City typology as the basis for policy - Towards a tailor-made approach to the benchmarking and monitoring of the energy and climate policy of ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
City typology as the basis for policy Towards a tailor-made approach to the benchmarking and monitoring of the energy and climate policy of cities ADVI SO RY
2 City typology as the basis for policy
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.
City typology as the basis for policy 3
Contents
Preface 4
Summary 6
01 Background 10
02 An inventory of initiatives and tools concerned
with the energy and climate policy of cities 12
03 Harmonising the collection of data 20
04 So many cities, so many challenges 22
05 Energy and climate programmes are
change programmes 30
06 Conclusions 33
07 Recommendations 34
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.
4 City typology as the basis for policy
Preface
The whole world is facing a major
challenge of how to limit the effects of
climate change. These days, there is little
doubt that climate change is an important
issue. Therefore, the main question now
is how to address it.
Addressing climate change is a shared
responsibility requiring the joint
support of citizens, businesses and
governments. Cities occupy a key
Bernd Hendriksen position in this respect. They house
large populations and many
Director, Sustainability Advisory practice, businesses, generating a great deal of
KPMG in the Netherlands mobility, and are therefore major
emitters of greenhouse gasses. This
also implies that cities have unique
opportunities to develop an energy and
climate policy that can significantly
reduce these emissions. To achieve
this, cities can mobilise the parties
involved, create awareness and enforce
specific changes through legislation
and regulations. The range of issues to
be addressed is virtually endless, from
waste collection and industrial policy to
car use in the inner cities and grant
schemes for green energy.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.
City typology as the basis for policy 5
Moreover, this also presents cities with often not properly aligned to the European Commission will also keep a
opportunities: a city that successfully specific characteristics of a given city close eye on the energy and climate
tackles this issue can raise its profile and therefore do not invite a tailor- policies of cities.
accordingly. In the near future, this will made approach. We have therefore
become an increasingly important way made a number of suggestions for Many people both directly and indirectly
for cities to distinguish themselves. improvement. These are also based on contributed to this publication. I would
the awareness that cities, particularly like to thank them for their work, and I
Understandably, cities are already in the coming years, will require am confident that this publication will
using the opportunities available to tailor-made policies that are designed provide policymakers and decision-
place the issue of climate change on to achieve optimal and sustainable makers in cities with points of departure
a solid footing. Domestically as well results in a cost-effective manner. enabling them to optimise their climate
internationally, numerous initiatives and efforts. We are happy to exchange ideas
tools have been implemented to Furthermore, requirements will become with them on how to design a tailor-
measure the efforts, to benchmark and stricter. The Covenant of Mayors made approach that results in a truly
to share knowledge. In this publication, (a European Commission initiative for sustainable improvement.
KPMG Sustainability analyses and commitment by signatory towns and
compares the impact of various tools cities to go beyond the objectives of
and initiatives. One of our conclusions EU energy policy in terms of reduction
is that the landscape is cluttered, in CO2 emissions) for example, is
showing little uniformity or cohesion. drafting stricter requirements with
We also conclude that initiatives are respect to reporting, and the
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.
6 City typology as the basis for policy
Summary
Cities are responsible for about eighty
percent of the global energy consumption
and half of the total greenhouse gas
emissions (European Commission, 20081).
Cities are therefore one of the key locations
in the fight against global warming.
During the past decades, numerous unequivocal insight into the complaining about the overload
initiatives and tools have been effectiveness of cities’ energy and of internal as well as external
developed to achieve climate gains climate policy. Different methods information requests. Moreover, in
by determining the energy and for footprinting, benchmarking and this field the information systems of
climate profiles of cities, by carefully monitoring may produce contradictory cities are often still immature, and
monitoring their energy and climate results and this creates the risk that meeting the numerous information
policy, by comparing cities and by the parties involved – cities as well as requests is therefore labour intensive.
reporting on their progress. All of these critical observers – start to pick and Differences in definitions also play
initiatives are well-meaning. A few of choose from the available data and a role, making it difficult for civil
these initiatives and tools have also rankings to reinforce their arguments. servants to promptly and reliably
produced impressive results. The discussion is then too focused on generate the requested information.
