Expert Panel – Technical Assessment Synopsis Report...

Expert Panel – Technical Assessment

Synopsis Report

European Green Capital Award 2016

April 2014

www.europeangreencapital.eu

European Green Capital Award Expert Panel –Technical Assessment Synopsis Report

MDR0763_Rp028 i F01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 ANNUAL AWARD PROCESS ............................................................................................... 2

1.2 AIM OF THIS REPORT ........................................................................................................ 3

2 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE .................... ......................................................... 4

2.1 APPLICANT CITIES FOR 2016 AWARD ................................................................................ 4

2.2 TWELVE INDICATOR AREAS ............................................................................................... 6

2.3 APPLICATION FORM .......................................................................................................... 6

2.4 EXPERT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PANEL ......................................................................... 7

2.5 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE ............................................................................. 8

2.5.1 Primary Technical Review ................................................................................ 8

2.5.2 Clarifications ..................................................................................................... 8

2.5.3 Ranking Criteria ................................................................................................ 8

2.5.4 Peer Review ..................................................................................................... 8

2.5.5 Conflicted application ....................................................................................... 9

2.5.6 Background Check ........................................................................................... 9

3 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS ...................... ........................................................... 10

4 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORTLISTED CITIES ........ .............................................. 12

4.1 SHORTLISTED CITY SUMMARIES ..................................................................................... 12

4.1.1 Essen .............................................................................................................. 12

4.1.2 Ljubljana ......................................................................................................... 13

4.1.3 Nijmegen ........................................................................................................ 14

4.1.4 Oslo ................................................................................................................ 15

4.1.5 Umeå .............................................................................................................. 16

4.2 ESSEN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 17

4.2.1 Climate Change: Mitigation and Adaptation ................................................... 17

4.2.2 Local Transport............................................................................................... 17

4.2.3 Green Urban Areas incorporating Sustainable Land Use .............................. 18

4.2.4 Nature and Biodiversity .................................................................................. 19

4.2.5 Ambient Air Quality ......................................................................................... 20

4.2.6 Quality of the Acoustic Environment .............................................................. 20

4.2.7 Waste Production and Management .............................................................. 22

4.2.8 Water Management ........................................................................................ 22

4.2.9 Waste Water Treatment ................................................................................. 23

4.2.10 Eco-innovation and Sustainable Employment ................................................ 24

4.2.11 Energy Performance ...................................................................................... 24

4.2.12 Integrated Environmental Management ......................................................... 25

4.3 LJUBLJANA TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 27


MDR0763_Rp028 ii F01


4.3.2 Local Transport............................................................................................... 27











4.4 NIJMEGEN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 37


4.4.2 Local Transport............................................................................................... 37











4.5 OSLO TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 46


4.5.2 Local Transport............................................................................................... 46











4.6 UMEÅ TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 56



MDR0763_Rp028 iii F01

4.6.2 Local Transport............................................................................................... 56










APPENDICES

APPENDIX A 2016 Application Form

APPENDIX B Expert Panel Profiles

APPENDIX C Technical Ranking of 12 Applicant Cities for the European Green

Capital Award 2016 Title


MDR0763_Rp028 1 F01

1 INTRODUCTION

7th Environmental Action Programme (EAP)

The Commission commenced the 7th Environmental Action Programme (EAP) in 2013 which sets out a strategic agenda for environmental policy-making with 9 priority objectives to be achieved by 2020. It establishes a common understanding of the main environmental challenges Europe faces and what needs to be done to tackle them effectively. This programme underpins the European Green Capital Award in relation to policies for sustainable urban planning and design.

Protecting and enhancing natural capital, encouraging more resource efficiency and accelerating the transition to the low-carbon economy are key features of the programme, which also seeks to tackle new and emerging environmental risks and to help safe guard health and welfare of EU citizens. The results should help stimulate sustainable growth and create new jobs to set the European Union on a path to becoming a better and healthier place to live.

Cities play a crucial role as engines of the economy, as places of connectivity, creativity and innovation, and as centres of services for their surrounding areas. Due to their density, cities offer a huge potential for energy savings and a move towards a carbon-neutral economy.

Most cities face a common core set of environmental problems and risks, including poor air quality, high levels of noise, GHG emissions, water scarcity, contaminated sites, brownfields and waste. At the same time, EU cities are standard setters in urban sustainability and often pioneer innovative solutions to environmental challenges. An ever-growing number of European cities are putting environmental sustainability at the core of their urban development strategies.

Thus, in order to enhance the sustainability of EU cities, the 7th EAP fixes the goals that by 2020 a majority of cities in the EU are implementing policies for sustainable urban planning and design.

European Green Capital Award

The European Green Capital Award is the result of an initiative taken by 15 European cities (Tallinn, Helsinki, Riga, Vilnius, Berlin, Warsaw, Madrid, Ljubljana, Prague, Vienna, Kiel, Kotka, Dartford, Tartu & Glasgow) and the Association of Estonian cities on 15 May 2006 in Tallinn, Estonia. Their green vision was translated into a joint Memorandum of Understanding establishing an award to recognise cities that are leading the way with environmentally friendly urban living. The initiative was launched by the European Commission in 2008.

It is important to reward cities which are making efforts to improve the urban environment and move towards healthier and sustainable living areas. Progress is its own reward, but the satisfaction involved in winning a prestigious European award spurs cities to invest in further efforts and boosts awareness within the city as well as in other cities. The award enables cities to inspire each other and share examples of good practices in situ. The winning cities to date include: Stockholm in 2010, Hamburg in 2011, Vitoria-Gasteiz in 2012, Nantes in 2013, currently Copenhagen for 2014 and Bristol in 2015. All are recognised for their consistent record of achieving high environmental standards and commitment to ambitious goals.

The objectives of the European Green Capital Award are to:

a) Reward cities that have a consistent record of achieving high environmental standards;


MDR0763_Rp028 2 F01

b) Encourage cities to commit to on-going and ambitious goals for further environmental improvement and sustainable development;

c) Provide a role model to inspire other cities and promote best practice and experiences in all other European cities.

The overarching message that the award scheme aims to communicate to the local level is that Europeans have a right to live in healthy urban areas. Cities should therefore strive to improve the quality of life of their citizens and reduce their impact on the global environment. This message is brought together in the Award's slogan “Green cities – fit for life ”.

1.1 ANNUAL AWARD PROCESS

The first cycle of the European Green Capital Award, a biennial process at that time, led to the inaugural award for 2010 going to Stockholm and Hamburg as the 2011 European Green Capital. The second cycle, completed in 2010, resulted in the Spanish City of Vitoria-Gasteiz becoming the 2012 European Green Capital and Nantes in France becoming European Green Capital in 2013. In 2011 the approach was modified to become an annual call and found the 2014 European Green Capital, Copenhagen and the following year the European Green Capital for 2015, Bristol. This annual cycle continues on to find the 2016 European Green Capital. The evaluation format was also modified in 2011 in order to streamline the entire process whilst giving the Jury a more significant role in the process.

The 2016 Competition cycle for the first time was open to applications from cities with a population of over 100,000 inhabitants, as the limit for previous cycles was over 200,000 inhabitants. This opened the competition to over 400 cities from EU Member States, Candidate Countries (Turkey, FYROM, Montenegro, Serbia and Iceland) and European Economic Area countries (Norway and Liechtenstein).

This year the Expert Panel has carried out a technical assessment of each of the 12 environmental indicator areas (detailed in Section 2.2) and provided a ranking of applicant cities together with qualitative comments on each application. This ranking is derived as a result of primary expert assessment, clarification from the cities and peer review from another expert (more details on this procedure in Section 2). This information is now presented to the Jury in the form of this report together with a number of proposed shortlisted cities. The number and list of shortlisted cities chosen to proceed to the next stage will be the ultimate decision of the Jury.

The shortlisted cities are invited to present their vision, action plans and communication strategy to the Jury.

The Jury will assess the shortlisted cities based on the following evaluation criteria:

1. The city’s overall commitment, vision and enthusiasm as conveyed through the presentation.

2. The city’s capacity to act as a role model to inspire other cities, promote best practices and spread the EGC model further – bearing in mind city size and location.

3. The city’s communication actions including:

• Citizen communication to date in relation to the 12 environmental Indicators, effectiveness via changes in citizen behaviour, lessons learned and proposed modifications for the future.


MDR0763_Rp028 3 F01

• The extent of the city's local partnering to gain maximum social and economic leverage.

• Outline of the city’s EGC communication strategy should they win.

Based on the proposals from the Expert Panel & information presented to the Jury, the Jury will make the final decision and select the city to be awarded the title of European Green Capital 2016. The winner will be announced at an award ceremony in Copenhagen, Denmark on 24 June 2014 .

1.2 AIM OF THIS REPORT

This Technical Assessment Report provides an overview of the approach to this award. It presents the technical assessment of the Expert Panel for each of the 12 applicant cities, which forms the basis for shortlisting the cities. This is presented per indicator per city for transparency of the overall process.

A supplementary report presents examples of good practice across all 12 indicators via examples taken directly from the cities applications. This report also serves to benchmark each of the applicant cities within indicator. Ideally both of these reports should be read in tandem.

Both of these reports are compiled and edited by RPS Group, Ireland, acting as Secretariat for the European Green Capital Award.


MDR0763_Rp028 4 F01

2 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

2.1 APPLICANT CITIES FOR 2016 AWARD

A total of 12 cities applied for the 2016 Award. Details of the 2016 applicants are included within the map and table below.

Of the 12 cities to be evaluated 11 are signatories of the Covenant of Mayors and 11 of the eligible countries from across Europe are represented. The smallest city by population is Umeå in Sweden with a population of 118,000, whereas Zaragoza in Spain has the largest population of 698,917. Over half of the applicants for the 2016 Award became eligible to apply for the first time under the new population threshold criteria of over 100,000 inhabitants.

Table 1: Details of applicant Cities (presented in alphabetical order)

City Country Inhabitants Signatory of the COM

1 Dąbrowa Górnicza

Poland 121,107 Yes

2 Essen Germany 571,000 Yes

3 Larissa Greece 163,000 Yes

4 Ljubljana Slovenia 282,994 Yes

5 Nijmegen The Netherlands

166,000 Yes

6 Oslo Norway 623,966 Yes

7 Pitesti Romania 206,082 Yes

8 Reggio Emilia Italy 170,086 Yes

9 Santander Spain 170,086 Yes

10 Tours France 132,677 No

11 Umeå Sweden 118,000 Yes

12 Zaragoza Spain 698,917 Yes


MDR0763_Rp028 5 F01

Figure 1: Map of European Green Capital 2016 Applic ant Cities


MDR0763_Rp028 6 F01

2.2 TWELVE INDICATOR AREAS

The selection of the European Green Capital 2016 is based on the following 12 environmental indicator areas:

1. Climate change: mitigation and adaptation

2. Local transport

3. Green urban areas incorporating sustainable land use

4. Nature and biodiversity

5. Ambient air quality

6. Quality of the acoustic environment

7. Waste production and management

8. Water management

9. Waste water treatment

10. Eco-innovation and sustainable employment

11. Energy performance

12. Integrated environmental management

For the 2016 cycle the 12 indicators areas have been retained as they were for the previous cycle but have incorporated some changes to the text content and titles of the indicators, the most significant of which being the redevelopment and repositioning of Indicator 12 – Integrated Environmental Management. Please see Section 2.3 for updates.

2.3 APPLICATION FORM

The format of the Application Form was modified for the 2015 award cycle to ask cities to provide information for each of the 12 indicator areas in the format of “Present Situation, Past Achievements and Future Plans” underpinned by the EMS principles of “Plan, Do & Check and Act”. This was found to be successful and was retained for the 2016 award cycle. A copy of the 2016 Application Form is attached in Appendix A .

For this award cycle some modifications have been made to the indicator structure, allowing for a more consistent document across the 12 indicators. The Guidance Note was also revised for the 2016 award cycle to provide a policy background and further relevant information to shape applicant cities responses. The 2016 Award Application Form has 4 sections per indicator as follows:

A. Describe the present situation.


MDR0763_Rp028 7 F01

B. Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years.

C. Describe the short and long term objectives for the future and proposed approach to achieve these.

D. List how the above information can be documented, add links where possible. Further detail may be requested during the clarification phase. Documentation should not be forwarded at this stage.

For all indicator areas, information should be provided on short and long term commitments in the form of adopted measures and approved budgets. These measures must be proven by references and links where possible to published reports, plans or strategies. Further information on these references and links may be requested by the Expert Panel during the clarification phase. The 'budgets' refer to approved budgets to be used for the implementation of these reports, plans or strategies.

The 2016 Award Application Form also included a new section at the start of the application form ‘City Introduction & Context’. Within this section the each applicant is required to give an overview of their city and a general background to their application. A legislative non-compliance background check of applicant cities was also conducted as part of the 2016 award technical assessment.

Each section must be completed within the word limit given and can include graphs, diagrams and photos to a specified limit.

2.4 EXPERT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PANEL

The Technical Assessment Panel consists of 12 experts who bring internationally recognised expertise within each of the areas covered by the indicators to the process. Profiles for each of the experts can be found in Appendix B.

Table 2: Expert Technical Assessment Panel

Indicator Expert Title

1 Climate change: mitigation and adaptation

Mr. F. Javier González Vidal

Atmospheric pollution technical advisor. Regional Government of Valencia – D.G. Environmental Quality, Spain

2 Local transport Dr Henrik Gudmundsson

Senior Researcher, Department of Transport, Technical University of Denmark

3

Green urban areas incorporating sustainable land use

Ms. Hedwig van Delden

Director, Research Institute for Knowledge Systems (RIKS), Maastricht, The Netherlands & Associate Professor, the University of Adelaide, Australia

4 Nature and biodiversity

Dr Jake Piper Associate and Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Technology, Design and Environment, Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom

5 Ambient air quality

Dr Steen Solvang Jensen

Senior Scientist, Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Denmark

6 Quality of the acoustic environment

Dr Diogo Alarcão

Specialist in Acoustic Engineering. Principal Researcher and Professor at Instituto Superior Técnico University of Lisbon, Portugal & the Polytechnic Institute of Lisbon, Portugal.

7 Waste production and management

Mr. Larry O'Toole Regional Director, Waste, Energy & Environment Division, RPS Group, Dublin, Ireland


MDR0763_Rp028 8 F01

8 Water management

Mr. Shailendra Mudgal

Executive Director, BIO Intelligence Service (BIO), Paris, France

9 Waste water treatment

Dr Ana Lončarić Božić

Associate Professor Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Technology, University of Zagreb, Croatia

10 Eco-innovation and sustainable employment

Dr Stefan Ulrich Speck

Project Manager environmental economics and policies, European Environment Agency (EEA), Denmark

11 Energy performance

Prof Dr Manfred Fischedick1

Vice President of the Wuppertal Institute and Professor at the Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, Wuppertal, Germany

12 Integrated environmental management

Mr. Jan Dictus Founder, GOJA Consulting for Environment and Sustainable Development, Austria

2.5 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

2.5.1 Primary Technical Review

The Experts were asked to assess each application based on its own merit and then benchmark all applications against each other within each indicator area. Each indicator area has three component parts: present, past and future. Each part carries equal consideration by the expert .

2.5.2 Clarifications

The Expert Panel members were given the opportunity to ask clarifications of the applicant cities on the basis that questions could only be asked on information already received i.e. no new information could be requested from the applicant cities.

2.5.3 Ranking Criteria

Experts use a defined ranking system. Under this ranking system a rank of 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. is applied to each city per indicator. Since there are 12 applications to be evaluated then each city must be ranked from 1st as the best to 12th the weakest. Note: these are not quantitative scores but rankings.

2.5.4 Peer Review

It is important to note that a peer review was carried out for the technical assessment round. All Expert Panel members assessed their respective primary indicator, and each indicator was also assessed by a second panel member (co-evaluator). This peer review exercise ensures a quality check of the assessment process. Where the two experts differ radically on a ranking, they must work together to reach a consensus. The final ranking is a combination of both reviewers’ assessments.

1 Prof Dr Manfred Fischedick declared a conflict of interest with the Essen application due to previous involvement with the Essen city administration. In the case of Energy Performance and Eco-Innovation and Sustainable Employment indicators, external experts Jim Gannon (RPS Group) and Olivier Gaillot (RPS Group) conducted the technical assessment for the Essen application with due regard to the procedure for other applications.


MDR0763_Rp028 9 F01

Table 3: Indicators and corresponding Primary Exper t & Peer Reviewers

Indicator Primary Expert Peer Reviewer

1 Climate change: mitigation and adaptation


Dr Henrik Gudmundsson

2 Local transport Dr Henrik Gudmundsson


3 Green urban areas incorporating sustainable land use

Ms. Hedwig van Delden Dr Jake Piper

4 Nature and biodiversity Dr Jake Piper Ms. Hedwig van Delden

5 Ambient air quality Dr Steen Solvang Jensen

Dr Diogo Alarcão

6 Quality of the acoustic environment Dr Diogo Alarcão Dr Steen Solvang Jensen

7 Waste production and management Mr. Larry O'Toole Mr. Jan Dictus

8 Water management Mr. Shailendra Mudgal Dr Ana Lončarić Božić

9 Waste water treatment Dr Ana Lončarić Božić Mr. Shailendra Mudgal

10 Eco-innovation and sustainable employment

Dr Stefan Ulrich Speck Prof Dr Manfred Fischedick

11 Energy performance Prof Dr Manfred Fischedick

Dr Stefan Ulrich Speck

12 Integrated environmental management

Mr. Jan Dictus Mr. Larry O’Toole

2.5.5 Conflicted application

In the event of a conflicted application, where an expert cannot complete an unbiased assessment of an application for personal or professional reasons, a suitable external expert is identified by the Secretariat to complete both the primary technical review and the peer review of the conflicted application. The review carried out by the external expert is discussed with the main evaluator for the indicator and the peer reviewer and the overall rank is agreed amongst the 3 experts involved.

For the 2016 award cycle this was the case with the Essen application for the Energy performance primary assessment and the peer review of the eco-innovation and sustainable employment indicator.

2.5.6 Background Check

As part of the technical assessment process a high level background check is carried out by the European Commission on all applicants to identify if any applicant is in breach of environmental legislation or is not meeting European reporting requirements. A report was prepared and non-compliances were discussed by the technical assessment panel. Correspondence received by the Commission in relation to applicant cities was also circulated and discussed by the technical assessment panel during the technical assessment process. 2

2 For the 2016 European Green Capital Awards cycle letters of complaint was received by the European Commission in relation to the Ljubljana and Tours applications. The complaints were assessed by the experts and considered during the technical assessment process.


MDR0763_Rp028 10 F01

3 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS Based on the technical assessment results, the Expert Panel has proposed to shortlist the following 3 cities (in alphabetical order) for the title of European Green Capital 2016:

Essen - Ljubljana - Oslo

The expert panel would like to commend the smaller cities who have applied, 2 of which have submitted high quality applications: Nijmegen and Umeå. Both of these applicants have demonstrated excellence in a number of the environmental indicators assessed.

As a result of the expert panel’s findings the Jury have decided to include the 2 cities of Nijmegen and Umeå to the shortlist.

Therefore the shortlisted five cities (in alphabetical order) for the title of European Green Capital 2016 are:

Essen - Ljubljana - Nijmegen - Oslo - Umeå

The Jury will invite these five cities to the next stage of the evaluation process.

The Expert Panel’s detailed ranking for the shortlisted cities in all indicator areas is detailed in Table 4, with the detailed ranking for all indicator areas for all of the applicant cities provided in Appendix C.


MDR0763_Rp028 11 F01

Table 4: Technical Ranking of Shortlisted Cities fo r the European Green Capital Award 2016 Title

Indicator / Applicant City

Climate change:

Mitigation &

Adaptation

Local transport

Green Urban Areas

incorporating Sustainable

Land Use

Nature & biodiversity

Ambient Air

Quality

Quality of the acoustic environment

Waste Production

& management

Water Management

Waste water

treatment

Eco-innovation

& sustainable employment

Energy Performance

Integrated Environmental Management

Essen 2 6 4 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 4 4

Ljubljana 5 2 2 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 6 1

Nijmegen 4 4 3 5 8 6 4 5 1 4 2 3

Oslo 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 6 1 3 2

Umeå 3 3 7 6 6 3 2 6 5 3 1 6


MDR0763_Rp028 12 F01

4 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORTLISTED CITIES

4.1 SHORTLISTED CITY SUMMARIES

4.1.1 Essen

With a population of approximately 571,000, Essen is the ninth largest city in Germany. Located in the Ruhr Area in the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia its industrial history was closely linked to underground coal-mining operations which began in the early 19th century. To a great extent heavy industry took priority over nature in the northern half of the city until the last colliery was closed in 1986. After the decline of the industry and during the second half of the 20th century, Essen developed into a services and financial centre. Approximately 80% of the workforce now works in the services sector bringing an additional 140,000 commuters to the city every day. Essen has now developed a reputation as a trade fair and congress location and is also known for its university, shopping attractions and as a cultural centre.

