EGCA 2020 Technical Assessment Synopsis Report · 2018-06-15 · European Green Capital Award 2020 ‐ Technical Assessment Synopsis Report 1 1 INTRODUCTION Europe's cities are recognised

Expert Panel

Technical Assessment Synopsis Report

European Green Capital Award 2020

April 2018

www.ec.europa.eu/europeangreencapital

rpsgroup.com/ireland

Acknowledgements

The authors of this Technical Assessment Report are the European Green Capital Award Secretariat, RPS Group Limited (hereafter RPS) together with the contribution of the Expert Panel. We would like to thank the Expert Panel and the European Commission Directorate‐General for Environment for their assistance in the preparation of this report.

RPS, an environmental and communications consultancy based in Ireland, is currently appointed as the European Green Capital Award Secretariat. The competition application process and the work of the Expert Panel and the Jury are facilitated by the Secretariat.

The Secretariat also assists with PR activities related to the European Green Capital Award through the European Green Capital Award website, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn pages, and through various communication channels such as brochures, press releases, newsflashes and film clips etc.

Copyright

© RPS 2018

The report has been prepared on behalf of our client, the European Commission Directorate‐General for Environment. All or part of this publication may be reproduced without further permission, provided the source is acknowledged. If this document or portions of this document are reproduced it shall be cited as: Technical Assessment Synopsis Report ‐ European Green Capital Award 2020, RPS (2018).

No liability is accepted by RPS for any use of this report, other than the purpose for which it was prepared.

Disclaimer

RPS has taken due care in the preparation of this document to ensure that all facts and analysis presented are as accurate as possible within the scope of the project. RPS makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information disclosed in this document, or assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or damage resulting in any way from the use of any information disclosed in this document. While care has been taken in the production of the publication, no responsibility is accepted by RPS for any errors or omissions herein.

RPS accepts no responsibility for any documents or information supplied to RPS by others and no legal liability arising from the use by others of opinions or data contained in this report. It is expressly stated that no independent verification of any documents or information supplied by others has been made.

European Green Capital Award 2020 ‐ Technical Assessment Synopsis Report

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 ANNUAL AWARD PROCESS ............................................................................................................... 3

1.2 AIM OF THIS REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 4

2 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE ............................................................................... 5

2.1 RULES OF CONTEST ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 APPLICANT CITIES FOR 2020 EGC AWARD ......................................................................................... 5

2.3 TWELVE ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS .............................................................................................. 8

2.4 APPLICATION FORM ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.5 EXPERT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PANEL ............................................................................................. 9

2.6 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE .............................................................................................. 10

2.6.1 Pre‐selection Screening ................................................................................................... 10

2.6.2 Primary Technical Review ............................................................................................... 10

2.6.3 Clarifications & Benchmarking ........................................................................................ 10

2.6.4 Ranking Criteria ............................................................................................................... 10

2.6.5 Peer Review ..................................................................................................................... 10

2.6.6 Conflicted Application ..................................................................................................... 11

2.6.7 Background Check ........................................................................................................... 11

3 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS .................................................................................... 12

4 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORTLISTED CITIES ............................................................. 14

4.1 SHORTLISTED CITY SUMMARIES ....................................................................................................... 14

4.1.1 Ghent ............................................................................................................................... 14

4.1.2 Lahti ................................................................................................................................. 15

4.1.3 Lisbon .............................................................................................................................. 16

4.2 GHENT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Climate Change: Mitigation ............................................................................................. 18

4.2.2 Climate Change: Adaptation ........................................................................................... 18

4.2.3 Sustainable Urban Mobility ............................................................................................. 19

4.2.4 Sustainable Land Use ....................................................................................................... 19

4.2.5 Nature & Biodiversity ...................................................................................................... 20

4.2.6 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 21

4.2.7 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 22

4.2.8 Waste............................................................................................................................... 23


ii

4.2.9 Water ............................................................................................................................... 24

4.2.10 Green Growth & Eco‐innovation ............................................................................... 24

4.2.11 Energy Performance .................................................................................................. 25

4.2.12 Governance ............................................................................................................... 26

4.3 LAHTI TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 28






4.3.6 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 31

4.3.7 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 32

4.3.8 Waste............................................................................................................................... 33

4.3.9 Water ............................................................................................................................... 33



4.3.12 Governance ............................................................................................................... 35

4.4 LISBON TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................... 37






4.4.6 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 40

4.4.7 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 40

4.4.8 Waste............................................................................................................................... 42

4.4.9 Water ............................................................................................................................... 42



4.4.12 Governance ............................................................................................................... 45


iii

APPENDICES

Appendix A Application Form for the European Green Capital Award 2020

Appendix B Expert Panel Profiles

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 ‐ Map of European Green Capital 2020 Applicant Cities ....................................................... 7

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 ‐ Details of Applicant Cities (presented in alphabetical order) ............................................... 5 Table 2.2 ‐ Expert Technical Assessment Panel ...................................................................................... 9 Table 2.3 ‐ Indicators and corresponding Primary Expert & Peer Reviewers ....................................... 11 Table 3.1 ‐ Technical Ranking of Shortlisted Cities for European Green Capital Award 2020 .............. 13 Table 4.1 ‐ Ghent Key Performance Indicators EGCA 2020 .................................................................. 14 Table 4.2 ‐ Lahti Key Performance Indicators EGCA 2020 .................................................................... 15 Table 4.3 ‐ Lisbon Key Performance Indicators EGCA 2020 .................................................................. 16


1

1 INTRODUCTION

Europe's cities are recognised as the engines of the European economy, providing jobs and services, and serve as hubs that catalyse creativity and innovation. Cities are the living environment for 72% of all Europeans with this percentage expected to rise to 80% by 2050. They possess potential such as economic growth, innovation and employment opportunities1. However, they are facing ever increasing challenges, with regards to the environment, transport and social cohesion.

The European Green Capital and European Green Leaf Awards are underpinned by European Policy on sustainable urban planning and design. The Awards support the goals set out most recently in the Urban Agenda for the EU‐Pact of Amsterdam, signed in 2016, and prior to this the 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP), as adopted in 2013.

The Urban Agenda for the EU ‐ Pact of Amsterdam

Following a public consultation process in 2014, the Urban Agenda for the EU was launched in May 2016 with the EU Member States agreement on the Pact of Amsterdam. The Urban Agenda for the EU aims to address the challenges faced by cities and also to fully exploit the potential of cities by integrating the urban dimension into EU policies. The EU Urban Agenda also aims to promote cooperation and partnerships between member states, the European Commission, European institutions, cities and other stakeholders in order to stimulate growth, liveability and innovation in the cities of Europe through:

1. Better Regulation: Improving the development, implementation and evaluation of EU

legislation;

2. Better Funding: Ensuring better access to and utilisation of European funds; and

3. Better Knowledge: Improving the EU urban knowledge base and stimulating the sharing of best practices and cooperation between cities.

The Urban Agenda for the EU outlines twelve priority themes, which are essential to achieve the smart, green, and inclusive growth of urban areas. Many of the themes outlined align with the indicators and topic areas assessed in the EGC and EGL Awards, including; Urban Mobility, Circular Economy, Climate Adaptation, Air Quality, Energy Transition and Sustainable Use of Land and Nature‐Based Solutions.

Thematic Partnerships representing various governmental levels and stakeholders are the key delivery mechanism within the Urban Agenda for the EU. All the twelve Partnerships, which include cities from across Europe, have been set up in three phases between May 2016 and June 2017. The existing Partnerships have been launched in three steps:

'Amsterdam Partnerships': these pilot Partnerships deal with the inclusion of migrants and

refugees, affordable housing, air quality, and urban poverty; The 'Bratislava Partnerships', launched during 2016, work on circular economy, digital transition,

jobs and skills in the local economy, and urban mobility; and

1 http://urbanagendaforthe.eu/wp‐content/uploads/2015/12/EU‐Urban‐Agenda‐factsheet.pdf


2

'Malta Partnerships': established in 2017 comprises Partnerships on climate adaptation, energy

transition, responsible and innovative public procurement, and sustainable land use and nature‐

based solutions.

The Partnerships analyse challenges and bottlenecks to recommend implementable actions in the form of an Action Plan to be finalised within two years after the start of their work.

A European Commission report to the Council published in November 2017 presents the progress of the Urban Agenda for the EU and its Partnerships2. The work of the Partnerships is communicated through the 'Futurium' website3 which enables all those interested to be informed and to give feedback (e.g. on the first drafts of Action Plans proposed by the Partnerships). In February 2018, the Urban Agenda Partnership on Circular Economy published the Draft Action Plan4 which sets out a series of actions to support the efforts of European cities in the field of circular economy.

The Urban Agenda for the EU will contribute to the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, notably Goal 11 ‘Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’ and the global ‘New Urban Agenda’ as part of the Habitat III process.

7th Environment Action Programme (EAP)

The Commission commenced the 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP) in 2013 which sets out a strategic agenda for environmental policy‐making with nine 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 (EGCA) 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 safeguard 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 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, greenhouse gas (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.

2 https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/celex3a52017dc06573aen3atxt.pdf 3 https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en 4 https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/circular‐economy/circular‐economy‐draft‐action‐plan


3

The 7th EAP sets the target of meeting local, regional and global challenges by enhancing the sustainability of cities throughout the European Union and 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. All winning cities 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;

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 for 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. Since then the 2014 European Green Capital, Copenhagen, 2015 European Green Capital, Bristol, 2016 European Green Capital, Ljubljana, 2017 European Green Capital, Essen, 2018 European Green Capital, Nijmegen, and 2019 European Green Capital, Oslo have all been annually awarded. This annual cycle continues on to find the 2020 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.

During the 2016 EGCA cycle, the competition was opened for the first time to applications from cities with a population of over 100,000 inhabitants, as the limit for previous cycles was over


4

200,000 inhabitants. In addition to this, the competition was opened for the first time to eligible cities from Switzerland. This remained the case for the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 EGCA competition cycles. In June 2014, the 2017 EGCA call opened to over 500 cities from EU Member States and Candidate Countries (Albania, FYROM, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey); Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

As in previous years, the Expert Panel has carried out a technical assessment of each of the 12 environmental indicator areas (detailed in Section 2.3) 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, and peer review from another expert (more details on this procedure in Section 2). This information is presented to the Jury in the form of this report to form part of their deliberation at the Jury Day.

The shortlisted cities are invited to present a communication strategy substantiated by action plans on how they intend to fulfil their green capital year, should they win.

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, inspiring other cities, promoting best practices and raising the awareness of the EGC model further ‐ bearing in mind city size and location.

3. The city’s communication strategy and actions, which should address:

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

The extent of the city's (local, regional and national) partnering to gain maximum social and economic leverage.

How they intend to fulfil their role of EU Ambassador, inspiring other cities.

Based on the proposals from the Expert Panel and 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 2020. The winner will be announced at the EGCA Awards Ceremony in Nijmegen (Netherlands), European Green Capital 2018, on the 21st June 2018.

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 13 applicant cities, which forms the basis for shortlisting the cities. This is presented per indicator per city for transparency of the overall process.

This report is compiled and edited by RPS, Ireland, acting as Secretariat for the European Green Capital Award.


5

2 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

2.1 RULES OF CONTEST

A financial incentive was introduced to the 2020 cycle of the EGCA competition. With the introduction of the financial incentive, Rules of Contest were developed which included rules to ensure a minimum quality standard and to facilitate the screening out of incomplete submissions. The formal requirements for the applicants to follow were set out in the EGCA 2020 Guidance Note and Section 3.1.1 of the Rules of Contest:

The full application shall be written in one of the official languages of the European Union;

Candidate cities shall answer all the questions and complete all sections of the Application Form. In the event that a question cannot be answered, reasons should be given;

For the pre‐selection stage, applications shall adhere to the word limits indicated per section of the Application Form. Any words above the specified limit will not be taken into account and may leave application responses incomplete. Text included in the captions, body and heading (titles) of graphics/images/tables will be included in the word count. These should not exceed 15 words;

There is a limit of graphics/images/tables to be provided per Indicator Area and Good Practice section of the Application Form that should be adhered to;

For the pre‐selection stage, applicants shall submit their application in word document format and upload through the application portal on the European Green Capital Award website. An additional pdf file may be provided if desired.

2.2 APPLICANT CITIES FOR 2020 EGC AWARD

A total of 17 cities applied for the 2020 EGC Award, of these, 13 submitted valid applications. Details of the 2020 applicants who submitted valid applications are included in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1.

All 13 cities evaluated by the Expert Panel are signatories of the Covenant of Mayors Office (CoMO) and 12 of the eligible countries from across Europe are represented. The smallest city by population is Lahti in Finland with a population of 118,743, whereas Budapest in Hungary has the largest population of 1,729,040.

Table 2.1 ‐ Details of Applicant Cities (presented in alphabetical order)

No. City Name Country Population

1 Aberdeen United Kingdom 207,857

2 Budapest Hungary 1,729,040

3 Bursa Turkey 1,704,441

4 Ghent Belgium 259,083

5 Guimarães Portugal 158,124

6 Lahti Finland 118,743


6

No. City Name Country Population

7 Lisbon Portugal 547,733

8 Ostrava Czech Republic 301,942

9 Prato Italy 185,456

10 Reykjavík Iceland 123,246

11 Seville Spain 698,042

12 Tallinn Estonia 411,063

13 Wrocław Poland 630,131

Europea

n Green

Cap

ital Award 2020 ‐ Technical Assessm

ent Synopsis Rep

ort

7

Figu

re 2.1 ‐ M

ap of Eu

ropean

Green Cap

ital 2020 Applican

t Cities


8

2.3 TWELVE ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

The selection of the European Green Capital 2020 is based on the following 12 environmental indicators:

1. Climate Change: Mitigation

2. Climate Change: Adaptation

3. Sustainable Urban Mobility

4. Sustainable Land Use

5. Nature and Biodiversity

6. Air Quality

7. Noise

8. Waste

9. Water

10. Green Growth and Eco‐innovation 11. Energy Performance

12. Governance

For the 2020 cycle, some of the 12 indicators have been changed from the previous cycle to incorporate changes to the text content as well as titles.

2.4 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 Performance 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 succeeding award cycles. The format of the Application Form was modified for the 2018 cycle to ask cities to provide environmental data in table format for each indicator. This facilitated the extraction of data to be used for benchmarking of the cities and was retained for the 2019 and 2020 cycles. Also, Section E of each indicator, Good Practices, was removed from the Indicator sections and a new section called the Good Practices section was added to the end of the Application Form asking cities to provide six examples of Good Practices in their city. This was retained for the 2020 cycle. A copy of the 2020 EGCA 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 2018 award cycle to provide a policy background and further relevant information to shape applicant cities responses. These revisions were retained for the 2020 cycle. The 2020 Award Application Form has four sections per indicator as follows:

a) Describe the present situation.

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.


9

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. The 'budgets' refer to approved budgets to be used for the implementation of these reports, plans or strategies.

The 2016 EGCA Application Form introduced a new section at the start of the application form ‘City Introduction & Context’. This section was retained for the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 EGCA cycles as it is considered to provide valuable insight and context to the Expert Panel. A legislative non‐compliance background check of shortlisted cities was also conducted as part of the 2020 award technical assessment.

2.5 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 2.2 ‐ Expert Technical Assessment Panel

Indicator Expert Title

1 Climate Change: Mitigation

Dr. Matthew Kennedy

Head of Strategy and Business (International Energy Research Centre), Ireland

2 Climate Change: Adaptation

Ms. Birgit Georgi Urban and Adaptation Expert, Founder of ‘Strong Cities in a Changing Climate’, Germany

3 Sustainable Urban Mobility

Dr. Ian Skinner Director, Transport and Environmental Policy Research, Crowborough, United Kingdom

4 Sustainable Land Use

Dr. Annemieke Smit

Secretary to the Board of Wageningen Environmental Research (part of Wageningen University and Research), The Netherlands

5 Nature and Biodiversity

Mr. David Jamieson

Parks & Green Space Manager, City of Edinburgh Council, and Director, Greenspace Scotland, United Kingdom

6 Air Quality Mr. Joan Marc Craviotto Arnau

Air Quality Project Manager at Barcelona City Council, Spain

7 Noise 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

8 Waste Mr. Warren Phelan

Technical Director, Waste, Energy & Environment, RPS, Ireland

9 Water Mr. Christof Mainz

Senior/First Officer at the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), Bonn, Germany

10 Green Growth and Eco‐innovation

Mr. Marc Okhuijsen

Co‐founder and owner Zonnova BV, Director at RéciproCité, The Netherlands

11 Energy Performance

Prof. Dr. Manfred Fischedick

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

12 Governance Mr. Alex Minshull Innovation and Sustainability Service Manager, Bristol City Council, United Kingdom


10

2.6 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

2.6.1 Pre‐selection Screening

In accordance with Section 4.3: Pre‐selection of the Rules of Contest, the Secretariat validated the applications for compliance with the criteria set out in Section 3 of the Rules of Contest. Applications which did not comply with the Rules of Contest were issued to the Commission for confirmation on the findings of the Secretariat regarding their validity. Compliant applications were issued to the Expert panel for technical evaluation.

