO2 emissions:
comparison of (1) BAU, (2) subsidy removal and (3) removal, reallocation, energy efficiency
and transport
25
List of Tables
Table 1: List of (1) assumptions and (2) policies that can be simulated with JAK-GEM
8
List of Textboxes
Text Box 1: Development of JAK-GEM
26
Jakarta’s Green Economy Model (JAK-GEM)
i
List of Abbreviations
I-GEM
:Indonesia’s Green Economy Model
BAPPEDA
: Badan Perencana Pembangunan Daerah (Regional body for Planning and Development)
BAU
: Business as Usual
GDP
: Gross Domestic Product
GE
: Green Economy
ILO
: International Labour Organisation
JAK-GEM
: Jakarta Green Economy Model
KT-GEM
: Kalteng Green Economy Model
LECB
: Low Emissions Capacity Building
MW
: Mega Watt
ii
Executive Summary
Transitions towards a ‘Green Economy’ are being sought actively by many nations, and Indonesia is
a leader among them. “I-GEM” (Indonesia Green Economy Model) is a flexible and easy-to-learn
national level System Dynamics Model that has been developed as a part of a United Nations supported capacity building project, to evaluate trade-offs and test the sustainability dimensions of policy
interventions in provincial economies. The first such urban provincial level application of I-GEM has
been undertaken for Jakarta (JAK-GEM), which is tailored to incorporate an additional set of three
‘Green Economy’ outcome indicators. The implementation of this type of model at a provincial level
has significant value added for officials who are seeking to assess the impacts of policy interventions
that they are planning, to improve resilience to climate change, reduce the urban poor’s vulnerability
to environmental factors and ensure equitable economic growth in the long-term.
1
1. I-GEM and its applicability
for Provinces
I-GEM is a national level “demo” model that has specifically
ing a green economy. The first pilot urban implementation of
been designed to support policy formulation and evaluation,
I-GEM has been conducted in Jakarta, referred to as JAK-GEM
for a variety of goals, including green economy and sustain-
that demonstrates how local officials in Jakarta can utilise the
able development in Indonesia. I-GEM seeks to provide policy-
results that JAK-GEM is presenting to shift towards a green
makers with the ability to compare how policy interventions
economy. JAK-GEM is uniquely customised to the context of
that they make under business as usual and green economy sce-
Jakarta making it very different from the rural green economy
narios can have differing impacts on urban poverty, green GDP
model piloted in Central Kalimantan as KT-GEM. The sections
and on emissions. Policy-makers are able to view these impacts
below briefly describe the three indicators and what they mean,
over horizons (1 year, 5 years and 10 years), so that they are able
outline the findings of JAK-GEM and discuss how policy-mak-
to assess whether they want to go ahead with a particular policy
ers can use these findings to move towards a green economy in
intervention or not and, thereby, make more informed deci-
Jakarta.
sions. I-GEM can assess impacts on several variables (depending on what the policy-maker inputs into the model), however,
If other urban Indonesian provinces also utilize such a model as
three critical “outcome indicators” such as “GDP of the Rural
a complementary addition to their existing policy implemen-
Poor”, “Green GDP” and “Decent Green Jobs” are utilized by
tation processes, it would facilitate the national achievement
the model to display what the effect of selected or intended
of a green economy for Indonesia. Moreover, a rural example
policies is on the incomes of the poor, the green GDP and the
of I-GEM already exists in the form of KT-GEM (see supple-
availability of decent green jobs in a province. These indicators,
mentary report on the development of KT-GEM for Central
applied in an urban context, can help local planners improve a
Kalimantan), so that Indonesia has representative models for
city’s preparedness to withstand climate change impacts, un-
diverse economies and landscapes. Finally, this report ends
derstand better the vulnerability amongst its poor to environ-
with a summary of the JAK-GEM model parameters and lists
mental factors, identify sectors with the greatest potential for
the agencies engaged in the stakeholder consultations to allow
emissions reductions and review existing development policies
other provinces to be informed about who the key stakeholders
with a green economy lens.
should be when they are developing their own provincial models. This summary in Text Box 3 can be treated as a separate
The ability of policymakers to undertake such assessments