their position in the rankings and not A non-exhaustive inventory of nearly
Nonetheless, the market is still enough on the effectiveness of their 60 initiatives and tools produced by
immature, and its performance is energy and climate policy. That is KPMG Sustainability showed the
therefore not optimal. There has been why cities are looking for better tools wide range in diverging objectives,
a rampant proliferation of perspectives, that will help them to truly make a perspectives and indicators. The
definitions, benchmarks, indicators and difference with their energy and resulting administrative burden,
measuring methods. But a proper climate policy. including time spent and costs
overview of these initiatives is lacking. incurred, is a serious issue for
• Administrative costs are high. The many cities.
The effect of this is twofold: data requirements of the different
initiatives and tools are placing an
• The effectiveness of energy and increasingly heavy administrative
climate policy is low. There is no burden on cities, which are
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.
City typology as the basis for policy 7
In this publication, we provide an factors are not taken into account. climate change. At the same time,
overview of the different initiatives and Every city has its own challenges, and many cities have limited budgetary
tools. We look for the differences and a measure that was very effective in leeway for this, also due to the
the similarities and analyse to what one city may produce next to no effect financial crisis. Now more than ever it
extent the initiatives are useful for in another. Thus the energy and climate is important for policymakers to make
cities. This study can thus serve as a policy of a port city with a large well-considered choices that actually
first step towards achieving the desired manufacturing sector will logically produce effects and cost as little as
European-wide objective of uniformity focus strongly on investment in this possible. However, many policymakers
in concepts and definitions. This may sector, as this is where the difference and administrators have little idea
produce a better insight into the can be made. When this city’s where to start and are inundated with
effectiveness of energy and climate performance is compared to that of a well-intentioned reports, rankings and
policy and also a lower administrative city dominated by financial services, proposals.
burden. this creates a skewed comparison.
Rankings and benchmarks say little By basing their considerations on
In addition, this publication about the efforts actually made by the the typology of their city, they can
distinguishes different types of cities. two cities. Furthermore, these types compile the optimal package of
This is done because in our view of comparative benchmarks do not energy and climate measures.
effective energy and climate policy provide cities with any input on how to This publication provides them with
requires a tailor-made approach. improve their policy. At best, a high suggestions for a new way of thinking
The different rankings and benchmarks ranking is useful as a PR instrument. about this issue. We hope that these
say little about the energy and climate suggestions will initiate a discussion
performance of a given city when In the coming years, cities will be among cities and their administrators
its characteristic starting points, expected to make a major contribution about achieving an effective energy
prerequisites and environmental towards addressing the problem of and climate policy.
1. European Commission (2008) Covenant of Mayors Brochure.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.
8 City typology as the basis for policy
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.
City typology as the basis for policy 9
Viewpoint
The sustainable energy
revolution and cities
Sara Pasquier and Nigel Jollands, Energy Efficiency and
Environment Division, International Energy Agency (IEA)
Cities (including towns) currently use over two-thirds of the Lastly, CAs have considerable experience in engaging with
world’s energy, an estimated 7 900 Mtoe in 2006, even issues of sustainable development and attempting to
though they only account for approximately 50% of the translate global and national targets into local practice.
world’s population. By 2030, cities are expected to account For example, CAs are generally responsible for
for more than 60% of the world’s population and use more implementing national energy efficiency requirements in
than 12 400 Mtoe in energy. building codes. This experience means that many CAs are
well placed to assist with sustainable energy and climate
These trends present an opportunity. Cities, as home to change mitigation strategies.