2.6.2 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 is considered on an equal basis by the Expert.

2.6.3 Clarifications & Benchmarking

Due to the introduction of the Rules of Contest and Financial Incentive (see Section 2.1), to ensure a fair and transparent competition process, a clarifications procedure was not undertaken for the 2020 cycle of the competition.

Benchmarking was undertaken by the EGCA Secretariat; key performance data provided by the cities was extracted from their application forms and synthesised into a presentation for the Expert Panel to help inform their evaluation of the applicant cities. The benchmarking data was made available to the Experts for the duration of the technical evaluation process. This data will be further utilised in EGCA publications prepared by the Secretariat.

2.6.4 Ranking Criteria

Experts use a defined ranking system. Under this ranking system a position of 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. is applied to each city per indicator. Since there are 13 applications to be evaluated then each city must be ranked from 1st as the best to 13th as the weakest. Note: these are not quantitative scores but rankings.

2.6.5 Peer Review

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


11

Table 2.3 ‐ Indicators and corresponding Primary Expert & Peer Reviewers

Indicator Primary Expert Peer Reviewer

1 Climate Change: Mitigation Dr. Matthew Kennedy Prof. Dr. Manfred Fischedick

2 Climate Change: Adaptation Ms. Birgit Georgi Mr. Christof Mainz

3 Sustainable Urban Mobility Dr. Ian Skinner Mr. Alex Minshull

4 Sustainable Land Use Dr. Annemieke Smit Mr. David Jamieson

5 Nature and Biodiversity Mr. David Jamieson Dr. Annemieke Smit

6 Air Quality Mr. Joan Marc Craviotto Arnau

Prof. Dr. Diogo Alarcão

7 Noise Prof. Dr. Diogo Alarcão Mr. Joan Marc Craviotto Arnau

8 Waste Mr. Warren Phelan Mr. Marc Okhuijsen

9 Water Mr. Christof Mainz Ms. Birgit Georgi

10 Green Growth and Eco‐innovation Mr. Marc Okhuijsen Mr. Warren Phelan

11 Energy Performance Prof. Dr. Manfred Fischedick Dr. Matthew Kennedy

12 Governance Mr. Alex Minshull Dr. Ian Skinner

2.6.6 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 EGCA 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 three experts involved. There was no conflict of interest raised in the 2020 EGCA cycle.

2.6.7 Background Check

As part of the EGCA process a high level background check is carried out by the European Commission on all shortlisted cities to identify if any of those shortlisted are in breach of environmental legislation or do not meet European reporting requirements. This background check is not presented to the Expert Panel during the technical assessment process. It is provided to the Jury in advance of the Jury Meeting and their deliberations.


12

3 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Based on the technical assessment results, the Expert Panel has proposed to shortlist the following three cities (in alphabetical order) for the title of European Green Capital 2020:

Ghent‐Lahti‐Lisbon

The Commission will invite these three 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 3.1.

Europea

n Green

Cap

ital Award 2020 ‐ Technical Assessm

ent Synopsis Rep

ort

13

Table 3.1 ‐ Technical Ran

king of Sh

ortlisted Cities for Eu

ropean

Green Cap

ital Award 2020

Indicator /

Applican

t City

Climate Change:

Mitigation

Climate Change:

Adaptation

Sustainable Urban Mobility

Sustainable Land Use

Nature & Biodiversity

Air Quality

Noise

Waste

Water

Green Growth and Eco‐innovation

Energy Performance

Governance

Ghent

1

1

2

3

4

5

2

1

2

4

1

5

Lahti

10

4

4

6

1

1

1

2

1

2

6

1

Lisbon

6

3

1

1

7

8

6

3

5

1

4

4


14

4 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORTLISTED CITIES

4.1 SHORTLISTED CITY SUMMARIES

4.1.1 Ghent

Ghent is a port and university city with 259,083 inhabitants in the Flemish Region of Belgium and is the capital and largest city of the East Flanders province. Ghent was established on the confluence of the Rivers Scheldt and Leie and has become a prosperous city in the industrial heart of Europe.

Ghent demonstrates a consistently strong performance across many of the indicator areas including climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation, sustainable urban mobility, noise, waste, energy performance and water. An integrated initiative of particular note is Ghent’s citizen budget and crowd funding initiative which provides an innovative financing mechanism to the city. Some key statistics for Ghent are outlined in Table 4.1Error! Reference source not found. below.

Table 4.1 ‐ Ghent Key Performance Indicators EGCA 2020

CO2 emissions (tCO2/capita) 5.82 tCO2/capita

Proportion of population living within 300 m of an hourly (or more frequent) public transport service

76.1%

Percentage of people living within 300 m of green urban areas ≥ 5,000 m2 in overall city area (%)

74.18%

Household waste recycling rate (%) 57.7%

Domestic water usage (litres per capita per day) 116 l/capita/day

Waste water load (population equivalent) 267,090 p.e. Energy usage/capita (kWh/capita) 25,562 kWh/capita

Evolving from their ambitious climate plan which sets the roadmap for carbon neutrality, the City has a clear structure of interventions which together have achieved significant emission reductions across many sectors. This climate plan is centred on stakeholder cooperation and it is evident that citizens play a large role in the City’s climate change transition. Participatory processes, co‐creation and alternative forms of cooperation such as citizen budgets allow the people of Ghent to be directly involved in policymaking.

Through its Climate Adaptation Plan, the City sets out a clear vision for climate resilience. Its systematic and integrated approach to make the City robust against extreme heat periods, heavy downpours, long‐lasting droughts and sea level rise places Ghent’s citizens at is core.

Ghent is leading by example with regard to sustainable transport through its adoption of alternatively‐fuelled cars, the introduction of measures to enable and encourage the use of these vehicles and the development of a logistics platform that distributes freight sustainably within the City. The municipality of Ghent shows further leadership in this regard by encouraging its staff to use alternative modes of transport and continues to implement positive measures in favour of public transport, walking and cycling.


15

4.1.2 Lahti

Lahti is the capital of the Päijänne Tavastia region in Finland and has 118,743 inhabitants. It is situated approximately 100 kilometres to the northeast of Helsinki, the capital city of Finland on the southern bay of Lake Vesijärvi.

After the Second World War, Lahti experienced rapid industrialisation and growth of the population and economy. This also led to significant environmental challenges such as the eutrophication of Lake Vesijärvi and a higher dependency on cars in the city centre. The City of Lahti has addressed these challenges by setting up and funding the Lake Vesijärvi project, where university research groups, residents, local companies and the City work together to improve the condition of the lake. The City of Lahti also set up Lahti City consortium which has invested €100 million in the development of the city centre transport system e.g. underground parking spaces, new bicycle lanes and wider pedestrian areas.

The City of Lahti shows strong performance across a majority of the indicator areas and demonstrates great proficiency in nature and biodiversity, governance, noise, air quality, water green growth and eco‐innovation, and waste. Some key statistics for Lahti are outlined in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 ‐ Lahti Key Performance Indicators EGCA 2020



82.8%


99%

Household waste recycling rate (%) 42% Domestic water usage (litres per capita per day) 122 l/capita/day Waste water load (population equivalent) 205,000 p.e. Energy usage/capita (kWh/capita) 41,072 kWh/capita

There is clear evidence that Lahti champions strong stakeholder engagement and public consultation in its approach to governance. It encourages inclusivity by promoting active participation from elderly, disability and youth councils and has developed a series of projects centred on involving its citizens in local governance. These innovative strategies include the development of a mobile app for citizen consultation called Porukka (‘the Crowd’), the celebration of men who are taking environmental action (to counter a local cultural perception that care for the environment is a female characteristic), engagement with young children through mapping natural areas and the creation of a city building game to help understand the views of young people.

Lahti has a rich history of active nature conservation, and a recent shift in attitude towards the protection of both urban and rural species, and their habitats has brought the City to new heights. Lahti has ensured the strong links to biodiversity continue well into the future by funding a wide variety of educational programmes which appeal to all ages, from ‘outdoor kindergarten’ to ‘Environmental Grandparents’. The City has successfully combined good levels of public participation with its range of strategies, polices and plans for protecting and improving its natural heritage.


16

Lahti displays strong environmental commitment to improving its air quality. The application presents comprehensive information on past planning with related budgets, highlighting previous efforts and a commitment to the cause. Future measures relate to mobility, such as fostering cycling and walking, promoting the use of electric vehicles and alternatives fuels in logistics. There are also plans to relocate city centre traffic to an outer ring road, new EV charging points and the use of green energy are being explored. The City also intends to start monitoring benzo(a)pyrene, which denotes extra performance in terms of air quality management, over and above the standard procedure.

4.1.3 Lisbon

Lisbon is the capital and largest city of Portugal with a population of 547,733. Lisbon was the first capital in Europe to sign the New Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy after achieving reductions of 50% in CO2 emissions (2002‐14), 23% in energy consumption and 17% in water consumption in the municipality (2007‐13).

Lisbon now has one of the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) charging point networks with 540 free public EV charging points citywide and 39% of the municipal car fleet is electric. Lisbon’s local sustainable mobility systems have also been enhanced in recent years by the addition of 90 km of cycle paths with a further 60 km currently under construction and six bicycle and pedestrian bridges.

Lisbon was awarded the prize for European Entrepreneurship Region (EER 2015), is host of the Web Summit 2016‐2018 and is a leader in the Sharing Cities Horizon 2020 Smart Cities & Communities project.

Lisbon presented itself as a strong applicant, particularly through its approach to sustainable urban mobility, green growth and eco‐innovation, sustainable land use, climate change adaptation and waste. Some key statistics for Lisbon are outlined in Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3 ‐ Lisbon Key Performance Indicators EGCA 2020



93.3%


76%

Household waste recycling rate (%) 32.2% Domestic water usage (litres per capita per day) 138 l/capita/day Waste water load (population equivalent) 900,505 p.e. Energy usage/capita (kWh/capita) 13,849 kWh/capita

Lisbon’s performance with regard to sustainable urban mobility is highly commendable. Lisbon has an excellent, city‐wide vision which sets an ambitious target to become a 'City of Neighbourhoods' in which anyone, anywhere in the city can access at least two sustainable modes within 500 metres. In this vision the City acknowledges that walking neighbourhoods are the fundamental cells of the City. To conserve this unique characteristic, measures taken aim to restrict car use and improve soft modes of transport such as walking and cycling. Other plans to achieve sustainable mobility in Lisbon include the promotion of alternatively‐fuelled vehicles, shared mobility and public transport in the City.


17

Lisbon presents an integrated approach on green infrastructure and the redevelopment of unused land. The benefits of green areas for both physical and mental well‐being of urbans residents are well acknowledged by Lisbon, and the City has created a series of green corridors by combining existing green areas, and newly established green areas on unused plots. Green corridors are seen as highly cost‐effective measures to counteract the effects of climate change (heat island, drought, storm flooding), and air pollution. A set of policies to counteract the population decline in the City have been established, with the aim of attracting people and businesses to increase efficiency of land use within the City, and reduce the area of under‐utilised land as demand grows.

Through clear and concise policy driven plans Lisbon has managed to involve citizens, universities, businesses and foreign partners in their future green growth and eco‐innovation strategies. The City is working towards becoming a fully integrated city, with smart city concepts implemented in the urban tissue. The City has a clear direction of where it is going, and has a series of campaigns and interesting projects planned to help it achieve these goals.


18

4.2 GHENT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

4.2.1 Climate Change: Mitigation

Main Evaluator Co‐evaluator Ranking

Dr. Matthew Kennedy Prof. Dr. Manfred Fischedick 1

It is evident that the City of Ghent has a clear structure of interventions evolving from climate plan (2008‐13, 2014‐19) with attention now focused on Ghent's 2020‐30 Plan. Data capture is robust and analysis includes back‐casting.

Significant emission reductions have been achieved across residences, agriculture, transport and especially lighting (40% reduction). It is very welcome that the implementation of their climate plan is based on stakeholder cooperation and transition.

Industry and the financial sector play a large role in Ghent's application. Innovative solutions including SME investments, business mentoring and loans for low income citizens are excellent and differentiate Ghent from other applicants.

Identified measures include passive construction, cycling infrastructure, neighbourhood car parks, awareness raising and a clear action plan. The approaches outlined specify ongoing improvements beyond what is required demonstrating commitment and ambition from the City.

4.2.2 Climate Change: Adaptation


Ms. Birgit Georgi Mr. Christof Mainz 1

Ghent is highly committed to climate change adaptation as demonstrated by its active participation in Mayors Adapt (2014) and the new Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (2016). In 2016, Ghent developed its comprehensive and concrete Climate Adaptation Plan 2016‐2019 approved by the municipal council. It has a clear vision: in 2030, Ghent should be climate‐robust to impacts of extreme heat periods, heavy downpours, long‐lasting droughts and sea level rise. Eight areas form the basis for the action plan that, already for the period 2016‐2019, contains the impressive number of 84 concrete actions that appear targeted. Implementation of measures is well on its way, for example the Green Structure Plan foresees green axes for ventilation of which five are partly completed. Ghent's approach is very systematic and comprehensive. In the past, the vulnerability to heat impacts was assessed. Currently, a vulnerability assessment on fluvial and pluvial flooding is ongoing and an assessment on drought and water scarcity impacts is scheduled for 2018/2019. Work is very detailed and links to demographic and socio‐economic sensitivities.

Comprehensive citizen and other stakeholder participation is part of Ghent's approach to develop and implement action. Creativity is an inspiring core element seen throughout the actions whether it is the citizens budget, the crowd funding platform, subsidies for installing green roofs or innovative forms of communication. Nice examples are the demonstration train to promote the establishment


19

of further green roofs and the good practice on establishing green roofs on garages by the owners themselves with the support of the City. A specific communication strategy is scheduled for 2018‐2019 focusing on private remediation and greening.

While Ghent sets on mainstreaming adaptation and already integrates climate change adaptation well with water and biodiversity issues, it could elaborate more on possible win‐win solutions with other areas too, in particular using the potential to combine climate change mitigation and adaptation action. Also, the monitoring scheme considers only the urban heat island effect, but this could be a good starting point to develop a comprehensive scheme to monitor the implementation of measures and their impact on reducing vulnerability.

4.2.3 Sustainable Urban Mobility


Dr. Ian Skinner Mr. Alex Minshull 2

Ghent has a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) in place with appropriate underlying principles and ambitious objectives; the modal shares are already moving in the right direction. The SUMP has various elements, including a Circulation Plan that aims to restrict motorised traffic from accessing the city centre. The City actively engages its citizens, which is very good. A ‘cabinet’ of citizens is involved in the implementation of the Circulation Plan; there is also a mobility forum in which citizens discuss the SUMP.

One of the principles underlying the SUMP is to reduce travel by ensuring proximity, which is important. It is positive that the new structure plan will focus on inter alia densification.

The city has an impressively high modal share of cycling, which is likely to be the result of the many actions that the City has taken to facilitate and promote cycling. There is an aim to have a bicycle parking space within 100 metres of each front door. Action is also being taken to improve public transport. It would be good to know about the City's plans to promote walking.

The City has complemented its measures in favour of other modes by taking action to restrict car use in the city centre. Some additional measures to reduce car use are planned ‐ it would be interesting to learn more about these, as well as about what the City is doing outside of the city centre to reduce car use.

The City has sharing schemes, a logistics platform that distributes freight sustainably within the city and has taken action to promote alternatively‐fuelled vehicles. It would have been interesting to learn how the City is planning to develop shared mobility.