empowers them and other local government officials to decide how to chart a path towards a green economy within their
provinces, as I-GEM is able to demonstrate whether the policies they select will indeed result in a more resilient overall
economy, reduce poverty and lessen the degradation of natural
resources in their administrative zones – all criteria for achiev-
2
insert for quick reference on model construction.
2. Green Economy Indicators for Jakarta
Shifting towards a green economy requires the capacity for a
resilience to climate change, both for the poor of Jakarta and to
province like Jakarta to identify what its critical environmental
enhance the city’s efforts towards achieving a green economy.
concerns are, what the impacts of these environmental factors
Economic estimations utilizing these indicators can further
are on its population (particularly the poor) and where the po-
be utilized by planning and environment officials to establish
tential lies for creating resilience, so that sustainable and eq-
zones of development that stimulate clusters of innovation to
uitable economic growth can be achieved in Jakarta. I-GEM
emerge in Jakarta. These assessments would, on an overall lev-
utilises three indicators, “Green GDP”, “GDP of the Poor” and
el, help Jakarta provide better public services for its poor citi-
“Decent Green Jobs”, which can be applied in Jakarta as a con-
zens that are also more cost-effective, create more employment
cise set of indicators to capture and appropriately measure the
in sectors with green potential and make significant progress
interlinkages between environmental factors and poverty at
towards the targets of the proposed Sustainable Development
the neighbourhood level and how key sectors with the great-
Goals (SDGs).
est potential to reduce emissions can be targeted to generate
Jakarta’s Context
politan region Jabodetabek is estimated to be much higher.
In 2007, the city, officially known as DKI Jakarta, accommo-
Currently, Jabodetabek houses about 18.6 million people.
dated approximately 9.1 million inhabitants with an annual
growth rate of 3.6%. Population growth in the greater metro-
3
Figure 1: Population trends of Jakarta
By 2020, the population of Greater Jakarta is expected to grow
pace. The sea level rise is projected to inundate most of
from 25 million to 35 million, with a mass migration that will
Central Jakarta and will likely cause a significantly large
further worsen the problems for residents, including poor sani-
socio-economic impact.
tation, a lack of housing and transportation issues.
The economy of Jakarta depends heavily on financial servic-
2.
Inundation caused by Sea Level Rise and High Tide.
es, trading, and manufacturing. The manufacturing industry
The Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) Mapping of Ja-
is well-diversified with significant electronics, automotives,
karta, Tangerang, Surabaya, Pekalongan, and Bekasi
chemicals, mechanical engineering and biomedical sciences
by Board of Ocean and Fisheries Researh (2009) using
manufacturing sectors. As per a recent report, the highest
Haesller & Timmer, USGS (2001) has shown that there
growth was achieved by the transport and communications
are 4 (four) sub-districts in Jakarta which consistently
sectors, amounting to 2.12 per cent, followed by the financial
experience floods caused by Sea-Level Rise.
sector-real estate-services companies by 1.01 percent and services sector at 0.78 per cent. (Trade Expo Indonesia, 2015)
3.
Heat Stress caused by Urban Heat Island. 50 per cent
Within the context of a rapidly growing population and econ-
reduction in urban green space would cause air tem-
omy, Jakarta also faces a number of the following key environ-
peratures to rise between 0.4 to 1.8 degree Celcius and
mental issues and challenges (Urban Risk Assessment, 2010).
automobile density is found to be the most important
1.
Floods caused by Rainfall, Temperature, and Sea Lev-
cause of the urban heat island in Jakarta.
el Rise. A study conducted by The Center for Sea and
Coastal Development at Bandung’s Institute of Technol-
4.
Disease Outbreak and water scarcity caused by Rain-
ogy (2007) projected that by 2050 some areas in Jakarta,
fall and Air Quality. Diseases stemming from vehicular
such as Kosambi, Penjaringan, and Cilincing will be
emissions and air pollution include acute respiratory in-
under water if global warming continues at the current
fection, bronchial asthma, bronchitis, and eye and skin
irritations (MoE 2007).
4
5.
Water Scarcity, Air Pollution, and GHG Emissions.
ter shortage. Air pollution is proven to be a major envi-
Water scarcity is an additional issue as a result of global