The city has overcome its challenging industrial history and demonstrates exemplary practices in protecting and enhancing nature and biodiversity. Essen’s strengths in this area lie in effective planning and monitoring, dedicated budgets and the protection of habitats and waterways. Future plans focus not only on the greening of the city but also on the promotion of biodiversity in new green areas and in particular on species which are resilient to climate change. Strong citizen engagement is also seen as vital for future progress.

Despite being at the centre of the Ruhr Metropolis with significant amounts of road and rail traffic, the share of the population exposed to high noise levels is notably low and Essen has impressive plans for further improvement of the city's acoustic environment. Strategic noise plans have been prepared with ambitious goals, one such example is to formally recognise quiet areas no further than 300 metres away from where 51% of the population live or work. Acoustic zoning will also be undertaken at specific strategic zones in the city, for example in sensitive areas where schools and hospitals are situated. Citizens were heavily involved in the development of these noise plans with interesting initiatives such as an online process where they could mark locations on noise maps and provide suggestions for improvement, as well as evaluate and comment on the proposed noise reduction measures.

While water scarcity is not a major issue for the city, Essen recognises that reducing water consumption will also result in less energy consumption and ultimately will be more sustainable. In recent years, the city has significantly improved its water supply network by reducing leakage and through other important initiatives. Adapting to climate change has also been factored in to its future plans.

For many years Essen has been participating in a variety of networks and initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to improve resilience to the impacts of climate change at both regional and municipal levels. Since 1993, it has been a partner in the "Climate Alliance" and in 2009 the City Council passed an "integrated energy and climate concept". This currently includes 133 measures which are pursued as a single overall process under the umbrella title ‘Klima|werk|stadt|essen for sustainable and climate-friendly city development’. In 2010, the City of Essen joined the "Covenant of Mayors" and was awarded the “European Energy Award" for the first time.


MDR0763_Rp028 13 F01

4.1.2 Ljubljana

Ljubljana is the political, administrative, cultural and economic centre of the Republic of Slovenia as well as its capital city. It has a population of 283,000 and is divided into 17 districts which are key players within the city’s dynamics. The Ljubljana Urban Region is the most developed in the country with its GDP per capita being 43% above the Slovenian average.

In recent years the city has worked to strengthen its brand and to build environmental awareness amongst the general public and city employees. Between 2007 and 2013, it implemented more than 650 projects to further improve the quality of life for Ljubljana citizens.

The City's Council, Mayor and Supervisory Board lead the development and the implementation of the city's sustainability strategy ('Vision 2025') which aims to reach ambitious goals. Vision 2025 follows an integrated approach to environmental management and is supported by several sectoral strategies. The Environmental Protection Programme, the Sustainable Mobility Plan, the Sustainable Energy Action Plan and the Electromobility Strategy all work together to present an integrated vision for the city. Sustainability Impact Assessments are obligatory for important decisions and green procurement has been implemented for 70% of all city purchases, making Ljubljana a national role model. Under the overall strategy, progress reports and public opinion surveys monitor sustainable development policies in the city's different departments.

Almost three quarters of Ljubljana’s surface area now consists of green spaces, with 16.5% being Natura 2000 areas. Ljubljana has implemented numerous urban green measures over the past decade. In the four years from 2008 to 2012, the city created 40 ha of new parks on formerly degraded areas. The Path of Memories and Comradeship (32.5 km with 7,000 trees) connects green spaces in the city and is very popular amongst Ljubljana residents for walking, cycling and other pastimes. It is an example of the city’s development vision for regenerating and connecting settlements. Ljubljana is also currently developing the Smartinska District Partnership project to completely transform a brownfield area of 228 ha into a new, high quality district using sophisticated technology and pursuing high environmental standards.

Transportation in Ljubljana has changed dramatically over the past decade. From being a city which was rapidly becoming dominated by the car, the focus is now on public transport and on pedestrian and cycling networks. In 2013, Ljubljana modified the traffic regime on the main traffic artery (Slovenska Street) to limit motorised traffic and give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Cycling is also increasing, with over 1.6 million journeys using the 'BicikeLJ' bike-sharing system since 2011. Future transportation plans are promising in Ljubljana. In 2012 the city adopted goals that will see public transport, non-motorised traffic and private vehicles account for equal one-third shares of all transport by 2020.


MDR0763_Rp028 14 F01

4.1.3 Nijmegen

With approximately 166,000 inhabitants, Nijmegen, located in the east of the Netherlands, is the largest city in the Arnhem-Nijmegen metropolitan area. Overlooking the Waal – the Dutch continuation of the river Rhine – the city centre is surrounded by monumental parks, tree-lined boulevards and the park-like roundabouts of Trajanusplein and Keizer Karelplein, originally designed to echo the example of Paris.

Nijmegen, being sited on Europe’s most navigated river, has a long industrial history and is working to overcome the associated environmental challenges. Until 1990, the city developed around a series of concentric semicircles, with its oldest key point and current centre on the Waal River. From a city where living, working and recreational areas were separated, working areas are today being transformed into modern residential areas. By 2040, it is expected that Nijmegen will house 180,000 inhabitants. From a 'city on the river', Nijmegen has now become the city that embraces and incorporates the river.

The city considers itself an ‘Urban Lab’ making good progress towards sustainability. The population of Nijmegen is growing, yet its CO2 emissions are falling. This is due to many projects such as a home heating network based on waste heat, covering approximately 14,000 homes and fuelling city buses with biogas. Nijmegen has the ambitious goal to become energy neutral by 2045 and has an impressive list of energy efficiency measures. The co-generation process 'Power2Nijmegen', on which a variety of urban partners work closely together, enjoys national recognition. For many years, Nijmegen has belonged to the top three 'Climate Alliance Dutch municipalities' and has signed the Covenant of Mayors.

Nijmegen has an exceptional recycling performance, the highest in the Netherlands. It also has good collection systems and networks in place for dry recyclables and organic waste, particularly impressive given the number of high-rise buildings and apartments in the city. Nijmegen is working to connect its waste incinerator to a district heating system by 2015, which will further improve its performance. Nijmegen hopes to increase its recycling rate to 70% by 2020.

Sewage is not seen as a waste in the city but as a potentially valuable source of raw materials, energy and reusable water. Almost all (99.9%) of Nijmegen's residential and commercial properties are now connected to the wastewater treatment system with plans to connect the remaining 0.1% in the next 5 to 10 years. Nijmegen uses innovative technologies such as video inspection to ensure efficient wastewater treatment and its associated infrastructure operates at optimum efficiency. Citizen participation is also encouraged through the Water Service point and initiatives such as “Disconnecting private buildings” and “Green roofs”.

Nijmegen is a compact city, rich in greenery within walking distance of every home, and surrounded by a robust green ring within cycling distance. In 2012, the city formulated its vision for 2020, with sustainability being the underpinning principle and this is reflected in city events and citizen involvement in both planning and projects.


MDR0763_Rp028 15 F01

4.1.4 Oslo

Oslo, the capital of Norway, is a fast growing city and home to 624,000 inhabitants. By 2030, the population is expected to rise by a further 200,000 inhabitants. The city centre is surrounded by hills and the Oslo Fjord, and has a number of major national roads passing through it.

Oslo has successfully transformed itself from an industrial city into a modern, green knowledge hub. In 1998, the City of Oslo developed a comprehensive sustainability agenda: the Urban Ecology Programme. The City Council regularly evaluates whether targets are being achieved and adjusts strategies and enhances the programme as necessary. Action Plans for various sectors outline how environmental strategies will be implemented.

Preventing urban sprawl has been Oslo’s overall policy for many years. The Municipal Master Plan includes a strategy for concentration around public transport nodes, improving the public transport system and cycle network, introducing parking restrictions and protecting the blue-green structure. In addition, building in the surrounding green belt is strictly prohibited.

Oslo has committed itself to achieving common sustainability goals through numerous different initiatives, for instance: The Earth Charter (2002), The Covenant of Mayors (2010), the Aålborg Commitments (2011), the Mexico City Pact (2011) and the C40 (2012).

Over a long period, Oslo has successfully reduced greenhouse gas emissions and has a comprehensive monitoring system operated by the City of Oslo and OsloGoGreen. The city has ambitious targets to halve its CO2 emissions from 1991 levels by 2030 and to be carbon neutral by 2050. These targets are supported by integrated strategies and simple concepts such as engaging citizens and business and using the city administration as a role model of green governance.

Oslo also has a comprehensive air quality monitoring network. The city's main air pollutants come from transport (50%) and heating for buildings (35%). To reduce these emissions a number of measures have been put in place such as strengthening public transport and promoting alternative fuels. Oslo aims to make public transport fossil-free by 2020, by using biogas and electricity and municipal vehicles respecting the latest Euro V emission standards. It also aims to make the municipal car fleet emission-free by 2015. Currently, Oslo has more electric cars per capita than any other city in the world and in 2014 will convert 50% of street parking spaces to charging points. Heating of municipal buildings is nearly fossil-free.

Oslo strives to be a leader in eco-innovation and sustainable employment. The city commits to sharing its experience and aims to become a main supplier of environmental solutions and to exploit the green market. It is also aims to be very active through schools/universities and awareness-raising, by involving young people in work on eco-innovation, monitoring and greening the city.

Securing financing has enabled a range of initiatives to be in place to promote eco-innovation and green jobs: the Business for Climate initiative is one good example. The Oslo initiative ‘leading by example’ is another way of sharing the solutions and best practices adopted by the city. Future plans are also impressive and are supported by realistic funding commitments.


MDR0763_Rp028 16 F01

4.1.5 Umeå

With a current population of 118,000 inhabitants, Umeå has grown by 50% over the last 50 years. It is one of the fastest growing European cities and is the centre of growth in northern Sweden. The city is characterised by its two universities, totalling more than 30,000 students. It has been selected as the European Capital of Culture in 2014 – a testimony to its vibrant cultural life.

Umeå’s environmental ambitions are supported by the active involvement of its citizens, communities, local and regional businesses and through initiatives such as “Be Green Umeå” to communicate and demonstrate the benefits of green mobility and sustainable living for citizens.

The city’s rapid growth commenced in the 1950s, with the establishment of Umeå University. In parallel, the city invested systematically in sustainability: in green infrastructure such as a city-wide co-generation district energy system, a co-owned hydro-electric power plant and clean water supply among others, as well as in socio-cultural investments in areas such as culture, gender equality and public health promotion. These investments are now key elements in the city’s ambition to have Europe’s first climate-neutral energy system by 2018.

In 2011, the city adopted a new comprehensive plan, the Umeå Master Plan, outlining the vision for continued sustainable growth of the city with up to 200,000 inhabitants in 2050. The plan was awarded the Swedish Plan Award for 2012 for how it included sustainability in six development strategies, and its focus on monitoring progress. In co-operation with the Swedish government, the city has also developed an action plan for air quality, including mobility management measures and diverting through-traffic away from the city centre.

Umeå has a comprehensive waste management system with high recycling rates, an extensive waste collection system with direct collection from homes, a network of recycling centres and recycling stations and extensive separation of waste. Food waste is collected from all households and used for the generation of vehicle fuels at a local anaerobic digestion facility. Biodegradable waste is diverted from landfill as a result of national requirements and residual waste provides heat and electricity for the city. The waste charging system in Umeå is sophisticated with a variable weight charge and a standard container fee to encourage waste reduction and recycling.

Despite expected future growth, Umeå aims to maintain energy consumption at current levels through strong energy efficiency measures. The city's administration has led by example in this area by decreasing energy use in municipal buildings by 20% from 2001 to 2013, and by imposing a strict standard of 65kWh/m2 for energy use in new buildings. Umeå Energi, the municipality owned utility company, offers 100% renewable electricity to its customers. Co-generation is also very important in Umeå, with almost all municipal buildings being connected to district heating networks or to bioenergy or heat pumps. The city also engages with the public by providing advice to citizens, organisations and companies on energy, climate change and sustainable living.


MDR0763_Rp028 17 F01

4.2 ESSEN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

4.2.1 Climate Change: Mitigation and Adaptation

Main evaluator: Mr. F. Javier González Vidal

Co-evaluator: Dr Henrik Gudmundsson

Ranking: 2nd

Comments:

Essen has proven to have a good monitoring system developed in the context of the SEAP and the European Energy Award. The city has made use of the ECORegion tool to develop the inventory and emissions trends since 1990, which show a decrease in emissions despite the constraints of having 140,000 commuters per day visiting the city.

Essen has very ambitious commitments of CO2 reduction both in the mid and long term (40% by 2020 and 80-95% by 2050 compared to 1990). To achieve these targets the city has developed a clear vision for the future and is willing to create a local climate culture that engages with all actors and that could serve as a leading example for others.

A broad front of measures with specifics on investments and monitored achievements are in place, with the energy transition as the key aspect in the areas of efficiency, renewables, buildings and transport. Innovative projects within this area include the “RWE Aerial thermography Essen”, a public solar energy analysis, or the financing initiative to create a citizen’s fund to supplement the provision of free municipal roof space for photovoltaic systems.

Central to Essen’s strategy for the future is the expansion of information and advisory services to involve all stakeholders in the energy related modernization of districts and eco-mobility. Secure resources have been allocated to the already scheduled projects.

Adaptation is integrated in the urban development planning. Consequences are identified and adaptation requirements defined at city and district level. The integrated action plan for adaptation focuses on the heat island effect and has synergies with the “New ways to the water” project and the greening of roofs and facades.

4.2.2 Local Transport

Main evaluator: Dr Henrik Gudmundsson

Co-evaluator: Mr. F. Javier González Vidal

Ranking: 6th

Comments:


MDR0763_Rp028 18 F01

Essen has an extensive and diverse public transport system including regional rail, S-bahn, Metro, trams, and buses, with low emissions due to electrification and use of low emission buses.

Many recent measures to further extend and improve public transport system networks and to promote cycling have contributed to an increase in the shares of these modes, although not leading to a decline in car traffic.

Essen provides good data for nearly all requested local transport indicators reflecting a good basis for urban transport planning, although current performance is not above average, apart from the impressive provision of a clean public transport service.

The regional plan adopted in 2009 includes principles for reducing demand for car transport and for shifting transport to other modes. Specific target levels for the individual modes are set for 2035. Targets of 25% for each transport mode are set. The targets appear ambitious as a number of mostly ‘soft’ measures are mentioned in the application and also considering the current figures provided for bicycle share (approximately 5%) and car share (approximately 54%) in the city.

Interesting new initiatives include a plan to ensure a varied supply of retail in the city centre and a study to explore 'new mobility concepts', although little detail about expected outcomes is provided of these and several other measures.

4.2.3 Green Urban Areas incorporating Sustainable L and Use

Main evaluator: Ms. Hedwig van Delden

Co-evaluator: Dr Jake Piper

Ranking: 4th

Comments:

The City has a long tradition of planning urban parks, dating back to the 1920s, although the first system included isolated parks distributed unevenly over the city. Since the 1970s the holistic orientation of green policies towards sustainable urban development, growth and employment has been developing. The masterplan “Open space creates city space” (2007) has the objective to create a network of green and open space structures along the three continuous north-south axes, and also to connect with the regional system of open spaces in the Emscher Landscape Park.

Essen has carried out several major developments in the past, which have led to a green infrastructure, including a “Green main route network” of 148km in length. It connects residential areas with the municipal open space system but also connects those of neighbouring cities. Almost all residents live within 300m of a public park and 94% of the population lives within 300 m of municipal parks over 5,000m2. Nevertheless, in the densely built-up inner-city areas, the proportion of parks is lower than in the rest of the city.

As a result of its history as an important location for the coal and steel industries, and due to the on-going structural change, there are a great number of disused and polluted areas within the municipal area. A large part of these areas are being reused for new purposes as the pollution or clean-up has left no further hazards. The city planning development mainly takes place through the reactivation of disused land and through brownfield development.


MDR0763_Rp028 19 F01

Through the “Emscher Landscape Park 2010” and the “Masterplan for the Emscher’s Future”, long-term concepts for preserving and developing open spaces pursue the objective of aesthetically designing the structural change and quality of life in the cities in the Ruhr Metropolis, including the green links between the cities. Essen faces major challenges due to its history and location in the Ruhr area. However it is also evident that the city has a willingness to meet these challenges and has a proven track record with substantial actions completed in the past decade.

The major project the “Emscher conversion” will be completed by 2020. The open wastewater channels are being transformed into ecologically valuable waterways and attractive leisure areas, which will make a major contribution to increasing the quality of life in the city of Essen.

4.2.4 Nature and Biodiversity

Main evaluator: Dr Jake Piper

Co-evaluator: Ms. Hedwig van Delden

Ranking: 1st

Comments:

Essen’s response on this indicator is wide-ranging and fulfils the requirements of the guidance, demonstrating the process of biodiversity protection and enhancement from identification through to planning and monitoring. Within the introduction a useful account of the geology and topographic location of the city is provided, providing background to the biodiversity interest present in the city. The current challenges affecting wildlife conservation are set out clearly (principally industrial change, history and recreational use).

Essen demonstrates its commitments to its conservation plans with an indication of budgets secured from various sources. Several initiatives associated with restoration of waterways and their biodiversity are indicated, (Buhmbach Delbach, Oeffer Bach etc.) as well as the wider Emscher waters system, encompassing near-natural land and water bodies. Essen is also working to protect the habitats of bats and amphibians in natural habitats (caverns) and in disused industrial areas.

Plans for development of municipal forest focus on biodiversity-sensitive woodland management, directed towards sustainable forestry. Interestingly, Essen is acting to identify and preserve the growth of species which may be more tolerant of climate change. Within the city the climate change adaptive value of street trees is recognised. Measures are in place to re-green even dense urban areas and these include a focus on green roofs but, additionally, the biodiversity promotion in these spaces, e.g. for bees.

Citizen awareness has been promoted via tours (included tours designed for the disabled) and opportunities for sponsors to manage natural spaces “hands on”.

In the Helsinger Ruhe Natura 2000 zone, an attempt is being made to enable citizens to view and enjoy wildlife without disrupting habitats. Funding for these and other plans is detailed in the application. Essen is also moving forward with their ecosystem services approach, for example, recognising the value of cooling provided by natural green areas.


MDR0763_Rp028 20 F01

4.2.5 Ambient Air Quality

Main evaluator: Dr Steen Solvang Jensen

Co-evaluator: Dr Diogo Alarcão

Ranking: 3rd

Comments:

Essen is located in Ruhr Metropolis with a high degree of industrialisation, high population density, and substantial traffic volumes leading to high emission pressures. There have been no exceedances of ozone and no exceedances of daily and annual PM10 for the last 3 years with a downward trend visible over a number of years. Annual PM2.5 is not exceeded however annual NO2 is exceeded at 6 out of 7 traffic stations. This has been the case for a number of years however the results show an overall decline in this.

The city has provided very good information about the contribution of long range air pollution and local emission sources to air concentrations show that traffic is the major local source to NO2 whereas PM10 is dominated by background and long range transport.

A regional initiative is the Ruhr Area Clean Air Plan that focusses on business/industry, private households and transportation came into effect 2008. This Plan identified 80 measures and has since been updated in 2011 when 115 measures were identified for implementation.

A key measure is Low Emission Zones (LEZ) established in the region in 2008 covering 40% of Essen with quantified effects for PM10 and NO2. In 2012, the largest LEZ in Germany was established in the Ruhr Area, second-largest in Europe, covering 78% of the municipal area of Essen. The restrictions are becoming progressively stricter and now only diesel vehicles of class Euro 3 or above, and petrol vehicles of Euro 2 standard or above are allowed. Trucks have also been banned at specific major roads. Other measures are not presented. Specific information materials are produced and distributed to the public in relation to LEZ. The objective is also set out to comply with EU limits in 2020 for PM10 (daily) and NO2 extensively.

The city has set the Objective 2035 compliance with the WHO guideline values for PM10 (20 µg/m³) and reduction of days when PM10 values exceed EU daily limit values (50 µg/m³) to zero. This is beyond EU regulation. This objective also aims to comply with the EU limit for NO2 (same as WHO). Objectives for CO2 emission include the reduction of CO2 by 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2030 relative to1990 CO2 levels. Emission reductions for health related emissions are not given except that the use of Euro 6 vehicles will reduce emissions.

The Clean Air Plan includes energy efficiency, mobility, consumer conduct, and business and industry. A key objective is to obtain a modal split by 2035 of 25% motorised private transport, 25% public transport, 25% cycling, 25% walking that is supported by actions within cycling infrastructure and local public transportation. Relative to the current situation, this means a reduction in private car travel of 29%. The increasing use of electromobility, LPG and natural gas engines will support the reduction in traffic emissions.

4.2.6 Quality of the Acoustic Environment

Main evaluator: Dr Diogo Alarcão


MDR0763_Rp028 21 F01

Co-evaluator: Dr Steen Solvang Jensen

Ranking: 1st

Comments:

Major noise sources within Essen are almost exclusively derived from road and railway traffic along the main stretches and around stations. A strategic noise map for road, rail, tram, aircraft and industrial noise sources was drawn in 2011 and data from it shows that the share of population exposed to total Lden values > 55 dB and > 65 dB is to 41.4% and 14.9% respectively.