4.2.4 Sustainable Land Use


Dr. Annemieke Smit Mr. David Jamieson 3


20

Over the past few years Ghent has systematically taken care of polluted and derelict sites, creating a city in which most of the brownfields are being redeveloped or already in use again. Given the industrial history of the city this is an impressive but necessary action. Not only is the number of sites striking, but the step by step approach, including temporary destinations is an inspiring example. Finally, Ghent nicely combined the redevelopment of derelict zones with the creation of a green climate axis, which positively contributes to the quality of life and social fabric.

Ghent presents a clear vision on green infrastructure with the green poles, but expands on this even further with the eight green climate axes. It is interesting to see how these axes are developed in different ways and that former brownfield sites can fit into this structure in a natural manner.

In the present situation section, Ghent sticks to biological quality indicators of green areas. Due to the intensive use of green areas in Ghent, it would be sensible to record and monitor citizens satisfaction on Green Urban Areas. Some other cities report that public assessments provide insight into what green spaces are in need of maintenance or improvement. In the ‘past situation’ section results from surveys of resident’s satisfaction are presented, but they do not include any explanation on how these insights were obtained.

The sustainability metre is mentioned very briefly, this could be an interesting tool to share with other cities (small and large), but requires further explanation.

Ghent’s application shows a strong integrated approach between climate change adaptation and green infrastructure. Ghent is, within the European Green Capital 2020 applications, unique in having extensive building regulations that require thorough rain water management measures on and between buildings. Permeable or water retaining surfaces, like green roofs are promoted. Legislation on green facades is very encouraging and the creation of green roofs is subsidised, on both new build and existing roofs.

4.2.5 Nature & Biodiversity


Mr. David Jamieson Dr. Annemieke Smit 4

The continued acquisition of nature areas via the nature association ‘Natuurpunt’ is increasingly creditable. Indeed, this long‐term and forward‐thinking approach is an excellent example of how a city can sustain its support for the protection and management of the urban green network.

Ghent’s digital Biological Scorecard (BWK) is rather unique and a very good tool for monitoring the biological gains versus losses over time of the city’s various vegetation types.

The Green Climate Axes have the potential to benefit both nature and people in this climate change era. It would be interesting to learn more about the maintenance approach applied to these features, as naturalisation of urban green infrastructure often comes into conflict with demands for an aesthetic sensitivity. Invariably a balance has to be struck.


21

The ‘Species of the Year’ initiative would appear to be a useful way for engaging a broad spectrum of the local population in nature conservation. An annual programme of excursions, events and activities focused on a charismatic local species can act as a draw to new audiences ‐ particularly children and their parents. It would be instructive to measure the influence that this approach has had on positive behaviour change.

Given the current debate about their impact on natural ecosystems, it would be helpful to learn about Ghent’s attitude to, policies on, and use of herbicides in the management of its nature areas, public parks and green spaces, and invasive non‐native species.

4.2.6 Air Quality


Mr. Joan Marc Craviotto Arnau Prof. Dr. Diogo Alarcão 5

Air quality data is comprehensive and up to date. Data shows a good air quality, complying with the EU legislation in all monitoring sites inside the conurbation. Unfortunately, data from the monitoring sites located in the canal‐zone is not presented, however this may be because it is located in the suburbs / outside the boundary of the urban area. The inclusion of a map and accurate descriptions are very beneficial in describing the configuration of the network.

Ghent presented a chart of PM10 daily exceedances indicating an important reduction from 1997 to 2015. Other charts showing the evolution of annual average of PM10 would have been very valuable. In terms of NO2, trends are shown using the yearly average, displaying a slight reduction of the concentration levels from 1998 to 2016. Ghent discussed a monitoring campaign which uses passive samplers. This is a valuable inclusion in the application as it demonstrates commitment to continuous improvement. For both pollutants, a good knowledge of emissions is shown but source apportionment assessment is missing. Complementary factors with impact on the air quality are presented (e.g. the harbour, industrial area, motorways, etc.).

The City has a local air quality plan which contributes to the regional strategy and comprises 50 actions focused on reducing emissions from mobility, promoting the use of alternative fuels and in communicating to citizens. In terms of mobility it stresses the efforts in the modal shift, promoting the use of bicycles, and in the importance of reducing the traffic speed and restricting access to the city centre. With respect to alternative fuels, it shows the municipality’s commitment to upgrading its fleet to electric and CNG, and the efforts undertaken to subsidising less polluting transport modes. Also, a LEZ is expected by 2020.

The overall air quality strategy is explained coherently and demonstrates a holistic approach. When it comes to future planning, the City’s efforts are centred on increasing knowledge about wood burning contribution and implementing the LEZ. Additionally, a new mobility plan is extending the promotion of bicycles and proposing new measures in parking and freight. Other measures in the industrial sector are also proposed, for example, the one addressed to Arcelor Mittal which is a significant contributor to pollution levels. It is positive to see that technological measures will be implemented to drastically cut emissions of PM, NOx and SO2. Of further interest is the harbour project to reduce environmental impact by using hydrogen in some of its processes.


22

The application is clear and well presented. However, the diagnosis could be improved upon, as the source apportionment information is missing. The narrative is coherent and it helps the evaluator to clearly understand the City endeavours with respect to air quality. Many charts and pictures are included which are very useful. Unfortunately, future scenario forecast is missing, as well as budget allocation quantification. Furthermore, the application would benefit from filling gaps where information was not provided.

4.2.7 Noise


Prof. Dr. Diogo Alarcão Mr. Joan Marc Craviotto Arnau 2

Data from Ghent’s 2014 strategic noise maps show that 77.3% and 32.8% of the population is exposed respectively to total noise levels Lden over 55 dB(A) and over 65 dB(A). In relation to the night indicator, Ln, 82.4% of the population is exposed to total noise levels over 45 dB(A) and 38.3% is exposed to total noise levels over 55 dB(A). These are extremely high share values, stemming mainly from the existence of a large network of major transport routes crossing the territory, and thus the present situation portrays a noisy acoustic environment in the city. It is additionally said that almost 15% of the population is exposed to Lden levels over 70 dB(A) of road traffic noise, which is a very high figure. The application states that the reported figures are overestimated due to traffic volumes overestimation, which already has been shown through new extended traffic counts, and new exposure data is to be available in 2018. No trends are reported. Quiet areas are not formally defined or classified, but the City reports that 71% of the population lives within 300 m of delimitated ‘quiet’ green spaces. In this respect, an exploratory study on the acoustic environment of nine of these green spaces revealed that values for the statistical indicator L50 were between 35.1 and 47.4 dB(A), and those for the statistical indicator L95 between 30.9 and 44.4 dB(A), which are very low levels (and without relevant time variations). These results are to be the starting point for a fully‐fledged inventory of the quiet areas of the city, which is a very positive approach.

Noise reduction measures applied comprise road traffic and mobility management schemes such as: 30 km/h zones (20% of Ghent’s area), large pedestrian areas (extended to 51 ha recently in April 2017), encouraging the use of bicycles (470 km of tracks and 10,000 parking places), optimised parking, and improving public transport infrastructures (new tramline and 50 hybrid traction buses), but also the implementation of acoustic barriers, cobblestone replacement and low noise asphalt and heavy goods vehicles restrictions along some major roads. When streets with bus and tram lines are renovated, low noise materials are used as standard, particularly concerning the tramway superstructure that uses resilient materials for decoupling the rails from the rest of the structure. It is however not clear if the road surfacing is done employing low noise asphalts as standard procedure. Of the city’s fleet, 10% (50 vehicles) is electric and street sweepers are also electric. The City has offered several grants concerning the stimulation of e‐mobility (e‐bikes and scooters, e‐vehicles for car‐sharing, e‐taxis, public access e‐stations), which is very positive. A budget of €150,000 per year has been in place since 2014; with a budget of €2.5 million for the next 3 years.

The City has a comprehensive approach regarding noise from leisure, entertainment and events, with installations subject to permit approval, and compliance with noise standards. Projects worth highlighting are the consultation for the leisure/entertainment sector with a specialist coach and city representatives, as well as the permanent online noise monitoring during the ‘Gentse Feesten’ carried out by noise experts.


23

The Noise Action Plan 2014‐2019 has integrated actions from the Flemish and Federal governments, including several measures for the management and reduction of ambient noise. The reported measures, comprise mobility issues like the extension of 50 km of cycle tracks, traffic re‐routing, speed limits for motorways, the substitution of two main bus lines by a tram line, and resurfacing of city roads (budget of €13 million per year) and noise barriers. The renewal of the city’s fleet by e‐vehicles, which can be shared with citizens, and the expansion of e‐charging points are also envisaged, as well as the implementation of four city distribution centres on the urban outskirts and the use of quieter (electric/hybrid) vehicles for goods distribution.

The future formal definition and inventory of quiet areas, and their protection, and the good practice guide on urban planning for supporting noise management designs are good measures and the city should ensure that these actions are definitely carried out. In addition, the envisaged adoption of C‐weighted noise levels, and associated regulation, for reducing bass noise in large scale recreational events can be considered as an interesting good practice. However, short and long term objectives concerning the quality of the acoustic environment could be better defined, and a quantification of the future reduction in terms of noise exposed population should be determined.

4.2.8 Waste


Mr. Warren Phelan Mr. Marc Okhuijsen 1

The City has submitted a strong well‐structured application which has a good use of images and data. The City exceeded the word count in responding to first part of question which hindered a complete assessment of the response to this part of the question.

Ghent has a high rate of recycling based on an impressive multi bin collection system covering the city. The collection system has evolved over the decades and this evolution is well described. The city’s collection system is incentivised encouraging/rewarding its citizens to recycle. This is also the case at recycling centres

The City has implemented the polluter pays principle since 1998 and its citizens pay more for residual waste than recyclables. The city’s collection is incentivised encouraging and rewarding its citizens to recycle. This is also the case at recycling centres with free access granted for up to 12 visits. The City has in place social measures related to waste where lower income families are accommodated in the system and given credits.

The City has comprehensive and integrated treatment infrastructure which serves its strong source segregated collection system and is in the city's control. The application would have benefited from more details on the treatment infrastructure named. The application had an over focus on the waste to energy facility. There are interesting circular economy projects underway such as the green public procurement strategy, carbstone and ZAWENT.

The City has a strong waste policy framework in place with national, regional and local level policies which are integrated and are setting the current and future agenda. There are clear qualitative and quantitate targets in place and clear integration between waste and circular economy policies.


24

4.2.9 Water


Mr. Christof Mainz Ms. Birgit Georgi 2

The present situation in Ghent is very well described and all of the requested data is clearly presented. The application focuses on drinking water and waste water (compliance data since 2012 only). However, more information could have been included on the Water Framework Directive, e.g. surface water quality status, and the impact of combined sewer overflows, to enhance the application. There is some information on the situation of flood issues, river restoration and citizen’s projects (water in the city). The application also describes the social component for (staggered) water tariffs in the city which was welcomed.

Past performance is very well described, with a focus on waste water and citizen engagement, rainwater measures, and the creation of permeable green spaces. The concept of the ‘Water in the City’ project was well described (spatial projects on and along the water, reopening of watercourses). Details on measures on water efficiency, tariffs, and measurement is missing with respect to drinking water.

Future plans for the city are well described in relation to water and climate change and open spaces. Awareness raising measures regarding water are present such as; 'New Docks' project (1,500 homes), renewable energy project from waste water, and vacuum toilets. New flooding measures are accounted for within 'Water in the city' project.

Relevant information in the context of EU water legislation is well described (in terms of city compliance). It is commendable that the City provides a description of some additional projects and initiatives that both go beyond legal requirements and ensure visibility to the public which helps raise awareness e.g. rainwater measures such as unsealing.

Overall, Ghent submitted a high quality application and the standard is commendable. The application demonstrates robust data collection by the city. Natural retention measures and SUDS projects are visible which strengthens the application.

4.2.10 Green Growth & Eco‐innovation


Mr. Marc Okhuijsen Mr. Warren Phelan 4

Ghent submitted a high quality application, which is well structured, and adequately explains the city’s vision and plans, through good use of images and data. Full explanations are given on all the questions. The Cleantech Cluster, The circular living in the Old Dockyards, the Grindbakken and previous projects such as the Ghent bio economy valley and the urban smart city farm are outstanding projects. Although all the projects are reported very clearly with an integral view, the citizen’s participation is not always clear. The City of Ghent puts a lot of effort in developing and maintaining contacts with business and universities.


25

Ghent indicates that where relevant 100% of their contracts consider green issues, however, there is no clear evidence or explanation to support this statement. The City mentioned under their Green Public Procurement each specification is carefully tested for sustainability. Ghent gives a lot of attention in the application to the implementation of green growth in the urban tissue, it is well described in some of the sample projects like the Waste Heat project, the E‐coaching and the reuse of buildings and places.

The policy framework on both national and local levels is impressive; clear qualitative and quantitative targets are represented, which clearly integrate with the indicator policies. Interesting projects are underway, like the Tech Lane Ghent Science Park, the Ghent Syngas cluster, Capture (university) and the Green Innovation in the local social economy. Ghent highlights future targets in different areas such as its sustainable vehicle fleet and provides some information on future developments.

4.2.11 Energy Performance


Prof. Dr. Manfred Fischedick Dr. Matthew Kennedy 1

The City of Ghent provided a detailed data discussion for the present situation and past development (mainly 2007‐2015) regarding energy consumption, renewable energies and city buildings (2003‐2016). Influencing factors for the reduction in energy consumption of 14.2% between 2007 and 2015 are transparently described (e.g. economic situation, winters). There is a clear increase in renewable energy production. However, only 2.6% of final energy demand covered by renewable energies is produced locally.

As early as 1998, Ghent has been operating an energy policy for its own buildings and street lighting and since 2003, data is monitored. Hence, Ghent is without any doubt an environmental frontrunner with respect to energy performance. Between 2003 and 2016, energy consumption fell by more than 20% ‐ this is absolutely remarkable in comparison to other cities. In addition, the city’s purchasing power initiatives to buy 100% green energy since mid‐2008 is commendable.

Several measures are mentioned in Section B, including measures addressing energy consumption in buildings and street lighting, encouraging energy efficient home renovation (for example, through free tailored advice and guidance and/or financial support to social housing associations), energy coaching for businesses), sustainable harbour development, district heating systems, and waste heat projects. This combination of measures is commendable. Amongst others the ‘Energiecentrale’ is a good local example for triggering more investment in energy efficiency. Unfortunately the City does not provide information about if and how awareness rising for citizens is conducted.

There are several targets Ghent wants to achieve for example, a 20% reduction in energy consumption by 2019 compared to 2007 levels, doubling the amount of locally‐produced renewable energy to 15% of household energy by 2019 compared to 2014 with emphasis on citizen participation, and a 15% reduction in energy consumption in city buildings and street lighting over the same time period. Ghent aims to become a climate neutral city by 2050.


26

Ghent covers a broad and comprehensive portfolio of measures. In describing its climate action plan 2020‐2030, several measures are mentioned, however it is unclear how mid and long‐term targets shall be reached. It should be acknowledged that Ghent has the potential and ambition to conduct experiments (e.g. neighbourhood power experiments), draw learnings and disseminate them which can benefit Ghent locally and other cities through knowledge transfer and best practice exchange. It is commendable that Ghent is supporting and driving innovations in the energy sector (e.g. hydrogen applications in the port).

4.2.12 Governance


Mr. Alex Minshull Dr. Ian Skinner 5

Ghent has a vision with strong environmental goals related to several EGCA indicator areas. It has an integrated 5‐year plan and several 5‐year sectoral plans. Longer term strategy is included in climate (2050), transport and land use (2030) plans. It is inferred that the strategies are adopted by the City council, but this is not confirmed in the application. The City has developed a bespoke monitoring system to manage its performance against targets.

Ghent City Council involve citizens in a range of different ways in the development of policy and plans, in Citizen budgeting, crowd funding, open data and several citizen led initiatives. The development of the Transport plans is used as an example and unspecified stakeholders were engaged. The City also has the Ghent Cabinet of Citizens (150) and a Mobility Forum (30) who were both involved in the transport plan. Youth engagement is referred to, but the text limit was exceeded and therefore text was deleted so the nature of this was not able to be understood and assessed. How other groups of society are engaged is not described in the remaining text.