ronmental hazard to residents in Jakarta, regardless of
and regional climate change. Between 2010 and 2015
their socio-economic status.
the country is predicted to experience a major clean wa-
6.
Climate Change Risks and other Hazards in Jakarta:
Hazard
Effects
Losses
River flow
Disruption of business, damage to property,
Property damage, business dampower outage, groundwater pollution, distriage, tainting of ground water, loss
bution of solid waste through high and fast
of life, spread of disease and refuse.
water flow
Floods, Inundation
Depending on severity can affect traffic
circulation, business activity, damage to
property, power outages, displacement, and
spread of disease.
Storm surge
Extreme tidal floods from the sea have
Seawater intrusion into drinking
become more serious in the past few years in
water, damage to property, halt of
the coastal areas of the city. Seawater intruindustry and mobility.
sion into aquifers.
Extreme temperature
As a result of both urbanization and loss of
green space, increases in ground temperature and resulting instances of dengue.
Loss of property and businesses,
spread of illness and loss of life,
lack of access to clean water.
Loss of life due to dengue, usually
in very poor communities.
Jakarta clearly faces a number of challenges due to significant
their management and protection can alleviate the damaging
environmental issues that already affect the city with cascading
effects of environmental hazards. JAK-GEM provides planners
negative impacts on labour productivity, health, economic rev-
with the capacity to assess the condition of Jakarta’s natural re-
enue and public services. As climate change worsens the occur-
sources and visually see what happens to selected sectors and
rence of extreme events, planners need the ability to determine
incomes of the poor when policy interventions are made so
how they can continue to meet the demands of Jakarta’s citizens
that officials can decide whether they want to continue under a
and its economic growth while reducing the harmful impacts
BAU trajectory or follow a GE path.
on its key development sectors. One way they can do this is
to identify what are the environmental services that are being
This means that through JAK-GEM policy makers can
provided to Jakarta by its natural resources and how improving
strengthen the ability of Jakarta’s industrial sectors for long-
5
term growth by improving the preservation of natural assets
adverse impacts of climate change because the poor will have the
that these sectors depend on. They can, furthermore, capture
capacity to recover quickly from environmental hazards and the
the expenditures of the poor and help free incomes by pro-
negative externalities of industries on the environment will be
viding lower cost or free healthcare, cheaper and sustainable
addressed.
construction material, better access to public transport and
improved livelihoods through targeted initiatives that clean
rivers and waterways, which support incomes through fisheries, etc. Such interventions in Jakarta will go on to lessen the
6
3. Jakarta’s Green Economy
Model (JAK-GEM)
While JAK-GEM can be utilized to stimulate a number of in-
Table 2, however, shows that a broader set of interventions can
terventions for any selected sector, initial consultations with
be simulated by JAK-GEM as the model is used and custom-
stakeholders from Jakarta have identified the removal of fossil
ised by planners. The userinterface of the model is available in
fuel subsidies, green and energy efficient buildings and emis-
Bahasa for easy adoption by policy makers (see Figure 2 for an
sions reductions in transport as the relevant issues for the city.
example)
Figure 2: JAK-GEM userinterface
7
Table 1: List of (1) assumptions and (2) policies that can be simulated with JAK-GEM.
Assumptions
Policies
GDP
Maximum Life Expectancy
Tech Rate Of Change
Government
Subsidies share of GDP
Domestic Revenue Aggregate Tax Rate Time Series
Non Tax Revenue Share Of GDP
Reduction share of fossil fuel subsidies
Share of extra budget from subsidy savings allocated to
investment
Share of subsidy savings reallocated to households
Households
Investment Share
Energy Demand
Energy Efficiency Policy Switch
High Rise Residential And Commercial Buildings EE Target
Low Rise Residential And Commercial Buildings EE Target
Industrial And Other Energy Efficiency
Desired Number Of Energy Efficient Street Lights
Desired Total Number Of Street Lights
Energy Supply
Hydro Energy Policy Switch
Desired Future Hydro Capacity
Solar Energy Policy Switch
Desired Future Solar Capacity
Tourism
Construction Time
Effect of GDP On Tourism Arrivals
Value Added Per Tourist