Relatively to the Ln indicator, the share of population exposed to values > 45 dB and 55 dB is 39.8% and 15.9% respectively. These are considerably low values. Although no quantified trends are available, it's recognized that due to the city's growth noise emissions are increasing in contrast to other forms of environmental pollution and that the growing truck traffic often negates the successes of noise reduction measures. Thus the effort for reverting this situation would be an immediate action for the city to undertake.

Quiet areas are not formally defined yet by the city but a plan from the administration (that has been set up in communication with the citizens) was developed. This plan includes a very interesting "two-type" definition of quiet areas that take into account their dimension and location (urban, smaller areas; or countryside, larger areas) thus establishing two distinct Lden maximum noise values within them. The actual planned quiet areas (85km2) will be located within 300m for approximately 51% of the population, which is a very significant figure.

Acoustic zoning has been carried out and remains on-going. Various actions for reducing noise have been outlined to reduce the noise pollution levels at hospitals, schools and kindergartens to values below 65 dBA over the whole day and in the long term to values below 60 dBA. At hospitals, noise levels at night should be 10 dBA lower than over the whole day.

A strong stakeholder involvement was accomplished with representatives from public agencies, politics, business, environment, transport, building industry, research and from citizens’ initiatives, being involved in the process of noise action planning, noise reduction measures definition and implementation and definition and preservation of quiet areas. Good communication actions with the citizens were implemented during the elaboration of the Noise Action Plan, in a two phase online process where citizens could mark locations on the noise map and provide suggestions for improvement, together with evaluating and commenting on the proposed noise reduction measures.

The Noise Action Plan 2010-2015, whose measures have been already largely implemented, establishes ambitious short-term and long-term objectives. The short-term objectives seek to avoid as comprehensively as possible noise levels exceeding the target values of Lden 65 dBA and Ln 55 dBA, by 2018. Long-term objectives stipulate to have no citizens affected by noise levels higher than 55/45 dBA all day/at night (LAeq values), by 2035. Additionally, trigger values of 55 dBA Lden and 45 dBA Ln, for which a Noise Action Plan must be created, are defined.

Several important actions are portrayed for the future to reduce the noise levels in the city, and stake-holder involvement is foreseen to be high. Quiet areas will be formally classified, based on the work already carried out, and thereafter their acoustic quality preserved and the maintenance and interconnection of green zones by combined cycle and foot paths is envisaged to continue. A quantification of the foreseen reduction in terms of noise exposed people should be an area for improvement since it would entail even higher coherence with the contemplated implementation of future actions and measures.


MDR0763_Rp028 22 F01

4.2.7 Waste Production and Management

Main evaluator: Mr. Larry O’Toole

Co-evaluator: Mr. Jan Dictus

Ranking: 3rd

Comments:

The Waste Management Concept has been in place since 2001 and is currently being redrafted in line with the new Recycling Management Law (2012) and the EU Waste Framework Directive.

There is extensive collection of source separated waste streams including biodegradable waste with seasonal and product specific campaigns supplementing the normal collection systems. The system of fees promotes waste avoidance and separation.

The city has a very comprehensive approach to waste prevention and awareness raising including activity days, advisory services, information at recycling centres, online information, brochures, constant media work etc. and there is a focus on kindergartens and schools and also encouragement of home composting.

The city also works in partnership with businesses and institutions and has a partnership project with a charitable organisation. There is an extensive range of infrastructure in place including recycling centres, a biomass heating plant for waste wood, a sorting plant for construction waste and an incinerator with district heating resulting in just 3% of waste disposed of to landfill.

The city has plans for the future to improve its resource efficiency particularly with respect to green waste and WEE and also plans to work on consumer behaviour. Overall a very impressive performance.

4.2.8 Water Management

Main evaluator: Mr. Shailendra Mudgal

Co-evaluator: Dr Ana Lončarić Božić

Ranking: 2nd

Comments:

Essen has made significant improvements in the water supply network leading to reduced leakage losses and other important water management initiatives have also been taken in the past number of years. In terms of leakage management, an inspection of all measurement zones within the municipal area is planned in the current year 2013. Corresponding maintenance and inspection for leaks of the pipe network is performed annually in accordance with German Association of Gas and Waterworks (DVGW) regulations (W 392). In addition, an asset tool is currently being introduced for renewal and maintenance strategies.


MDR0763_Rp028 23 F01

The city of Essen displays a well thought out future plan taking into account climate change adaptation issues. The main task continues to be the implementation of existing water resource management objectives through the investigation of six municipal rivers in Essen particularly for pending hydraulic engineering/flood protection measures.

In an analysis of climate consequences, the Ruhrverband had the security of supply from its dams assessed with the result being: "Instead of the current 99.8 percent, the calculated security of supply in the least favourable case will in future be 99.5 percent. This means that, statistically, the dams can provide sufficient water for the regional water supply in 199 of 200 years." The Ruhrverband is also searching for optimisation strategies for dam management in order to counter the potential effects of climate change in good time.

The dynaklim Roadmap, which is developed in cooperation with over 40 network partners, including the City of Essen, facilitates the creation of a region-wide climate adaptation strategy. On 17th of July 2013, the roadmap module "Water-Sensitive Urban Design 2020" was passed in Essen which included an innovative measure called "Cool City: Using and optimising the cooling function of the soil" (increasing the evaporative potential of appropriate locations through soil improvement, planting suitable plants and additional watering during extended periods of heat, e.g. using groundwater from residential areas with undesirably high groundwater levels).

The per capita water consumption in 2012 was 147.6 litres/day, which is a reduction from previous years, but still remains high. It is mentioned that reduction is water consumption is not a top priority for the city of Essen. However such a reduction will also lead to energy saving as the water energy nexus seems to be well understood.

4.2.9 Waste Water Treatment

Main evaluator: Dr Ana Lončarić Božić

Co-evaluator: Shailendra Mudgal

Ranking: 2nd

Comments:

The wastewater load of Essen is estimated on 33.8 million m3 based on consumption of industry (4%), public sector (5%) and residents and small businesses (91 %). The total wastewater load of Essen in the terms of p.e. is not provided however. The wastewater is treated at 6 Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP) dedicated to Essen and neighbouring municipalities, with total capacity of 4.1 million p.e. while the total wastewater load of 6 WWTPs came to an average population equivalent of 3.2 million.

Essen is listed as a sensitive region; according to the presented average data all WWTPs, treating jointly wastewaters from Essen region, comply with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive requirements.

99.5% of the population are connected to the sewer system that transports the wastewater to WWTPs. For the 0.5% remaining, private wastewater treatment plants and septic tanks are used. Future plans include their connection to the sewer network.


MDR0763_Rp028 24 F01

In the past decade Essen has completed a number of activities at regional level which includes the laying of an underground sewer along the 400km long open sewage channels through the Conversion of Emscher system.

The capacities of Ruhverband WWTPs serving Essen and neighbouring municipalities have been expanded by additional purification stages for nitrogen and phosphor elimination. Energy efficiency in the WWTPs within the association district of the Emschergenossenschaft has improved and the 44% of power consumption is covered by independent power generation.

Within the Wastewater Disposal Concept passed by the City Council future measures foresee €179 million of investments to be made over the next 6 years for sewer renewal and surface water protection measures aimed to reach good ecological status or good ecological potential according to the EU Water Framework Directive.

4.2.10 Eco-innovation and Sustainable Employment

Main evaluator: Dr Stefan Ulrich Speck

Co-evaluator: Prof Dr Manfred Fischedick3

Ranking: 2nd

Comments:

Essen is historically a highly industrialised area; the Ruhr region was the Germany industrial engine until the end of the ’80s. This has given the city an opportunity to become advanced in its early operations to create a clean area and reduce CO2 emissions.

The city also uses interesting technologies that can be linked to innovation to monitor its situation; an example of this is the use of aerial thermography to scan the level of dispersion in the buildings of the city.

It is interesting to note the effort in using long term unemployed in green jobs (Essener Konsens Network), the cooperation with universities and with other stakeholders. An example of this is the ‘Climate Ambassador’ project for the education of children

There is however capacity for improvement in the area of green procurement when compared with other cities. The new Meotec network of SMEs serve as the basis for eco-innovation cluster and cooperates with universities through its promotion of a green qualification which can also be linked also to green jobs.

4.2.11 Energy Performance

Main evaluator: Prof Dr Manfred Fischedick4

3 As the eco-innovation and sustainable employment indicator within the Essen application was conflicted for the co-evaluator the peer review of ranking and comments was carried out by Mr Olivier Gaillot (Technical Director, RPS Group, Dublin) as an impartial expert. Rankings were agreed with the primary expert and the peer reviewer, in line with the assessment procedures of the other applicant cities.


MDR0763_Rp028 25 F01

Co-evaluator: Dr Stefan Ulrich Speck

Ranking: 4th

Comments:

A reasonably good level of detail is provided with regards to the present situation, including details of the constraints. (e.g. the difficulties relating to investment in rented accommodation).

With regard to the present situation, there is reasonable evidence of energy demand reduction and a reasonable level of renewable energy penetration into the energy mix. There is a good mix of renewable energy generation types both with regard to technology and a healthy split between centralised and decentralised options.

Energy policy (locally) is driven by the klima|werk|stadt|essen strategy where it is evident that both energy efficiency and renewable energy are considered.

In 2010, Essen won the European Energy and Climate Protection Award, which is considered to be indicative of their performance above other urban centres in Germany. It is considered that energy is integrated within a broader climate strategy (klima|werk|stadt|essen).

4.2.12 Integrated Environmental Management

Main evaluator: Mr. Jan Dictus

Co-evaluator: Mr. Larry O’Toole

Ranking: 4th

Comments:

The City of Essen has several strategic plans of which the following are the most important: “Environmental protection as a corporate objective”, the Urban Development Perspectives (STEP 2015+) and Energy and Climate Concept (IECC). An overall vision based and building further on these strategies is being developed: Essen2030 strategy. It is not clear however if this will be a clear vision for sustainable development as Essen2030 mainly focuses on the economic development of the city

The vision development and several projects are being coordinated by Klima/werk/stadt/Essen, which falls directly under the remit of the Mayor’s office. Although there doesn’t seem to be a separate budget for climate policy or for sustainable development policy, budget is sought and reserved for individual projects.

The City of Essen has a strong tradition of involving stakeholders in developing strategies and also in realising the activities (Mobilitäts werkstadt, Klima Werkstadt).

4 As the energy indicator within the Essen application was conflicted for the main evaluator the assessment and commentary were undertaken by Mr Jim Gannon, (Technical Director of Energy, RPS Group, Dublin) as an impartial expert. Rankings were agreed with the primary expert and the peer reviewer, in line with the assessment procedures of the other applicant cities.


MDR0763_Rp028 26 F01

Next to the hierarchical structures in the city administration (concern model) also separate project organizations are being set up. In principle there is no difference made between administrative departments or (semi) external participants, which means that all participate as equal partners.

Interactive internet has been used for the development of a noise strategy and for budget discussions. Although it is obvious that within the chosen management structure a yearly responsibility to the city council is inherent. However no explicit monitoring tools, except CO2 monitoring are mentioned.

To date Essen has implemented a number of initiatives within the area of green procurement. Ökoprofit is used in the city and EMAS is used for the own organization, with a priority for school buildings, etc. With the project KAKTUS, the city seeks to combine environmental awareness and sport.

The city seems to take its role as the largest city within the Ruhr region seriously. Participation in European funded projects is widely implemented and membership of international networks is still limited but developing.


MDR0763_Rp028 27 F01

4.3 LJUBLJANA TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT




Ranking: 5th

Comments:

The information provided about the inventory and the methodology is very clear and trends are provided for the required indicators showing that there is a constant and systematic approach to monitoring. However, no sectoral disaggregation of emissions has been provided to identify the main sectors and their contribution.

Ljubljana’s targets are very ambitious (50-80% reduction by 2050 compared to 2008) and the city has a clear idea of what it wants to become. The city has completed good work in terms of planning (urban design and energy transformation are good examples) and raising awareness, with important information campaigns communicated to the population and through the use of world recognized innovative tools such as the TE-TOL mobile portal.

The city has put in place a relevant number of actions in the most important sectors, showing a high level of both commitment and investment and making good use of EU funded projects (Cohesion Funds, CIVITAS ELAN and ELENA technical assistance). As a result it has been awarded the EU Prize for Urban Public Space 2012.

However, a closer approach to the private sector and the economic opportunities that arise from the fight against climate change could help the city in the challenge of achieving its ambitious targets.

A number of well-structured strategies have been adopted for the future with an integrated approach and with a special focus on energy (efficiency and renewables) and transport. In this area, the extremely ambitious mobility plan might be over-optimistic but the effort is commendable.

Ljubljana has implemented adaptation in its policy in a commendable way. As a result of a project, the city plans to develop by 2014 a suitable tool to model the phenomenon and impacts of the urban heat island, but has also made great progress in assessing the impacts of climate change on water supply and vulnerability of ecosystems.




Ranking: 2nd


MDR0763_Rp028 28 F01

Comments:

Ljubljana has become dominated by cars due to rapid motorization in Slovenia and previous lack of investments in public transport. These trends are being reversed as part of overarching visions and specific plans for a more sustainable city. Car traffic has reportedly been reduced from 58% to 51% between 2003 and 2013; while public transport and walking has increased.

Ljubljana has a very good coverage of public transport and is extending its cycling and pedestrian networks; the city is not yet at the top with regards to use of low emission buses, although there are a few electric city buses and the purchase of gas buses is planned.

Accomplishments include the creation of a city centre zone closed for car traffic; and a remarkable experiment to close a major artery (Slovenska road) for all other traffic than buses and bicycles. The latter measure has resulted in a faster and more reliable bus service, and an overall reliability for public transport of 96% has been achieved through a wide set of measures.

The city uses some innovative measures such as a successful bicycle sharing system (BicikeLJ), signal prioritization and real time information for buses, and a city card that integrates payment for public transport use, Park and Ride, car parking, the bike share, and even public library services. The city has a strong focus on converting its own vehicle fleet to alternative fuels, and it keeps detailed records of the use of this fleet. Green city logistics are not mentioned in detail within the application.

A comprehensive and ambitious sustainable urban mobility plan has been adopted in 2012, with a goal to obtain a share of 33% public transport, 33% non-motorised traffic and 33% private vehicles by 2020. A significant budget of approximately €25 Million for 2014 is mentioned, but the full allocation is not described. Ljubljana takes part in many European projects, schemes, networks and initiatives for more clean/safe urban transport, including CIVITAS.




Ranking: 2nd

Comments:

Thanks to its natural features and well-considered urban planning, Ljubljana has a distinctly green identity. The Municipal spatial plan shows that green areas make up nearly three quarters of the entire territory of the City of Ljubljana. Green areas that lie in the city hinterland (contiguous aquatic, forest and agricultural areas) extend right into the historical city centre via green wedges and riparian corridors. The role of the green wedges and the links between them is of major importance.

Ljubljana has implemented numerous urban green measures over the past decade including the planting of more than 2,000 trees in the city during the last three years, mainly along the main roads and parks; the addition of five new parks, increasing the green urban area by 40 hectares over a period of four years; and revitalization of the embankments of the River Sava.

The City’s development vision is based on the concentration of existing settlement structures, internal development, the concentration of settlement along the main city access routes and the regeneration of degraded areas and this vision has already been put in practice in past years.


MDR0763_Rp028 29 F01

The City of Ljubljana has a Public Space Council and the Deputy Mayor’s Collegium for Public Space and Traffic. The first plays an advisory role and links professionals in various fields. It promotes best practices associated with management of green areas and other public spaces, and also has competencies in decision-making on individual spatial planning arrangements. The second is an operative body which includes representatives of various departments of the municipal administration, public utilities and contractors and discusses planning, maintenance and renewal of green and open areas in the city. They also promote the exchange of information, knowledge and experience.

Ljubljana has a strong focus on linking sustainable land management to ecosystem services. In 2010 the City declared 1,400 ha of the territory as forest of special purpose in being valuable as a CO2 sink. Currently the city is defining measures to mitigate the heat island phenomenon and together with the national government plans have been drawn up for flood prevention.




Ranking: 4th

Comments:

Ljubljana has an unusual situation where a large proportion of its area is protected for nature and biodiversity, because of the pattern of the city’s development, and its topography. As a result the performance of Ljubljana is assessed in relation to biodiversity considering this advantageous position. There is no assessment of what pressures biodiversity and nature might experience within the city (as a result of issues such as past land use, future climate or population change).

The application focusses in particular upon the city’s Natura 2000 areas, which cover a high proportion of land, and for these areas there is a good account of habitats and measures to manage them. The species present and those at risk are noted. Management plans exist for the Natura 2000 and the Landscape Park sites however little detail of this is provided.

More widely it is indicated that monitoring is now in progress. However there is no specific reference to how this work is being done, or whether it has led to any change in protection work. It is stated that the condition of sites is generally improving for terrapins and in forest habitats. The city also details the two conceptual plans for new interpretive trails in TRŠLP in 2013. Further detail is needed about how visitor management plans will ensure that biodiversity sites are not negatively affected by increased numbers of visitors.

Evidence is given of on-going work including work with young people, and communication with citizens via publications. Innovative projects include contract protection, where landowners are offered compensation for undertaking biodiversity-friendly measures. There is some limited reference to work with partners. A number of statements are made about planning for the TRŠLP and SHLP, but there is no material, such as mapping, from these plans. A number of species-related projects are mentioned which appear to be carried out annually.

Within the future plans section of the application a range of measures are described which will be included in the nature protection programme 2014–2020, and part of the environmental protection programme. Funding commitments have been made for green corridors, though there is no indication of where these will be, what they will link, and how they will link to areas beyond the city, so it is not


MDR0763_Rp028 30 F01

clear how well advanced these plans are. Generally, the application presents goals, but not targets, though funding sources and amounts are indicated for some activities.




Ranking: 4th

Comments:

The Ljubljana basin is characterised by a lack of ventilation, frequent inversions and a relatively closed system of local air circulation. The ozone limit has been exceeded the last 10 years. At a busy traffic station daily and annual PM10, and annual NO2 have been exceeded the last 8 years but with a downward trend. At an urban background station PM10 daily has been exceeded in 2 out of 8 years with large variation due to meteorological conditions but annual concentrations of PM10, PM2.5 and NO2 are not exceeding limit values.

Traffic is a major local emission source for NO2. Source attribution, provided for PM10, shows that 28% originates from secondary particles (~long-range) and the rest from local origin: burning wood (29%), transport (24%), re-suspension of dust (16%) and undefined sources (3%). It is not stated which method the source attribution is based on.

Air quality modelling has begun in 2013 and preliminary results for PM10 from traffic are presented. The results show higher concentrations at hot spots than the urban background measurement station. The city has started measurements of black carbon to evaluate impacts of traffic regulation.

In 2009 Ljubljana adopted the Operational Programme for the Protection of Ambient Air against PM10 Pollution. This programme included measures to reduce the impact of individual furnaces (ban of solid fuels where there are district heating or natural gas network) and introducing sustainable mobility (improving public transport, promoting clean vehicles, the establishment of ecological zones, etc.).

In 2013 a draft national Decree on the Ambient Air Quality Plan for Ljubljana has been prepared to reduce PM10 including a national fund for subsidies. Local measures include pedestrianisation of historic city centre (ecological zone), more bicycle lanes and city bikes for rental, river crossings, ring road, free electric mini buses, and gas buses for public transportation. The city won the European Price for Public Urban Space in 2012 for the ecological zone.

Air quality measurements data are available on the web together with an air quality index starting from 2013 to inform on risk of health effects. However future objectives for air quality are not stated.

Within the Sustainable Mobility Plan (2012–2020) objectives are set to increase walking, cycling and public transportation and reduce private car use. In 2014 it is planned that 45 vehicles of City Administration’s vehicle fleet will run on gas and by 2017 half of city buses are planned to operate on gas.

The Sustainable Energy Action Plan (SEAP) (2011-2020) also outlined the proposal to introduce electromobility by providing 1,400 charging stations for electric vehicles, installing CNG filling stations for private cars, the expansion of the district heating and natural gas, and connection of individual


MDR0763_Rp028 31 F01

furnaces to gas network or district heating. The Air Quality Plan for the Ljubljana Urban Agglomeration – reduction of PM10 is currently in a draft phase.




Ranking: 4th

Comments:

Noise exposure in Ljubljana is mainly from road traffic sources, although there is also locally some exposure due to railway traffic noise; industrial noise pollution is almost negligible. From the strategic noise map (2007), the share of people exposed to Lden values > 55 dB and Ln values > 45 dB are respectively equal to 74.9% and 67.6%, which are considerably high values. However, analysis conducted within a more recent study shows a positive reduction of about 12.5% in the exposure of people to noise. If this correction factor is used for estimating the share of people exposed lower share values are obtained however the values are still significantly high with 67.6% exposed to Lden values > 55 dB and 59.2% exposed to Ln values > 45 dB.

