1、changeGovernanceInstitutionsTransportall levels of government from international to local. The governance of transport within this already chal-(EEA, 2009), due largely to continuing increases in private vehiclekm travelled. With the current set of policy measures in the UK,the Government forecasts
2、that transport emissions will rise by5% by 2020 with current policies but may fall by 10% if an en-hanced package of policy measures can be delivered (DfT, 2009).budgets, compatible with EU policy to attempt to limit global tem-perature rise to 2 C176C. In December 2008 the CCC made the follow-ing r
3、ecommendations to the UK Government:1. adopt an 80% reduction by 2050 (compared with 1990 levels);2. that this target should include international aviation andshipping;3. that the first three five year budgets achieve between a 34% and42% reduction in emissions (compared with 1990 levels) withthe mo
4、st ambitious target being enacted when a broader globalagreement is signed. (CCC, 2008).* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)113 3435358; fax: +44 (0)113 3435334.E-mail addresses: G.R.Marsdenits.leeds.ac.uk (G. Marsden), T.Ryenapier.ac.uk(T. Rye).Journal of Transport Geography 18 (2010) 669678Conten
5、ts lists availableJournal of Transportels1Tel.: +44 (0)131 455 2477; fax: +44 (0)131 455 2239.1. IntroductionClimate change is one of the most important policy challengesfacing the world population and globally, transport is responsiblefor 24% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IEA, 2005). Whilstove
6、rall UK GHG emissions fell by 21% between 1990 and 2007(DECC, 2009), over 75% of this was due to a decline in heavy indus-try and changes in fuel used for energy supply, from coal to gas. UKGHG emissions from transport rose by 11% over the same periodIn response to the analyses of bodies such as the
7、 Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern Report theUK has introduced the Climate Change Act which places a legallybinding requirement on the UK Government to set targets and re-port on progress on climate change emission reductions. The gov-ernment subsequently established a
8、new agency called theCommittee on Climate Change (CCC) which is responsible foradvising government on a long-term greenhouse gas emissionreduction target for 2050 and for recommending five year carbon0966-6923/$ - see front matter C211 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Alldoi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.09.014lenging
9、arena is further complicated by the existence of different structures for the management of trans-port modes and variations in formal governance structures across countries and regions.This paper examines the prospect for deep cuts in CO2emissions from transport through an examina-tion of the key po
10、licy levers for change and considering the governance issues that surround them. Thefocus of the paper is the United Kingdom, and in particular England and Scotland. The UK is the first coun-try to have a legally binding internal obligation to meet carbon dioxide reduction targets and this hasprompt
11、ed significant activity in both governance institutions and delivery. The research uses a multi-level governance framework to understand the policy environment in England and Scotland, capturingboth the range of spatial actors and the influence of sectoral actors in what is a complex polity.It is co
12、ncluded that the policy approach currently appears constrained by a desire to divide account-ability by formal institutional structures, thus failing to tackle the dispersed nature of travel and thenational and international nature of businesses. There is currently a lack of clarity about the tierin
13、g ofresponsibilities between spatial levels and there is therefore a comparative lack of commitment to thepotential for demand management and travel reduction strategies to contribute to carbon reduction. Car-bon reduction policies are also influenced by strong industry lobbies whose goals may not b
14、e fully alignedwith carbon reduction strategies. The profusion of actors engaged in climate change policy seems todilute rather than promote effective policy making.C211 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Keywords:Climate changeClimate change is one of the key global policy issues of our time. T
15、ransport is the sector from which it hasbeen hardest to cut emissions and, to make substantial progress in the future, action will be required atThe governance of transport and climateGreg Marsdena,*, Tom Ryeb,1aInstitute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United KingdombScho
16、ol of the Built Environment, Napier University, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, United Kingdomarticle info abstractjournal homepage: www.rights reserved.at ScienceDirectG research studies question whether the current mod-erate cuts implied in the transport sector by 2022 are consistentwith such an ambitious lo