Waste
Waste Efficiency Conversion
Share Of Usable Waste For LFG
Share Of Landfill Gas
Initial Paper Waste Per Unit Of GDP
Initial Plastic Waste Per Unit Of GDP
Per Capita Organic Waste
8
Waste To Energy Policy Switch
Organic Waste Reuse Share
Assumptions
Policies
Roads
Initial Congestion Cost
Effect Of Road Congestion On TFP
Road Construction Cost Per Km
Elasticity Of Ownership To GDP
No Road Expansion Switch
Transport
Fuel Efficiency
Emission Reduction Due To Biofuels
Transjakarta Growth Rate
MRT Growth Rate
9
4. Business as Usual
The business as usual scenario of JAK-GEM assumes the con-
2013). On the other hand, population is expected to expand at
tinuation of historical trends and no changes in macroeco-
decreasing annual rates over the following decades (Figure 3).
nomic and sectoral policies at both the provincial and national
Household income for the poor is also expected to grow slowly,
levels. Population in Jakarta is expected to increase in line with
and is expected to remain vulnerable to natural disasters, and
the latest projections made by the national statistical office and
the potential growing cost of transport.
the United Nations Population Fund (BAPPENAS & UNFPA,
Figure 3: Simulation results, total population and GDP of the poor
(riverside village)
10
The economic performance of Jakarta is expected to improve,
disaggregated by sector, namely agriculture GDP (composed
with real GDP projected to increase throughout the simulation
by forestry, crops, livestock and fishery GDP, collectively rep-
period. Future GDP growth rates would remain in the range
resenting a small portion of GDP) and industry and services
of 5% to 6%, in line with observed historical trends (Figure
GDP, which includes also mining value added.
4). Real GDP is the sum of agriculture, industry and services
GDP. The bottom graphs of Figure 2 show real GDP projections
Figure 4: Simulation results, real GDP (also by industry and services, and agriculture) and its growth rate
11
BAU projections for provincial government revenues and expenditures are illustrated in Figure 5 and follow the trend of
GDP.
12
Figure 5: Simulation results, government revenue and expenditure,
and total capital formation (public and private)
Jakarta’s electricity and roads infrastructure are modeled in the
Under BAU, both demand (measured in GWh) and supply
current version of JAK-GEM, together with electricity con-
(measured in MW) are projected to grow, with thermal energy
sumption, as well as vehicle use and emissions trends. Electric-
being the main source of electricity generation (Figure 6). Fi-
ity demand, which is driven by population, GDP, energy prices
nally, higher electricity consumption would result into increas-
and efficiency, is the main driver of investments in energy in-
ing annual electricity bill, in line with historical data (Figure 6).
frastructure for the expansion of power generation capacity.
13
Figure 6: Simulation results, electricity demand and total
electricity bill
Growing population and income trends are the main drivers of
the expansion of the road network (which can be activated in
an increase in the stock of privately owned vehicles in Jakarta,
alternative simulations), thereby leading to an increase in road
as shown in Figure 7. However, in the BAU the expansion of
congestion, and related costs.
the vehicle fleet would not coincide with public investments in
14
Figure 7: Simulation results, private vehicle stock and road
network
The total number of vehicles, which includes private cars, mo-
sion of private vehicles and motorcycles fleets. As a result, total
torcycles, three-wheel vehicles, and public buses (i.e., Transja-
CO2 emissions from transport would increase considerably, in
karta, large buses, medium buses and small buses) is projected
spite of fuel efficiency improvements (Figure 8).
to increase significantly under BAU, mainly due to the expan-
15
Figure 8: Simulation results, total vehicles and transport
emissions
16
Policy Implications
benefits for all the citizens of Jakarta, but rather for a select few
Under BAU, Jakarta is expected to exacerbate the environ-
in the private sector. Therefore, it is important for planners to
mental issues that it is currently facing. Under conventional
see how they can achieve the desired fiscal growth and econom-
development aspirations GDP shows a growth along with the
ic competitiveness and through policies that do not deplete all
transport, industry and agriculture sectors. Government ex-
of Jakarta’s natural assets and in doing so, the well-being of its
penditure also increases consistently. Each of these aspects
poor. The GE scenarios simulated in JAK-GEM provide some
