Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A journey approach....
An integrated management system for urban areas
How do we develop a sustainable future for our cities and citizens?
The answer is.............
15!
MUE-25 reaching out to EU-27 cities
1. LBDCA, Lake Balaton Development Coordination Agency, Hungary
2. ACR+, The Association of Cities and Regions for recycling and Sustainable Resource Management, Belgium
4. ASSURRE, Association for the Sustainable Use and Recovery of Resources in Europe, Belgium
3. Energie-Cités, France
GERMAN MODULE
1. Ascha2. Berlin-Lichtenberg3. Donaueschingen4. Neu-Ulm5. County of Nordhausen6. Paderborn7. Wiesbaden8. Tübingen9. Ludwigsburg10. Würzburg
Observers:City of FriedrichshafenCity of NordhausenCIty of ElrichCity of Erfurt
Union of the Baclic Cities (UBC), Commission on Environment, Turku, Finland
ICLEI – Local Governmentsfor Sustainability, Germany
The University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom
UNEP/Grid-Arendal, Norway
Bodensee-Stiftung, Germany
Lead Partner: EUROPEAN MODULE
1. City of Turku (Finland)2. City of Lahti (Finland)3. Municipality of Växjö
(Sweden)4. Leeds City Council (UK) 5. Lewes District Council
(UK)6. Municipality of Ancona
(Italy) 7. Siena Province (Italy) 8. City of Riga (Latvia) 9. Kaunas City Municipality
(Lithuania) 10. Šiauliai City Municipality
(Lithuania) 11. Local Government
of Siófok (Hungary) 12. Local Government of
Balatonfüred (Hungary)13. City of Oslo (Norway)14. City of Ludwigsburg,
(Germany) 15. City of Stockholm,
(Sweden)
PROJECT PARTNERS
PROJECT STEERING GROUP 25 CITY PARTNERS NETWORK PARTNERS
Challenges of urban areas
80% of the population in Europe live in cities with at least 10.000 inhabitants
It is in cities that the effects of many environmental problems are most severly felt
Core set of interrelated and mutually reinforcing environmental problems
• increasing levels of traffic, • air pollution, • ambient noise and greenhouse gas emissions, • neglect of the built environment, • improper land-use, • lack of open space, • soil contamination, • the generation of large quantities of waste and
wastewater.
Structural failures• insufficient co-operation beyond administrative
boundaries;
• insufficient horizontal co-operation;
• insufficient harmonised data, tools and practices;
• development occurs via short-term and isolated projects;
• insufficient public participation;
• insufficient vertical co-operation;
• need for institutional and personal capacity;
• separation of planning and implementation
TSUE Communication2006 Communication of TSUE confirms that:
”The integrated approach to environmental management at the local level and to transport in particular, based on effective consultation of all stakeholders, is key to successful implementation of environment legislation and to achieve long lasting improvements in environmental quality and performance.”
Support for integrated management
The Council of the European Union (June 06) discussed the TSUE. The Council;
• underlined the important role of integrated environmental management systems such as EMAS and ISO 14001.
• welcomed the approach to highlight the importance of public participation in decision-making and the role that voluntary initiatives can play.
• invites the Commission to provide support and impetus for public participation in particular by actively facilitating and promoting Local Agenda 21 and the Aalborg Commitments.
• calls on the European Union, Member States and their cities, to improve the quality of life in cities and urban areas by promoting and implementing integrated environmental management
• recommends an interregional and intersectoral approach.
Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
No compromises for future generations
What should be sustained?
Quality of Life
Natural Resources
Economicactivities
The Commission says integrated management……..what is management?
Any integrated management programme must conform to the basic elements of management
Often sustainability or environmental management strategies and/or tools do not meet the requirements of the concept management!
A generic management model The Deming Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle
What is meant by management ?
What are the lessons learnt?