Ghent City Council has a strong leadership role through its own operational practices and through very active participation in international networks. For example, it has had a procurement policy since 2008 covering a range of aspects and good staff awareness initiatives, including energy, transport and veggie Thursday. It has taken a formal role in the governance of several international networks ‐ Eurocities, ICLEI, CoM, GPM demonstrating a commitment to sharing knowledge and good practice.

In Section C the City states that ‘An integrated vision on the environmental policy is evidenced by the strategic goals’. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the application text what these strategic goals are, and they are not explicitly referred to elsewhere in the text. It also refers to its Smart City Concept, but it is not clear from the text in the Governance section of the application how this relates to the existing plans and strategies described in the application. The application would be stronger if the city was able to demonstrate more clearly the integrated nature of their city planning. However, four good and diverse projects are described to illustrate integrated environmental management. Unfortunately, the section exceeded the word limit and therefore text was deleted and so no information was visible on how the city had involved or informed stakeholders or citizens in the EGCA bid.


27

Unfortunately, in all three sections the text provided by the applicant was too long and therefore excess words were deleted. Also, several subsidiary questions were not answered, and the structure chart of the City Council was not provided in English and therefore could not be assessed.


28

4.3 LAHTI TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT




Lahti has achieved significant mitigation success with 42 actions achieved across its Sustainable Energy Action Plan targets and a 30% reduction in CO2 from non‐Emissions Trading System (ETS) sources. The extremely positive finding is an emissions reduction at a time of population growth.

Lahti's energy efficiency agreement programme has delivered savings of 9%. The proposal’s focus is on tools (for example, master planning for eco‐efficiency) and unfortunately, there is no detail on how the City actions will be implemented or measured.

It is good to see ongoing improvements with more ambitious mitigation targets and 70% reduction in CO2 by 2030. However, the proposal would benefit from a more integrated approach to its mitigation strategy.




Lahti is engaged actively in several international projects and has developed interesting and innovative solutions also relevant to adaptation. For example, the large‐scale measure Hybrid Solutions for Urban Storm Water, where a large‐scale solution is combined with small‐scale solutions, the voluntary work programme to prevent invasive plant species, or the storm‐proofing of the electricity network as part of the city electricity network investments. Although flooding seems to play an important role in the city's climate challenges, the activities cover a range of different climate change impacts, such as temperature changes and heat. Many of the planned measures are well budgeted.

Lahti engaged early in adaptation as partner on one of the first EU projects on urban adaptation to climate change ‐ EU cities adapt (2012‐2013). The explicit and systematic evaluation of the adaptive capacity stemming from this process is an asset for planning adaptation governance. However, adaptation activities post project seem to be less systematic and comprehensive. The City has now started to develop climate change adaptation targets. Developing this further, supplementing the process with a comprehensive vulnerability assessment and a systematic adaptation planning approach would help Lahti to overcome the current rather piecemeal approach of single measures towards consistent and effective action. Lahti has recognised that need for a more systematic and streamlined approach and will need to implement that consequently.

The City intends to develop a more detailed climate adaptation plan that will be part of the overall Lahti City Strategy Update 2018‐2021 and the Lahti Environmental Programme 2030. Climate


29

resiliency will be implemented in all major city strategy plans, which is honourable. However, the strength and concreteness of the specific climate adaptation plan remains unclear. It will be important to ensure with clear responsibilities, collaboration forms and knowledgeable staff that mainstreaming generates effective and consistent adaptation action.




Lahti has various plans, including a SUMP, which together aim to deliver dense and mixed land use to enable cycling and walking. Previous ambitious objectives to increase the modal share of cycling and walking have been suspended as a result of the merger with a neighbouring authority.

The plans aim to consolidate land use in the city centre and along public transport routes, while services will be located so that these can be accessed on foot or by bicycle. All of this demonstrates the way in which Lahti is using land use planning to promote public transport, walking and cycling.

There is a walking/cycling plan, and there have been many measures to enable and promote these modes. Since the City took control of public transport, there have also been many actions that have aimed to improve the frequency and quality of the service.

The City has taken various measures to discourage car use in the city centre, and to instead create high quality public space for other modes of transport. In spite of the measures taken, the city has a relatively high modal share for cars.

The potential to develop shared mobility schemes is currently being explored, while urban freight transport remains a challenge. It will be interesting to see how the Lahti develops in these two areas in the future.




According to the benchmarking data, Lahti citizens have high levels of accessibility to Green Areas. This ease of access to green areas may be taken for granted by the citizens of Lahti, which could explain the lack of highlighting these within the application. For the purpose of being an example to other EU cities, it may be beneficial to elaborate on the accessibility to Green Areas for all citizens, especially the young and older ones. Only the ‘future plans’ section mentions accessibility, where a vision on independent mobility of children is described.

Lahti presents the map of the new 'merged cities', showing an immense forested area with some urban tissue. Although the forests and agricultural parts of the city add to the green character of


30

Lahti, it is hard to obtain information on how green areas are incorporated in the parts of Lahti with higher population densities. It would be interesting to see if the green area parts of the urban tissue of Lahti, are connected in a Green Infrastructure, and to see how it is ensured that all citizens (99%) have access to green areas within a very short distance from their home.

Information provided suggests a population decline in several parts of the city, while other parts will experience a growth in population. The cities total population is expected to increase. It would be interesting to see why some parts of the city are expected see an increase in density, and what is causing the decline in population density in other parts.

This City uses some impressive instruments to enhance participation of citizens, through planning, design, monitoring and implementation of plans of all scales. Citizens of all ages are encouraged to provide information and ideas through online‐tools, walks through the forests or sketches of the best playground. It’s possible that due to this extensive list of examples that a long term vision or strategic approach on sustainable land use is hard to deduce from the application. The application suggests that the aim to increase participation levels is focused on citizens, but it doesn’t mention to what extent businesses/private companies are involved in the design or financing of plans.

Lahti could strengthen their application by encompassing Expert evaluation comments given in the feedback of previous applications. The great work Lahti is doing could be highlighted to a greater extent if all topics asked for in the application form are addressed and in a cohesive manner across all three sections.




The scale and array of Lahti’s site protection designations, and their associated management plans, is impressive. The change in attitude to protecting urban as well as rural species and their habitats is a welcome addition to the city’s enviable history of active nature conservation.

Nature education plays a significant role in sustaining the biodiversity of Lahti and widening its appeal. The LUMA projects, Ecovan, outdoor kindergarten, environmental grandparents, Mun juttu, environmental teacher and environmental counselling centre are all excellent examples of how best to engage people, especially young people, in protecting and enhancing their local natural environment. The ADELE project also promises to provide helpful data to encourage further strengthening of the nature‐people bond.

Once completed and being implemented, the Green Networks Plan should enable the City to focus efforts on linking areas of biodiversity interest. This will be a valuable addition to the good range of strategies, policies and plans protecting and improving Lahti’s natural heritage.

Using biocides only where other techniques have failed to control invasive and problematic plants is very creditable. It would be useful to present data on the current herbicide volumes applied across the city and to compare these against previous years.


31

Lahti’s response to the impact of climate change on species and habitats seems to be limited to diversifying the composition of its forests and planting additional street trees. It is therefore recommended that thought be given to identifying additional strategic actions to support those natural ecosystems most at risk to the consequences of climate change. The proposed Green Networks Plan may be the source for these actions.

4.3.6 Air Quality



Air quality data is complete, well presented and up to date. It shows good parameters (low air pollution) as expected in a smaller city. The network is large in relation to the city size and seems representative. It also has a mobile monitoring station, which is commendable as it denotes ambition to going beyond standard requirements.

The environmental determinants and constraints are clearly visible. Cold weather and topography cause thermal inversion in winter, and due to the winter snow on the roads, a large amount of PM from sand and salt are emitted in spring. A simple source contribution analysis is presented, which only considers local sources. A long‐range vs. local source analysis would have strengthened the application even more. Lahti provides trend charts for NO2 and PM10 which indicate slight reductions of both pollutants over the last years, this reduction is commendable when taking into account the difficulty of improving good existing conditions.

Information about the past planning is well presented and budgetary information is included. The measures primarily relate to traffic and are provided in the context of the source contribution analysis. The City intends to reduce traffic and pedestrianise the city by diverting traffic outside the city, increasing walkable zones and developing bike lanes. A street cleaning measure is being implemented to reduce the dust re‐suspension when the snow melts. Of further interest is an ambitious communication measure to inform the citizens about air quality through digital media. An SMS warning in case of pollution rise is commendable and denotes transparency between public administration and citizenship.

The City strategy shows environmental commitment. Future measures relate to mobility, fostering cycling and walking, promoting the use of electric vehicles and alternatives fuels in logistics. Additionally, the city centre traffic will be redirected to an outer ring. In terms of energy, new EV charging points and the use of green energy, with the construction of a new biofuel power plant to service the district heating system, are being explored. If implemented, the biofuel plant will release greener power to the district heating system, and is a good measure to help reduce household emissions. In a collaboration with local businesses, the City also intends to start monitoring benzo(a)pyrene, which denotes extra performance in terms of air quality management, over and above the standard procedure.

The application is very strong providing almost all the information required in a concise, clear and easy to understand way. The air quality management is very comprehensive in terms of evaluation and planning, which is impressive considering Lahti’s size. The City boasts a mobile monitoring site and monitors of B(a)P and makes ambitious efforts in implementing powerful and coherent


32

measures which is commendable. Furthermore, the approach to citizen engagement is very strong, using several communication channels to inform about air quality.

4.3.7 Noise



Lahti finished its strategic noise maps for road, railway and industrial noise sources in 2012, with the study highlighting that the major source of noise is derived from road traffic. Railway traffic noise and industrial noise are of limited concern. Values for the share of population exposed to total Lden ≥ 55 dB(A) and Lden ≥ 65 dB(A) are respectively 33.0% and 9.8%, while the share for exposure to total Ln ≥ 45 dB(A) is 38.8% and to Ln ≥ 55 dB(A) is 10.8%. These are rather low share values and thus the actual situation seems to portray a good overall quality of the acoustical environment. No trends are provided with the data.

Explicit information on the formal definition, delimitation and management of quiet areas is made available and it is reported that 41.4% of the population is living within 300 m from them. The definition establishes that noise levels are to be under 50 dB(A) during the day period and under 45 dB(A) during the night period, and that the minimum area of each quiet area must be greater than 2 ha. On this basis, the city divided the quiet areas into 3 classes, depending on the intrinsic recreational and ecological value, which is an interesting approach. Coverage of quiet areas is done every four years in the master planning process.

No acoustic zoning has been formally done. Noise reduction measures such as acoustic barriers (9.9 km), traffic reduction in the city centre with pedestrian areas, speed reduction near sensitive areas, the development of a better public transport (new transport lines added and a new travel centre, integrating bus and railway stations ‐ €18 million), the more intensive use of cycling with new cycle tracks, and urban planning taking acoustic quality issues into account are underlined as contributing to a better acoustic environment. It is reported that 532 km of combined pedestrian and cycle tracks currently exist. The Municipality owns three e‐bicycles and eight e‐vehicles, and a test ride of these electric bicycles was put in place by the city in 2016 for local companies’ workers and residents, which was a good public participation and awareness campaign. The annual Environmental Week, which has been running for 21 years, is a huge factor in Lahti’s efforts towards raising awareness. Overall, stakeholder interaction and involvement by the city are considered good, with noise maps and quiet areas location available online to the public, as well as the Noise Action Plan and report.

The city’s Noise Action Plan for 2013‐2018 identifies some objectives such as the reduction of residents exposed to noise levels above 65 dB(A), of highly populated areas, of schools and kindergartens and quiet areas. Future actions comprise the construction of several acoustic barriers, traffic management, speed limitations, the construction of a bypass road (using tunnels or below level excavation), promotion of soft modes of transport, the extension of cycle paths and pedestrian areas, and the long term goal of replacing the bus fleet with e‐buses. On the basis of the future actions, the potential future reduction in the share of exposed people should be defined.


33

4.3.8 Waste



The City's collection system is progressive with high levels of separation at large residential units however the same level of service is not available at smaller dwellings. This is not really explained. The data in the application shows the recycling rate is not progressing.

The City does not state if it has a city waste plan. There is a roadmap for future progression with clear direction and targets i.e. targets for recycling and bio‐waste.

The City has a strong and impressive selection of treatment infrastructure servicing the city including biogas, gasification, power plant; and sorting plants.

Overall the Application is of a high quality, is well laid out and contains a good use of images and data.

The City demonstrates a series of awareness and promotion measures to grow recycling and source separation. Prevention and reuse measures are also in evidence but not as well documented as others.

4.3.9 Water



The present situation is very well described, and all relevant water issues are covered e.g. Water Framework Directive (WFD), surface water, groundwater, waste water, drinking water, storm water/floods. All relevant information is mentioned, although some parts are a bit short and further detail would be welcomed. The city demonstrates low water losses, however, there is an increase in drinking water (energy) consumption, and the reason for this is not described.

Past performance is very well described and focuses on goals reached in respect of drinking water, waste water and groundwater. The City addresses qualitative and quantitative aspects, and describes the related measures taken. A very good description of network maintenance, as well as lake restoration measures and goals reached are detailed in the application form. Furthermore, circular economy measures are considered and the city details its awareness raising campaign.

Future plans are well described, detailing relevant water management plans and activities. The relationship between climate change and urbanisation is listed regarding waste/rain water and groundwater protection measures are mentioned. Lahti describes the use of a storm water management plan to achieve cleaner surface waters by creating permeable spaces and infiltration, which is commendable. The new sustainable residential area in Lahti city centre is an excellent


34

example in the context of this indicator. Citizen engagement could be detailed further to strengthen the application.

Almost all relevant information in the context of EU water legislation is made available in detail in the application. These indicate compliance with waste water, drinking water and WFD requirements. Furthermore, the City detailed initiatives that go beyond legal requirements which is commendable.

Overall, regarding water the application is at the highest level. However, opportunities for citizen engagement and public visibility could be improved.




Lahti prepared a coherent and comprehensive application with figures that are clear and helpful. The City highlights the positive opportunities that are possible when industrial symbiosis and circular economy are combined on a high tech level. Lahti demonstrates that policies addressing eco‐innovation and green growth are in place at many levels, involving different stakeholders (city level, businesses and research institutions/university/schools) and circular training programmes which incorporate all major educational programmes. For example the Industrial symbioses in the Kujala Waste Centre and the brewing and bakery industry in the Lahti region.

Information on the public participation is limited, but this is possibly due to the broad programme described in the application, with engagement mentioned only within the lake Vesijärvi and the grassroots projects. It is notable that Lahti established a range of short, medium and long‐term policies in the field, such as the roadmap for sustainable, circular economy city of Lahti 2050, but also the Smart Specialisation Strategy and the Vitality and Environmental Programme 2020. Lahti has a significant role in the development of green procurement, and has made a big step into the greening of the public transport sector.

Further information on the relationships between the Masterplan and its projects would be interesting, especially details on the implementation of these in the urban tissue, as only limited examples were given.




As in many cities in the eastern part of Europe, Lahti has a sophisticated district heating system that is absolutely commendable. Lahti is a growing city in a cold geographical location with many heating days. District heating plays a central role for Lahti's energy efficiency: over 90% of the population and 99% of the municipal buildings use district heating. Over 95% is produced in the combined heat and power plant of Kymijärvi I‐II. In 2015, 42.7% of district heating was generated with renewable


35

sources. A new biomass fired power plant shall be operational by 2020 so that 80% of district heating shall be generated from renewable sources. The coal‐operated power plant Kymijärvi I shall then be closed. The sustainability biomass criteria of Kymijärvi II‐III are FSC or PEFC forestry certificates.

The data presented with respect to the current situation demonstrates that primary energy consumption increased from 3.663 GWh in 1990 to 4.268 GWh in 2015. The specific energy consumption per capita decreased by 4.4% between 1990 and 2015. This is relatively low and, unfortunately, no explanation is given as to why energy demand could not be further reduced. Specific per capita CO2 emissions dropped from 10.99 tonnes in 1990 to 6.9 tonnes CO2eq in 2015. The total emission has dropped from 1,023.9 kilotonnes of CO2eq in 1990 to 717.1 kilotonnes of CO2eq in 2015. Graphics demonstrate how the coal phase‐out is planned for district heating and electricity production of Lahti. However, for electricity production an increase of nuclear power seems to be envisaged for 2017‐2020 and this is not considered to be sustainable.