taken together portray a picture of economic growth and over-
policy options that are realistic and practical for the planners
all increasing revenues for Jakarta, which could be seen as de-
in Jakarta to consider implementing based on the effects on the
velopment and prosperity for the region. However, when the
environment, poverty and economy of the city.
impacts on emissions and the effects of an increase in private
vehicles are looked at from the perspective of sustainability and
equity then it becomes evident that prosperity will not generate
17
5. Green Economy Scenarios
The GE scenario simulates interventions in three main sec-
Ministerial Decree no 32 in 2008. This scenario results
tors that are particularly relevant for Jakarta, namely (1) the
in a 10% increase in fuel efficiency, and expanded use of
economy, for fossil fuel subsidy removal; (2) green building,
public transport.
with specific focus on energy efficiency improvements, and (3)
transport, focusing on emission reduction interventions. More
It can be noted that both GDP and Green GDP are expected
precisely, the following policies are simulated in the three sec-
to be higher under the GE scenarios, with respect to the BAU
tors:
case. In particular, the best performance is obtained when all
the GE policies are simulated, when coupling fossil fuel subsidy
t
Fossil fuels subsidy removal: this scenario implies the
removal with a reallocation to the poor and to capital invest-
gradual and full removal of fossil fuel subsidies by 2020,
ments, in conjunction with transport (i.e., fuel efficiency, bus
the possibility to reallocate part of the savings (40% in
lanes expansion, and MRT development) and the buildings
this specific scenario) to households and to use the re-
sector (i.e., energy efficiency improvements).
mainder for development expenditure (i.e. capital investments).
In fact, the removal of fossil fuel subsidies alone (without any
additional intervention) is projected to reduce disposable in-
t
Buildings: incentive and disincentive policies are simu-
come, consumption and investment, and hence GDP, while
lated with aim at (1) reducing the number of equipment
improving government accounts. The reallocation of subsidy
purchased; (2) encourage the purchase of new more ef-
savings, on the other hand, compensates the negative impacts
ficient equipment; and (3) encourage energy savings in
of the removal of subsidies, leading to faster economic growth,
existing equipment. The goal under this scenario is to
especially when the savings are reallocated to investments. Still,
achieve 20% energy efficiency improvement in high rise
the combination of reallocation to the poor (e.g. 40% of subsidy
buildings and 10% in low rise buildings, in line with the
savings, as compensation for the removal, and resulting direct
governor’s regulation on green building (regulation no
increase in fuel prices), and investments in infrastructure (or
38/2012).
more generally, development expenditure for the remaining
60% of subsidy savings), is sufficient to offset entirely the mac-
t
Transport: an emission reduction scenario under which
roeconomic impacts of subsidy removal.
a set of measures are implemented in order to encour-
18
age emissions reduction from the private vehicle fleet.
If, in addition to reallocating subsidy savings, interventions are
Measures include (1) regulations (e.g., fuel economy;
implemented to reduce energy consumption and its cost (di-
hybrid transport) to increase fuel efficiency in private
rectly offsetting the increase in energy prices generated by the
cars; (2) train service improvement by building double-
removal of subsidies), GDP would grow even faster (Figure 9).
track line, expansion of MRT and Transjakarta; and
This is due to an increased productivity in the use of energy,
(3) mixing 20% bioethanol and 15% biodiesel in fuel
which, despite being more expensive, has a smaller impact on
by 2025, as mandated in Energy and Mineral Resource
productive activities and household consumption.
Figure 9: Simulation results, GDP and its growth rate: comparison of (1) BAU, (2)
subsidy removal and (3) removal, reallocation, energy efficiency and transport
19
Of the many interventions simulated, the reallocation of sub-
the removal of subsidies. In fact, while most of the reduction
sidy savings to the poor is not expected to contribute to eco-
in electricity demand is projected to be the result of subsidy
nomic growth as much as investment (development expendi-
removal (which also increases the electricity bill), energy ef-
ture). On the other hand, interventions on energy efficiency are
ficiency makes it so that demand decreases enough to fully