Although quiet areas are not explicitly handled, the Urban Master Plan includes an acoustic zoning map where "Level I" noise protection areas (limit values Ln = 40 dB and Lden = 50 dB) are defined and deemed for protection, which is very interesting approach to the problem. In this respect, the city created a so-called ecological zone (~ 10 ha) in the city centre, where no motorized vehicles are allowed and where the public space is reserved for pedestrians and cyclists. It is reported that within this special protection zone the noise values are very low, and that current values decreased by about 6 dB since the inception of the zone, which is a very positive aspect. As an important noise reduction measure for transport in this zone the city has two electric vehicles free of charge that anyone can use and also a round-trip electric minibus service has recently been introduced.

The city undertakes permanent measurements via the environmental monitoring system, and also periodic noise measurements in selected city spots.

Various actions regarding communication with the citizens were (and are) done, which include online citizens’ initiative service, opinion surveys (the inclusion of the quality of the acoustic environment to a large extent is an area for improvement) and interactive campaigns for improving the quality of life in the city, contemplating also the environmental protection programme (2014-2020). Activities to raise awareness of citizens towards the problem of noise, its effects and consequences are also periodically undertaken by the city. Overall, stakeholder interaction and involvement by the city is considered good.

The noise action plan highlights priority measures that include, above all, the protection of areas with a large number of inhabitants who are exposed to noise along the busiest roads (hot-spots), measures relating to the protection of particularly sensitive structures (hospitals, elderly people's homes, schools, nursery schools, etc.) and actions for protecting and maintaining quiet areas.

Additional future measures contemplated include noise barriers and lower speed limits along the Ljubljana bypass, the eventual tunnelling of railway lines near the Ljubljana Passenger Centre, the phased provision of charge points for electric vehicles (1,400 by 2020), the possible introduction of a


MDR0763_Rp028 32 F01

congestion charge for motor vehicles entering the city, and the façade insulation improvement when renovation of buildings managed by the city. Budgets are given for some of these measures thereby giving consistency to the pool of measures. A quantification of the foreseen reduction in terms of noise exposed people should be prosecuted since it would entail higher coherence with the contemplated measures.




Ranking: 5th

Comments:

The city manages its waste through the public company ‘Snaga’ and has a 4 year Strategy in place and annual Waste Management Programmes with clear objectives and measurable indicators.

The city has a low residual household waste generation rate with clear targets to reduce further by 2016 and achieves high recycling levels with further ambitious targets in place.

Progress has been impressive in recent years and there are extensive collection systems in place for source separated waste including good coverage with respect to organic waste collection. However whilst the city is very strong on collection infrastructure, treatment infrastructure is still being developed.

Some processing prior to deposition to landfill is carried out and organic waste is processed at a biogas plant. Other infrastructure is being planned however the biggest improvements will occur when two significant projects are realised - these are the planned upgrade of the Regional Waste Management Centre to include a mechanical biological treatment facility (2016) and the development of a waste to energy facility which will include heat recovery. The latter is the States responsibility. Reference is made to a number of communications campaigns although limited detail is provided.

In summary whilst Ljubljana has made very significant progress in recent years, until its infrastructure for the treatment of residual waste is in place, it will not be able to achieve the highest standards to which it aspires.




Ranking: 3rd

Comments:


MDR0763_Rp028 33 F01

Ljubljana has an innovative water pricing scheme which has led to the reduction in water consumption.

This pricing scheme is a tariff system for drinking water consumption which was introduced in 2009. The cost of water consumption depends on the average daily consumption of water in a building which is normalised either based on the capacity of the water meter for the building or on the number of inhabitants and normalised consumption of drinking water (150 l/person/day). Annual water consumption that exceeds normalised consumption for the building is considered excessive consumption of drinking water and is charged at a price that is 50% higher than the price for normalised consumption of water.

There is also an innovative project which informs citizens about the location of nearest water drinking fountain. Information on the fountains and on the conformity of the drinking water in the fountains is available on a website, and as application for smart phones, which shows the route to the nearest fountain.

A significant reduction of leakage losses has been achieved over the years but levels of leakage losses still remain high. Between 1994 and 2004, through regular and systematic inspection of the water supply network, analysis and renovation, there has been a reduction in loss of water from the system by 57% compared to the base year (1994).

The per capita water consumption figures are quite high (66,514.62 litres/year in 2012) as well and could be reduced further.

A better understanding of water energy nexus could help in achieving energy savings through better water management.




Ranking: 4th

Comments:

Urban wastewater is treated at Central Waste Water Treatment Plant, CWWTP and three local WWTPs providing secondary (CWWTP, WWTP Brod and WWTP Gameljne) and tertiary (WWTP Čurnuče) treatment.

87.3% of the population is connected to the public sewerage system, while for the rest small municipal treatment plants (SMTPs) are installed, gradually replacing current septic tanks. Removal of sludge and its processing is provided at CWWTP for both SMTPs and septic tanks.

WWTPs comply with the requirements of Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. It is planned to upgrade CWWTP with tertiary treatment by the end of 2015 to comply with the upcoming Danube river basin legislation considering removal of nitrogen and phosphorus.

Improvement of wastewater treatment in the last decade is well documented; the construction of second phase of CWWTP which included installation of modern technological equipment for processing the biological sludge into energy-rich hygienised pellets, the renovation of WWTP


MDR0763_Rp028 34 F01

Gameljne, the construction of three retention basins within the central sewerage network and the completion of sewerage network in inhabited areas.

Future measures address the problem of discharge and treatment of wastewater in the area of Ljubljansko polje aquifer and include the construction of connection channel that will enable connection of several municipalities to the central sewerage system and CWWTP. Investments rely on Cohesion Fund resources



Co-evaluator: Prof Dr Manfred Fischedick

Ranking: 5th

Comments:

Ljubljana has a well-documented application which provides a range of data and statistics. However it is not always clear what the individual role of the municipality is when separated from its national role as capital of Slovenia.

In general the City is presented as being very active in greening Ljubljana. Examples of activities that are on-going include the development of 5 new parks within the city; the pedestrian area has been enlarged by 620%; public transport has increased by 29%; the city is adhering to Sustainable Mobility Plan; City administration is located all under one roof and the reuse centre.

The green procurement of the city reach is currently at a level of 70% and the annual budget of the city is €300 million. This provides are interesting discussion regarding Vision 2025.

However, the application lacks some information, for example with regard to the budget allocations for implementing future plans, as well as information regarding the publication of environmental reports/accounts.


Main evaluator: Prof Dr Manfred Fischedick


Ranking: 6th

Comments:

The Sustainable Energy Action Plan 2020 (SEAP) builds a very strong basis for the city strategy and comprises besides a holistic approach several concrete project measures (including investment


MDR0763_Rp028 35 F01

assumptions, duration). In addition, it is valuable to note that SEAP was prepared in a participatory style process by a special expert group of public, state, university, industry and business representatives. The SEAP is underlined by a specific implementation plan providing concrete measures and related investments.

The present renewable energy share in the final energy consumption amounts to 13.5 % in 2012. Sometimes an aggregated number is given and energy carrier specific breakdown were not provided e.g. SEAP defines district heating system and natural gas supply as priority systems in the field of energy supply, followed by RES use and energy consumption reduction through measures in energy systems and buildings. The share of households connected to both systems is 72.4%.

The public lightning strategy outlined is commendable. This involves the replacement of existing lighting systems with energy-saving lighting technologies or LEDs and intelligent road lighting systems with a budget of €1.45 million Euro (2013).

With regard to energy efficiency in buildings, the City's Public Housing Fund seems to be very specific (including a strong business oriented approach). The City’s Public Housing Fund (PHF) is the only Slovenian public company that is building low-energy and passive housing. In general, a significant effort is being made in terms of spending on raising awareness.

City activities seem to be embedded in a regional approach (local energy action plan for the central Slovenia region is a promising strategy). In general, the city follows an in-depth participatory approach in several fields (i.e. energy efficiency improvements, further deployment of renewable energies) with stakeholders within the city border (including companies, NGOs, education and research institutions) and with external institutions.




Ranking: 1st

Comments:

Ljubljana has an overall vision (Vision of Ljubljana 2025: sustainable city) approved by the City Council and supported with several sectorial strategies.

All activities have been financially secured and progress is reported regularly to the City Council. The mayor is the key driver regarding sustainable development. Sustainability Impact Assessments are obligatory for important decisions. Environmental Concern is part of the employee code of conduct.

Different stakeholders and actors are being involved in the development of different plans and strategies. In fact the development of Ljubljana has led it to become a good role model for the rest of the country. Also the districts play an important role in policy and project development.

Many departments and services of the administration have a certified environmental management system. The City has implemented green procurement for 70% of all the purchases, and is steering the national regulations. Ljubljana tries to attract international manifestations to improve the green image of the city.


MDR0763_Rp028 36 F01

Ljubljana is the leading city in the region and is leading in the Regional Development Agency for Ljubljana Region (RRA LUR) promoting sustainable development in 26 municipalities. In several areas Ljubljana is driving national regulations and models. 3D Urban Planning is an internet tool, which is used to inform the public and to cooperate with professionals.

The progress of the policies is both measured with reports, but also with public opinion surveys. There is a clear overview of indicators for environmental themes. However all municipal departments are responsible for their own sustainable development policy. There seems to be no coordinating body, other than the overall strategy.


MDR0763_Rp028 37 F01

4.4 NIJMEGEN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT




Ranking: 4th

Comments:

The city provides emissions data and some trends for the last 5 years with an overall good quality and level of disaggregation, but some more details on the methodology would be welcome.

Nijmegen has a clear vision for the future and has committed to very ambitious targets of climate and energy neutrality. The implication of all the city actors is considered key to success and the general level of implication and participation of both businesses and citizens is commendable.

The city makes use of effective partnerships (Energy Covenant and Power2Nijmegen) and EU projects (INTERREG FloodResilientCities and Future Cities) to develop a very clear and well-structured strategy for sustainable policy with a remarkable and commendable focus on the economic opportunities. However not much information is provided on specific actions implemented, investments and the monitoring system.

Generally there is limited information provided on the specifics and timing of future actions with the exception of a few impressive projects which are introduced as flagships on heat distribution and adaptation.

Adaptation is a key issue for Nijmegen and the city is very active in this area with several on-going projects focused on the heat island effect. Especially commendable is the “Room for the River” project that implies a replacement of the Waal dike and the construction of a secondary channel in the floodplain. This creates a unique urban river park in the heart of the city with space for living, recreation, water and nature.




Ranking: 4th

Comments:

Nijmegen performs very well for local transport indicators such as infrastructure for cyclists, low share of car use for short trips, and especially clean public transport vehicles, where Nijmegen is the only


MDR0763_Rp028 38 F01

city that can demonstrate that the entire bus fleet fulfils more stringent emissions limits than required by current EURO V, by using Compressed Natural Gas.

The strategy over the last 10 years has been to encourage cycling and public transport and limit car use, with some success demonstrated in modal split data; the city is introducing a High Quality Public Transport (HQPT) network and so far 40km of ‘Fast Cycle Routes’, where priority is given to bicycles.

The city has the ‘Green Hub’ project which includes the 'Binnenstadt’ model to consolidate and distribute goods to the inner city with low emission vehicles, but no details is provided about of how much of city or the freight volume that is covered by this system.

A broad range of initiatives have been taken to improve transport and reduce impacts, some seem advanced for the city this size, such as a traffic management centre with camera surveillance of traffic and info to travellers on congestion. However there is limited indication of particular goals and effects on environment and congestion of adopted measures. There is no mention of land use planning to reduce demand or to involve stakeholders in planning processes.

There is a ‘Sustainable Access Nijmegen’ Memorandum which defines three phases up to 2020, including a range of specific transport projects, although committed spending is not mentioned. The aims of this memorandum are not fully explained and it is not clear how the measures will contribute to fulfil environmental goals.

Opening a second bridge across the River Waal will add capacity and spread traffic, while measures to disallow a consequential increase in the general traffic loads in the city are not directly presented. There are several measures to support introduction of cleaner fuels and vehicles, and there are plans to shift bus fuel from CNG further to biogas, with the aim to substantially reduce CO2 emissions are well as air pollutants.




Ranking: 3rd

Comments:

For a city of a fairly small size Nijmegen is carrying out major projects (some jointly with the national government), and has invested and is investing quite substantially in its green and blue infrastructure.

Proven past examples include the development of new parks, greening of the urban core, informal sports in public parks and grants for green roofs. In its development Nijmegen focuses on the further development of green and blue areas but also on quality of life and ecosystem services.

Nijmegen has many restructuring projects in the inner city, residential areas and commercial areas and several examples are provided. Restructuring projects include the increase of the green areas in the city centre. Relocation of industrial areas creates space for residential areas and in other cases transformation to natural gardens and parks.


MDR0763_Rp028 39 F01

Nijmegen has used the obligation of the state of realizing a bypass through the Waalsprong, a climate adaptation measure to avoid flooding of the River Waal, to its advantage to create a unique cityscape with a lot of rustic nature islands, urban quays and space for events and water sports. Thus Nijmegen creates a green blue aorta in the heart of the city. During the global Waterfront Congress, Nijmegen received the Waterfront Award, an international award for water management and urban renewal for its vision and design.

Since 2009, the collection of ideas called Green Allure Inner City has been used as a catalyst for green innovation and expresses the wishes of residents and business owners. Results so far include: two parking lots which have been transformed into parks, tree lanes planted in five shopping and three residential streets, green walls in various streets installed by residents and entrepreneurs, innovation with green planting and an esplanade fountain at a train station as well as a park on a former factory site.

Nijmegen has a long term integrated plan for the city, applies participatory planning approaches and measures the satisfaction of citizens and uses this information in the development of its future plans. The city has a green policy (2007) for Nijmegen’s greenery at city level and broken down to district level. The distribution, size and quality of green and blue areas must meet such criteria as climate, games and sports, social cohesion, health and city marketing. Although a plan for 2020 is available, it is unclear what budgets are planned and available for the future.




Ranking: 5th

Comments:

Work in connection with the floodplain of the Waal within Nijmegen is very important for the protection and future enhancement of wildlife in this region. Linkages with the Netherlands Ecological Network, the green ring, Natura 2000 sites and Lingezegen Park provide an extensive dispersal resource and network for biodiversity within the city and within and eventually beyond this region.

The management of nature conservation areas appears largely to be in the hands of professional and other organisations, which may be advantageous as it ensures the skills balance in management. However further detail about training and awareness opportunities associated with this process would have been welcomed in the application. Other areas are entrusted to landowners with support and GIS-based guidance from the city.

The development of the Ooijpolder for biodiversity and recreation is notable. The building of a pedestrian bridge to link this area to the city demonstrates a will to provide greater access to biodiversity sites and green spaces whilst providing adequate space for the protection and increase of wildlife – even though this may be to the detriment of development and economic growth potential.

In areas with fewer opportunities for open green space, the option of encouraging “vertical gardens” is being pursued, opening spaces for biodiversity without losing space for other activities. It is good to learn of Nijmegen’s policy statement that "Nature is not only found outside the city, but rightly earns a place within the city too’’.


MDR0763_Rp028 40 F01

The municipality is closely working on a range of measures to raise awareness and increase capacity amongst citizens empowering them with skills and cash to take responsibility for the management of green spaces and biodiversity opportunities. This starts with environmental education for school children but continues amongst both adults and organisations for adults.

Nijmegen is working creatively to ensure finance is available for the management of urban green spaces and biodiversity spaces, though no clear details are given of budgets and timelines.




Ranking: 8th

Comments:

Air quality assessment is based on national model results as well as measurement stations within the city. Daily ozone and PM10 do not exceed limit values nor does annual PM10, PM2.5 and NO2. At one measurement location NO2 was measured above the limit value of 40 µg/m3 but the city argues that that this measurement point should be omitted as it is located too close to a very busy access road. However, the EU directive has to be fulfilled everywhere.

General downward trends are shown but with variations from year to year. With help of the national Monitoring Tool and local (traffic) input data, a calculation of the contribution of local sources to NO2 and PM10 has been made but results are not adequately represented.

The municipality of Nijmegen was the first town in the Netherlands with an air quality programme "Nijmegen Implementation Programme for Air Quality Improvement 2005-2010" from 2005, and further in 2009 the "Air Quality Implementation Programme 2010-2014". Measures include: biogas for municipal vehicles (presently 52), all city buses operating on natural gas and regional buses on biogas from 2013. The municipality is working with the City Region on a project to facilitate regionally produced biogas for the whole city region. This will contribute to the climate target in addition to improving air quality.

Information about air quality is distributed in the following ways: on the web, reports, air quality map, curriculum on air quality for use in secondary schools.

The objective is to attain the standards for NO2 and to further improve air quality from 2015 onwards.

There are no air quality plans beyond 2014 covered by the already presented plans. There are a number of ideas for further consideration as air quality measures should be coordinated with the sustainability agenda because measures towards air quality improvement have positive effects on climate goals, and also meeting WHO guidelines for particles to reduce the impact of air pollution to public health.




MDR0763_Rp028 41 F01


Ranking: 6th

Comments:

Regarding the present situation, characterized through a strategic noise map for road, rail and industrial noise, no information about Lden values could be analysed because of a lack of data.

Approximately 21.6% of people in Nijmegen are exposed to values Ln > 50 dB and 7.7% are exposed to values Ln > 55 dB. It is stated that about 20% are exposed to values > 45 dB although it is unclear where this value arises from.

No formal quiet areas are defined in the city, but it is stated that several relatively quiet areas (green areas, parks, cemeteries) can be found in the vicinity for 98% of citizens. However it is difficult to verify this data as wide areas of the city seem do not appear to have any identified "quiet area" nearby. Also the use of Lden or both Ld and Le indicators would be a more suitable approach to use for this purpose since people usually profit from quiet areas during daytime, or evening time.

A strong municipal engagement is seen by the large number of acoustic studies and consultations undertaken in the last 5 years. The involvement of different stakeholders is also done together with noise monitoring actions and communicating findings with the citizens. A survey about the effects of noise (traffic, events and neighbours) on citizens is also carried out every 2 years which is a positive best practice.

No comprehensive information is provided in terms of acoustic zoning although reference to an industrial zone with a noise buffer zone (until the 50 dB noise contour) is made. Concerning the noise action plan it is not yet definitely established and a foreseen budget of €80,000 is proposed to help finance noise reduction measures.

The higher values policy carried out by the city should only be used in consolidated areas and not in new planned residential areas. In the last case urban planning approaches such as the mentioned use of noise shielding buildings (which have no sensitive uses) should be encouraged, or noise levels at the sources tried to be reduced.

Future actions consider additional up to now implemented noise reduction measures (30 km/h speed zones, low noise asphalts, façade insulation subsidization), but specific short and long terms objectives should be better described, together with specific actions concerning the definition, management and protection of quiet areas. A quantification of the foreseen reduction in terms of noise exposed people should be prosecuted since it would entail higher coherence with envisaged actions.




Ranking: 4th

Comments:


MDR0763_Rp028 42 F01

Nijmegen states that it has a clear strategy and targets for waste although limited information is provided on its Waste Plan.

However the city has an impressive performance on recycling and currently has the highest recycling levels in the Netherlands. It also currently diverts all biodegradable waste from landfill.

Whilst there is limited information on how the success of recycling has been achieved it is clear that there are good collection systems and networks in place. The city has extensive collection systems for dry recyclables and organic waste which is particularly impressive given the high percentage of high-rise and apartments in the city.

Residual waste is treated in an incinerator producing electricity and although no heat is recovered yet there are plans for this to be in place in 2015. The city demonstrates an absolute commitment to separation of waste as close to source as possible and has a very ambitious target for recycling of 70% by 2020.

There is acknowledgment of the importance of citizens’ behaviour in achieving improvements in waste management and whilst reference is made to citizens, businesses, schools and sports clubs, there is little information provided on specific current or proposed waste prevention or awareness programmes.

Notwithstanding this overall Nijmegen is performing impressively in terms of waste production and management.




Ranking: 5th

Comments:

Measures to improve groundwater quality are very good. Various awareness raising campaigns such as water weeks, water markets and meetings about conscious and efficient water usage to save water are quite innovative. A Water Service Point was set up for answering citizens' questions.

Building Regulations stipulate that new buildings should have water-saving installations (toilet, shower etc.). Some data, e.g. per capita consumption (120 litres/person/day in 2010) refer to the Netherlands or Vitens (the water supply company) and not Nijmegen itself. This lack of city-specific information and some data gaps make it difficult to assess the real performance of the city of Nijmegen.

Leakage seems to refer to visible ones and not those in the distribution system because the latter are difficult to detect and repair within 24h. Water loss through leakages is estimated at 5% Vitens-wide (no data specific to Nijmegen) with the repair of leaks taking place within 24 hours after notification, under normal conditions. Nijmegen Council plans for the improvement of the sewerage system include accelerated replacement of leaking sewers in groundwater protection areas.