In Section B several measures for past performance are listed. Sometimes it is unclear what role the measures play in Lahti’s overall energy efficiency strategy.

Similarly, the city lists several measures for future plans but the impact the measures will have for the overall energy efficiency development in Lahti is unclear. Targets are set by the Covenant of Mayors, signed in 2012. According to the SEAP published in 2013, the target is to decrease GHG emissions by 35% (1990‐2020). A long term vision (as part of the FISU Network) is to become a carbon neutral and waste‐free city that curbs overconsumption by 2050. Unfortunately, a clear roadmap on how to reach targets is missing.

Interesting measures are the climate partnerships with companies and organisations that exist since 2015 which challenges companies to lower their CO2 emissions in cooperation with the Lahti University of Applied Sciences and Ladec, a development company.

4.3.12 Governance



The City has a newly adopted strategy, which sets out a vision of an environmental city. The strategy also sets out commitments and goals and five transformation programmes to deliver it. There are several thematic plans which implement the overall strategy. The strategy was adopted by the City Council and the annual budget process allocates resources to it. There is a strategic master‐planning process with a four‐yearly review and annual monitoring of performance. There are 20 indicators monitored and there is reference to a range of groups which follow up progress, but it is not clear what the management arrangements are from the text in the application.

Lahti developed a new City Strategy in 2016 and has provided evidence of strong stakeholder engagement and public consultation. The strategy was also informed by contributions from the Elderly, Disability and Youth Councils. Many cities have such councils, but Lahti appears to be using them very actively. The involvement of Youth is particularly strong. The Youth Council produces a list of projects for the city government every two years (although it is not clear how these relate to


36

sustainability or environmental objectives), it also comments on city plans and sits on some city council Board Meetings. The City Council also undertook a project to map the natural areas used in early years education and have developed a City Building game which is used to find out the views of young people. The City Council has a mobile app for citizen consultation called Porukka (‘the Crowd’) and received 43,700 comments on their new City Strategy through this App.

The City Council structure is clearly explained and the relationship with municipal companies and other organisations in the city is clearly shown. The Environment department is represented at the top tier of the organisation. The headline role of each department of the City Council, municipal companies or other organisation is shown, providing a good overview of the roles, but unfortunately the direct relationship with the strategies is not provided in the application. However, the city has established a monitoring system for the delivery of its masterplan and thematic strategies.

The City Council uses some interesting communication approaches, for example, celebrating men who are taking environmental action (to counter a local cultural perception that care for the environment is a female characteristic), engagement with young children through mapping natural areas used in early years education and the creation of a city building game to help understand the views of young people.

In the Environment Programme the City has a clear set of targets for 2021, 2030 and 2050, covering energy, carbon, mobility, nature, noise, food and more. Several projects are highlighted, engaging businesses, creating smart solutions and decarbonising the city energy system. Unfortunately, no indication of the level of resources allocated to the programme is given.


37

4.4 LISBON TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT




Lisbon presents a well‐structured cross governmental approach to its mitigation strategy. This is accompanied by impressive targets for the city to be carbon neutral by 2050. The City also presents concrete plans to exploit H2020 Lighthouse status with the Lisbon Solar Ideas Challenge and the development of a 150 km cycling network. It is also good to see political support within the proposal with the Enova agency driving collaboration across Government, NGOs and business.

Lisbon has made significant progress in reducing emissions in transport and is now focusing efforts on efficiency of buildings, especially public sector instruments and circular economy actions. Monitoring of existing initiatives could be more robust.

The City has a clear structure of ongoing initiatives within the context of their sector and financing. The role of such initiatives in meeting climate plans and targets could be better expressed. The City presents an integrated catalogue of projects (across ICT, energy, behavioural change, lighting and sustainable transport) without any clear detail on how the actions will be performed. It is difficult to measure their impact given lack of detail.




Lisbon followed a very systematic and comprehensive approach developed in the project on ClimAdaPT‐Local (2015‐16) that includes all major steps of an adaptation process. As a result of that process, the City could conclude the Lisbon Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Changes (EMAAC) and approve in 2017. It defines adaptation options organised in three axes: urban planning, urban management and governance, which indicates that Lisbon sets strongly on mainstreaming adaptation into general urban development and other sectors, thereby using multiple co‐benefits. Overall its actions are very concrete. Specific for Lisbon is a focus on disaster risk reduction, where it collected valuable experience and solutions and integrated it with adaptation planning.

Even if in the past action was not explicitly on adaptation, the City was already very active on adaptation‐related issues in the areas of water management, green infrastructure and disaster risk management. It developed a substantial green infrastructure programme and is strong on using nature‐based solutions, for example in the context of its drainage plan and as an answer to the increasingly frequent problem of floods. An impressive €170 million is committed to the implementation of the visionary Lisbon Drainage Master Plan, 2016‐2030 of which €100 million is expected to be allocated in the first five years. When using nature‐based solutions the City also considers the need of nature to adapt itself to climate change impacts e.g. rain‐fed meadows instead


38

of irrigated lawns. While most measures relates to combating floods and extreme disaster events, Lisbon could, in the future, explore more action on other impacts such as heat and droughts.

Through‐out the application the City shows its strong commitment to adaptation, and has a long history of disaster risk management. For example, it is part of the 100 Resilient Cities. Lisbon actively shares its experience with other cities, e.g. the city acted actively in a mentoring role in the Mayors Adapt initiative's city twinning programme. Following this involvement, it prepares for joining the new Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. Furthermore, Lisbon will host the next European Climate Change conference in 2019.




Lisbon has an excellent, city‐wide vision for sustainable transport. It has a city‐wide plan that aims for the city to become a 'City of Neighbourhoods' in which anyone, anywhere in the city can access at least two sustainable modes within 500 metres. It recognises walking neighbourhoods as the basic cells of the city to be linked by public transport and cycling networks.

It was noted that the approach had the support of the people, but the basis for this statement was not clear. Additionally, it was not clear how the city's citizens had been involved in the development of the respective plans, or how they would be engaged in the future. A Participatory Budget Programme has been created, which demonstrates a commitment to engage citizens.

Many measures have been implemented to improve walking, cycling and public transport in the city, and many further measures are planned.

There are also various measures to restrict car use, including taking road space from cars, a new approach to regulating parking and a road monitoring system that aims to promote lower traffic speeds. Many 30 km/h and shared zones are planned. The aim is to restrict car circulation by design, to reduce speeds and to eliminate car trips.

Measures are also being taken to promote alternatively‐fuelled vehicles and shared mobility. More information on how the city plans to improve the environmental performance of freight would be useful.




Lisbon sees green corridors as highly cost‐effective measures to counteract the effects of climate change (heat island, drought, storm flooding), and air pollution. By designing these green corridors


39

Lisbon has created a real green infrastructure. They were established by combining existing green areas, and newly established green areas on unused plots, and connecting them by bridges (viaducts) with cycle paths and walkways. These also provide essential infrastructure for species that need connected green spaces.

The benefits of green areas for both physical and mental well‐being of urbans residents are well acknowledged. Green spaces are presented as a necessary part of the citizen’s life (sports, health, and local food production). The addition of bridges across (rail) roads to connect green areas and the process to create a green square in each neighbourhood clearly illustrates that Lisbon sees the benefits green area provide.

A series of plans and policies to counteract the population decline in the city have been established. The combination of attracting people and businesses (jobs) is expected to increase efficiency of land use within the city, and reduce the area of underutilised land. This projected increase in population will need to be carefully managed and planned to ensure the even distribution of new business and land use to avoid urban sprawl. Careful planning will be necessary to ensure appropriate land use within the city.

The ‘Green permeable surface formula’ is introduced as a tool to prevent progressive soil sealing. Unfortunately, this tool is not further explained within the application, it may be helpful to other cities to see how Lisbon is dealing with the ongoing pressure of urban sprawl or the increase of paved areas within the current urban tissue.

Lisbon presents an integrated approach on green infrastructure and the redevelopment of unused plots and areas in a very well structured application, writing a comprehensive 'story about a greening city' within the line of questioning in the application form. This application contains very readable maps and illustrative figures and pictures that underpin the story of the city.




Lisbon has done a good job in determining, mapping and protecting its urban ecological structure. It is also pleasing to learn that there is a focus on delivering projects that strengthen the green network and reduce habitat fragmentation.

The application did not adequately demonstrate the type and range of nature projects led by, or at least engaging, local communities. More information on volunteering activities or resident‐led initiatives would have added value to the submission.

Lisbon is clearly not resting on its environmental laurels. The City is to be applauded for its ambition to enhance site protections, improve nature connectivity, and invest in significant new green spaces and green infrastructure, such as the planned Peripheral Park.


40

The naturalised overpass proposed for the Lisbon Forest Park is a particularly innovative example of how to help connect otherwise fragmented species and habitat in the urban environment.

The continuous planting of trees and the conversion of irrigated lawns to rain‐fed meadows and green corridors are important steps in trying to address some of the consequences of climate change. Another likely benefit of this form of ‘living landscape’ is reduction in the use of herbicides? Are herbicides still used to control vegetation in Lisbon? If so, are there measures, policies and/or plans to reduce the scale or frequency of its use. This information would be worthwhile including in any future submission.

4.4.6 Air Quality



All air quality data required is presented clearly and is up to date. In terms of PM, the city is in compliance with the EU standards. There is one exceedance of the annual limit value of NO2 at one monitoring site. The monitoring network is correctly described and well sized. Concentration trend charts over the last years are presented for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5, showing a significant reduction which is positive. Lisbon also provides charts representing the exceedances of the hourly/daily limit which help to understand the local situation.

When it comes to source apportionment, long‐range vs local distribution is shown, but a more precise and detailed local analysis is missing. Referring to local determinants and constraints, a short, but effective, description is presented.

In terms of past planning, the application explains the regional plan to improve the air quality. The City’s commitment to implementing measures through collaborative agreements with the regional authority is commendable. However, a local air quality plan would have been beneficial because it would strengthen the strategy and align it with other municipal plans. Notwithstanding this, the existence of a LEZ demonstrates commitment from the municipality to tackle air pollution. Furthermore, measures of public awareness and the communication of the air quality index via street panels are positive initiatives which were well presented in the application.

With regard to future planning, unfortunately, only a national air quality management plan is presented and there is no local air quality management plan. The explanation of the national plan is detailed but not relevant in this case. Information about the strategy for the urban bus company, including fleet improvement efforts, is detailed in the application form and is of interest. Overall, the City would benefit from expanding upon future planning to strengthen its application.

4.4.7 Noise




41

The results from Lisbon’s strategic noise mapping (2008) show that noise exposure can be attributed to road traffic sources. Other sources of exposure are from air traffic, and locally from railway traffic noise, while industrial noise pollution is negligible. Data from the noise maps show that the share of population exposed to total Lden values ≥ 55 dB(A) and ≥ 65 dB(A) are respectively equal to 55% and to 18%, while 60% and 22% of the population is exposed respectively to total Ln values ≥ 45 dB(A) and ≥ 55 dB(A).These are high exposure percentage values. It is reported that exposure percentage values were substantially reduced since the year 2000, when almost 50% of the municipal area was exposed to LAeq daytime levels in excess of 65 dB(A), which may indicate a noteworthy decrease in the overall environmental noise levels (although indicators are not directly comparable and different assessment procedures might have been used, so these figures should be used with care).

Twelve quiet areas (located in 30 km/h zones) were formally defined, delimitated and mapped. The Portuguese legislation defines quiet zones, generically, as all areas not exposed to more than 55 Lden and 45 Ln, and the city argues that 25% of Lisbon’s area has noise values compatible with these conditions, so that 89% of the population lives within 300 m of these generic quiet zones. It should be noted that these generic quiet zones (although several located in green areas) cannot be immediately equated to formal quiet areas.

Acoustic zoning was established, but the entire municipal territory was classified as a ‘mixed zone’, this is not a very good starting point since sensitive land uses (homes, schools, hospitals and recreational areas) were not classified as ’sensitive zones’ (according to the national legislation).

Relevant noise reduction measures that were adopted and implemented include 30 km/h speed zones, speed control with signs, noise barriers along main roads, resurfacing of streets with low noise asphalts, restricted access to residents in historic districts, night‐time entertainment noise control, extending bicycle tracks (90 km currently), 1,400 bike‐sharing system, differentiated parking prices in the city centre and eliminating rail joints.

There are various actions regarding public participation include the yearly participatory budgets (several winning projects over the last six years are related to noise issues: 2016 ‐ online platform against noise). Overall, stakeholder interaction and involvement by the City is good.

Lisbon’s Noise Action Plan highlights priority measures that include the protection of areas with population exposed to total noise levels Ln ≥ 60 dB(A), and actions for protecting and extending quiet areas. An overall budget of €9 million is mentioned for three, five year‐long phases. The report states that measures amounting to €8 million have been implemented over the last five years. Detailed actions from the city are defined in order to handle mainly road traffic noise hot spots (29 urban zones), whereby noise reduction measures like traffic restrictions, speed limitations, low noise asphalts usage, and the promotion of soft modes of transport are contemplated. The City wants to increase the green areas by 20% by 2020 (these green areas should be classified as quiet areas, where possible) and intends to also extend the 30 km/h zones to more residential and school areas. Information on the potential reduction in the share of population exposed to the different noise indicator classes is provided; a reduction of around 46% in the population exposed to Ln ≥ 60 dB(A) is noteworthy.


42

4.4.8 Waste



The application is overall of good quality with good use of images and data visuals, however in places the structure is a bit disjointed making it difficult to follow.

The evolution of the waste collection system is well described and the City is clearly on a journey to improve the performance of its collection system. The existing system is not quite optimised as evidenced by the data which shows that the recycling rate needs improving.

The waste treatment infrastructure is not described in sufficient detail and there is an over focus on thermal treatment. Similar attention is needed on other forms of treatment.

The City has in place a clear strategy with impressive objectives, targets and measures for the future. The City has a clear direction of what it wants to achieve. The future target for recycling is not as high or ambitious as expected.

The promotion and awareness of selective collection and reuse is well described and the city provides a good selection of different types of campaigns as evidence. There are also several interesting projects underway (FORCE, LIFE PAYT) which show the City's ambition to transition its management of waste to a more circular approach.

4.4.9 Water



The present situation is briefly described, with basic information requested made clearly available in the City’s response. The application focuses on technical projects and issues around drinking water and waste water which will lead to an improved water situation.

Lisbon’s states that it is one of the most water efficient cities in the world, however the basis for this claim seems to be unclear, and it is not evident whether this is connected to the overall situation or initiatives for water reuse. In this context, it is noted that Lisbon has a very high total water usage rate at 256 litres/capita/day. Citizen behaviour and local climate are given as reasons to justify these high water consumption levels. Lisbon also has high levels of energy consumption in specific areas.

The city presents less information about the Water Framework Directive (WFD). In particular, more information on surface water quality would have been beneficial and it is noted that no information on groundwater is included. It is good to see that there is information presented on some flooding issues, as well as a river restoration project.


43

Past performance describes measures taken for drinking water, including details on billing and metering. The application also describes measures taken by the City for the improvement of water status, mentioning the water safety plan, and specific technical projects, as well as highlighting citizen engagement and public awareness campaigns. Lisbon has a very good description on network maintenance and lake restoration, with detailed measures and a description of the goals achieved. Actions taken to promote a circular economy are well described, with good detail given on the awareness raising campaign. A detailed description is given on waste water measures taken, describing its management and how it is monitored. These descriptions are welcomed and help the evaluator to understand the City’s ambition and achievements to date.

Future plans are described in general terms, and further detail would have strengthened the application. For example, no projects or specific measures are highlighted to explain how they plan to achieve their future goals. The cities resilience to climate change is mentioned, but activities related to this are quite unclear with little detail given. Lisbon has a Drainage Master Plan against floods which is commendable, and the application goes on to describe planned measures to increase water reuse and public communication. Details on groundwater protection actions or policies are missing from the application.

Some relevant information in the context of the EU water legislation is available for waste water and drinking water, however, some WFD aspects are completely missing. There is very little information on initiatives that go beyond legal requirements.

Overall, from the information provided in the application it seems that some activities in the water sector are carried out, but there is room for improvement. Future activities to increase water reuse could be a highlight to strengthen the city' and its application.