projected to impact all sectors, due to a mitigation of energy
compensate for the increase in energy prices. Figure 10 and
expenditure.
Figure 11 show that the electricity bill is comparable and at
similar levels in both scenarios, indicating that despite the re-
In particular, energy efficiency improvements in buildings,
moval of subsidies, electricity use will be more effective and
simulated under the GE scenario, are expected to reduce to-
productive.
tal electricity demand in Jakarta, but in a different way than
20
Figure 10: Simulation results, electricity demand and total electricity bill (all sectors): comparison of
(1) BAU, (2) subsidy removal and (3) removal, reallocation, energy efficiency and transport
21
Figure 11: Simulation results, per capita electricity bill (residential sector) and electricity productivity: comparison of (1) BAU, (2) subsidy removal and (3) removal, reallocation, energy efficiency and transport
Among the energy interventions are also supply policies, aim-
fill). Figure 12 and Figure 13 show projections for electricity
ing at increasing the use of renewables (e.g. solar and hydro)
supply and for waste landfilling and waste to energy.
and to increase the production of electricity from organic waste
(and hence reducing the amount of waste that reaches the land-
22
Figure 12: Simulation results, total electricity generation: comparison of (1) BAU, (2) subsidy removal and
(3) removal, reallocation, energy efficiency and transport
Figure 13: Simulation results, waste landfilling and waste to energy electricity generation: comparison of (1)
BAU, (2) subsidy removal and (3) removal, reallocation, energy efficiency and transport
23
The GE policies simulated in the transport sector would en-
gestion costs). Importantly, the reduction in CO2 emissions
courage improvements in efficiency, as well as the shift from
from reduced travel volume of private vehicles would not be
private cars to public transport modes (especially when con-
outweighed by the overall increase in travel volume resulting
sidering interventions for Transjakarta and MRT expansion).
from higher income and public transport expansion. This is
As a result, CO2 emissions from the transport sector would be
mainly attributable to fuel efficiency improvements simulated
reduced, with benefits for the environment, the health of the
for all vehicles under the GE scenarios.
population, and the urban economy (i.e., due to reduced con-
24
Figure 14: Simulation results, private vehicles CO2 emissions, and total transport CO2 emissions: comparison of (1) BAU, (2) subsidy removal and (3) removal, reallocation, energy efficiency and transport
25
6. Policy Implications based
on Scenario Analysis
In the GE scenario the most realistic and relevant policies were
From the perspective of the impacts on the poor and the natu-
simulated based on the needs identified by stakeholders in Ja-
ral resources of the city, reducing the negative externalities of
karta during the consultations that were conducted. Energy
the energy and transport sectors will help alleviate air pollu-
efficiency and investments in renewables for sufficient energy
tion, water pollution and the spread of diseases amongst the
production are particularly effective interventions for plan-
residents of Jakarta. Moreover, a decrease in the quantity of
ners to consider because they have positive impacts across all
emissions could significantly help Indonesia meets its national
sectors. When it comes to transport, it is important that while
emissions reduction targets. Furthermore, the opportunity for
public transport is being expanded through mediums like the
NAMAs in transport and energy has already been identified by
mass rapid transport system in Jakarta, it is important to simul-
Indonesia and looking at the impacts across equity and envi-
taneously ensure that these systems run on renewable fuels as
ronment would mean that more effective activities under NA-
otherwise the emissions do not decrease in the transport sec-
MAs could be selected. Thus, it is recommended that impacts
tor even though the increase in the number of private vehicles
on incomes, prices, natural resources and health are taken into
might become less. Therefore, from a preliminary look at the
account when NAMA activities are chosen, which JAK-GEM
scope for GE interventions to improve the energy and trans-
can facilitate. This would ensure that budgets are allocated
port sectors in JAK-GEM it is clear that there is potential for
towards those initiatives with the greatest potential for wide-
further initiatives to be implemented and JAK-GEM shows
spread benefits for the economy, environment and poverty in