A better understanding of water energy nexus could help in achieving energy savings through better water management.


MDR0763_Rp028 43 F01




Ranking: 1st

Comments:

The city is served by Arnhem-South WWTP providing primary and secondary treatment and Nijmegen WWTP providing primary, secondary and tertiary treatment. Both WWTPs comply with the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

99.9% of wastewater form households and companies are connected to the sewer with the remaining 0.1% currently discharging untreated to surface water or soil. However it is planned that the remaining 0.1% will be connected to the sewer system within 5 to 10 years.

In the last decade wastewater treatment has improved as a result of a number of activities including optimization study for the wastewater system of Nijmegen WWTP, video inspections to determine the necessity and urgency of repair, renovation and replacement of sewers, and extension of WTTPs capacities.

Water Service point was set up to allow the communication of all water queries from the public and also to encourage the participation of citizens in the implementation of initiatives such as "Disconnecting private buildings" and "Green roofs".

Future improvements in wastewater treatment rely on sewerage policy and purification policy with defined “Nijmegen Municipal Sewerage Plan” and “Vision for sustainable and efficient purification”, whereas sewage is no longer seen as waste, but as a potentially valuable source of raw materials, energy and reusable water.




Ranking: 4th

Comments:

Nijmegen application shows a thriving city in terms of promoting eco-innovation. However, the narrative of the application is sometimes short of addressing all criteria. The city is one of the few within this year’s applicants that have a yearly report on the state of its environment.

Notable also the green transport fleet with 218 Buses, 45 trolley buses working on green fuel. Together with the green hub project the city has a 10 years concession with a scope of €10 Billion.


MDR0763_Rp028 44 F01

It is also noteworthy that the city has aims to buy all products in a sustainable manner (GPP), i.e. a rate of 100% is planned to be reached by 2015.

The fact that the council has no current plans to set up eco-innovation clusters or strategies to attract public-private partnership / sustainable employment can be seen as a disadvantage in the application, but it must be weighed up against the already existing cooperation with companies and knowledge institutions.




Ranking: 2nd

Comments:

The past situation focusses on a short time period (2008-2012). It would have been interesting to see a longer development path (e.g. from 2000 to 2012) to get a real impression about the development of significant city indicators. The municipality Nijmegen saved 0.89GWh (2.64%) in 2012 compared to 2008; 0.72% is sustainably and locally generated which is even for a dense city quite a small portion.

Some of the city initiatives serve as a role model for the country: "In 2013, the city council adopted a policy, by which the city annually invests €2 million to make own buildings more sustainable (insulation of roofs, walls and floors, insulating glass, energy efficient lighting and installing solar panels).

Taking all measures together, the city expected to save 30% (estimated) energy (9.81GWh and 41.15 kWh per m2). The city committed itself to re-invest the savings in new sustainability measures. The Ministry of Internal Affairs considers this financial strategy a shining example and shows it nationally to other Dutch municipalities and provinces.

With neighbouring municipalities, Nijmegen makes use of synergy effects and economies of scale by procuring sustainably and buying green energy. The municipality "agreed with 16 large leading companies and institutions to realize a structural reduction of around 1.2 million tons of CO2 for 3 years. According to the city, this objective is successfully met. The method has received national recognition and imitation. Furthermore about 100 SMEs received free energy scans by the municipality to get advice about the most cost effective measures and by working with the Environmental Management Law companies are stipulated to take energy saving measures which pay for themselves within 5 years.

The future strategy is comprehensive and clearly described. The target is to become energy neutral by 2045, which is quite ambitious. However, a share of 15% renewable energy in 2020 could be more ambitious to keep track. It is worth mentioning that the strategy development process followed a participatory approach: "In April 2012, the municipality of Nijmegen started with the co-creation process "Power2Nijmegen". The municipality, companies, research institutions, civil organizations and other experts have worked together to find ways to contribute to the ambition of becoming energy neutral. All parties play an important role and in order to achieve the end result. Together they developed a road map to achieve the objective."


MDR0763_Rp028 45 F01




Ranking: 3rd

Comments:

The Sustainability Agenda of 2011 is the leading document for Nijmegen’s actions. The sustainability agenda has a four year cycle. The Vision for 2020 is a continuation of that agenda. There is a consequent process of building further on earlier strategic decisions and ambitions.

The concept of sustainable development seems to be coming back in all sectorial plans and strategies. A good example of such a key program is “Power2Nijmegen”.

Budget for all programs is being reserved on a yearly basis. There is no specific budget for the Vision for 2020 or the Sustainability Agenda, but for each project, which is not within the regular tasks and budget, separate financing is organized.

The environmental department is primarily responsible for the environmental vision. The city has set up an Economic Council (ERN) and through this council the city works with companies, stakeholders and NGO’s.

All relevant council decisions must have an “environmental paragraph” addressing the environmental aspects of the proposal. Nijmegen makes an extensive and good use of all kind of reporting and monitoring tools. There is a yearly environmental reporting to the city council, related to the yearly planning and budgeting cycles.

The city thinks in longer-term goals, like for water security, and spatial development. Nijmegen aims to be Energy neutral in 2045. It is not clear however how this goal will be reached. An organization has been set up to realize the goal. Possible opportunities that have been identified are renovation of houses, cycle path network, etc. There is also a strong connection made between sustainable and economic development. It is unclear if there is someone politically responsible for this cooperation or for sustainable development.

Green procurement is in place. Environmental management or “leading by example” is a general goal of the city, although no further details on implementation have been given.


MDR0763_Rp028 46 F01

4.5 OSLO TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT




Ranking: 1st

Comments:

Oslo has successfully reported emissions (including sectoral disaggregation) and indicators (with very good numeric values) for a long time series, proving to have a solid monitoring system (run annually by the City of Oslo and the OsloGoGreen initiative). This is valuable information for the purposes of policy decision making. Emissions reduction trends seem to be fully justified as a result of the implemented measures.

Oslo’s targets are among the most ambitious (50% reduction by 2030 compared to 1991 and neutral by 2050) and at the same time they appear achievable taking into consideration the present situation and the integrated strategies designed. These are based on simple concepts (zero emissions, blue-green infrastructure and closed loops) that are used to engage citizens and business and on showing a high level of commitment of the city administration, leading by example and making use of green governance. These concepts could serve as an inspiration to other cities.

The city, which is very active in EU and international initiatives, has implemented a number of measures (and provided detailed descriptions, investments and effects) in different sectors, with a special focus on the most contributing ones and in the way to take advantage of the local potential for renewable electricity.

Especially commendable are some innovative actions such as the Business for Climate Network, the financing source for public transport from the toll ring, a tool to map emissions based on energy consumption and the compulsory use of renewable power generated electricity in ships docked at the harbour.

The measures presented for the future seem in line with the planned strategy and in most cases budget allocation seems secure, giving continuity to the city transformation.

Adaptation has been in the agenda of Oslo since 2008 and an overall climate adaptation strategy is being developed. Oslo is part of the UN programme “International strategy for disaster reduction” and is working to become more resilient.





MDR0763_Rp028 47 F01

Ranking: 1st

Comments:

Oslo generally presents the most comprehensive and ambitious efforts to provide for greener urban transport of all the candidate cities, addressing nearly all elements suggested in the application form, and demonstrating impressive results as well as plans for the future

Between 2005 and 2012 the car share of traffic in the city has decreased significantly (from 45% to 35% share), and public transport has increased (from 20% to 30% share); there has been no change in the cycling share, although a bicycle network with 122km lanes has been built since 1999. 55% of public transport is electric using renewable energy, while a large part of the bus fleet uses low emission fuels.

Especially significant measures include the use of a toll ring to collect revenue which is increasingly used to provide funding for public transport and bicycle investments; significant extensions to the public transport system including the opening of new tram line and not least the pioneering efforts to promote the use of alternatives to petrol and diesel cars. This is currently making Oslo the city with the highest share of electric vehicles in the world, due to a combination of national and local initiatives such as support to install chargers, free electricity at municipal parking places, and free passage through toll rings and use of bus lanes.

Other important measures include a significant densification in the city centre to counteract sprawl, and the application of Universal Design principle to make the city more physically accessible to all.

A set of goals for transport has been defined, some quantitative, verifiable, and relatively ambitious CO2 (50% reduction between 1991 and 2030), others more qualitative, and less verifiable (e.g. ‘make it easy to live without a car’). A new long term plan for concentrated urban development around public transport nodes is to be adopted at regional level in 2014, but limited details are provided of this.

Investments to increase public transport capacity by a further 30% have been committed. Metro extension to new development area with new financial solutions is explored; and more priority in traffic for public transport is planned.

The city has requested that all buses are shifted away from fossil fuels by 2020. Extension of electric power for all docking ships in the harbour will be provided. Continuation of measures to promote electric vehicles up to 2017 with budget supporting an expected tripling effect. A large budget is allocated to raise cycling shares from 4% to 12% of modal split. Freight consolidation terminals and electric distribution is mentioned but no commitments are reported.




Ranking: 1st

Comments:


MDR0763_Rp028 48 F01

Oslo is situated in between the Oslo Fjord and the large interconnected tracts of forests called “Marka”. The fjord and the forests, combined with the city’s parks, recreational areas, waterways and islands, constitute a unique blue-green structure, providing recreational opportunities for Oslo’s residents, as well as providing valuable habitats which contribute to biodiversity.

The fact that the “Marka” has been preserved as a nature and outdoor recreation area is the result of deliberate municipal policies that enjoy wide consensus among the residents of Oslo. In 2009 a dedicated law strengthened the protection of “Marka” against developments.

Oslo’s blue-green network is made up by 10 major waterways with adjoining greenbelts and a comprehensive system of parks and greenway corridors across the city. The current Urban Greenway Plan is based on plans dating back from 1934, and includes 280 km of greenways and coastal trails, of which 220km have been constructed. Oslo has committed a lot of resources on developing the city greenway network and coastal trails as well as re-opening waterways.

Oslo has a fast growing population which creates the need for more housing, commercial areas, social and technical infrastructure and new green infrastructure. Managing this growth has been the main challenge to city development in Oslo over the past decade. The Municipal Master Plan defines how Oslo is to develop. It promotes a compact urban development pattern, concentrated on public transport nodes, through densification and transformation projects within the existing built-up zone. The densification cannot reduce urban green structure nor reduce access to “Marka” or the Fjord.

Over the past decades the city has carried out several large projects, some of which are still ongoing. Two projects worth mentioning are 1) the transformation of a former harbour area into a vibrant urban area with housing, business, culture and recreational facilities. This new, interconnected city structure – with high-quality urban landscapes, parks and a 10 km waterfront promenade – will connect the city with the fjord. The second project involves the revitalization of the Grorud Valley which is an area with some environmental problems, and challenges concerning living conditions. The latter has involved to a large extent the participation of locals in the planning process.

Oslo has an integrated approach to planning and with a clear focus on green infrastructure, urban ecology, integration of land use and transport, quality of life and ecosystem services. Moreover the city works with planning tools and is developing these further. Oslo also puts a strong emphasis on the transfer of knowledge through education programmes.




Ranking: 3rd

Comments:

There is a good statement of the context and status of Oslo’s wildlife in terms of physical environment, land use pattern and legal situation at different levels of its planning hierarchy. Fast population growth is quoted as a major pressure on wildlife. Good quality GIS mapping, including habitat mapping, underpins many projects; almost 10% of Oslo is subject to formal protection of nature – an indication of the city’s wildlife is given.


MDR0763_Rp028 49 F01

Oslo has made a significant commitment to nature and biodiversity in its immediate hinterland by approving plans and policies which emphasize the importance of biodiversity. There is guidance in place to ensure that forestry production methods and forest management are conducted in cooperation with relevant NGOs and in a manner to protect biodiversity.

The practical involvement of Oslo’s citizens working with NGOs – and Oslo’s school children in the management of semi-natural areas and waterways is very encouraging.

A new Municipal Master Plan: Oslo towards 2030 is being introduced, which aims to make the city “smart, resilient and green”. Policies here will include not permitting population growth to result in the loss of green spaces and the safeguarding of the most biologically important areas through zoning. Action Plans are in place for environment and climate, green roofs and invasive species (but not much on timelines for action). There are brief references to funding.

The revised Green Structure Plan is expanding the size of biodiversity protection areas. As part of this, there is an ambitious plan for re-opening culverted water courses across the city (30 stretches of waterway) with work starting in September 2013 and is continuing. On these and other degraded waterways a range of special protection measures (ecological restoration) are being identified and introduced in line with the Water Framework Directive and fisheries management best practice.




Ranking: 1st

Comments:

Air pollution is primarily of local origin as long range transport is relatively low but temperature inversions during winter cause elevated concentrations due to low air exchange.

Oslo has a comprehensive air quality monitoring network consisting of 8 street stations, 3 urban background stations and 2 regional stations. There are no exceedances of ozone, annual and daily PM10, and PM2.5. There has been a downward trend for daily PM10 and it has not been exceeded in 6 years. Main local sources to particles are wood burning and road wear due to studded tyres. Annual NO2 is exceeded at 4 out of 7 street stations with high levels (up to 75 µg/m3) and has been increasing due to shift to more diesel vehicles.

An Air Quality Plan has been in place since 2011. Measures include the regulation of studded tyres: charges on studded tyres, road cleaning and use of dust suppressant, speed reduction, regulation of wood burning stoves - grants supporting replacement and urban development and transportation planning: toll ring, densification, improving the public transport system and cycle network, parking restrictions, and city bike scheme. Effects of measures are quantified and have been effective in reducing daily PM10.

Oslo has a leading role in promoting alternative fuels especially electric vehicles on a large scale: Oslo has introduced biogas buses (currently 87 buses), diesel-hybrids (18 buses), and 5 hydrogen buses are undergoing trials. In 2012, the City Council decided that by 2015, municipal cars will use zero emission technology (e.g. electric vehicles). 1,000 charging points have been established and strong incentives are given to users (free parking in municipal car parks, access to driving in bus lanes, and


MDR0763_Rp028 50 F01

exemption from toll ring charges). Incentives are both from national and local government. Oslo has the largest number of electric vehicles in any city in the world (3,357).

Oslo provides information about air quality on the web and has carried out information campaigns on the studded tyre charge and grants for replacing wood burning stoves to increase awareness and change behaviour.

Oslo has the objective to comply with EU limit values for annual NO2 (no year stated) and objectives to lead by example in promoting low and zero-emission technologies in 2020 for Oslo public bus company and all city taxis.

Interesting measures include; development of transport infrastructure (Oslo package 3, 2007-2028) and the plan will also reduce number of people exposed to daily PM10. Oslo public bus company will only use renewable energy by 2020 (biogas and at least Euro V standards, and electricity). Other measures include plans for more efficient goods distribution, increase in the city bike scheme, and in 2014 the conversion of 50% of street parking spaces in the city centre to charging points for electric vehicles and all city taxis are to use zero-emission technology by 2020.




Ranking: 2nd

Comments:

Noise exposure in Oslo is mainly from road and railway traffic sources. Shares of people exposed to Lden values > 55 dB and Ln values > 45 dB are reported as being respectively equal to 62% and 72%, which are considerable high values (2011 data). A percentage of 35% is given for the population share living within 300m of quiet areas, which are formally defined, managed and protected. Oslo was one of the first European cities to achieve this.

Due to a substantial increase of about 10% in the number of inhabitants in the last five years (and 20% increase in the last decade), the number of people exposed respectively to Lden values higher than 55 dB and to Ln values higher than 45 dB increased 5% and 6%, since 2006.

Permitted indoor noise levels as well as permitted environmental noise levels in protected outdoor environments (Lden limit value 55 dB) have become stricter. However approximately 700 exposed schools, pre-schools and hospitals subjected to Lden values higher than 55 dB are reported. Oslo has developed noise maps for the actual situation and also for the prospective situation linked with area planning, which is a very positive approach.

Most measures included in the 2008-2013 Noise Action Plan have been implemented, comprising of significant noise reduction measures, communication actions, urban planning and building development guidelines, stakeholder involvement and the selection and preservation of quiet areas.

There is a great effort being made concerning the definition and preservation of quiet areas, which include analysis, surveys, information and pilot projects such as low noise asphalts in nearby streets and the development of an innovative method for soundscape mapping. The city has also developed interesting and valuable fact sheets and brochures on quiet areas in general, as well as on each


MDR0763_Rp028 51 F01

individual area, being one of the several communication actions with the citizens undertaken by the municipality.

Other communication actions include online noise maps and online quiet areas maps, dedicated e-mail account for requests about quiet areas, websites for communicating about noise and quiet areas and for submitting noise complaints directly.

The Noise Action Plan 2008-2013 establishes short and long term objectives, such as achieving 10 % reduction in noise annoyance by 2020, compared to 1999 levels, reducing the number of people exposed to indoor noise levels exceeding LpAeq24h 38 dB by 30 % by 2020, compared to 2005 levels, maintaining and improving sound conditions in quiet areas with the ultimate goal of enhancing the population’s health and wellbeing by preventing and reducing damaging noise exposure.

This Plan is based on a thorough evaluation of the current one and presents more concrete measures focusing on five main areas: communication with the citizens, prioritized reduction of noise at the sources derived from traffic, urban area and transport planning and building development planning, improvement of the acoustical quality at sensitive buildings such as homes, schools and hospitals, and strengthen the recreational aspect of quiet areas.

Specific actions to reduce the impact of noise are detailed together with budgetary information. Such actions comprise of sustainable urban planning, enhanced public transportation, new tunnels, new trams, new electric vehicle charge points and the strengthening of transport by the use of bicycles and pedestrians.




Ranking: 1st

Comments:

Waste management in Oslo is considered in a wider context with respect to climate, ecology and the environment generally and whilst there is a Waste Strategy and a Waste Plan in place they also link to wider strategy documents.

Oslo works to advance in the waste hierarchy and waste prevention is embedded in waste policies.

The city has a good recycling level and whilst it is slightly surprising that it is not higher with the extensive collections systems in place, a higher target has been set for 2018. Reuse is quantified at 1.42% in 2012 which is very positive.

Extensive waste prevention programmes are outlined and these are often carried out in collaboration with external stakeholders including with other cities. These programmes include reuse initiatives, general awareness raising and waste stream specific initiatives (e.g. food waste). The effectiveness of the campaigns has been measured and tracked and have been demonstrated to be effective.


MDR0763_Rp028 52 F01

There has been extensive investment (€400m) in infrastructure including an optical sorting plant (world’s largest), biogas plant, new large recycling station (currently under construction) and upgrade of incineration capacity and efficiency. Biogas produced at the biogas plant is used as fuel for buses.

There appears to be constant reinvention and refreshment of the overall waste management system through additional investment in infrastructure and also extensive awareness campaigns and targets are set going forward for reuse, material recycling, customer satisfaction etc. The municipality is leading by example with each agency being environmentally certified and continually improving their own waste management. Overall the application presented a very impressive performance in waste management and consumption.




Ranking: 4th

Comments:

The importance of storm water management has been well understood and development of tools is planned for a better management, including a 3D model of the city used for surface run off simulations, future plans to develop this further and regulations imposed on large developers to plan for storm water management in the area. The future plans are well conceived to cover different dimensions of water management.

Water consumption seems to be decreasing but still high per/capita consumption. Water consumption has declined from 200 litres per capita per day in 1987 to 160 litres per capita per day in 2012. As consumption data in households is calculated, it is difficult to assess the real achievement in water consumption over last few years. The leakage has been reduced significantly, halved since 1995, but still remains quite high (36%). The pipes renewal rate in 2012 was 1% and the renewal works have made use of innovative pipe scanner technologies to detect corrosion inside and outside the water mains.

A better understanding of water energy nexus could help in achieving energy savings through better water management. The water coming into Oslo is used to produce electricity at a hydropower facility and also energy is produced through heat pumps and biogas extraction in the wastewater system. Optimisation at a water treatment plant in the city has resulted in a 5 to 10% energy reduction for the treatment process.

Oslo actively encourages citizens to drink tap water, rather than bottled water which has travelled great distance, and has carried out awareness raising activities in schools and at festivals with the distribution of drinking water bottles.





MDR0763_Rp028 53 F01

Ranking: 6th

Comments:

Oslo is served by two WWTPs with mechanical, chemical and biological treatment. The wastewater load is composed of 80% arising from household sources, 20% from shops, offices and small production facilities. 99.6% of the population is connected to the public sewer system while the rest mainly have blackwater tanks and biofilters for filtration and polishing of greywater.

Oslo is required to comply with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) through the EEA agreement. WWTPs meet national and UWWTD requirements including phosphorous and nitrogen removal.

Bekkelaget WWTP, which had insufficient capacity to comply with discharge requirements in period 2007-2011, was optimized in 2012 to accommodate increased wastewater load. Design capacity of two WWTPs (790,000 p.e.) currently matches the actual total wastewater load. Considering the future population growth it is expected to be overloaded in the future. However preliminary project plans have been developed for the expansion of the currently overloaded Bekkelaget WWTP.