Management only takes place when we close the Plan-Do-Check-Act loop
Therefore: any suite of tools developed, selected and used to implement an Integrated Management System should cover the P-D-C-A milestones
Our starting point Different cities, different
realities, different baselines Wish to develop s.t. adaptable
and acceptable to all cities and towns
Reflection on principles for good governance (EU workgroup)
Consideration of realities of cities & towns
Utilisation of experience and expertise of PSG
What we suggest ... Good news: No new system! Conformation of PDCA-cycle Definition of a framework of few minimum
elements allowing all cities and towns to link up Agreement on key principles as foundation of
any locally applied environmental or sustainability management system to allow for commitment independent from local framework conditions
Approaches of the IMS Journey approach: allowing to
consider different starting points a, framework conditions and ambitions
Modular approach: allowing to ‘grow the system’ based on gradual expansion
Framework approach: allowing for integration of locally applied instruments and step by step completion and advancement
What we suggest: a road-map Integrate instruments with framework system
A city-wide EMAS, or a ecoBUDGET process can fulfil the purpose
Integrate existing management instruments to carry out elements – do not duplicate. Use their particular strenghts (e.g. SOE-reports, indicators, environmental action plans, local pollution registers)
Link the management system to central decision making (city council)
Widen focus to other stakeholders in order to address whole urban area
Integrate sustainability dimensions – thematic reference to the Aalborg Commitments)
Gradually expand the system
First - territorial expansion: apply environmental management system to the whole urban area (e.g. appropriate choice of indicators and targets)
Second - actor expansion: include stakeholders in the city and co-operation with neighbouring municipalities
Third – dimension expansion: integrate other dimensions of sustainability into the environmental management system
Remark: Aalborg Commitments as reference document to identify direct and indirect sustainability aspects of urban areas
Integrate existing practicesANALYTICAL
TOOLS & PLANNING
CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS
MANAGEMENT TOOLS
CHECKS & ACT
REPORT AND COMMU-
NICATION
Environmental & Social Impact Sustainability Assessment
Sectoral sustainabilityp
erformance targets
EMAS, ISO 14000, ISO
9000 ecoBUDGET Sustainability management
Environmental & social
monitoring & Measurement
Environmental & social reporting Triple Bottom
Line GRI
Strategic Assessment
ISO 14001 family of
management standards
EMAS
Cleaner technology
Inspection, analysis and
records
Environmental & social
communication
Risk Assessment SA 8000 Social
accountability IPPC & WM
Environmental & social auditing
State of the environment & society reports
Environmental social &
economic planning
AA 1000 Accountability
Pollution prevention
Improvement Management
Public participation
Disaster planning Corporate
social responsibility
Disaster management
plans
Sustainabiity Indicators
Life Cycle Assessment
Triple Bottom Line GRI
Conflict management
Integration of governmental levels
National Environmental Management
State/regionalEnvironmentalManagement
LocalEnvironmentalManagement
National
Municipal
State/Regional
National indicators/targets
State/provincial indicators/targets
Local indicators/targets
Common indicators/targets
Integrated management system for urban areas
Cyclical management instrument Participative approach for development of
objectives and targets for quality of life, environmental quality and economic prosperity
Polical ratification of SMART targets Co-operative implementation of measures Multiple evaluation of achievements
(Council, administration, community)
Key criteria of an integrated management system
SMART targets:
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time related
Aalborg Commitment element
Time schedule Compares to Management system element …
Baseline review Within 12 months after signature
Baseline review
Targets set Within 24 months after signature
Political Commitment (city council approval of targets)
1st Monitoring review By 2010 Reporting and evaluation
Subsequent monitoring reviews
Scheduled in 5-year cycle
All elements of framework management system
Taking Commitments to the street with IMS
Manual + Online Guidance
in beginning of 2008
When ready?
www.mue25.net
The answer is 15!
= 10 Aalborg Commitments
5 steps
The answer is 15!
1 whole urban area
2 approaches the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment and the Aalborg Commitments
3 dimensions of sustainable development
4 future generations
5 steps
= 15 or an integrated management system for urban areas
MUE-25 Basic Facts
Project duration March 2005 - February 2008
Funding European Commission DG Environment, Finnish Ministry of the Environment, German Federal Environment Foundation
(DBU), German Federal States of Baden-
Württemberg and Bayern
participating cities
Budget 2.9 Meuro
CONTACT
Project CoordinatorMs Annika [email protected]
Tel. +358 2 262 3180Fax. +358 2 262 3425
Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC)Commission on EnvironmentEnvironment and SustainableDevelopment SecretariatThe Old Observatory,Vartiovuori20700 Turku, Finland
www.mue25.net
Thank you for your attention
Questions from facilitator
Contribution of the project to Aalborg Committment and Thematic Strategy on Urban Environment?
Providing a integrated management system adopted to structure and needs of local authorities in order to manage all strategic aspects of sustainability within the whole urban area. Flexible framework which allows integration of existing tools and systems and fullfils requierements of EMAS and ISO 14001. Political involvement on highest level (City Council) and involvement of stakeholder as minimum requirements. Support of European Agenda on Climate Change and other EU policies and legislation?
Climate Change and all other European Environmental and Sustainability Policies are strategic aspects of local authorities and therefore the most significant aspects of the MUE System and all elements (Baseline Review, Strategic Programme and Action Plan), MUE supports implementation of Key Performance Indicators to push maximum improvement of all significant aspects.
Main hindrances/challenges for implementing and mainstreaming urban sustainability management systems
Thematic Strategy and AC not implemented into national policies. Not enough political involvement and support on local level and lack of sensitation and training of political decision makers. EMS implemented for house keeping issues and isolated within environmental department. No real direct and short term incentives /benefits to convince political decision makers
Questions from facilitator
Recommendations to EMAS Revision process?
Political involvement and participation of stakeholder as requirements of EMAS III. Indirect aspects = strategic aspects as key aspects to improve for local authorities. From implementation in one service /department to whole urban area and from Environmental management towards sustainability management.
Incentives / framework conditions which should put in place to motivate cities to implement EMS or SUM?EMS should become mandatory as an instrument to fulfil legal compliance and should be voluntary regarding performance above legal compliance.Financial advantages (additional taxes income for environmental investments, plus points for EU-funding, others) for local authorities with EMS /SUM. Campaigns /training to motivate political decision makers (EMS good for political image).
What will happen with the results /products of your project after the end of the project phase?Manual and virtual training centre to support implementation of Thematic Strategy on Urban Environment; further projects to implement integrated management system in different member states. Influencing EMAS Revision and offering training to competent bodies and verifiers