what these initiatives should be.
Jakarta.
Text Box 1: The Development of JAK-GEM
JAK-GEM Components
26
Model Customization
– Waste generation and landfilling / use
After holding meetings and training sessions with officials
– Natural disasters
from Jakarta the following modifications were made to
– Industrial and non-industrial waste which includes
the model, to ensure that it is different from KT-GEM and
organic, non-organic and toxic and dangerous waste
completely customized to the local context of Jakarta. JAKGEM can accommodate the simulation of 25 policies and
t
Assumptions:
several assumptions.
– Correct percentage level of energy saving potential in
Sectors that were eliminated include peat land, mining and
the assumptions used is critical
forest, as they are not relevant for Jakarta.
– Assumptions to be used for the MRT include taking
into account:
t
The emphasis in JAK-GEM is on:
– Calculation of increase in gross floor space in each sta-
– Fossil fuel subsidy rationalization (5 policies are spe-
tion’s influence areas.
cifically on subsidy removal, the real
– Land use under business, public and residential cat-
lo-
cation of savings to households and public
egories.
budget)
– Calculation of increase in passenger using MRT based
– Energy efficiency (e.g. buildings, street lights and
on gross floor space increase.
transport)
– Passenger increase in business and public area.
– Increase in passengers for Park and Ride facilities.
t
The specific sectors added in JAK-GEM are:
– Transport (including energy consumption and emis-
– Recommendations for the sectors where fuel subsidy
savings could be directed to help reduce emissions
sions)
– Energy demand (disaggregated to include efficiency
interventions, such as street lights) and electricity supply
Consultations and Meetings Conducted
Inception meeting on low
emission development and
Jakarta Green Economy
Model (JAK GEM)
t.JOJOHBOE&OFSHZ"HFODZ
t&DPOPNJD#VSFBVo1SPWJODJBM(PWFSONFOUPG+BLBSUB
t5SBOTQPSUBUJPO"HFODZ
t)PVTJOHBOE(PWFSONFOU#VJMEJOHT"HFODZ
t.35+BLBSUB
t5SBOT+BLBSUB#VTXBZ
t&OWJSPONFOUBM.BOBHFNFOU"HFODZ
t4USFFU-JHIUJOH6OJUPGUIF.JOJOHBOE&OFSHZ"HFODZ
Energy-saving street Lighting t&OWJSPONFOUBM.BOBHFNFOU"HFODZ
8 October 2014
22 October 2014
27
Consultations and Meetings Conducted
Energy efficiency for buildings
Fuel subsidies reduction
Transportation
Discussion and data collection on energy efficiency for
buildings
28
t4FUUMFNFOUBOE4QBUJBM1MBOOJOH"HFODZ
t#VJMEJOH4VQFSWJTJPOBOE$POUSPM"HFODZ
t&DPOPNJD#VSFBVo1SPWJODJBM(PWFSONFOUPG+BLBSUB
t.35.BTT3BQJE5SBOTQPSU
+BLBSUB
t0ďDJBM4VQFSWJTJPOBOE$POUSPMPGUIF#VJMEJOHT"HFODZ
t)PVTJOHBOE-PDBM(PWFSONFOU#VJMEJOHT"HFODZ%JOBT
Perumahan dan Gedung PEMDA DKI Jakarta)
22 October 2014
28 Oct. 2014
29 October 2014
27 and 29
October 2014
Discussion on policy and
data availability for bus
transportation
t5SBOTKBLBSUB#VTXBZ
12 November
2014
Discussion on the leading
sector in charge of JAK-GEM
development and use
t1SPWJODJBM%FWFMPQNFOU1MBOOJOH"HFODZ#BQQFEB
20 November
2014
Introducing JAK-GEM and
discussion on waste management and data
• Sanitation Agency of DKI Jakarta
Plenary meeting and discussion on the proposed model
of JAK-GEM
• All agencies involved in the previous meeting and discussions
1st week of
December, 2014
15 December
2014
References
MoE (2007) Indonesia Country Report: Climate Variability and Climate Change, and their Implication. Ministry of Environment, Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta.
Floods caused by Rainfall, Temperature, and Sea Level Rise (2007), The Center for Sea and Coastal Development at Bandung’s
Institute of Technology.
Sukhdev P., Bassi A., Varma K. and Mumbunan S., (2014), Indonesia Green Economy Model (I-GEM), Full Project report, Prepared under Low Emission Capacity Building Programme (LECB), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Jakarta,
Indonesia.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), (2014) LECB Indonesia Policy Note, I-GEM: Measuring Indonesia’s Transition towards a Green Economy, Indonesia.
RAD GRK, Kalteng (2012), Indonesia. http://www.unorcid.org/upload/doc_lib/20130207132847_RAD%20GRK%20grey.pdf
ICE Case Studies: Climate Change and Social Problems – A case study on Jakarta (n.d.)
29
Implemented by:
Supported by:

Jakarta`s Green Economy Model (JAK-GEM)

Transcription

Similar documents

Jakarta Smart City

Indonesia Media (Case study: Print Media)

Untitled - Kandura Studio

waiver guidelines jakarta incident

our media kit

The 3D Game Simulation of “Anjungan DKI Jakarta”

Jakarta Green Map

Jakarta teams - Bugils 6-es international sport event

TRANSPORTATION IN JAKARTA

Company Profile - Appraisal Indonesia