Reference is made to sludge management that is claimed to be world-class. Supporting data is not provided. It is indicated that two WWTPs process the sludge differently. Considering energy efficiency, Bekkelaget WWTP is energy neutral and VEAS WWTP is working to achieve the same but the undertaken measures are not described.

In 2013 a new Master plan for Sewage and Water Environment is developed for the period 2014-2030 to reach the targets set by Urban Ecology Programme and legal requirements, and is currently undergoing consultation process. Future investments include renovating the sewer system, expanding the treatment plants and the modernization of the inner city sewer system.




Ranking: 1st

Comments:

Oslo clearly states its targets and objectives such as becoming the greenest city in the world or becoming a closed loop and zero emission city by 2050.

The city commits to sharing their experience and becoming a main supplier of environmental solutions in the green market, as well as being very active in involving young people through schools/universities and awareness raising to work on eco-innovation and monitoring and greening the city.


MDR0763_Rp028 54 F01

Oslo has also secured capital and describes a range of initiatives in place to promote eco-innovation and green jobs. The city is well connected to the region and involves the business community in meeting the targets – an example of this is seen in the Business for Climate initiative.

The Oslo initiative “leading by example” is an exemplary way of sharing the solutions and best practices adopted by the city. The city’s’ future plans are also very solid and supported by a realistic commitment of money. The city wants to be 100% municipal car fleet; zero-emission public transport and establish a network of collaborating eco innovation clusters.




Ranking: 3rd

Comments:

Oslo can make use of the specific renewable energy potential of the country (Norway) and can build up the electricity system based on renewable energies: Norway is connected to the Nordic and European grids, but due to ample hydroelectric supply, most electricity used in Oslo on a net yearly basis is generated from hydroelectric sources.

There are already national driven activities in the field of energy performance (e.g. strict national building regulations, €8 million grants for the phasing out of oil-fired heating in private buildings) which facilitate a transition from direct electric heating to renewable energy sources, thus releasing electric energy for other uses, as well as for export to Europe).

Oslo follows a strong strategy to phase out fossil fuel heating and is trying to build up mainly renewable energy based heating systems.

In this context, Oslo provides city specific measures: "The City of Oslo’s Climate and Energy Fund offers financial support to homeowners who want to save energy, or convert from fossil heating to more energy efficient systems, based on renewable sources (€8 million for loans, €8 million for grants).

Since 2008, 1,000 out of approximately 13,860 oil-fired boilers in private homes have been replaced by renewable energy generators. By 2020, fossil heating is to be phased out in all private homes in Oslo.

In order to reach the target, Oslo will continue its public information campaigns and grants strategy. The strategy is particularly convincing as the municipal buildings have already done a huge step to achieve this goal: "In 2008, the City Council decided to phase out fossil heating in all municipal buildings by 2012. The target has almost been reached. 170 municipal buildings have exchanged oil-fired heating for renewable energy. 33 buildings still use heating-oil, but all are in the process of phasing it out."

The city also serves as a cutting edge example for other Scandinavian cities (and particularly cities in Norway). Good examples in this regard are passive house standards in new municipal buildings where Oslo is leading the way and testing energy solutions (including eco-efficient solutions).


MDR0763_Rp028 55 F01




Ranking: 2nd

Comments:

The City of Oslo has a well-developed, hierarchical planning system, with vision, strategies and sectorial action plans. The Municipal Master Plan includes a vision of Oslo being “one of the most environmental sustainable cities in the world”.

The overall policy for environmental management of municipal activities has been embedded in the Urban Ecology Programme (UEP) since 1998. The Urban Ecology Programme 2011-2026 has as its overall objective: “Oslo will be a sustainable urban community where everyone is entitled to clean air, clean water and access to attractive outdoor recreation areas”.

Strategies and action plans for different sectors have been adopted, in order to ensure that targets set in the UEP are met.

The department report yearly to the City Council in order to set priorities and budget. There is a structural Performance Management System in place.

Most Strategies and Action Plans are evaluated every four years – in connection with the revision of the Municipal Master Plan. The evaluations are conducted by the City’s experts, research institutions, external consultants, and through user surveys.

Citizens are involved in the city planning in general and relevant stakeholders are involved in the development of Oslo’s environmental vision and action plans – through open meetings and public hearings, interaction on the Internet, social media, working-groups and networks.

The city administration is leading by example. More than 60% of the municipal services have a certified environmental management system. Green procurement is widely implemented and Oslo uses renewable energy for almost all own buildings.


MDR0763_Rp028 56 F01

4.6 UMEÅ TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT




Ranking: 3rd

Comments:

Umeå has proven to have a good monitoring system providing information on emissions trends by sector, and with good numeric values. Changes in trends have been reasonably explained based on the effects of implemented actions.

The targets of the city are ambitious on the mid-term (50% reduction by 2025). The holistic approach of the climate action plan (2009) that complements both the energy and air quality action plans, the progressive role model of the city at EU and international level (LIFE Green Cities for Europe and European peer city for the RFSC, Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities), the active involvement and participation of all the city actors and the innovation spirit create a great context on the fight against climate change.

The city started implementing measures to improve district heating sustainably decades ago. There have been interventions in all the relevant sectors and they seem properly monitored, but more information on the investments would be welcomed.

Future plans are based on the mentioned action plans that complement each other (energy, air quality and GHG contribution of the municipality) and on the long term town planning is key to reduce the city impact.

Aware of its potential for renewable electricity, the city sees many opportunities for electric vehicle growth and has the objective of having a climate neutral energy system by 2018 and become the world leader in sustainable construction in cold climate by 2020 (a vision that has been developed with all stakeholders and shows the will for leadership).

The city states that adaptation is not a priority due to the cold climate and land rising in their territory, and focuses only on flood prevention and risk assessments. A wider approach to the risks of climate change further than just temperature and see level rise is encouraged.




Ranking: 3rd


MDR0763_Rp028 57 F01

Comments:

Umeå is located at two major European highways and serves as a freight transport hub for Northern Sweden. A new rail freight terminal, together with newly opened rail line has doubled the capacity for rail based freight delivery to northern Sweden with a much reduced local and global environmental impact. A large ring road project is underway to further relieve the city centre of through traffic, and allow for priority to non-motorized transport.

Umeå has an extensive cycle network with some 265km designated lanes along roads, partly separated from car traffic, and in addition some recreational trails; the supply of public transport is not as extensive and the share of car use is relatively high. The time series for modal shares in 1998 and 2006 shows a decline for green modes while the car share increased but the city expects this trend to have been significantly reversed in the upcoming 2014 survey.

The city has several current plans related to transport including for urban development, traffic safety, public transport, cycling, parking and NOx control. A key element in the urban development plan is to concentrate growth within 5 km of city centre and along the public transport corridors.

The city involves itself in a range of transport innovation projects including a superfast charging system for buses, measures to allow cycling in cold weather and green parking purchase experiment. There are extensive efforts to involve citizens in rethinking mobility and transport planning. One such campaign invites citizens to report on their “most ridiculous car drive”. Umeå is a member of CIVITAS, the Biofuel Region, and several other green networks related to transport.

Future plans emphasize a goal to reduce car dependence; the city’s Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) is “woven into the comprehensive plan”; and contains a mix of technical innovations and actions, and measures addressing mobility behaviour. An extensive list of goals, measures and strategies for urban development, public transport, cycling, parking and traffic safety is presented. Some goals are clear as well as ambitious such as doubling the market share of public transport by 2020 and to achieve zero traffic casualties; others are more directional or qualitative.

For a few of the planned measures there is information about actual commitments and budgets, although not for most. A monitoring system including measurable targets and performance measures is illustrated but not explained.




Ranking: 7th

Comments:

During the last 5 years intensive work has been done to develop land-use policies and strategies for a sustainable development of Umeå. Most of the land-use plans were adopted in 2012 and 2013, raising needs for more detailed action plans implementing the strategies and policies for sustainable land-use.

The detailed comprehensive plan for Umeå’s future growth area includes a green structure and green structure map.


MDR0763_Rp028 58 F01

Umeå has experienced a high population increase and it is expected that the population will increase further in the future. The city focuses on limiting urban sprawl and applies the necessary densification policies to limit soil sealing and develop a dense and attractive city centre. The plan for Umeå’s future growth area indicates clear objectives for the protection and distribution of green areas in a denser city.

Monitoring progress towards sustainable development is prioritized in Umeå. Umeå works with RFSC, Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities, and is currently invited to develop the RFSC monitoring tool. Umeå also has started a project for biotope mapping.

For the future Umeå aims to apply a holistic method; continuously monitoring the effects of planning and building. Umeå has very good strategic plans, and it will be interesting to see to what extent these measures can be translated into actions and put in practice.



Ranking: 6th

Comments:

Umeå have provided a good account of their natural environment and factors which determine the nature of habitats available. Forestry is quoted as a major pressure upon biodiversity, affecting its wildlife. This section also presents Umeå’s vision of protecting its natural resources by monitoring, restoration and conservation, and presents the hierarchy of designations of relevance here, with Natura 2000 areas and other site types; it is stated that management plans are in place for all of these. A map of protected areas and other land uses is given.

Umeå has six objectives for biodiversity and its success criteria (specifications) for these are clearly set out, together with actions undertaken or in progress – there are also useful notes on progress with actions.

A GIS database exists for the city and its immediate region. A map of green structure shows sites with nature worth protecting and others which have been designated, together with the corridors linking them, as appropriate. There is clear differentiation between recreation areas and biodiversity protection areas.

A set of cases demonstrating recent work are presented: compensatory measures associated with a railway line, river restoration (Savaran, Ume) and landscape mapping along the Ume as a basis for future management. These demonstrate a systematic, planned approach with monitoring and work with partners. A number of examples are given of work to raise public awareness of biodiversity protection and to work with schoolchildren.

Surprisingly, Umeå does not take full advantage of the space available in the application form to describe future plans, and there is lack of detail on policy and planning measures, especially timelines and budget allocations. It would be interesting, for example, to know what plans might be in place to protect and enhance biodiversity within the city’s designated growth area. It is not clear whether the “activity plan” referred to has been implemented and how it is funded. Umeå’s application focusses mainly on work associated with birds and fish and their habitats, almost exclusively in protected areas – it would be interesting to hear whether there is also species-related work with amphibians, bats and other small mammals within the context of the urban area, for example: survey, monitoring or shelter creation.


MDR0763_Rp028 59 F01




Ranking: 6th

Comments:

Umeå has a street station and an urban background monitor station and is also represented by regional background stations further away. The only limit value that is exceeded in recent years is the annual NO2 at the street station.

However, in 2012 the concentration of NO2 was not exceeded due to warmer winter weather than normal and resulting in lower levels in streets. A map of the city with annual NO2 modelled concentrations along the road works shows that most other streets in the city do not violate the limit value. Maps are also presented for annual and daily PM10.

Data is presented on the contribution of sources to air quality levels. For NO2 the contribution from long range transport is small with road traffic being the main source. The regional background contribution is about 6%, urban background about 20% and local 74% of the NO2 level.

For PM10 the regional background is higher than for NO2: 25-30%, urban background 15-20% and local 55% of the PM10 level. Levels of ozone, annual and daily PM10 and annual PM2.5 are relatively low.

However, in 2013 the daily PM10 limit was just exceeded due to the unusually late spring in combination with unusually low precipitation. Dust and particles from a construction site close to the monitoring station may also have contributed. Temperature inversions during winter causes elevated concentrations due to poor air exchange but Umeå is also favoured by its northern location with very low long range transport of air pollution.

An air quality management plan has been in place since 2009 and focuses on reducing NO2 emissions with 17 proposed actions (two of which have been cancelled). Measures include: ring road to redistribute traffic from roads in city centre with air quality problems to roads with less traffic. Traffic management such as ITS: Signs will be connected to the air quality measuring station in the city centre, continuously receiving information about the air quality, and when concentrations are too high, messages will be displayed that inform drivers about the situation and proposes more sustainable routes for them to drive. Prohibition of large goods vehicles passing through the city centre. A low-emission zone for heavy vehicles will be implemented in the central parts of Umea starting April 2014 to restrict polluting vehicles. Public transport has increased by 55% since 2005 and land-use planning attempts to build a dense city. Municipal mobility management office called Be Green has been established to make information and campaigns to enhance walking, cycling and public transportation. This plan is due to be fully implemented by 2018. Quantification of impacts to air quality of the different measures is not provided but listed measures seem effective.

Information to the public is available on a website and an air quality demonstrator (rounded screen on a pillar) has been placed in the city centre to inform about air quality, and at the same time it functions as an interactive screen where people can play video games that also teaches them about how sustainable transportation can improve the air quality.

The long term objective is to reduce the concentration of NO2 emissions to levels below the air quality limit.


MDR0763_Rp028 60 F01




Ranking: 3rd

Comments:

Umeå has significant experience in noise management as it has been surveying noise since the early 1980s. The latest noise mapping (strategic) was completed in 2011, for road, railway, air and industrial noise sources. Main noise sources are derived from road traffic and to a much lesser extent from railway sources.

Noise exposure from air traffic and from industrial activities is negligible. Reported shares of the population exposed to Lden values > 55 dB and > 65 dB are very low, respectively 28% and 3.7%. No data for exposure to Ln values > 45 dB is provided, but population shares of respectively 14% and 4.8% exposed to Ln values > 50 dB and > 55 dB are also low.

Data concerning the percentage of citizens living within 300m of quiet areas isn't available yet but information is given on various existing quiet areas (parks, recreation areas) distributed within the city area having considerably low noise levels (< 45 dBA, or even < 40 dBA LAeq(24 h)) and it is stated that in central Umeå there are parks that have noise levels of about 50 dBA at half their surface or more, which could be a very interesting starting point for the formal definition, management and protection of quiet areas.

Although not using any specific acoustic territory classification, the long term goals in the Noise Action Plan adopted in 2013 focus particularly on 3 classes: residential areas, schools and parks and recreation areas (quiet areas). The city adopted urban planning and building development guidelines (requirement of low indoor noise levels, existence of quiet courtyards, dwellings must have a side facing a quiet area or a quiet courtyard) in order to improve the urban sound quality. The preservation of existing quiet areas (e.g. Bäcksjön) is considered in the city's noise action plan and comprehensive plan.

Specific road noise reduction measures such as noise barriers, speed reduction, traffic rerouting in major thoroughfares, through-traffic ban of heavy vehicles in the city centre and mobility planning and regulations have been implemented. Novel approaches, such as a soundscape-like installation, inspired by the works of a well-known Swedish artist, developed at Umeå central train station, are noteworthy and should be further adopted in future actions.

Significant long term objectives are detailed in the Noise Action Plan 2013 - 2018: the first objective concerns residential environments, whereby noise levels indoors should not exceed 30 dBA (LAeq) and 45 dBA maximum at night-time. The second objective concerns pre-schools and schools, whereby noise levels in playgrounds (55dBA) and indoors (30dBA) should not exceed guidelines for traffic noise, and the third objective concerns parks and recreational areas, whereby the parks shall have lower noise levels than the surrounding urban environment and half the park’s surface areas shall have noise levels below 55 LAeq dBA.


MDR0763_Rp028 61 F01




Ranking: 2nd

Comments:

Umeå's 'Waste Plan 2020' sets the guidelines for waste management in the municipality over the next 10 years and waste management is considered in a wider context of sustainable development and environmental protection.

Waste management is based on the waste hierarchy and information is provided on a number of waste prevention and awareness initiatives. These include engagement with households and schools and all municipal employees must also have completed waste education. The city also partakes in European projects and national initiatives.

There are extensive systems for the collection of source separated waste including direct collection from homes together with a network of recycling centres and recycling stations. Food waste is collected from all households and treated at an anaerobic digestion plant which produces fuel for vehicles. As a result Umeå is achieving a relatively high recycling rate.

Further diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill has been achieved as a result of national bans on combustible and organic wastes to landfill and residual waste is treated at an energy efficient incinerator with combined heat and power output.

The city has a sophisticated charging system in place with a base charge, a variable weight charge and a vessel fee to encourage waste reduction and waste recycling.

It would be good to have more information on the specific proposals that will take recycling to the next level however overall Umeå is performing extremely well and has a mature and effective waste management system.




Ranking: 6th

Comments:

In Umeå, there is an efficient system for the treatment of wastewater and stormwater. There are also some interesting aware raising initiatives such as a carwash campaign, where citizens reduce pressure on the stormwater network from street run-off by using a designated car wash instead of on street were rewarded for their choice.


MDR0763_Rp028 62 F01

Being a water abundant region, there is not much focus on reducing water consumption, Significant reduction has been achieved in recent years from 258.9 litres per capita per day in 2004, but still per capita figures remain quite high at 239.3 in 2012. Sectoral breakdown was not available to analyse this information in detail.

Another area where improvements can be made is on reducing leakage losses with of losses in 2002 of 1.411 million m3 to 1.386 million m3 in 2012.

Umeå are concentrating on reducing the energy consumption for water use in the city through initiatives such as the optimisation of ventilation and heat pump systems and pump frequency controls, resulting in decreased energy use.

There is an apparent reduced need to concentrate on water conservation and water recycling in the city as water is considered to be an abundant resource. For a more sustainable water system this area may need further consideration in future.




Ranking: 5th

Comments:

90.5% of population of Umeå is connected to collecting system and WWTPs. Umeå is served with 1 large UWWTP and 17 smaller WWTPs. UWWTP and four other WWTP have secondary treatment. For the remaining 13 WWTPs this information is not provided in the application.

The UWWTP complies with the national legislation implementing requirements of Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive except for nitrogen removal. For the 17 smaller WWTPs this information is not provided however.

A positive example of raising the public awareness is the Carwash Campaign demonstrating how residents can improve storm water quality.

Total wastewater load decreased in 2012, compared to 2011, as treatment of dairy wastewater was introduced prior to the discharge into the wastewater network. There is no record of other significant measures implemented in past decade to improve wastewater treatment. However, a large redevelopment of UWWTP is underway, including maintenance of the collecting system and energy saving measures, to expand capacity and improve performance.

Future activities are mostly related to the expansion and reconstruction of the UWWTP triggered by the current loads into the plant, which in periods exceeded its design capacity, and the need to accommodate growing number of connections and new environmental requirements.




MDR0763_Rp028 63 F01


Ranking: 3rd

Comments:

Umeå’s application is clearly written with concrete goals, information and numbers.

The city is committed to becoming a leader in green sectors especially through the city owned company ‘Kompetensspridning’. The company was established in 2009 with the aim of sharing knowledge and also making business using this knowledge. The company is also part of future plans of the city as it will be used as a test centre for new clean tech products and services.

The city established a network for sustainable construction and real estate management in cold climates, with the vision of becoming a world leader in the sector by 2020. This is a good example of how becoming green and innovative can also be a business opportunity.

The application covers the majority of the criteria listed in the application form. Umeå has published green reports regularly in the past (until 2007). The publication of these reports was stopped for some years and the city is now in the process of developing a report with accounts for sustainability.

The city had a goal of having nearly all housing as zero energy houses by 2020; the goal was reached in 2010.

Umeå has a vast network of charging point for electric cars (also thanks to the pre heater for the engines) and it plans to make the network even bigger and with faster charging. The main focus of the city’s infrastructural development seems to be directed to the transport sector and therefore not following a more holistic approach.




Ranking: 1st

Comments:

In comparison to many other applicants, Umeå is a significantly growing city with a strong ambition not to exceed current energy consumption level that necessarily requests a strong energy efficiency strategy/policy. Energy use in municipal buildings decreased by 20% (2001 to 2013).

The city of Umeå serves as a cutting edge city in the country (and has more ambitious targets): e.g. the municipality and municipality owned housing company Bostaden have both decided energy use in new buildings shall not exceed 65kWh/m2/year, compared to national guidelines for northern Sweden 130 kWh/m2/year, as contributions to EPB Directive (2010/31/EU). This more ambitious target is commendable even considering that Umeå is a city with a predominantly modern built environment. In addition, Umeå’s energy system (Umeå Energi, the municipality owned utilities company) offers 100% renewable electricity to its customers, with guarantees of origin. "Umeå's energy system far exceeds Sweden’s national targets in Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EU)."


MDR0763_Rp028 64 F01

It is particularly worth mentioning that Umeå has a very strong cogeneration approach. Nearly all municipal buildings are connected to district heating and buildings located outside the network use bioenergy or heat pumps. Umeå has invested strategically in infrastructure in district heating since the 1960s and today 80% of the buildings in Umeå are connected. 100% of heat produced in CHP is used as district heating or district cooling.

The past performance examples from Umeå are very convincing. This is true for the big energy performance contracting project, mentioned in the application form, and also for the sustainable Alidhem pilot (district) project that comprises not only energy related measures but follows a holistic approach (sustainable neighbourhood, comfortable and safe environment). The latter one (improvement of living standards) is very important to citizens. As outlined in their application form, Umeå is going to continue a comprehensive strategy including smart city planning and participatory elements. However, at the moment the description of the overall strategy is still less concrete.