increasing population, energy use and CO2 emissions, are
an important player in energy management and climate CAs’ ability to improve energy efficiency, mitigate climate
change mitigation. Fortunately, city authorities (CAs), change and take innovative decisions to enhance the
through their direct energy use, regulatory powers, capital deployment and use of renewable energy resources is also
works programmes and property management, are uniquely a function of the energy production and energy savings
prepared to take leadership in these areas. potential in its jurisdiction. Geographic setting, biophysical
resources, infrastructure, industry make-up and social
First, CAs are significant energy users in their own right. environment influence the energy production and energy-
CAs are owners and managers of energy-related capital saving potential available in each urban area. CAs’ capacity
infrastructure, including buildings, recreation and sanitation to tap energy savings and renewable sources also varies
facilities, water provision, transport fleets and energy according to the availability of a skilled workforce, public/
distribution networks. Estimates of the proportion of city private partnerships and networks with other cities. Despite
energy consumed by local government range from between differences in capacity and energy production and energy
1% to 5% (for example, in New Zealand and France) to savings potential, cities around the world are actively
16% (in Austria) of total city energy use. engaged in policy creation and implementation to improve
energy efficiency, increase the share of renewable energy
Second, CAs have a profound indirect influence over a and decrease CO2.
city’s overall energy use through their regulatory functions.
Urban planning, transport infrastructure, etc. are all areas As a result, cities are uniquely placed to play a pivotal role in
where cities can influence energy use. Many city the sustainable energy revolution.
governments can also levy rates and charges and provide
incentives and disincentives for energy use through
pricing policies.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.
10 City typology as the basis for policy
01
Background
For cities, the issue of climate is policy and associated projects and • Cities must regularly monitor and
not optional programmes. It is important that such evaluate whether actions are
Global warming has been at the top of action is taken collectively. Only if producing the desired effect, so that
the agenda for years now and both cities conclude agreements with each timely adjustments can be made.
governments and businesses are other and move in the same direction
looking for ways to reduce humanity’s can they truly make a difference. • Cities must regularly make
impact on the climate. Cities play an themselves accountable to external
important role in this. They are not For energy and climate policy to be parties (report) regarding their
only responsible for eighty percent effective, a number of prerequisites adopted energy and climate policy
of European energy use and half of should be met: and the results it is producing.
the annual emission of greenhouse The rules governing this are
gases, but they also have excellent • Cities must have insight into their becoming ever stricter.
opportunities to bring about positive climate footprint and must know
change (European Commission, who the main emitters of In this effort, it is important for cities to
20082). Cities can enforce this greenhouse gases and/or energy exchange experiences with each other,
change by influencing the behaviour users are. Having this (quantified) so that they can gain new insights and
of citizens and businesses (by means insight creates real opportunities for adopt each other’s best practices.
of legislation and regulations, for defining the right policy. Benchmarks can play an important role
example), by implementing a in this. When they are used properly,
procurement policy focused on • Cities must have clearly defined benchmarks are valuable not so much
sustainability and by making their own objectives and action plans for their because they measure and rank cities,
activities more sustainable. Cities are energy and climate policy. but because they spread knowledge
therefore putting a great deal of effort about policies and measures and show
into developing energy and climate what the frontrunners have achieved.
2. European Commission (2008) Covenant of Mayors Brochure.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.City typology as the basis for policy 11
Viewpoint
Bridging the gap
Birgit Georgi, Project Manager Urban Issues, European
Environment Agency
Cities become increasingly aware of their role in the global broadly accepted indicators could lead towards a solution.
fight against climate change and have started various Current initiatives with a broad acceptance like the
initiatives. However, despite the European dimension of Covenant of Mayors or major European city-networks can
cities’ action, no exact data of, e.g., urban greenhouse gas be a good ground for such an initiative and should
emissions can be reported. The variety of approaches, definitely be taken into account. When it comes to tools
methods and tools does not allow for comparability of and data, it could also be a way to develop translation
such data. tools to make different data comparable.