Lisbon submitted an easy to follow application for Green Growth and Eco‐Innovation. Clear and concise policy driven plans involving citizens, universities, businesses and foreign partners have been implemented. The application has very good use of figures and data in tables.

It seems that Lisbon is working towards a fully integrated city. Smart city concepts regarding mobility are well implemented in the urban tissue. Lisbon has a well‐balanced methodical way of working to ensure a high standard of responsibility using the circular system of water, food, and clothing. Reciprocity is part of the urban tissue with regards waste, energy, transport, science, education and entrepreneurial skills.

Lisbon has a future strategy in place with clear targets, programmes and measures; impressive projects, outcomes and innovative funding schemes. The City has a clear direction of where it wants to go. The City and its region have lots of different types of campaigns and very interesting projects underway as bike scooter and car sharing, the Beato Creative Hub, the zero waste Labs and the Lisbon Robotic cluster.


44




The data for energy performance provided with respect to the current situation demonstrates that electrical consumption in buildings owned by the municipality has decreased over the last eight years (to 97 kWh/m2 per year in 2014), PV installed in Lisbon is increasing since 2008 (data available until 2014) and district heating has increased since 2004 but remains quite steady since 2010. LED technology has fully been implemented for traffic lights and is increasing for street lights (planned increases as shown up to 2020). Most data is provided for or until the year of 2014 and more up to date data would be preferred, especially for data developments that are shown on a yearly basis (electrical and natural gas consumption in municipality owned buildings, PV installed in Lisbon). The share of renewable energies of final energy demand is 24% and the share of locally produced renewable energies of final energy demand 0.1%. Thus, given the high renewable energy potential, particularly solar potential, it has to be underlined that current deployment rate of renewable energies is relatively low and provides room for improvement.

Lisbon was the first capital city to join the Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy and as such plays a cutting edge role. In 2008, Lisbon set a 20% GHG reduction target within its Sustainable Energy Action Plan. Beyond 2020, Lisbon is working to comply with EU and national targets, aiming at a 100% emission reduction by 2050 for attaining carbon neutrality. Consequently, the City goes beyond the national plans and targets which is commendable. In addition, Lisbon’s establishment of a local energy agency is commendable from an institutional point of view.

Central measures are the increase of energy efficiency in buildings (21% reduction), renewable production on roof tops (mainly PV systems such as the Lisbon Solar City project will result in an increase of 400% from 2013 levels), LED installation for traffic and public lighting through Energy Performance Contracting.

Lisbon has performed several calculations for the envisaged energy consumption and CO2 emissions to reach the 2030‐2050 CO2eq emission targets. However, it remains unclear how targets beyond 2020 (i.e. to 2030 and 2050) will be reached as no roadmap is provided. One of the central and commendable measures is the Solar City Initiative that is dedicated to increasing the installed capacity of PV systems in municipal owned buildings. In addition the initiative of using old solid waste landfills for development of PV parks should be noted as an appropriate and integrative measure to increase share indigenous renewable sources. From an institutional point of view the Lisboa E‐Nova (energy agency) plays an important role for both renewable energies (e.g. through development of a solar map) as well as energy efficiency.

In the application, Lisbon references the need for stakeholder participation in order to reach city commitments. However, concrete measures for stakeholder engagement (besides having the municipal energy agency as an empowering body) are not described. Conversely, it is commendable that Lisbon is participating in various EU projects related to energy performance.


45

4.4.12 Governance



The City refers to its overall vision, as part of its Government Programme 2017‐2021 which includes as a goal ‘improving quality of life and the environment’. The City has a series of short term thematic plans. The application refers to the Sustainability and Governance Plan which has won many awards, but unfortunately the content of this is not described and so it cannot be assessed. A five‐year Masterplan is referred to and addresses the question ‘How to improve Lisbon towards an environmentally and energy sustainable city?’ It is inferred that the Masterplan is adopted by the City Council along with the other plans, since there is regular reporting to the City Council on progress. The application would have benefited from some details of the budget for implementation of the plans.

It is not clear which stakeholders have been involved in plan development. Company engagement in climate plans, citizen participatory budgeting and devolved local decision making is referenced. The BIP/ZIP Project is referred to, but it is not clear what this is from the information provided in the Governance section of the application. Participatory budgeting is very well established, with over €31 million allocated over the past 10 years. Youth involvement is not mentioned.

The Mayor demonstrated leadership in urban regeneration by moving his cabinet into a ‘socially depressed area’ prior to regeneration. The council structure is clearly shown as is the Mayor's and Council's role. The application also clearly shows the council departments responsible for delivery of strategies. Monitoring arrangements appear to be robust.

The City has three plans for transport and development, biodiversity and energy/climate which together form their Masterplan (see above). The City lists over 20 goals, targets and projects for the short and medium term, across a range of environmental topics.

APPENDIX A

APPLICATION FORM FOR THE EUROPEAN GREEN CAPITAL AWARD 2020

Application Form for the European Green Capital Award 2020

1

City Introduction & Context

Give an overview of the city and a general background to the application, including examples of social and economic sustainability in the city.

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

Provide a description of the key environmental challenges which the city faces including historical, geographical and/or socio‐economic factors which have influenced the city’s development.

The city's infrastructure plan should be briefly explained.

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

Please also complete the following table:

Indicator Units Year of data

Population Inhabitants

Area km2

Population Density Inh/km2

GDP €/Capita

Köppen climate classification

(max. 1000 words and five graphics, images or tables)


2

1. Climate Change: Mitigation Refer to Section 2.1 of the Guidance Note

1A. Present Situation

Please complete the following table:

City reduction targets (add rows if needed for further commitments)

Base Year Target Year % Reduction

CO2 emissions/capita t CO2/inh ‐ Total Transport t CO2/inh Total (less transport) t CO2/inh

Total CO2 emissions (tonnes) per year

Tonnes Please insert year of data here

Total CO2 emissions per MWh electricity consumed

Tonnes Please insert year of data here

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.

Give details of any Baseline Emission Inventory prepared by the city, mentioning the baseline year and the applied methodology (direct/indirect emissions, data collection process, monitoring system), as well as the competent department. Provide a breakdown of the main sources of emissions.

Where available, information/data on the inventory and on the following indicators should be provided from previous (5‐10) years to show trends, together with an explanation of the evolution.

Scientific grounds should be provided for any claimed reduction in CO2 emissions. Describe how the inventory system and information is integrated in the design of policies and measures.

Provide figures (in the table above), and comment on, the following specific indicators for the city:

1. Total CO2 emissions (tonnes) per year;

2. CO2 emissions per capita (tonnes) per year;

3. CO2 emissions 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 compared to 1990).

Please also state clearly what year the data provided relates to.

Mention any target(s) adopted specifically for the municipal administration (e.g. carbon neutral municipality


3

by 2020, adaptation measures set on municipal level).


1B. Past Performance

Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including resources allocated to implement these measures. Comment on which measures have been most effective and how the implementation and impacts have been monitored.

Make reference to:

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

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.

Provide details on the monitoring system (frequency, responsibility, outcomes) and how lessons learned have been used.


1C. Future Plans

Describe the future short and long term objectives and proposed approach for further emissions reduction. Describe planned measures, including timescales and emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, budget and staff allocations and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes.

Make reference to any long‐term strategy employed and how it is integrated with other environmental areas.

Briefly explain the rationale for choosing these future measures and highlight any innovative financing arrangements.


1D. References

List supporting documentation, adding links where possible. Further detail may be requested during the pre‐


4

selection stage. Documentation should not be forwarded at this stage.

(max. 400 words)


5

2. Climate Change: Adaptation Refer to Section 2.2 of the Guidance Note


Mention any target(s) adopted specifically for the municipal administration (e.g. adaptation measures set on municipal level).

Regarding adaptation to climate change, please mention if your city has developed a comprehensive local adaptation strategy and/or integrated adaptation to climate change into existing relevant plans (e.g. if your city has joined or is planning to join the updated 'Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy' that has integrated the former Mayors Adapt initiative).



Describe the overall strategy and action plans for climate change adaptation over the last five to ten years.

Describe the city’s approach to adaptation to the impacts of climate change, including details of any analysis / vulnerability studies undertaken, and how the risks identified have been addressed via an adaptation to climate change strategy : action plan for your city.


2C. Future Plans

Describe the future short and long term objectives and proposed approach for further ‘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 and staff allocations and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes.

Make reference to any long‐term strategy employed and how it is integrated with other environmental areas.

Briefly explain the rationale for choosing these future measures and highlight any innovative financing arrangements.


2D. References

List supporting documentation, adding links where possible. Further detail may be requested during the pre‐selection phase. Documentation should not be forwarded at this stage.


6

(max. 400 words)


7

3. Sustainable Urban Mobility Refer to Section 2.3 of the Guidance Note


Please complete the following table providing the most recent data that is available:

Indicator Data Units Year of Data Provided

Proportion of population living within 300 metres of an hourly (or more frequent) public transport service

%

For all journeys under 5 km, proportion of these journeys undertaken by:

i) Car;

ii) Public transport;

iii) Bicycle;

iv) Foot; and

v) Other.

Car

%

Public Transport

Cycling

Foot

Other

Proportion of buses operating in the city that are low emission (at least Euro V)

%

In relation to the above, please state:

For the ‘proportion of population living within 300 metres of an hourly (or more frequent) public transport service’: the data and calculation method of the figure;

For public transport, please include journeys by any type of public transport present in the city (e.g. buses, trams, trolleybuses, light rail, and other rail services) even if these are privately operated;

For ‘other’ in the table above please state what is included by any figure presented for as ‘other’.

The remainder of the text in this section should describe the present situation for both local passenger transport and urban freight transport. This should include qualitative and quantitative information on:

Transport infrastructure;

Vehicle numbers;

Mobility flows;

Infrastructure management tools;

Existing model shares;

Alternative mobility scheme;

Use of alternative‐fuel vehicles;

Any disadvantages or constraints of relevance to transport;

Governance arrangements and responsibilities;


8

Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP).

Provide references where possible and relevant details.



The aim of this section is to make clear how the situation described in Section 3A has been achieved. Where available, quantitative information and data should be provided for the previous five to ten years in order to show recent trends.

The section should describe the strategies and plans that have been implemented over the last five to ten years (including any SUMP or equivalent) to ensure that the development of transport in the city was undertaken in an integrated manner. This should include both integration between the different modes of transport and also the integration of transport and land use planning in order to avoid unnecessary travel, to limit urban sprawl and to stimulate the use of public transport, cycling and walking. Be explicit about the main principles underlying the development of the plan to demonstrate that it is consistent with a SUMP. Refer to the way in which the city authorities involved stakeholders in the development of these plans, and in the development and implementation of relevant measures.

Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years. Particular reference should be given to measures that have helped to deliver:

Increased use of public transport, cycling and walking;

Decreased, and more efficient, car use, including measures to reduce congestion;

Improvements in the environmental performance of urban freight, including cleaner vehicles, freight consolidation and bicycle deliveries;

Increased use of alternatively‐fuelled vehicles, using renewable and sustainable fuels; and

Spatial planning approaches which have led to more environmentally‐friendly transport models.

Comment on which measures have been most effective and lessons learned. Emphasise involvement in and possible benefits from the city’s participation in national or European networks and programmes.


3C. Future Plans

The aim of this section is to demonstrate that there are plans and strategies in place to continue to develop the city’s transport system in a sustainable direction. Describe the short and long term objectives for local transport (both passenger and freight) and how you plan to achieve these. Outline the plans and strategies in which these objectives are found, and the extent to which these are supported by political commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes. If new plans and/or strategies are to be developed, describe how these build on previous plans and strategies. Refer to integrated transport, land use planning, stakeholder involvement and the use of a SUMP or equivalent. Set out the


9

measures, including those adopted but not yet implemented, that contribute to the delivery of the objectives, including:

Increased use of public transport, cycling and walking;

Decreased, and more efficient, car use;

Improvements in the environmental performance of urban freight;

Increased use of alternatively‐fuelled vehicles; and

Development of alternative mobility schemes.


3D. 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 pre‐selection phase. Documentation should not be forwarded at this stage.

(max. 400 words)


10

4. Sustainable Land Use Refer to Section 2.4 of the Guidance Note



Land use within the city (this will provide important background information on the character of the city and is not an evaluation criterion itself)

Land Use Data Inner City Overall City Unit Year of Data Provided

Public Green Area

%

Private Green Area

(Urban) Agricultural Land

Blue

Residential

Industrial/Economic

Mixed*

Brownfield**

Other***

Total 100 100

Population Data Inner City Overall City Unit Year of Data Provided

Population density in built‐up areas (city area minus green and blue)

Inhabitants per ha

Population density (inhabitants per hectare) for new developments

Inhabitants per ha

Percentage of people living within 300 m of green urban areas of any size

%

Percentage of people living within 300 m of green urban areas of >5000 m2

%

*Please specify the land use types within the ‘mixed land’

**See guidance note for clarification

***Please specify ‘other’

Green Urban Areas/Green Infrastructure

1. What types of green urban areas can be found in the city (please refer to the map)?

2. Are green areas connected, and if so, in what way?

3. Why are green urban areas important for the city? What benefits are expected from green urban areas?


11

4. What indicators are used to assess the quality of green (and blue) urban areas? What is the quality of the urban green (and blue) areas, according to the indicators used?

5. How is accessibility to green urban areas ensured for all citizens?


1. Is there a vision or strategy for sustainable land use?

2. How does the city deal with current and future changes such as economic growth, demographic or climate change integrated in sustainable land use planning?

3. How much land within the city consists of brownfields (or derelict or underused zones) and how many of those areas have been regenerated during the last 5 years (please refer to the map)?

4. What is the percentage of sealed surface (with buildings, pavement or otherwise)?

5. Are there any areas allocated for urban agriculture / allotment gardening? If so, to what extend do these areas contribute to supplying the city with resources (food)?

Maps

Provide a land use map that indicates a) the municipality boundaries delineating the overall city area and b) the inner city area;

Provide additional map(s) showing city parks, the scale of green and blue areas in the city, and their connectivity and coherence;

Provide map(s) of the location of brownfield sites (derelict zones) that:

a. Have been regenerated in the past ten years; and

b. Have not been redeveloped (yet).

(max. 1100 words and five graphics, images or tables plus the three requested maps)


Green Urban Areas/Green Infrastructure

1. What measures have been undertaken to increase green infrastructures? (e.g. sustainable urban drainage, green rooftops, vertical gardens, high‐quality business parks and public spaces, biodiversity‐rich communal gardens, green belts and metropolitan park systems);

2. What investments or policies have been used for promoting the use of green infrastructure? (e.g. tax reductions for green roofs, building permits, funding schemes for green roofs or biodiversity‐rich communal gardens);

3. Have those investments or measures been effective or promoted changes in:

a. Quality of green (and blue) urban areas? (if so, please show some trends);

b. Connectivity of green urban areas; and

c. Accessibility of green urban areas.

4. To what extent do green urban areas meet the needs of citizens or have citizens been involved in planning, designing or creating green urban areas?


12


1. What measures have been taken to minimise the total area of fallow, derelict and contaminated land (brownfields)?

2. How did the city organise (realise) the renovation or regeneration of derelict zones (make reference to involvement of partners, citizens, other cities or governments)?

3. What measures have been taken to minimise the environmental effects of soil sealing? How effective are those measures?

4. What other measures or plans were important for the city in regard to sustainable land use of green urban areas?


4C. Future Plans

1. What are the short and long term objectives and strategic approaches to the establishment and management (maintenance) of green urban areas (publicly and privately owned)?

2. How are those objectives related to;

a. Social benefits of green areas (for people’s quality of life, public health and recreation);

b. Environmental benefits (regulating water balance, adaptation to weather extremes, filtering air pollution, pesticide risk and use reduction etc.); and

c. Economical benefits.

3. What are the short and long term objectives and strategic approaches which address the rehabilitation of brown field sites, derelict and/or contaminated land, both for new development and/or desealing measures for environmental purposes?

4. To what extent are plans supported by commitments and budget allocations?

5. Are there any monitoring and performance evaluation schemes? If so, what criteria will be used to measure progress and impacts?