Umeå has a comparatively long tradition in energy related activities (e.g. energy plan from 2003) and has already built up a cooperation scheme with relevant stakeholders in the city. The municipality provides free energy and climate advice for companies, organizations and citizens. The main purpose is to raise awareness on climate change and give personalized advice on how to switch to more sustainable lifestyles.




Ranking: 6th

Comments:

There are 6 strategic long-term objectives for Umeå; one of which strives for sustainable growth until 2050. The “City Vision 2050” is approved by the City Council, widely accepted and integrated in all sectorial policy fields. The Vision 2050 is the basis for the yearly budget discussions in the council. All relative action plans and strategies have been orientated towards Vision 2050 and to the Aalborg Commitments. Relevant city plans have been adopted by the city council. The Comprehensive Spatial Plan was adopted in 2011.

Some of the activities in Umeå are integrated in the regular budget, for other activities a separate project budget has been dedicated. There is a system of periodical reporting to the City Council. Through its active participation in the Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities (RFSC), Umeå is leading in monitoring in Europe and it is planning to develop a more simplified system.

Stakeholders and civil society are being involved in strategic plans. In some cases Umeå has gone further than required. A targeted dialogue was set up with specific interest groups and involvement of the wider public was initiated.

The City administration is working according to a quality management system to safeguard continuity and improvements. Cross-departmental working groups are being implemented. There is an Environmental Strategic Group, at director level, involving 5 services. They also coordinate the cooperation with external stakeholders such as the university.


MDR0763_Rp028 65 F01

An example of the innovative power of the city is the concept of “green parking purchase”, which is a combination of legal, financial and spatial planning aspects to motivate commuters to use public transport in a structural sense.

APPENDIX A

Application Form for EGC 2016 Title

Application form for the European Green Capital Awa rd 2016

City Introduction & Context

Give an introductory overview of the city and a general background to the application.

Discuss positive and negative factors that have influenced the quality of the environment within the city and its surrounding area.

The city's infrastructure plan should be briefly explained.

Applicants are advised to include any former or outstanding environmental legal proceedings in this section.

(max. 1000 words)

1. Climate change: Mitigation & Adaptation

Refer to Section 2.1 of the Guidance Note

1A. Present Situation

Describe the present situation in relation to CO2 emissions, including any relevant disadvantages or constraints resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area. Where available, information/data should be provided from previous years (5 – 10) to show trends.

Provide figures for, and comment on, the following specific indicators for the city:

1. Total CO2 emissions equivalent (tonnes) per year; 2. CO2 emissions equivalent per capita (tonnes) per year; 3. CO2 emissions equivalent per capita (tonnes) resulting from fuel use in transport; 4. CO2 emissions (tonnes) per MWh electricity consumed; 5. CO2 emissions reduction target(s) (e.g. 20% by 2020).

Mention any target(s) adopted specifically for the municipal administration (e.g. carbon neutral municipality by 2020). Give details of any Baseline Emission Inventory prepared by the city, mentioning the baseline year. Provide a breakdown of the main sources of emissions. Scientific grounds should be provided for any claimed reduction in CO2 emissions. (max. 600 words)

1B. Past Performance

Describe the measures implemented over the last 5 to 10 years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including resources allocated to implement these measures. Comment on which measures have been most effective.

Make reference to:

1. An overall strategy for climate change or any other strategy or action plan to reduce emissions, for this period;

2. Mainstreaming of climate protection measures across municipal services and in key areas of action such as energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings, public transport and waste management. Highlight any innovative schemes for the built environment such as low carbon zones;

3. Mechanisms used (e.g. local regulations, financing schemes, partnerships). Explain how the city works on emissions reduction with other governmental bodies, private sector service providers, enterprises and citizens. Mention relevant national legislation or programmes and participation in EU-funded projects or networks.

Describe the city’s approach to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

Provide details on how this approach is monitored.

(max. 1200 words) 1C. Future Plans Describe the future short and long term objectives and proposed approach for further emissions reduction, ‘climate proofing’ and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Describe planned measures, including timescales and emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes. Make reference to any long-term strategy employed. Briefly explain the rationale for choosing these future measures and highlight any innovative financing arrangements.

(max. 800 words) 1D. References List supporting documentation, adding links where possible. Further detail may be requested during the clarification phase. Documentation should not be forwarded at this stage. (max. 400 words)

2. Local transport



Describe the present situation in relation to local transport and mobility flows from the surrounding region, including any relevant disadvantages or constraints resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area. Where available, information/data should be provided from previous years (5 – 10) to show trends.

Briefly describe the present general features of the current transport systems (modal shares: walk, bike, car-sharing, public transport (train, tram, metro, bus), structural features and governance arrangements).

Include data for the following specific indicators:

1. Length in meters of designated cycle lanes along roads (but physically separated from other traffic) in relation to the total number of inhabitants in the city (meters of lane per capita);

2. Proportion (%) of population living within 300 metres of an hourly (or more frequent) public

transport service; 3. Proportion (%) of all journeys under 5 km by private car (as car driver or car passenger).

Please describe the modes of transport included in calculating the car proportion; 4. Proportion (%) of public transport vehicles classified as low emission vehicles, meaning the

proportion of buses among the publicly or privately owned and operated bus fleets that have certified lower emissions than EURO V emission standards.

(max. 600 words) 2B. Past Performance

Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years. Particular reference should be given to achievements in reducing congestion, encouraging a shift away from transport by private car, and improving environmental performance and efficiency of transport. Include information on hours lost to congestion (to get in and out of the city during peak hours).

Make reference to integrated transport, land use planning as well as stakeholder involvement.

Comment on which measures have been most effective, enabling frameworks and lessons learned.

(max. 1200 words) 2C. Future Plans Describe the short and long term objectives for local transport and how you plan to achieve them. Emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes. Make reference to integrated transport, land use planning as well as stakeholder involvement.

Refer particularly to:

1. Reduction of overall demand for transport; 2. Reduction of individual motorised traffic (passenger and freight); 3. Promotion of active forms of transport (walking cycling), efficient public transport, and CO2-

free city logistics; 4. Promotion of less polluting technologies, fuels (including renewable energy), behaviours and

practices for passenger and freight transport; 5. Adoption and implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans and other integrative

approaches. 6. Reduction of congestion and improvement of regional mobility flows.

(max. 800 words) 2D. References List supporting documentation (e.g. survey about user satisfaction with the urban transport system), and add links where possible. Further detail may be requested during the clarification phase. Documentation should not be forwarded at this stage. (max. 400 words)

3. Green urban areas incorporating Sustainable Land Use



Describe the present situation in relation to green urban areas incorporating sustainable land use, including any relevant disadvantages or constraints resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area. Where available, information/data should be provided from previous years (5 – 10) to show trends. Include information on the indicators mentioned below for both the inner city area and the overall city area:

1. The percentage of citizens living within 300m of public green urban areas > 5000m2 and public green urban areas of any size;

2. The percentage of green areas, blue areas (water areas), residential areas, industrial or economic areas, mixed areas, brownfields (this will provide important background information on the character of the city and is not an evaluation criterion itself);

3. New developments: proportion of brownfield sites, densification in the inner-city or urban cores, greenfields;

4. Population density (inhabitants per hectare) in built-up areas (city area minus green and blue areas);

5. Population density (inhabitants per hectare) for new developments; 6. Quality of green and blue areas; 7. Investments in green infrastructures (e.g. sustainable urban drainage, green rooftops…).

Maps: Provide a land use map that indicates 1) the municipality boundaries delineating the overall city area and 2) the inner city area. Provide the percentage of green and blue areas (public and private) and soil sealing in relation to 1) the overall city area and 2) the inner city area, including trends over the past five to ten years. Provide additional maps showing city parks, the scale of green and blue areas in the city and their connectivity and coherence. (max. 1100 words plus maps) 3B. Past Performance Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years. Comment on which measures have been most effective.

Make reference to:

1. Regenerating formerly developed sites (brownfields); inventorying and minimising the total area of fallow, derelict and contaminated land;

2. Increasing or sustaining population density in built-up areas while protecting green areas and providing a high quality of life within densely populated areas;

3. Renovating urban land and renewing urban design (involving stakeholders) to make city living attractive and enable a more sustainable lifestyle (e.g. short distances to services and facilities reduce the transport demand and promote walking and cycling; multi-apartment houses save energy for heating, cooling, reduce infrastructural needs);

4. Limiting urban sprawl by cooperating with the neighbouring municipalities; 5. Limiting, mitigating or compensation environmental impacts of soil sealing; 6. Integrating current and future changes such as economic growth, demographic or climate

change through sustainable land use planning; 7. Monitoring the effectiveness of management measures. 8. Quality of green and blue areas

(max. 1200 words) 3C. Future Plans Describe the short and long term objectives and the proposed approach for their achievement.

Emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes.

With particular reference on the establishment and management of green urban areas (public and privately owned) taking into consideration their function:

1. People’s quality of life and recreation; 2. Additional ecosystem functions and services such as regulating water balance, balancing

climate extremes, filtering air pollution, education, etc.; 3. Rehabilitation of brown field sites, derelict and/or contaminated land.

Please make reference to the criteria that will be used to measure progress and impact. (max. 800 words)

3D. References List supporting documentation, adding links where possible. Further detail may be requested during the clarification phase. Documentation should not be forwarded at this stage. (max. 400 words)

4. Nature and biodiversity


4A. Present Situatio n

Describe the present situation in relation to nature and biodiversity in your city, including any relevant disadvantages or constraints resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area. Where possible, show trends in biodiversity data and management over the past 5-10 years.

Make reference to whether:

1. There are any Natura 2000 areas in and around the city; 2. There are Management plans for these sites; 3. The habitats and/or species for which the sites have been designated are in good

conservation status.

(max. 600 words)

4B. Past Performance

Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years. Comment on which measures have been most effective.

Make reference to:

1. Managing and increasing Natura 2000 areas designated for nature protection and biodiversity as described above;

2. Dedicated conservation actions to manage and restore the sites; 3. Protecting nature in other open spaces; Promotion of public knowledge and understanding of

nature and biodiversity, particularly among young people; 4. Communication activities to promote Nature and Biodiversity including the Natura 2000

network among the public; 5. Monitoring the effectiveness of management measures.

(max. 1200 words) 4C. Futu re Plans Describe the short and long term objectives for nature and biodiversity and the proposed approach for their achievement. Emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes. Demonstrate how this work coincides with the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and Nature Directives and complementary national strategies.


5. Ambient air quality



Describe the present situation in relation to ambient air quality, including any relevant disadvantages or constraints resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area. Topographical constraints should also be mentioned where relevant. Where available, information/data should be provided from previous years (5 – 10) to show trends. Make reference to:

1. Number of days per year on which EU target value for ozone was exceeded (8h mean); 2. Number of days per year on which EU limit values were exceeded for PM10 (daily mean; 3. Annual mean concentration of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5; 4. Assess the contribution from local sources and from long-range transport for annual mean

concentration of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5. (max. 1,000 words) 5B. Past Performance

Describe the plans and measures implemented over the last five to ten years for the improvement of ambient air quality. Comment on which measures have been most effective.

Particular reference should be given to:

1. Existence and implementation status of an air quality management plan;

2. Local measures taken to improve air quality and quantify their effect on air quality;

3. Information to the public (both inhabitants and tourists) on air quality levels (e.g. web pages, information screens) in order to increase public awareness and behavioural change. (max. 800 words)

5C. Future Plans

Describe the short and long term objectives for the future, proposed plans and the proposed approach and measures for their achievement. Quantify the effects of proposed measures on air quality. Emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes. (max. 800 words) 5D. References List supporting documentation, adding links where possible. Further detail may be requested during the clarification phase. Documentation should not be forwarded at this stage. (max. 400 words)

6. Quality of the Acoustic Environment


6A. Present Situation Describe the present situation in relation to the quality of the acoustic environment, including any relevant disadvantages or constraints resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area. Where available, information/data should be provided from previous years (5 – 10) to show trends. Provide details on:

1. Share of population exposed to noise values of Lden (day-evening-night) above 55 dB(A); 2. Share of population exposed to noise values of Ln (night) above 45 dB(A); 3. The percentage of citizens living within 300m of quiet areas.


Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years for improving the urban sound quality and increasing awareness to noise. Comment on which measures have been most effective.

Make reference to:

1. Classification of territory (if applicable) into appropriate noise classes and with appropriate noise limits (e.g.: specially protected, hospitals/schools, residential, commercial, industrial) including details on enforcement mechanisms if in place;

2. Stakeholder involvement; 3. Communication with citizens; 4. Preservation and improvement of good acoustic urban environments such as quiet areas; 5. Noise reduction measures that influenced the current situation; 6. With respect to the adopted action plans, what is the percentage of the plan effectively

implemented (e.g. overall amounts already paid for actions versus overall amounts initially committed).

(max. 1200 words) 6C. Future Plans

Describe the short and long term objectives for quality of the acoustic environment and the proposed

approach for their achievement. Emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes.

Make reference to:

1. Stakeholder involvement; 2. Consultation with the population including noise perception survey; 3. Actions to reduce the impact of noise from roads, railways, industrial areas and air traffic

(Noise plan); 4. Foreseen reduction in the share of population exposed to noise values of Lden (day-evening-

night) above 55 dB(A) and in the share of population exposed to noise values of Lnight (night) above 45 dB(A), mention targets;

5. Actions to maintain, extend, or improve urban quiet areas; 6. Holistic/qualitative approaches to the acoustic environment (e.g.: with soundscapes

approaches). (max. 800 words) 6D. References List supporting documentation, adding links where possible. Further detail may be requested during the clarification phase. Documentation should not be forwarded at this stage. (max. 400 words)

7. Waste production and management



Describe the present situation in relation to waste production and management, including any relevant disadvantages or constraints resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area. Where available information should be provided from previous years (5 – 10) to show trends.

Include details on:

1. Waste Strategies or Plans in place; 2. Waste Prevention Measures; 3. Amount of waste household and municipal generated per capita; 4. Proportion of total waste sent to landfill; 5. Proportion of biodegradable waste sent to landfill; 6. Existing thermal treatment or similar: localisation and energy recovery; 7. Percentage of recycled municipal waste; 8. Recycling and/or recovery rates for Packaging waste; 9. Types of waste collected separately and extent of roll-out (% coverage) of source separated

collection systems; 10. How separately collected waste is treated; 11. Application of the “polluter pays” principle, including “pay as you throw” (PAYT) initiatives.


Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years for improving waste management.

Comment on which measures have been most effective.

Make reference to:

1. Measures or programmes which have promoted waste prevention; 2. Reduction of the amount of waste produced; 3. Type and scale of infrastructure put in place to manage waste; 4. How residual waste is managed including the amount of waste sent to landfills, particularly

biodegradable waste. (max. 1200 words) 7C. Future Plans Describe the short and long term objectives for waste production and management and the proposed approach for their achievement. Emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes.

Make reference to:

1. Constraints – economic, scale, institutional; 2. Measures to improve statistical data on waste collection & treatment; 3. Waste prevention and awareness initiatives; 4. Quality of recycling, and by type i.e. glass, paper etc.; 5. Waste collection charges; 6. Measures to promote public participation; 7. Measures to meet EU legislation.


8. Water management


8A. Present Situation Describe the present situation in relation to water management, including any relevant disadvantages or constraints resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area, including the situation of your river basin (e.g. if you are regularly experiencing droughts, scarcity and/or floods and expected future trends). Where available, information/data should be provided from previous years (5 – 10) to show trends. Detail the present situation regarding water demand of different sectors and describe plans currently in place to reduce water consumption. Make reference to:

1. Total water consumption (in cubic meters/year and litres/capita/year) including a breakdown for different sectors (households, industry, energy, agriculture, small business, tourism, public sector);

2. Proportion of urban water supply subject to water metering, both for domestic and non-domestic metering;

3. Source of water (surface water, groundwater) – make reference to aquifers and river basin

management; 4. Quality of drinking water (e.g. how many days of non-compliance with the Drinking Water

Directive); 5. Water loss in pipelines, leakage management and network rehabilitation; 6. Storm water management; 7. How the links between water and energy consumption (water-energy nexus) (e.g. through

pumping, treatment, heating) is taken into account; 8. Water recycling initiatives (grey water); 9. Compliance with the EU Water Framework Directive and other EU/national/regional

legislation applicable at the city level. (max. 600 words) 8B. Past Performance

Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years for improving water management. Comment on which measures have been most effective.

Make reference to:

1. Technical, economic and institutional measures adopted and their effectiveness in achieving reduction of total water consumption;

2. Byelaw implementation in relation to efficiency in water usage, tariff and metering systems; 3. Awareness raising campaigns.

(max. 1200 words) 8C. Future Plans Describe the short and long term objectives for water management and the proposed approach for their achievement, including how they are influenced by the expected impacts from climate change and other long-term trends. Emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes.

Place particular emphases on key water saving and reuse targets for the future and the proposed approach to achieve these, including measures incorporating water infrastructure to deal with future impacts of climate change.


9. Waste water management


9A. Present Situation Describe the present situation in relation to waste water management, including any relevant disadvantages or constraints resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area. Where available, information/data should be provided from previous years (5 – 10) to show trends. Describe the current general features of waste water management according to national requirements and the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD, 91/271/EEC).

Include data for the following specific indicators:

1. Total annual generated waste water load of the city (in p.e.) and provide indication of the fraction (%) coming from population and from industry (also specifying type of industry, when information is available);

2. Proportion (%) of total annual generated waste water load, connected to a) waste water collecting systems (only) and b) waste water collecting system + urban waste water treatment plants (UWWTPs), specifying the most advanced treatment level (primary treatment, secondary treatment, tertiary treatment);

3. Proportion (%) of total annual generated waste water load, not connected to waste water collecting systems, and explanation of the type of waste water treatment applied to this fraction;

4. If the city is located in an EU Member State include data on waste water treatment obligations according to the UWWTD (based on city's size and nature of the area of discharge);

5. Waste water collecting systems: main type of collecting system (combined/separated) and annual proportion (%) of COD-loads discharged via storm water overflows;

6. UWWTPs: Organic design capacity (p.e..), most advanced treatment level, annual incoming and discharged loads (t/a) of BOD5, COD, Ntot and Ptot and treated waste water amounts (m³/a) of all UWWTPs serving the city. If the city is located in an EU Member State, indicate whether the UWWTP complies with the treatment requirements under the UWWTD;

7. Annual amounts of generated sewage sludge (t/a) and description of treatment/disposal pathways (% of total amount).

Further information (e.g. on energy efficiency at UWWTPs, treated waste water re-use, economic sustainability) is highly appreciated.


Describe the measures implemented over the past five to ten years to improve waste water treatment. Comment on which measures have been most effective. If the city is located in an EU - Member State special reference should be given to non-expired deadlines for compliance with the UWWTD, when applicable. Particular reference should be given to capacity building, measures for maintenance, management and restoration of waste water collecting systems and UWWTPs. A description of further measures for improving waste water treatment (e.g. pollution prevention efficiency, improvement of energy efficiency) is highly appreciated. (max. 1200 words) 9C. Future Plans Describe the future short and long term objectives for waste water management and the proposed approach for their achievement. Emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes.

Refer to:

1. Improvement / maintenance / management of collecting systems; 2. Improvement of connection to collecting systems; 3. Improvement of design capacity, treatment level and treatment performance of UWWTPs; 4. Improvement of connection to UWWTPs; 5. Improvements of further environmental and economic aspects of waste water treatment (e.g.

removal of micropollutants, energy efficiency at UWWTPs, sludge treatment and disposal, treated waste water re-use).

Emphasise to what extent plans are triggered by the demands of EU and national regulations.


10. Eco-innovation and sustainable employment


10A. Present Situation Describe the present situation in relation to eco-innovation and sustainable employment, including any relevant disadvantages or constraints resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area. Where available, information/data should be provided from previous years (5 – 10) to show trends. Make reference to:

1. Innovations that address material / resource use, (substitution, minimisation of material use, closing loops, etc.) and reduce environmental impacts, i.e. measures to improve resource efficiency;

2. Awareness raising and training to encourage the development and take-up of environmentally friendly technologies, particularly through training in industrial and business settings. Make reference to the authority launching the initiative as well as its target audience;

3. Efforts to promote green skills, or green jobs; 4. Efforts to promote Green Public Procurement (GPP); 5. Social innovation/stakeholder participation, including for example community programmes,

that shows entrepreneurship and new ways of organisation that promote sustainable development and protect the environment locally and globally;

6. Share of the city budget dedicated to support environmental R&D (with particular reference to eco-innovation) by public and private entities;

7. Number of jobs created in green sectors in total, as a share of total jobs in the city and as total jobs created during a period of one year;

8. Share of hybrid or fully electric cars in total stock of vehicles owned by the city. Number of charging outlets available for the cars owned privately.


Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years concerning eco-innovation and sustainable employment. Comment on which measures have been most effective. Make reference to:

1. Initiatives aimed at increasing eco-innovation and sustainable employment, e.g. projects under Cohesion Policy funds, LIFE, Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP), Green Public Procurement (GPP), as well as national policy initiatives;

2. How European and national policies have been transferred into policy action at the city level; 3. The publication of reports, such as green accounts, revealing the timely implementation of

planned initiatives. 4. Any action which the city is taking in order to develop the urban tissue/infrastructures in an

innovative/sustainable way (max. 1200 words) 10C. Future Plans Describe the future short and long term objectives to promote eco-innovation and sustainable employment and the proposed approach for their achievement. Emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes.

Make reference to: 1. Plans to establish eco-innovation clusters, strategies and initiatives to attract public-private

partnerships for further developing eco-innovation and sustainable employment; 2. Future targets of how eco-innovations can be applied by the city, e.g. make reference to

share of hybrid or fully electric cars in total stock of the public fleet, or plans to support the infrastructure development for electric cars in public areas (i.e. increase the number of charging points for electric cars in public car parks);

3. Participation at green business networks or partnerships and covenants and cooperation with knowledge institutions, such as universities;

4. Programmes to reach the population and industries promoting green economy thinking. (max. 800 words) 10D. References List supporting documentation, adding links where possible. Further detail may be requested during the clarification phase. Documentation should not be forwarded at this stage. (max. 400 words)

11.Energy performance


11A. Present Situation Describe the present situation and development in relation to housing over the last five to ten years, using quantitative data. List any disadvantages resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area.

Make reference to:

1. Energy consumption & performance of municipal buildings (in KWh/m2) according to your current Development or Action Plan;

2. The development so far and the current strategy of the renewable vs non-renewable mix of energy sources during the past 10 years (for both heat and electricity; expressed in KWh, MWh or GWh);

3. The current plan for integration and performance of renewable energy technology in municipal buildings and homes compared to the total energy use, (in KWh/m2);

4. The current plan of compatible and integrated district heating energy and of combined heat and power energy consumption compared to the total energy use, (expressed in KWh, MWh or GWh);

5. The current plan for increasing energy efficiency and decreasing the use of energy in municipal buildings and homes, expressed as energy saved (in KWh/m2);

6. The current plan for increasing the use of LED lamps in public lighting. (max. 600 words) 11B. Past Performance

Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years concerning energy, as a qualitative

narrative. Comment on which measures have been most effective.

Make reference to:

1. Attempts to improve the energy performance of municipal buildings above national requirements;

2. Maximising and prioritising the use of renewable energy technology in municipal buildings and homes; Measures to improve the City’s overall energy demand performance preferably including both local government institutions, local market actors and citizens;

3. Measures to facilitate integrated district systems and a more sophisticated city-wide control. (max. 800 words) 11C. Future Plans Describe the future short and long term objectives for energy plans and the proposed approach for their achievement. Include measures adopted, but not yet implemented, and details for future measures already adopted. Emphasise to what extent plans are consolidated by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes.

Make reference to:

1. The city's strategy to achieve goals by 2030 and 2050 (% of renewable energy share of the total energy supply);

2. The city's strategy regarding renewable vs non-renewable energy mix, as well as of the renewable energy mix per se (the percentage of different renewable energy sources). Describe the dynamics of energy mixes for at least the coming two decades, preferably add diagrams to describe this dynamic development;

3. Other measures affecting the total energy use in the city, e.g. changes in transport and communication systems, industrial practices, food and commodities production and consumption, urban morphology and import and export chains.


12.Integrated Environmental Management


12A. Present Situation Vision, Strategy: Describe if the city has a clearly defined, widely understood and supported environmental vision for the municipality, for example as part of a broader commitment to urban sustainability. Is this vision reflected in different strategies and action plans, which include objectives and targets for individual sectors? Please list the most important strategies and plans and indicate their relationship to the overall vision. Have your vision and the corresponding strategies been endorsed and implemented by the city council?

Is there a dedicated budget for implementing the environmental vision? Management, monitoring and evaluation: Which stakeholders have participated in the development of the city’s environmental vision and associated strategies and action plans? (e.g. contribution of civil society and citizens). What have been the practical arrangements for this? How are the management structures of your city organised, and what management tools are used, to achieve your environmental objectives and targets? For example management circles, obligatory sustainability impact assessments of policy proposals, project structures, skills promotion, periodic evaluations, etc. Describe the system of monitoring and reporting. Leadership Is the city (administration) leading by example in environmental behaviour? Describe your activities regarding environmental management systems, green public procurement, skills development, etc. Does your city cooperate with other authorities at different levels or other organisations (regional, national, EU, international) on environmental issues? Which of these cooperation activities or projects has your city initiated or acted as leading partner? Please also refer to your participation in European funded projects and to your commitment to international initiatives, charters, etc. (Agenda 21, Aalborg Commitments, Covenant of Mayors, C20, Climate Alliance, ICLEI, EUROCITIES, etc.) List any disadvantages resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area.

(max. 1000 words) 12B. Implementation

Describe the organisational structure of the city administration and show how the environmental strategies are embedded in the organisation. Please include an organogram.

Which department or political body is the driving force behind the environmental vision? What is the total budget of your city for the current financial year and how much is allocated for environmental activities? Is this budget increasing or decreasing? Innovative instruments Does the city use, in its environmental policy, innovative instruments like 'nudges':- citizen participation in environmental enforcement, awareness-raising through social media, innovative financing, etc. ? To what extent do you evaluate the progress of your policies / strategies / projects and do you adopt them according to findings? (Max. 400 words)

12C. Future Plans Describe the short and long term objectives for the integrated management of environmental policy and the proposed approach for their achievement.

Describe present and future flagship projects that demonstrate your commitment to an integrated management of the urban environment.

Demonstrate Public Awareness of this bid i.e. public consultation, available to read etc.


APPENDIX B

Experts Pen Profiles

Indicator No. 1 – Climate Change: Mitigation and Ad aptation

Expert: Mr. F. Javier González Vidal, Atmospheric pollution technical advisor, Regional Government of Valencia – D.G. Environmental Quality, Spain

F. Javier González Vidal is an Industrial Engineer by the Polytechnic University of Valencia. Throughout his professional career he has always focused on the promotion of environmental respect, both at the regional and international level.

For the last 13 years he has been working for the Regional Government of Valencia in the D.G. Environmental Quality, where the activities and responsibilities of the job have provided him with a wide view of the situation related to the intensive use of energy, climate change, polluting emissions and air quality.

The development and implementation of policies to fight air pollution and climate change have been one of his priorities, having used emissions inventories as a key tool to assess effectiveness. During this period some of the main tasks he has been involved in have been the development, implementation and monitoring of the policies included in the regional Climate Change Strategy and the implementation of the EU ETS, the management of the PRTR register, and the air quality network analysis and subsequent development of air quality actions plans.

He was a member of the Climate Change Committee of the European Commission as a representative of the regional governments of Spain in order to express their opinion during the negotiations of the European policies.

Since 2005, as a member of the Roster of Experts of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Javier contributes to the review of national communications and inventories, focusing in the energy chapter, according to the Kyoto Protocol commitments. He has cooperated actively with D.G. Enlargement providing technical support to EU partner countries with regard to the approximation, application and enforcement of EU environmental legislation through the Technical Assistance and Information Exchange instrument.

During 2013 he has worked with the Ministry of Environment of Brazil, in the context of the sectorial dialogues between the EU and Brazil, on the Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Chapter."

Indicator No. 2 - Local Transport

Expert: Dr Henrik Gudmundsson, Senior Researcher, Department of Transport, Technical University of Denmark.

Henrik Gudmundsson has been a Senior Researcher in Sustainable Transport at the Technical University of Denmark since 2006. He is educated as an Environmental planner and has a PhD from Copenhagen Business School. His main area of research is sustainable transport governance and policy analysis, including the use of knowledge and indicators in the design, implementation and monitoring of transport plans.

Henrik is the National Principle Contact Point (PCP) on transport indicators in Denmark for the European Environment Agency (EEA), and a member of the scientific advisory board for the Swedish Government’s Transport Analysis agency. Henrik is currently involved in four major research projects on transport policy and planning. He is a member the Committees on ‘Performance Measurement’ and ‘Transportation and Sustainability’ of the US Transportation Research Board.

Before assuming his current position Henrik has been involved in State of the Environment Reporting for Denmark at the National Environmental Research Institute (1993- 2006) and prior to that he was a Head of Section in the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (1988-2003).

Indicator No. 3 - Green Urban Areas incorporating S ustainable Land Use

Expert: Ms Ir. Hedwig van Delden, Director, Research Institute for Knowledge Systems (RIKS), Maastricht, The Netherlands & Associate Professor, the University of Adelaide, Australia

Hedwig van Delden is the Director of the Research Institute for Knowledge Systems (RIKS) in Maastricht, the Netherlands and Associate Professor at the University of Adelaide, Australia. After graduating from the University of Twente as a Civil Engineer in Water Engineering and Management, she started working at RIKS as a Policy Analyst and in the following years rose to the position of Director. Over the years she has taken on many roles ranging from Researcher to Project Manager and Project Leader in projects worldwide working on integrating models from a broad range of fields such as land use change, hydrology, economics and transport and making them applicable for policy support.

Her academic work focuses on issues relating to land use change modelling, integrating socio-economic and bio-physical processes, bridging the science-policy gap and scenario studies. In this capacity she has authored or co-authored a long list of peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. She recently gave a keynote lecture at the 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation in Adelaide, Australia on integrated modelling for policy support.

Indicator No. 4 - Nature and Biodiversity

Expert: Dr Jake Piper, Associate and Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Technology, Design and Environment, Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.

Jake Piper has worked as a researcher and lecturer at Oxford Brookes University for the past twelve years, following on from an earlier career in environmental consultancy. Her academic background includes forestry and land management, and environmental assessment.

In recent years she has contributed to and managed studies of policy development and spatial planning, frequently as related to biodiversity protection and enhancement in circumstances of climate change, as part of EU programmes (MACIS, BRANCH), and she has been a peer reviewer of the C-Change project which promotes community engagement and behaviour change as well as creating multi-functional spaces. She has also worked on studies preparing guidance for projects affecting Natura 2000 sites, and projects concerned with rural development.

Issues around biodiversity, water resources, flooding and sustainable drainage have been a particular interest – as demonstrated in her recent book Spatial Planning and Climate Change (with Elizabeth Wilson). Other project work has involved the economic and environmental assessment of many forms of development, including offshore wind, water resources, railway infrastructure, forestry and leisure.

Indicator No. 5 – Ambient Air Quality

Expert: Dr Steen Solvang Jensen, Senior Scientist, Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Denmark.

Steen Solvang Jensen is Senior Scientist, PhD at the Department of Environmental Science, Section for Atmospheric Modelling, Aarhus University in Denmark. He is department Coordinator of the Science Program for Sustainable Energy and Environment.

He is a civil engineer with a specialization in planning with 22 years of experience within traffic planning and urban air quality assessment and management. He has worked as project manager within research, consultancy and administration, and has acted as an advisor for the Danish Environmental Protection Agency and international development agencies.

His main experience is within research and development of integrated modelling systems for air pollution and human exposures for application in decision-support systems in urban air quality management and in air pollution epidemiological studies. These studies include mapping, impact assessment, scenario analysis, and policy options within emission, air quality, human exposures, health and external costs of air pollution as well as environmental impacts of renewable energy systems and technologies (hydrogen, biofuels, biomass).

Indicator No. 6 – Quality of the Acoustic Environme nt

Expert: Prof Dr Diogo Alarcão, Specialist in Acoustic Engineering. Principal Researcher and Professor at Instituto Superior Técnico University of Lisbon, Portugal & the Polytechnic Institute of Lisbon, Portugal.

Diogo Alarcão is a Physics Engineer with a PhD in Acoustics. He is Principal Researcher and a Professor in the scientific area of Acoustics at Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal.

He is a Chartered Acoustical Engineer, member of the board of the Portuguese Acoustical Society and member of the executive commission for the Specialization in Acoustic Engineering of Ordem dos Engenheiros.

He has been responsible for major projects in Environmental Acoustics and Noise Control, including Noise Mapping and Action Plans for large urban areas in various Portuguese cities and for many large transport infrastructures. He has also been responsible for various projects in the area of Room Acoustics and Virtual Acoustics including real time simulation and auralization of sound fields in enclosures.

Indicator No. 7 - Waste Production and Management

Expert: Mr. Larry O’Toole, Regional Director, Waste Energy & Environment Division, RPS Group Ltd., Dublin, Ireland.

Larry O’Toole is Director of the Waste, Energy and Environment Division of RPS Group Ltd. He is a Chartered Civil Engineer with 26 years’ experience of civil and environmental engineering and waste strategy and planning in

Ireland and in the UK.

He has been Project Manager for a broad range of waste and energy policy and infrastructural projects and is currently responsible for a team of engineers, scientists and waste planners providing services to both the public and private sectors in UK and Ireland. These include national strategic studies, policy reviews, regional waste plans, siting studies, feasibility, design and procurement of recycling, recovery and disposal facilities and renewable energy projects including wind energy, anaerobic digestion and biofuels. Clients include the EPA, DELCG, numerous Local Authorities and semi-State bodies.

He is a Chartered Member of the Institution of Engineers of Ireland and a Registered Consulting Chartered Engineer with the Association of Consulting Engineers of Ireland. He has presented widely on waste management including at the EU-Asia Solid Waste Management Conference, Malaysia in 2008 and on “Integrated Waste Management and Climate Change” at International Conference on Cities and Climate Change, New Delhi, India, Feb 2011.

Indicator No. 8 - Water Management

Expert: Mr. Shailendra Mudgal, Executive Director, Bio Intelligence Service (BIO), Paris, France.

Shailendra Mudgal is a civil-environmental engineer with 19 years of experience in environmental consulting and has a specific expertise in water management.

He has worked on a range of projects in India dealing with leak detection in water supply networks, river basin action plan, stormwater management, and water quality and quantity modelling.

During last 10 years, he has worked on water policy sector in France and Europe. He led several studies for the European Commission on Water Efficiency Standards and the Water Performance of Buildings (http://www.waterefficiency.eu) and also contributed to studies for the European Parliament.

He contributed to the 2011 UNEP Green Economy Report and also supported the EEA on two chapters dealing with social and technological megatrends of the European Environment State and Outlook Report (SOER) 2010. Recently, he advised the UNFCCC on the methodology for evaluating the water saving devices in the context of the clean development mechanism.

Indicator No. 9 – Waste Water Treatment

Expert: Dr Ana Lončarić Božić, Associate Professor, Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Technology, University of Zagreb, Croatia

Ana Lončarić Božić is an associate professor involved in teaching and research in the field of Chemical and Environmental engineering. Ana holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering. Her research interests include advanced technologies for water and wastewater treatment, advanced oxidation technologies, photocatalysis, degradation of recalcitrant pollutants and contaminants of emerging concern and ecotoxicity.

She participated in 5 national and international research projects with academia and industry in the field of advanced wastewater treatment. She is the author/co-author of more than 30 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals (cited over 500 times, h-index 12). Ana sits on 3 editorial boards and is a regular reviewer for more than 20 scientific journals. She is also an Environmental Management System Auditor.

With a background in Chemical and Environmental Engineering and the expertise in the wastewater treatment and water management, Ana was involved as an evaluator for FP7-ENV-2012, FP7-ENV-2013 and NCBR-Core 2012 calls.

Indicator No. 10 - Eco-innovation and Sustainable E mployment

Expert: Dr Stefan Speck, Project Manager environmental economics and policies at the Integrated Environmental Assessments Programme at the European Environment Agency.

Stefan Speck is an environmental economist with a PhD in economics. His main area of research is the application of market-based instruments for environmental policy, environmental fiscal reform, and green economy.

Prior to his current position, he was employed as a senior consultant at Kommunalkredit Public Consulting in Austria and as a senior project scientist at the National Environmental Research Institute/University of Aarhus in Denmark within the EU-funded project ‘Competitiveness effects of environmental tax reforms’ (COMETR). He also contributed to the research project ‘Resource Productivity, Environmental Tax Reform and Sustainable Growth in Europe’ funded by the Anglo-German Foundation.

He has implemented projects for a range of clients including the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA), European Commission (EC), Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, and the UK Department for International Development (DFID). He has carried out research projects in Africa and Asia, and has published widely on economic instruments and environmental financing and recently co-edited the book Environmental Tax Reform (ETR) A Policy for Green Growth (Oxford University Press, 2011).

Indicator No. 11 - Energy Performance

Expert: Prof Dr -Ing. Manfred Fischedick, Vice President of the Wuppertal Institute and Professor at the Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, Wuppertal, Germany

Manfred Fischedick is the Vice President of the Wuppertal Institute, an international well known think tank investigating transformation processes to a sustainable development. With particular reference to the areas of climate, energy, resources and mobility, the institute is looking for technical, infrastructure and social innovations supporting the transition to sustainable structures. Special focus is given on the transition process of the energy system and cities.

Manfred Fischedick is also leading the research group “Future Energy and Mobility Structures” of the Wuppertal Institute and is professor at the Schumpeter School of Business and Economics at the University of Wuppertal. He has been working for more than 20 years in the field of energy system analysis (including sustainable urban infrastructure analysis). He is adviser to the German government as well as the Bundesland of North Rhine-Westphalia, author of various publications and peer reviewed articles. Manfred Fischedick is coordinating lead author for the IPCC (responsible for the chapter industry in the upcoming 5th assessment report), member of several national and international scientific boards and advisory councils.

Manfred Fischedick has been intensively working in the context of sustainable urban infrastructures and energy efficient cities. His project experience comprises among others the development of long

term concepts for the German cities of Munich and Düsseldorf and the Chinese city of Wuxi. For the Innovation City Ruhr Bottrop, which is kind of a real-term laboratory in the Ruhr Valley aiming for an emission reduction by 50% between 2010 and 2020 he is leading the scientific accompaniment process.

Indicator No. 12 - Integrated Environmental Manage ment

Expert: Jan Dictus, Founder of GOJA Consulting for Environment and Sustainable Development, Vienna, Austria

Jan Dictus (nationality Dutch, living and working in Austria since 2000) is an expert on sustainable development of cities. He has provided services to a wide range of clients at international, European, regional and local levels on environmental and sustainable development issues.

He was involved in several EcoCity projects: For the City of Vienna Jan has led the development of the Environmental Vision of Vienna and is presently supporting the network Cities for a Nuclear Free Europe CNFE. Also for Vienna he was technical chair of the EUROCITIES Environment Forum.

As a UNIDO expert Jan has been involved in the organisation and reporting of conferences in Jordan and Bahrain on EcoCities in Middle-East and North Africa (MENA Region). Also for UNIDO and the Government of Japan he is presently setting up a network of Eco-Cities in South East Asia, introducing the instrument of Peer Review for Cities. Together with Astronaut Marcos Pontes Foundation and UNIDO he is preparing the development of an Eco-State in Roraima, Brazil. In the past Jan worked on Green Industry and the promotion of Eco-Business projects in e.g. India and Thailand, and on the development of a Green Award mechanism in Cambodia. Jan is a member of the Expert Evaluation Panel for the European Green Capital Award since 2012, acted as Lead Expert for URBACT-II and is a member of the expert group for the “UNEP-JCEP Sustainable Urban Development and Liveable Garden Community - China Programme“ in China.

APPENDIX C

Technical Ranking of 12 Applicant Cities for the European Green Capital Award 2016 Title

Technical Ranking of 12 Applicant Cities for the Eu ropean Green Capital Award 2016 Title

Indicator / Applicant City

Climate change:

Mitigation &

Adaptation

Local transport

Green Urban Areas

incorporating Sustainable

Land Use

Nature & biodiversity

Ambient Air

Quality

Quality of the acoustic environment

Waste Production & management

Water Management

Waste water

treatment

Eco-innovation

& sustainable employment

Energy Performance

Integrated Environmental Management

Dabrowa Gornicza 9 10 10 9 11 10 8 7 8 11 9 11

Essen 2 6 4 1 3 1 3 2 2 2 4 4

Larissa 11 11 9 11 12 11 9 8 3 10 10 9

Ljubljana 5 2 2 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 6 1

Nijmegen 4 4 3 5 8 6 4 5 1 4 2 3

Oslo 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 4 6 1 3 2

Pitesti 10 12 12 12 9 7 12 11 12 12 12 12

Reggio Emilia 8 7 6 7 7 9 6 10 10 7 8 7

Santander 12 9 11 10 10 12 11 12 11 9 11 8

Tours 7 8 8 8 5 5 10 9 9 8 7 10

Umeå 3 3 7 6 6 3 2 6 5 3 1 6

Zaragoza 6 5 5 2 2 8 7 1 7 6 5 5

Final Combined ranking by the EGC Secretariat

City Final Ranking

Oslo 1

Essen 2

Ljubljana 3

Nijmegen 4

Umeå 5

Zaragoza 6

Reggio Emilia 7

Tours 8

Dabrowa Gornicza 9

Larissa 10

Santander 11

Pitesti 12

Date post:	06-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	1 times

Expert Panel – Technical Assessment Synopsis Report...

Documents