Bridging this gap is a difficult task as cities, due to the There is the need to embed the whole issue into a
subsidiarity principle and the variety of contexts and broader approach of sustainable urban development.
purposes, will often insist to decide on their own Climate change is strongly linked to many other
approach. In this situation, a comparison study is an environmental areas such as air quality, water or
important first step in order to get an overview over the health and the study should at least link to these
different approaches. This would provide the basis to issues.
analyze the problems of comparability in detail and
identify potential ways forward. By considering these linkages and increasing the scope -
this study can be very helpful within this process of
Given the large number of approaches and the supporting cities playing a more active their role in
independent decision-making of cities, general and reducing Europe’s energy footprint.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.12 City typology as the basis for policy
02
An inventory of
initiatives and tools
concerned with
the energy and
climate policy of cities
A potpourri of initiatives and tools European Green Capital Index, This clustering provides some insight
Our research shows that cities European Energy Award, etc). into the types of tools available on the
are faced with a large number of The problem is that the projects market and seeks to bring some order
initiatives and tools for determining taken into account are very different to the ‘chaos’. Nonetheless, this
their climate profile and monitoring from one another and the existing analysis also makes it crystal clear that
and/or benchmarking their climate benchmarking tools are often either there has been rampant proliferation.
performance in order to report on it. biased or not accurate/strict enough Below, we specify the main differences
It is difficult to gain an insight amidst to make concrete conclusions. It is and similarities for the various
the potpourri of hundreds of tools, therefore difficult for policy makers benchmarks and local greenhouse gas
initiatives, standards and guidelines to identify which strategies have (GHG) inventory tools. Benchmarks
at local, regional, national and provided the best results in order to mainly provide insight into the
European level. Although some of assist policy decision making.” differences between cities. Local GHG
these initiatives are comparable, there inventory tools provide a framework for
are major differences in terms of KPMG made an inventory of 57 monitoring the footprint of activities.
perspectives, objectives and scope, as initiatives and tools, most of which had Monitoring precedes benchmarking:
well as adopted definitions, indicators a European-wide focus. Our selection “Put your own house in order before
and measuring methods. Gaël was aimed at obtaining a cross-section you have a look at your neighbour’s”.
Léopold, Manager Corporate Relations and we therefore focused on
WWF International: “Lots of producing an overview of the most
institutions and organizations have well-known/important initiatives and
tried to compare urban projects using tools. These can be clustered as
different methodologies (e.g. follows (see table to the right).
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.City typology as the basis for policy 13
Monitoring
Local GHG inventory tools Sustainability inventory tools
• Zerofootprint – Carbon Manager • HEAT (Harmonized Emissions Analysis • CO2 Calculator • STAR Community Index
• C-FAR Tool) • Klimaat Monitor • Urban Ecosystems Europe
• PCP - GHG Inventory • Eco2Region • CO2 Emission Evaluation (GB) • Local Evaluation 21
Quantification Support Sheet • Clean Air & Climate Protection 2009 • Multiplying Sustainable Energy • STATUS
• LAKs Greenhouse Gas Inventory • CO2-Grobbilanz Communities (MUSEC) • TISSUE
Toolkit • Greenhouse Gas Regional Inventory • Rapid Assessment • Cities21
• Smart SPP toolkit Protocol (GRIP) • CRIS
• Bilan carbone
Benchmarking
Benchmarks
• European Green Cities Index • Urban Ecosystems Europe • The Anholt-GFK Roper City Brands • SustainLane US Cities Ranking
• European Green Capital Award • RES-League Index (CBI) • Smarter Cities
• European Cities Monitor • Mercer Quality of Living Index • Globe Sustainable City Award • Sustainable Cities Index
• European Energy Award • EIU Liveability Survey • Climate Cities Benchmark
Disseminating
Best practices dissemination tools
• Carbonn • City Instruments – Catalogue • Benchmarks of Excellence • The Climate City Catalogue