17、w carbon future and suggest that moreradical cuts are required (e.g. Chapman, 2007; Tight et al., 2005).This paper provides an analysis of the contribution of the trans-port sector to the climate change problem. The paper considers theproblem of climate change through the perspective of multi-levelg
18、overnance (Bache and Flinders, 2004a) as this is clearly a problemwhich transcends any one level of government and is heavily influ-enced by the actions of individuals and organisations as well as for-mal institutions. It is developed through a study of the policypositions adopted in the UK drawing
19、separately on emerging dif-ferences between Scottish and English policies where relevant.The comparison of Scotland and England is potentially importantin further mapping the extent to which devolution of transportresponsibilities leads to innovation and divergence of policy ap-proaches (MacKinnon e
20、t al., 2008). The paper also looks out tosupranational organisations such as the EU (Fairbass and Jordon,2004) as well as down to the local level where actions may be crit-ical (Bulkeley and Betshill, 2005). It begins by introducing multi-le-vel governance as an analysis framework (Section 2) and fr
21、om thisstarting point it poses some key questions:(1) What type of policy problem is climate change (Section 3)?(2) What policies and actions are required to achieve a substan-tial shift to a lower carbon transport system (Section 4)?(3) What is the environment in which such policies are formu-lated
22、 and delivered (Section 5)?The discussion and conclusion draw together the answers fromthe three questions and look at the capability of these governancestructures to deliver changes required to limit the UKs GHG emis-sions from transport (Section 6).2. Multi-level governanceMulti-level governance h
23、as emerged as a conceptual approachto studying the development, implementation, effectiveness andaccountability of policies. It steps away from the assumptions thatnational government is the dominant policy making unit and thatpolicy making occurs within a nested hierarchical set of govern-ment laye
24、rs (International, national, regional, sub-regional, local).These are referred to as Type I institutions. Whilst acknowledgingthat policy competencies between governmental layers are nowmuch messier, particularly within a European context, multi-levelgovernance also gives equal credence to the notio
25、n that the leversfor policy implementation and the basis for policy development arealso influenced by the changing policy space. The increase in non-departmental government agencies, public private partnershipsand statutory consultees limit the extent to which central govern-ment can influence chang
26、e. These are referred to as Type II institu-tions. Some commentators suggest that this places cities at centrestage in developing innovative strategies (Betsill and Bulkeley,2007). Hooghe and Marks (2001) depict these two different typesof governance arrangements as shown in Table 1 with exemplarexp
27、lanations. There is also an observed growth in the externalinfluence of informal institutions such as companies, coalitions ofinterested parties, non-governmental organisations, charities andcitizen groupings.Whilst the exact definition of multi-level governance remainscontested, Bache and Flinders
28、(2004b) identify four key featuresfrom a synthesis of research viewpoints:670 G. Marsden, T. Rye/Journal of Transport1. Decision-making at various territorial levels is characterizedby the increased participation of non-state actors.2. The identification of discrete or nested territorial levels of d
29、eci-sion-making is becoming more difficult in the context of com-plex overlapping networks.3. In this changing context, the role of the state is being trans-formed as state actors develop new strategies of co-ordination,steering and networking to protect and, in some cases, enhancestate autonomy.4.
30、Fourth, that in this changing context, the nature of democraticaccountability has been challenged” (p. 197).This paper assesses the nature of the transport and climatechange problem through the key concepts mapped out above witha view to establishing what type of governance arrangements existin Engl
31、and and Scotland and determining whether they are wellsuited to providing an effective policy response.3. Transport and climate change: the problemThe current scientific and political consensus, as represented bythe IPCC, is that rising man made emissions of carbon dioxide andother GHGs are causing
32、a significant rise in global average temper-atures, over and above that which might be due to any natural phe-nomena (IPCC, 2007). Depending on the scale of the rise in averagetemperatures (compared to the pre-industrial period), this is pre-dicted to lead to reduced food yields, significant water s
33、hortages,sea level rise on a scale that will threaten many major cities, spe-cies extinction, extreme weather and, ultimately, abrupt and largescale changes in global climate. Together, these changes are likelyto bring about enormous social and economic upheaval. Their im-pacts on the economy (in te