6. Are there any other future plans concerning Green Urban Areas or Sustainable Land Use worth mentioning?


4D. References


(max. 400 words)


13

5. Nature and Biodiversity Refer to Section 2.5 of the Guidance Note



Indicator Number Total Area (ha) Year of Data Provided

Number and total area of Natura 2000 sites that are located in the city or nearby (i.e. within 10 km)

Number and total area of designated sites of national biodiversity importance within the city (habitat/species management areas)

Number and total area of designated sites of local (city) biodiversity importance within the city (habitat/species management areas)

Date and time horizon of your city’s Biodiversity Action Plan

Describe how nature and biodiversity is monitored, protected and managed in your city, and how local people are engaged in nature conservation and biodiversity action.

Please provide details of the following:

1. Maps showing protected sites, habitats, ecosystems or biotopes;

2. Examples of species and habitat monitoring programmes;

3. Current strategies, plans and projects for the management of ecological networks, key sites, and priority species;

4. The city’s approach to involving and engaging residents, visitors, business and institutions in planning and action for nature.



Describe how your city created and developed its measures to protect and improve nature and biodiversity over the last five to ten years. Comment on how effective these have been.

1. Indicate changes in the extent of sites and ecological network protected for nature and biodiversity (e.g. Natura 2000 network of sites);

2. Illustrate habitat and species trends using collected monitoring data;

3. Give examples of conservation actions to manage and restore sites and habitats, and redress


14

species, including any measures introduced to control invasive non‐native species;

4. Explain how the city encourages nature in other open spaces. Has naturalisation been encouraged outside of formal nature reserves?

5. What communication and educational activities have been introduced to promote awareness of nature and biodiversity among the public, including young people?


5C. Future Plans

Describe the city’s short and long term ambitions and objectives for nature and biodiversity and how these proposals will be achieved. Indicate strategic and policy commitments, budget allocations and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes. Demonstrate how this work coincides with the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, Nature Directives and other relevant Directives such as sustainable use of pesticides and complementary national strategies.


5D. References


(max. 400 words)


15

6. Air Quality Refer to Section 2.6 of the Guidance Note



Indicator Unit Year of Data

Number of PM10 monitoring stations No. of monitoring stations

For each station provide the number of days per year PM10 exceeded 50 µg/m

3 Days

For each station provide annual average PM10 concentration

µg/m3

Number of NO2 monitoring stations No. of monitoring stations

For each station provide the number of hours with NO2 concentrations higher than 120 ug/m

3 Hours

For each station provide annual average NO2 concentration

ug/m3

Number of PM2.5 monitoring stations No. of monitoring stations

For each station provide the annual average PM2.5 concentration

ug/m3

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, providing data in the table above, to:

1. Assess the contribution from local sources and from long‐range transport for annual mean concentration of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5;

2. If available provide information on the relative contribution of different local sources (e.g. road traffic, residential wood combustion etc.) to the annual mean of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5;

3. If exceedances occur, describe the extent of the exceedances in the city as a whole, not only at the monitoring sites. If available, provide maps of air pollutant concentrations.



16


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 for 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.


6C. 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.


6D. References


(max. 400 words)


17

7. Noise Refer to Section 2.7 of the Guidance Note




Share of population exposed to total noise values of Lden above 55 dB(A)

%

Share of population exposed to total noise values of Lden

above 65 dB(A) %

Share of population exposed to total noise values of Ln (night noise indicator) above 45 dB(A) %

Share of population exposed to total noise values of Ln (night noise indicator) above 55 dB(A)

%

The percentage of citizens living within 300 m of quiet areas

%

Describe the present situation in relation to the quality of the acoustic environment, including any 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.

Additional figures for noise exposure to individual noise sources (road, rail, air, industry, and leisure/entertainment) can also be included.

Information on formally defined and delimitated quiet areas, or sound improved areas, should also be included.



Describe the measures implemented in recent 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;


18

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. Municipal regulations concerning noise management and reduction;

7. With respect to action plans that are already adopted, what is the percentage of the plan effectively implemented (e.g. overall amounts already paid for actions versus overall amounts initially committed).


7C. 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 surveys;

3. Actions to reduce the impact of noise from roads, railways, industrial areas and air traffic (Noise Action Plan);

4. Foreseen reduction in the share of population exposed to noise values of Lden (day‐evening‐night indicator) above 55 dB(A) and above 65 dB(A) and in the share of population exposed to noise values of Ln (night indicator) above 45 dB(A) and 55 dB(A), mention targets;

5. Actions to maintain, extend, or improve urban quiet areas;

6. Holistic/qualitative approaches to the acoustic environment (e.g by soundscape design approaches, using green infrastructure solutions etc.).


7D. References


(max. 400 words)


19

8. Waste Refer to Section 2.8 of the Guidance Note


Please complete the following table providing the most recent data that is available for your city. If city data is not available, please provide a short explanation and use regional or national data.

Indicator Type of Data (City/Regional/National)

Unit Year of Data

Percentage of household waste sent to landfill %

Percentage of household waste sent for thermal treatment or similar recovery

%

Percentage of organic waste collected separately

Please indicate what is included within the organic waste collected i.e. food waste only or food and garden waste

%

Percentage of recycled household waste %

Percentage of recycled packaging waste %

Percentage of recovered packaging waste %

Amount of household waste generated per capita kg/capita

Amount of municipal waste generated per capita kg/capita

Describe the present situation in relation to waste production and management by responding with details to each of the following questions:

1. Waste strategies or plans in place;

2. Waste prevention measures which reduce food waste, packaging waste and other waste materials;

3. Reuse and/or repair initiatives/partnerships currently in the city (include an example describing the types and quantities of materials reused);

4. Describe current waste collection system, the types of waste collected separately (including organic wastes) and the extent of roll‐out (% coverage) of the collection systems;

5. Provide details of the treatment of the separately collected wastes;

6. If thermal treatment operations are in use, describe the scale of the facility, the type of energy recovered, including the energy performance, and the number of households who are part of the facilities energy network;

7. Application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, including ‘Pay As You Throw’ (PAYT) initiatives.



20


Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years for improving waste management and include details on the following:

1. Historical trends in the amount of household waste produced per capita in the city;

2. Medium to long‐term measures/programmes which have promoted waste prevention or recycling;

3. Trends in waste treatment in the city, for example how have rates of recycling, recovery and disposal changed over this period?

4. Evolution of source segregated collection systems in the city;

5. The collection market in terms of how it has developed and the role of municipal (public) authorities and/or private waste companies;

6. Type and scale of infrastructure put in place to manage waste including the approach to managing residual waste and progress to date;

7. Use of instruments (economic or regulatory) applied in the city to effect the management of household and or municipal wastes.


8C. Future Plans

Describe the future plans of the city in terms of progressing the management of waste and the transition to a circular economy, which in the context of the waste sector refers to keeping resources within the system through activities such as reuse, repair, refurbishment, and recycling. Your response should include:

1. A description of the short and long term objectives/targets for the management of waste and the approach the city proposes to take to ensure these are achieved;

2. Emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, such as budget allocations;

3. Details of the monitoring and performance evaluations of the waste system;

4. How the city is taking account of EU policy on waste management within the framework of the Circular Economy.


8D. References


(max. 400 words)


21

9. Water Refer to Section 2.9 of the Guidance Note




Domestic usage (drinking water) ‐ litres per capitaper day

litres/capita/day

Total usage (drinking water) ‐ litres per capita perday

litres/capita/day

Water loss in pipelines, leakage management andnetwork rehabilitation

%

Percentage (%) of total annual generated waste water load, connected to waste water collecting system + urban waste water treatment plants (UWWTPs)

%

No. of WWTP Number

Total design capacity (Population Equivalent ‐ PE) PE

Total load received by UWWTP (PE) PE

Connection rate %

Treatment level which is applied in each UWWTP: secondary or more stringent; in this case, type of treatment: nitrogen and/or phosphorus removal, disinfection etc.

Treatment level

Waste water reuse (describe type of reuse) %

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 water bodies are in good status, 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 and to improve water status.

Describe the current general features of waste water treatment according to national requirements and the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD, 91/271/EEC).

Make reference to:


22

1. Total water drinking 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. Connection to large / small supplies;

6. Water loss in pipelines, leakage management and network rehabilitation; please provide data on total unaccounted water in percentage and whereas available, in specific losses (m3/km/day) and information on leakage management and network rehabilitation;

7. Storm water management (including number of storm water overflows) and use of natural water retention measures (www.nwrm.eu) and/or sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS);

8. Compliance with the Floods Directive and link to the relevant Flood Risk Management Plans;

9. How the links between water and energy consumption (water‐energy nexus) (e.g. through pumping, treatment, heating) is taken into account; if available provide data on yearly energy consumption (kWh/m3 of distributed water);

10. Use of ‘non‐conventional resources’ and water recycling initiatives (rain water use and grey water or waste water reuse);

11. Compliance with the EU Water Framework Directive and other EU/national/regional legislation applicable at the city level indicating status of water bodies relevant for the urban area within the city limits and relevance of measures enshrined in the applicable river basin management plans;

12. The scale of river restoration projects planned ‐ e.g. for resurfacing (lost) rivers, naturalising previous channeled rivers;

13. Projects to reconnect citizens with waterbodies – e.g. creation of wetland parks, cleaning up water quality such that swimming is possible.

Include data and a short explanation for the following specific indicators. Provide explanation in the case of missing information.

1. Provide an indication of the fraction (%) of the total annual generated waste water load of the city coming from population and from industry (also specifying type of industry, where information is available);

2. 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 (reference to individual or other appropriate systems, i.e. IAS);

3. 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);

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

5. UWWTPs: organic design capacity (PE), most advanced treatment level, annual incoming and discharged loads (tonnes/year) of BOD5, COD, Ntot and Ptot and treated waste water amounts


23

(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;

6. Annual amounts of generated sewage sludge (tonnes/year) and description of treatment/disposal pathways (% of total amount);

7. Provide data on annual energy consumption for waste water treatment in kWh/year/PE, if available. Is an energy management concept available?

8. Further information (e.g. on treated waste water reuse, economic sustainability, use of integrated constructed wetlands or other GI/nature‐based solutions) is highly appreciated.

(max. 800 words & 5 graphics, images or tables)


Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years for improving water management, including waste water management. Comment on which measures have been most effective and what progress has been achieved.

On waste water more specifically: 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 (reference to Accession Treaties or sensitive areas under transitional period). Particular reference should be given to capacity building, measures for maintenance, management and restoration of waste water collecting systems and UWWTPs.

Make reference to:

1. Technical, nature‐based, economic and institutional measures adopted and their effectiveness in achieving reduction of total water consumption or improvement of water status;

2. Byelaw implementation in relation to efficiency in water usage, tariff and metering systems and water quality;

3. Citizen engagement and public awareness initiatives.

4. Actual and projected improvements (in %) of water status/potential compared to 2009, when the first river basin management plans were to be in place.


9C. 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 emphasis on water quality goals and on key water saving and reuse targets for the future and the proposed approach to achieve these, including technical and nature‐based measures incorporating


24

water infrastructure to deal with future impacts of climate change.

Describe the future short and long term objectives for waste water treatment and management and the proposed approach, and specify the measures for their achievement. Emphasise to what extent plans are supported by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes. Emphasise to what extent plans are triggered by the demands of EU and national regulations.

Refer to:

1. Improvement/maintenance/management of collecting systems;

2. Improvement of connection to collecting systems (inter alia, additional percentage of PE forecasted to be connected);

3. Improvement of design capacity, treatment level and treatment performance of UWWTPs and indicate if these go beyond the requirements in the Directive;

4. Improvement of connection to UWWTPs (inter alia, additional percentage of PE future connections);

5. Improvements of further environmental and economic aspects of waste water treatment (e.g. removal of micropollutants, pollution prevention, energy efficiency at UWWTPs, sludge treatment and disposal, treated waste water re‐se, use of integrated constructed wetlands);

6. Measures to improve public participation;

7. Other improvements.


9D. References


(max. 400 words)


25

10. Green Growth and Eco‐innovation Refer to Section 2.10 of the Guidance Note


Please complete the following table providing the most recent data available:


Number of electric vehicles owned by the municipality Number

Number of electric vehicles owned by the municipality (in % of all cars owned by the municipality)

%

Number of charging outlets available for cars owned privately

Number

Number and percentage of procurement contracts that take into consideration green issues, particularly employment and eco‐innovation.

Number

Describe the present situation in relation to green growth and eco‐innovation, 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; new business models (sharing schemes), including actions inspired by circular economy thinking;

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. Efforts to drive innovation that address societal and particularly environmental challenges through creating the right enabling conditions, like putting in place advanced infrastructure (IT or more traditional) or investing in and partnering with innovators, clusters and hubs.

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

8. 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;


26

9. 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 green growth and eco‐innovation. Comment on which measures have been most effective.

Make reference to:

1. Initiatives aimed at increasing green growth and eco‐innovation, e.g. projects under Cohesion Policy funds, Horizon 2020, COSME, LIFE, Eco‐Innovation Action Plan (EcoAP), 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 including actions inspired by circular economy thinking;

5. Name/describe what you consider to be the flagship of eco‐innovation in your city.


10C. Future Plans

Describe the future short and long term objectives to promote green growth and eco‐innovation 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), sharing economy schemes (i.e. bike sharing) use of public procurement of innovation;

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;

5. Identify the key future plan which is considered as the flagship of eco‐innovation in your city.


27


10D. References


(max. 400 words)


28

11. Energy Performance Refer to Section 2.11 of the Guidance Note


Please complete the following table providing the most recent data that is available :


Final Energy Consumption MWh

Final Energy Use/capita kWh/capita

Share of Renewable Energies of Final Energy Demand

%

Share of Locally Produced Renewable Energies of Final Energy Demand

%

Energy Performance of Municipal Buildings kWh/m2

Final Energy Usage /Sector

Agriculture & Fisheries

%

Industry & Commercial

Transport

Domestic

Services

Other

Total 100

Describe the present situation and development (particularly in relation to the building sector), using quantitative data and figures. Where available, information/data should be provided from previous years (5‐10) to show trends. Highlight the most relevant driving forces for the observed trends. List any disadvantages resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio‐economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area.

1. Present total final energy consumption by sectors (structure of energy consumption);

2. Past development of energy consumption and current plan (activities) for energy efficiency improvements and decreasing the use of energy, particularly for energy performance of municipal buildings (in kWh/m2) with specific reference to city owned buildings and important developments related to other end‐use sectors besides the building sector (e.g. transport, industry production, services, public, lighting, electrical appliances food);

3. Present situation, development and current plan for the energy supply mix, particularly regarding the renewable versus non‐renewable mix of energy sources during the past ten years (for both heat, electricity and transport; expressed in kWh, MWh or GWh);

4. The current plan for integration and performance of renewable energy technology in municipal


29

buildings and homes compared to the total energy use;

5. The development so far and 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);

6. Application of innovative technologies (e.g. current plan for increasing the use of LED lamps in public lighting and use of green roofs/walls for energy saving).



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 (i.e. energy efficiency standards particularly of municipal buildings) above national requirements;

2. Maximising and prioritising the use of renewable energy technology (particularly in municipal buildings);

3. Measures to facilitate integrated district system solutions (e.g. cogeneration) and a more sophisticated city‐wide control;

4. Measures to trigger stakeholder engagement in the city to improve overall energy demand performance preferably including local government institutions, local market actors and citizens; mention existing co‐operations.


11C. Future Plans

Describe the future short and long term objectives for shaping a sustainable energy system and the proposed approach for 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, what potential there is and what kind of barriers you might expect in the implementation phase. Express and explain if and how far the strategies and targets go beyond national ambitions.

Make reference to the city's strategy to achieve goals by 2030 and 2050 and highlight:

1. The role of energy efficiency improvements;

2. The role of an increasing share of renewable energy in the total energy supply;

3. The city's strategy regarding renewable versus non‐renewable energy mix, as well as of the renewable energy mix per se (the percentage of different renewable energy sources). Describe the


30

planned energy mixes for at least the coming two decades, preferably add diagrams to describe this evolution;

4. Other measures affecting the total energy use in the city, e.g. changes in transport systems, industrial practices, food and commodities production and consumption, urban morphology and use of Green Infrastructure, consumer behaviour and import and export chains.


11D. References


(max. 400 words)


31

12. Governance Refer to Section 2.12 of the Guidance Note


Please complete the following table providing the most recent data available:

Indicator Yes/No Date From:

Signatory of CoM

Aalborg Signatory

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) How was the participation organised?

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, management groups of different departments, skills promotion, periodic evaluations, etc.