• C40 Cities Best Practices • Green Cities (Covenant of Mayors) • Managenergy
Reporting
Reporting guidance tools
• CLEAR (City and Local • The International Local Government GHG • UNFCCC Methodologies for the use • International Standards Organization
Environmental Accounting and Protocol (ICLEI) of project-based mechanisms (ISO) 14064 and 14065
Reporting) • GRI Sector Supplement for Public • IPCC Guidelines for National • Sustainability Energy Action Plan
• Greenhouse Gas Protocol (WRI, Agencies Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Covenant of Mayors)
WBCSD) • Aalborg Charter
Input/design
Databases Indicator analyses
• Urban Audit • Global City Indicators • European Common Indicators • CRISP
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.14 City typology as the basis for policy
Differences in approaches of benchmarks
Variation
Geographical coverage National •• ••• ••• Global
• ••• ••
Scope (indicators) All sustainability aspects (social, ••• •• ••• Focus on environmental aspects (i.e. energy &
economic, environmental)/other
••• • •• climate indices)
Scope (quant./qual.) Quantitative assessment of ••• ••••• (+) Qualitative assessment of local government
current performances only
•• •••• aspirations and policy actions
Weighting Indicators not subject to •••• ••• Customized formulas underlying index calculation
assigned weighting
•••• •••
Comparability No meaningful clustering/ ••• •••• • Meaningful categorization/ selection of cities
selection of cities (apples-to-pears)
•• ••• • (apples-to-apples)
Transparency Selection criteria for indicators not ••• •••• Selection criteria for indicators made transparent
made transparent
••• ••••
Consistency with policy No alignment/ not specified ••••• •• Purposefully aligned with policy agendas/targets/
agendas/directives
••••• •• reporting requirements
Data input Publicly available data only • •••••• Primary research (interviews, surveys)
• ••••••
Price Subject to fees •• •••••• Free of charge
• •••••
Update frequency One-time publication • •••••••• Frequent benchmarking (annual, biannual etc)
•••••••
• = initiative
Differences and similarities with Differences and similarities with In some cases, these are indicators
respect to objectives: respect to scope: that capture adopted policy; in other
Obviously, all initiatives have the Each initiative refers to its own ‘ideal cases they measure performance or
general aim of making a positive mix’ of indicators for measuring local current practice. This clearly leaves
contribution to the energy and climate sustainability performance. There is little room for comparison, and as a
policy of cities. The manner in which next to no agreement on what this mix result of these differences cities that
they try to achieve this differs. Various should consist of. In general, a score well in one benchmark may
local GHG inventory tools help cities to distinction can be made between score poorly in another. It is suggested
calculate their total footprint (citizens, initiatives that refer to sustainability in that generally accepted guidelines on
businesses and government). Other the widest sense of the word – people, how to define certain environmental
tools only provide insight into the planet, profit -, and initiatives that are terms and how to measure and report
footprint of local government as a purely focused on measuring energy performance could add to the
separate entity; this is virtually identical use and CO2 emissions. Even after comparability and the better use of
to corporate footprinting. Furthermore, this distinction has been drawn, the benchmarks.
various tools provide additional picture is still vague. To illustrate, the
services, such as helping to quantify 14 benchmarks analysed here together The table to the right shows which
climate objectives. Benchmarks also comprise 100 indicators for specifying indicators are used comparatively
refer to various different objectives. the environmental performance of often.
These often include the following: cities. Of these 100 indicators, only
creating a competitive climate, 30 are applied in more than one
supporting policy, offering an appealing benchmark. Seventy indicators are
means of communication. ‘unique’.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.City typology as the basis for policy 15
Differences in approaches of local GHG inventory tools
Variation
Geographical coverage National •••• ••• •• Global
•••• •• •
Boundaries Operations controlled by local • •• ••••• All GHG emitting activities of the community (incl.