34、rms of reduced production, and thecosts of adaptation/mitigation, including in the transport sector)are also likely to be large: 5% of world GDP per year if no actionis taken, rising to 20% if and when catastrophic climate change oc-curs (Stern et al., 2006).In economic terms GHG emissions are there
35、fore a classic exter-nalitywiththecostsofclimatechangenotfallingdirectlyonthepro-ducer of the emissions. It is a particularly difficult issue as not onlyarethe likelyimpactsdispersed acrossthe globe inan unevenman-ner,butalso theworseimpactsarelikelyforfuturegenerationsandthere is great uncertainty
36、about how bad they will be. Climatechange is also therefore an example of a tragedy of the commons.The introduction to this paper established that transport is amajor contributor to climate change. Fig. 1 provides a furtherbreakdown of how emissions from different types of transport con-tribute to t
37、he problem in the UK.WhilstgovernmentreportingsuggeststhatwecaneasilypresentaccountsofGHGsthereareseriousdefinitionalissueswhichneedtobe grappled with in the debate surrounding who should act. Forexample, should emissions be attributed to power stations and theenergy sector (source accounting) or to
38、 the people, businesses ortransportmodesusingtheenergy(enduseraccounting).Whilstcur-rentlyintheUKmuchtransportisdrivenbyfossilfuelsdirectly,thisdistinctionisnotoverlycriticalbutwithamorediversefuelmixoragreateruseofcleanerelectricityasproposeditmightbe(CCC,2008).Another,perhapsmoreseriousaccountingi
39、ssuecomesfromthespa-tialallocationofemissions.ConsiderajourneyfromRegionAtoRe-gion B. How should the emissions be attributed?C15 To the person making the trip? This would count as part of car-bon footprint of Region A.C15 To the destination activity? If so, do both the outward and returnjourney coun
40、t against Region B or should this be shared withRegion A?Geography 18 (2010) 669678C15 To regions or countries en-route? This could be done accordingto the greenhouse gas emissions used in their area.jurisdictionsjurisdictionsearthandthe numberareTable 1Types of multi-level governance (adapted from
41、Hooghe and Marks, 2001).Type I Type IIMulti-task jurisdictions Task-specificLocal government responsible for waste, transport, social services,educationHighways agencyMutually exclusive jurisdictions at any particular level OverlappingGovernment boundaries do not overlap Friends of thecampaign group
42、Limited number of jurisdictions Unlimited numberTypically few layers of government Issue specificJurisdictions organized in a limited number of levels No limit toe.g. European, national, regional, local Informal groupingsJurisdictions are intended to be permanent JurisdictionsG. Marsden, T. Rye/Jour
43、nal of TransportC15 To the company (and associated country of registration) provid-ing the travel (if this is applicable)?This is one journey but these arguments can be played outacross different spatial scales (for example, should the small townof Newbury, England, have an inflated carbon footprint
44、 because itis on an important through route?). There is currently no agree-ment on accounting for cross-boundary emissions and this is oneof the reasons why international aviation and maritime emissionswere excluded from the Kyoto protocol.A further major tension is the changing nature of internatio
45、nalfreight movements. There has been a radical shift towards importsfrom the Far East over recent decades and, whilst India and Chinaare often pilloried for expanding their industrial base and thereforeGHG emissions, much of this is to serve developed country marketswith cheap goods. Recent research
46、 (DEFRA, 2008a) has shown thatif GHG emissions from international aviation and the production ofgoods consumed in the UK are taken into account, the countrys to-tal GHG emissions actually increased by 17% from 1990 to 2005.Under the current accounting rules, have developed countries sim-ply exported
47、 their pollution? Does the allocation of responsibilitylie with the producer or consumer?Of at least equal importance to the debate over how to accountfor emissions is the debate about which sector should take action.Fig. 1. Greenhouse gas emissions from transport in the UK in 2007 (Source: DfT, 200
48、8a) (Shippingthe current UK Kyoto accounts).responsible for national trunk roadsat all levelsmay have a national campaign and align with a local airport anti-expansionof jurisdictionsgeographically flexible groupingsof jurisdictional levelsfrom local to international and can be virtualintended to be
49、 flexibleGeography 18 (2010) 669678 671Here, the CCC has adopted a position of promoting cuts in thosesectors which have the lowest marginal abatement costs (relativeto a forecast carbon price of 40/tonne) and, where more ambitiouscuts are still shown to be required, to prefer those technologicaladvances which offer most long-term market leading potential toput the UK on a pathway to achieving an 80% cut by 2050 (CCC,2008). Whilst the marginal abatement costs of technology changeare relatively straightforward to estimate, those from many trans