Describe the system of monitoring, reporting and evaluation. What is generally reported to whom at what frequency?

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 and sustainability 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,


32

Aalborg Commitments, Covenant of Mayors, C40, Climate Alliance, ICLEI, EUROCITIES, etc.).

List any disadvantages resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio‐economic factors, which may have influenced this indicator area.

Involvement of Citizens

Describe your activities and engagement with the different communities within your city with particular attention to youth participation.

Describe the goals of these activities, i.e awareness raising, shared responsibility, policy development, etc.

Please reference any structures/projects/programmes that you have in place i.e. youth council, elderly citizens, disabled, socially deprived citizens; number of activities that were completed with different groups, the reach and objectives/impacts of these activities.


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 and indicate which department or political body is the driving force behind the environmental vision.

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.?

Above the level of basic monitoring, do you periodically evaluate the progress of your policies/strategies/ projects and do you adopt them according to findings?


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 projects that demonstrate your commitment to an integrated management of the urban environment.

Demonstrate public awareness of this bid i.e. public consultation, availability to read etc.



33

12D. References


(max. 400 words)

34

Good Practices

Please provide details of at least one present or future flagship project that demonstrates your commitment to an integrated approach to the management of the urban environment; Indicator 12.

Please summarise up to six good practices, in any six different indicators (one of which must show the integrated management approach, mentioned above), that demonstrate how your city is improving its environmental record.

Please identify to which indicator(s) your good practice is relevant.

Good practices should be taken from information already provided within the application form.

Each good practice should be supported by a maximum of three graphics, images or tables (max. 300 words per good practice).

Good Practice 1 (max. 300 words and three graphics, images or tables)

Indicator:


Indicator:


Indicator:


Indicator:


Indicator:


Indicator:

APPENDIX B

EXPERT PANEL PROFILES

Indicator No. 1 ‐ Climate Change: Mitigation

Expert: Dr. Matthew Kennedy, Head of Strategy and Business, International Energy Research Centre, Ireland

Dr. Matt Kennedy is Head of Strategy and Business in the International Energy Research Centre, an Irish Government supported energy research centre. He was previously National Delegate (Energy) for Horizon 2020 for Ireland and led Energy R&D for the Irish Government's Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. Matt held the position of Special Advisor on energy and climate issues.

Matt was lead EU Negotiator for energy technology transfer at the UNFCCC's international climate change negotiations (COP21) and was a member of the UNFCCC's Technology Executive Committee (TEC) responsible for providing mitigation and adaptation technology policy advice to the UN Conference of the Parties.

Matt was Chair of UNEP's Climate Technology Centre and Network, Copenhagen, Chair of the IEA's Renewable Energy Technology Deployment Technology Collaboration Programme, Paris, and the Chair of the Programme Board of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), Vienna.

Matt holds a PhD from the School of Engineering of Trinity College Dublin, and Masters' degrees from NUI Galway and University College Dublin.

Indicator No. 2 ‐ Climate Change: Adaptation

Expert: Ms. Birgit Georgi, Urban and Adaptation Expert, Founder of ‘Strong Cities in a Changing Climate’, Germany

Birgit Georgi is a freelance expert in the areas of climate change adaptation, environment and integrated urban development. She has a deep and broad integrated understanding of the urban environment and sustainability due to her long‐standing professional experience in these fields for more than 25 years.

From 2007‐2017 she worked with the European Environment Agency, initially as Project Manager for urban issues, and, since 2011, on climate change adaptation relating to cities and transport. Among Birgit’s key contributions to the sector are the assessment reports; ‘Urban Adaptation to Climate Change in Europe’ (2012 and 2016), ‘Adaptation of transport to climate change in Europe’ (2014), and ‘Quality of life in Europe‘s Cities and towns’.

Birgit was responsible for developing the interactive map book on urban vulnerability, the Urban Adaptation Support Tool, and the numerous case studies related to cities of the European Climate Adaptation Platform Climate‐ADAPT. She supported the Commission in developing the Mayors Adapt initiative and its integration into the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. Birgit also organised the annual networking and learning event: Open European Day Resilient Cities. She has worked as an adviser for several EU projects such as PLUREL, SUME, RESIN and is a frequent speaker and moderator at many events on her topics.

Birgit’s experience is complemented by her work at the German Federal Environment Agency from 1991‐2007 where she developed action plans and supervised projects in the fields of sustainability planning, biodiversity, environmental management and sustainable transport. The scope ranged from local demonstration projects in Germany and other European countries to international activities, e.g. technical support in the framework of the UN Convention for Biological Diversity and as national contact point for the UNECE Programme, THE PEP.

Indicator No. 3 ‐ Sustainable Urban Mobility

Expert: Dr. Ian Skinner, Director of Transport and Environmental Policy Research, Crowborough, London, United Kingdom

Ian Skinner is an independent researcher and consultant with over 20 years of experience in undertaking research and consultancy projects focusing on the environmental impacts of transport.

His PhD from University College London was on the implementation of sustainable transport policies in South East England and he has also undertaken research at the University of Kent on the marginal cost pricing of transport.

Since his PhD, Ian has worked at the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and AEA (now Ricardo‐AEA) before co‐founding TEPR in 2009. Ian’s work focuses on the implementation and evaluation of sustainable transport policies for national and international organisations. Much of Ian’s work has been undertaken at the European level for the European Commission, which has involved impact assessments and evaluations of various EU transport and environmental policies.

Ian has also drafted reports for UNEP, WHO and UNECE in the context of THE PEP (Transport, Health and Environment Pan European Programme) on jobs in sustainable transport, the most recent of which was presented at the ‘Environment for Europe’ Ministerial Conference in Batumi, Georgia in June 2016.

Indicator No. 4 ‐ Sustainable Land Use

Expert: Dr. Annemieke Smit, Secretary to the Board of Wageningen Environmental Research (part of Wageningen University and Research), The Netherlands

Annemieke Smit is a Physical Geographer with a PhD in Ecology. In 2001 she started working at Alterra (currently known as Wageningen Environmental Research) with a focus on Sustainable Soil and Land Use. She is an expert on sustainable land use management, both in urban, peri‐urban and rural areas. She was one of the core team member of the Dutch Community of Practice CoP Sustainable land use management in spatial planning.

For four years she has been involved in the Alterra Green Cities programme, combining ecological, social and economic knowledge about multiple benefits of Green Infrastructure to the urban public and private stakeholders. As a Senior researcher on Nature Based Solution for Society she specialised in multi‐stakeholder projects and is often involved in national input of EU assessments on sustainable development. She was part of the Dutch advisory board for the development of

BREEAM‐Community. For the last year, she has been Secretary to the Board of Wageningen Environmental Research.

With a focus on good and clear communication, Annemieke always keeps in mind that experts tend to go deep into the subject, while policy makers or non‐scientific partners want to know about the impact of the research on their world, work and options.

Indicator No. 5 ‐ Nature & Biodiversity

Expert: Mr. David Jamieson, Parks & Green Space Manager, City of Edinburgh Council, and Director of Greenspace Scotland, United Kingdom

Based in Scotland, David is responsible for managing Edinburgh’s public parks and greenspace network, including the city’s nature reserves, woodlands, allotments, cemeteries and urban forest. As head of Edinburgh’s Parks Service he has secured a number of green accolades for the city, including winner of Britain in Bloom, Entente Florale Gold Medal, Eurocities, COSLA Gold Medal for Service Innovation & Improvement, the UK’s Best Parks, Grounds and Horticultural Service Team award, and Fields in Trusts’ Best UK Landowner.

Having led the development and implementation of Edinburgh’s Nature Conservation Strategy, Urban Forestry Strategy, and Biodiversity Action Plan, he is presently directing the Edinburgh Living Landscape initiative in partnership with local universities, wildlife trust, botanic garden and green space trust. This is an innovative ecosystems approach to urban open space management, bringing nature closer to people’s homes and work‐places.

David is also Director and chair of the national charity, greenspace Scotland, championing the value of green space to government and other decision‐makers. As a chartered ecologist and environmental manager, with degrees from Stirling, Heriot‐Watt and Huddersfield universities, his career has ranged across the public, academic and voluntary sectors. In recent years he has also been a director of Volunteer Development Scotland, BTCV Scotland, Oatridge Agricultural College and the Falkirk Environment Trust ‐ promoting volunteering as a means for positive social and environmental change.

As well as being the Expert Panel member for Nature and Biodiversity, David is also a UK‐level judge for Britain in Bloom and assessor for Green Flag Award, the two largest green award programmes in Great Britain. This gives him insight into current best practice in green space management, urban ecology, community‐driven environmental initiatives, and sustainable development.

Indicator No. 6 ‐ Air Quality

Expert: Mr. Joan Marc Craviotto Arnau, Air Quality Project Manager at Barcelona City Council, Spain

Joan Marc Craviotto Arnau is an Air Quality Project Manager in Barcelona City Council, where he has worked since 2009. He has a degree in Industrial Engineering

from the Polytechnic University of Catalonia and a postgraduate degree in Air Quality Management and Atmospheric Pollution Control from the University of Santiago de Chile.

In his role as Air Quality Project Manager for Barcelona City Council, Joan Marc has gained extensive experience in managing air quality issues at city level. He undertakes air quality assessment and provides technical and policy advice in the field of air quality. He has also contributed to the development and assessment of the city’s emission inventory and takes responsibility for the air quality modelling and monitoring for the City of Barcelona. Furthermore, Joan Marc steers the design and implementation of important measures to abate air pollution.

Joan Marc is a key contributor to the air quality public awareness campaign for the City of Barcelona. He is committed to sharing knowledge and raising awareness of environmental issues related to air quality. He engages with and promotes scientific research to increase the knowledge of the air quality dynamics in the city of Barcelona and is a regular speaker and attendant at air quality conferences, congresses and workshops.

Indicator No. 7 ‐ Noise

Expert: Prof. Dr. Diogo Alarcão, Principal Researcher and Professor in the scientific area of Acoustics at Instituto Superior Técnico ‐ University of Lisbon and at the Polytechnic Institute of Lisbon, Portugal

Diogo studied Physics Engineering and holds a PhD in Acoustics from the University of Lisbon. He is a Chartered Acoustical Engineer, member of the Board of the Portuguese Acoustical Society and a Coordinator of the Executive Commission for the Acoustical Engineering Specialization of Ordem dos Engenheiros.

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

Indicator No. 8 ‐ Waste

Expert: Mr. Warren Phelan, Technical Director, Waste, Energy & Environment, RPS Group Ltd., Dublin, Ireland

Warren Phelan is a Technical Director with the Waste, Energy and Environment Section of RPS. Warren is a Chartered Waste Manager and a Chartered Civil Engineer with a Masters degree in Engineering Science from University College Dublin.

He is also a Chartered Waste Manager and a member of the Chartered Institute of Waste Managers. For the last 12 years Warren has specialised in the waste and resource management sector, developing expertise in waste policy and legislation, strategy and planning, data analysis, online resource applications and technical assessments.

Recently Warren served as co‐ordinator for the national waste committee set up by the Irish Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and tasked with completing the evaluation of the regional waste management plans. He has also served as the project manager for the EPA National Waste Statistics Project and the national online reuse website FreeTrade Ireland.

Indicator No. 9 ‐ Water

Expert: Mr. Christof Mainz, Senior/First Officer at the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), Bonn, Germany

Christof Mainz is a civil engineer specialised in the environment and water sector. In May 2017 he commenced working at the Directorate for Water management at the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) in Bonn, Germany.

Prior to his current position, he worked at the European Commission in Brussels (2011‐2017) and at the regional Ministry for the Environment in Düsseldorf, North Rhine‐Westphalia (1998‐2011). While working at the European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment (DG ENV), within the unit responsible for the Marine Environment and Water Industry, his main responsibilities were linked to several EU Water Industry Directives and their relationship with other EU legislation and policy areas, as well as supporting EU actions on innovation in the water sector, such as strategies for water reuse and resource efficiency. Prior to this, he worked in different regional administrations on technical checks and monitoring of urban waste water treatment plants.

Indicator No. 10 ‐ Green Growth & Eco‐innovation

Expert: Mr. Marc Okjuiksen, Co‐founder and owner Zonnova BV, Director at RéciproCité, The Netherlands

Marc is an independent consultant specialising in the application of ecological principles to spatial and energy‐related initiatives for urban sustainability, with a specific focus on social relationships between partners from different sectors.

Marc runs his own company, RéciproCité and works with several different consortia, including BOnDS, a cooperative organisation he co‐founded in 2013, through which specialist SMEs work together for the sustainable development and resilience of the City of Breda, Netherlands, and its surroundings. With BOnDS Marc developed the largest privately‐owned crowd‐funded PV solar farm in the Netherlands. Nowadays BOnDS uses its expertise far beyond the city borders.

Marc has extensive experience developing and managing EU funded cooperation projects. These have included projects in the area of water management, suburban and rural land use, Maglev transport systems and social energy cooperatives. The most recent projects support circular economy approaches, involving symbiotic industrial energy systems in business innovation zones and the use of bi‐directional shared e‐cars in different European cities. With BOnDs, Marc is also an assessor for the Green Destination Award and Quality Coast Award in the south of the Netherlands and for ECOXXI with FEE International.

Marc originally studied Biology and Physical and Social Geography at Fontys University. He started his career at the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Fisheries where he worked in the late 1980s on the creation and implementation of the national and provincial structure plans for the Primary Ecological Networks (EHS and GHS) and then on the integration of urban areas into these major networks.

In 1993 Marc was appointed City Ecologist, City of Breda, later becoming Sustainability Coordinator, Head of the Department of Habitat‐Environment and then Senior Strategist ‐ Sustainable City Development until 2014. Whilst at Breda he participated in a 10‐year project on the urban regeneration of the Metropolitan Municipality of Ekurhuleni, South Africa, worked for several years with the French Ministère de l’Écologie, de l’Énergie du Développement Durable et de l’Améngement du Territoire on the specification of the sustainable city in their ‘Projet urbain’ and was the main speaker at several conferences in Europe on practical approaches for sustainability in cities. Marc has an excellent overview of eco‐innovation and green growth in the European context, having supported Breda’s commitment to the Aalborg Charter and later initiatives such as the Covenant of Mayors.

Indicator No. 11 ‐ Energy Performance

Expert: Prof. Dr. 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 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 is coordinating lead author for the IPCC, member of several national and international scientific boards and advisory councils.

Manfred 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. In addition he was appointed as member of the Scientific International Advisory Council of the mayor of the city of Seoul. 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. In addition he was appointed as member of the Scientific International Advisory Council of the Mayor of the City of Seoul.

Indicator No. 12 ‐ Governance

Expert: Mr. Alex Minshull, Innovation and Sustainability Service, Bristol City Council, Bristol, United Kingdom

Alex Minshull is based in Bristol, United Kingdom, where he leads Bristol City Council’s Innovation and Sustainability Service. His responsibilities include the City Council’s smart city, climate change and air quality programmes.

He studied for his environmental science degree at Southampton University and for his master’s degree in the energy and environmental aspects of architecture at the Centre for Alternative Technology.

Alex has worked as sustainability professional for over 20 years, in the private and public sectors, as well as volunteering with environmental NGOs.

At the Environment Agency (England) he produced integrated river catchment management plans and advised on urban development to achieve environmental protection within the Midlands region of England. In later years at the Environment Agency, and then at Bristol City Council, he implemented new environmental management systems, secured ISO14001 and Eco Management and Audit Scheme accreditation, and delivered significant improvements in environmental performance of these organisations.

Since 2006 his role has focused on the sustainable development of the city of Bristol and he has managed professionals working on a range of sustainability issues including, urban development, water, food, energy, electric mobility, climate change and air quality. He has worked to create effective partnerships between the city council and other organisations, including universities, businesses and environmental NGO’s, bringing together their different capabilities to create a more sustainable city.

He has been involved with the European Green Capital Award since it began. He led Bristol’s bids to become European Green Capital, being shortlisted twice and securing the Award for the year of 2015. Alex is passionate about the role of cities in leading the transition to a sustainable world and in cities working together to accelerate the transition. He has shared the learnings from Bristol with many cities across Europe, and across the globe.

Documents

EGCA 2020 Technical Assessment Synopsis Report · 2018-06-15 · European Green Capital Award 2020 ‐ Technical Assessment Synopsis Report 1 1 INTRODUCTION Europe's cities are recognised