government only • •• •••• local government )
GHG measured CO2 only ••• •• ••• • All GHG (6 Kyoto + extra) and CAPs
•• • •• •
Emission scope Direct emissions only • ••••• • Direct, indirect and lifecycle emissions
• ••••• •
Sector scope & definition Little depth •• •••• ••• In-depth
• •••• ••
Quantifying emissions Generalized default •• ••• ••• Local/regional emission factors
emission factors • ••• ••
Consistency with int. Not compatible •••• ••• •• Compatible with GHG protocol, ISO, ICLEI,
accounting standards •••• •• • IPCC,…
Price Paid software use ••• • ••••• Free of charge
••• ••••
Access Not web-based • •••••••• Web-based (entry)
•••••••
Language Available in default language only •••••• • •• Available in several languages
•••••• •
Transparency No explanation of methodology • ••••••• Transparent methodology and calculation
• ••••••• measures
Functionality GHG Inventory • ••• ••••• Target setting, scenario development, benchmark-
• •• •••• ing, quantifying measures etc
Impact Not linked to target commitments ••••••• • Directly Linked to target commitments
••••••• •
• = initiative
Indicator Theme Percentage of projects
where indicator is
mentioned
Modal split Transport 40%
Amount of municipal waste produced/collected Waste 40%
Proportion of solid waste processed by recycling (or composed) Waste 40%
Climate and Energy saving policies/action plans/ targets Environmental 40%
management of the
local government
Size of pedestrian and bicycle (non-car) network Transport 33%
Water consumption Water 33%
Size/proportion of area used for green space Land use 33%
Proportion of sustainability consumption Consumption 33%
CO2 emissions CO2 25%
Share/number of sustainable/green-classified buildings Building 25%
Percentage of total wastewater that has received treatment Waste 25%
(primary, secondary, tertiary, compliance with standards)
Air pollution Air quality 25%
Annual average concentrations of NO2 Air quality 25%
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.16 City typology as the basis for policy
Viewpoint
Inconsistencies
and proliferation
Maria Berrini, Chairperson, Research Institute
Ambiente Italia
It is absolutely clear that cities need to monitor their From 2006 to 2007 we developed the Urban Ecosystem
sustainability performances in a way that is scientifically Europe (UEE), a set of 20 sustainability indicators applied to
based, yet simple to understand and communicate (by about 40 medium and big European cities. UEE has been
means of indicators). Furthermore, cities need to analyse developed, with the endorsement and cooperation of most
their results and compare them with other cities (by European city networks, to capture all issues that mirror
appropriate benchmarking). It is evident that EU institutions local sustainability (as done by the Aalborg Commitments).
and national governments regularly need to obtain relevant Thanks to an ongoing FP7 research project, Urban
information about how cities perform. Ecosystem Europe and local Evaluation 21, also a
benchmarking tool but focused on the quality of public
The efforts done in the past twenty years in the field of participation process, will be launched for a new round.
local sustainability and energy & climate monitoring, Furthermore, the aim of the INFORMED CITIES Project
benchmarking and reporting have been really wide-ranging (Ambiente Italia, ICLEI, ABO University and Northumbria
and somewhat disparate. The Aalborg Commitments and University) is to collect data from at least 100 hundred cities
The Covenants of Mayors initiatives offer a general and report them with careful attention to benchmarking
framework to reinforce these efforts. In the last ten years, matters (clustering cities with reference to geographical
together with other partners and EU funds, we have tried to distribution, dimension, and social/economical factors).
contribute to all this, developing concepts and tools (as in
TISSUE and STATUS projects, DG Research) and on-field Energy & Climate issues are already included in the two
applications (as in the European Common Indicators tools, but it would be absolutely relevant to focus further,
Initiative launched by DG Environment). looking for standardisation, for solutions to overcome
obstacles and inconsistencies, and for ways to better
benchmark cities under this aspect, in the light of other
tools and experiences.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.City typology as the basis for policy 17
Differences and similarities with Differences and similarities with
respect to target market: respect to consistency with the
The composition of the rankings is political agenda:
often also somewhat arbitrary. In many Cities are faced with European-wide
cases, a number of European capitals legal requirements and political
are selected, without substantiating ambitions regarding their energy and
this selection. In other cases, the climate policy. It would be logical for
selection that has been made seems the indicators and definitions applied in
completely random. One of the factors initiatives to be aligned to this. Cities
contributing to this is that in many would then be able to monitor the
cases these initiatives depend on the extent to which their efforts are in line
willingness of cities to participate. with adopted (policy) agreements.
Even if we disregard the arbitrariness However, the reality is that few
of the selection of cities, it is clearly initiatives are aligned to this, which
observable that there are almost no means that they are quite separate
initiatives that take note of city from the political policy agenda.
characteristics. Yet such an approach
would in our view be very valuable, Differences and similarities with
as it would enable meaningful respect to consistency with the
comparison. Furthermore, as much as reporting schedules:
“large” (capital) cities typically draw This aspect is affected by similar
most attention in rankings, benchmarks factors as the previous one. Many
ideally do not discriminate between cities participate in international
city sizes. organisations and programmes in the
field of environment, energy and
Differences and similarities with of a simple addition or by using a climate. In many cases, cities report
respect to reliability: method in which some indicators are their data in accordance with the
There is considerable divergence in weighted more than others. This designated formats and systems
the depth of information requests and allows for different truths. To be able (e.g. Covenant of Mayors’ Sustainable
the manner in which these are verified, to correctly interpret rankings, it is Energy Action Plan). Ideally, initiatives
and this probably also applies to important that benchmarks are should be aligned to these formats
reliability. Various initiatives use transparent about the type of work and systems to prevent the duplication
questionnaires and rely on data that has been performed ‘behind the of work. Consistency not only makes
supplied by cities themselves. Other scenes’. Various benchmarks simply it easier to supply information, but
initiatives derive their information from present rankings as facts, without also increases the willingness of cities
(public) databases. In the first case, providing any insight into the to participate in initiatives. However,
verification is essential; the accuracy underlying methodology used to in reality there is often no consistency
and consistency of interpretations prepare the ranking. and it takes cities a great deal of
and information requests must be time to meet all the information
checked. In the second case, risks Differences and similarities with requests.
are posed by unavoidable estimates respect to frequency:
and extrapolations on the basis of The aim of benchmarks is to bring Differences and similarities with
macro data. about a learning curve effect, cross- respect to level of detail:
fertilisation and the sharing of Benchmarks and GHG inventory tools
Differences and similarities with successful approaches. One of the ideally account for a sound balance
respect to the transparency about prerequisites for this is that the between comprehensiveness of
their preparation: benchmarking is not a one-off but indicators used and extensiveness
A city’s ranking in a benchmark is a recurring exercise, so that of data requests. The number of
determined by two factors: its score developments over time can be indicators should be adequate to
for the various indicators and the way identified and cities are offered the capture sustainability properly, yet
in which these scores are processed opportunity to improve on poor not too extensive to reduce the
into a total score. This final step can be performances. However, for a number administrative burden on cities.
performed in various ways: by means of benchmarks this is not the case.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.18 City typology as the basis for policy
European European European European RES-League Mercer EIU Globe Anholt GFK-
Green Cities Green Capital Cities Energy Award (solar Quality of Liveability Sustainable Roper City
Index Award Monitor ranking) Living Index Index City Award Brands Index
1 Copenhagen Hamburg London Zurich Friedrich Vienna Vancouver Curitiba Paris
Wilhelm-
Lubkekoog
2 Stockholm Stockholm Paris Mäder Kroonprinzen- Zurich Vienna Malmö Sydney
koog
3 Oslo Munster Frankfurt Lausanne Schalkham Geneva Melbourne Murcia London
4 Vienna Amsterdam Barcelona Schafthausen Fresstedt Vancouver Toronto Songpa Rome
5 Amsterdam Freiburg Brussels Wiemsheim Rettenbach am Auckland Perth Stargard New York
Auerberg Szczecinski
6 Zurich Oslo Madrid Langenegg Niederberg- Düsseldorf Calgary Sydney Barcelona
kirchen
7 Helsinki Brisol Munich Munster Kaiser-Wil- Munich Helsinki San Francisco
helm-Koog
8 Berlin Copenhagen Amsterdam Neuchatel Gollhofen Frankfurt Geneva Los Angeles
9 Brussels Malmö Berlin Jena Freichten a.d. Bern Sydney Vienna
Alz
10 Paris Vitoria-Gasteiz Milan Virgen Heckhuscheid Sydney Zurich Madrid
Note: Cities indicated in bold are mentioned in multiple benchmarks.
Following methodological differences, • Improve the comparability of cities.
the level of detail across tools is rather Cities are actually looking for ways to
scattered. learn from each other when drafting
and implementing energy and
Differences and similarities with climate policy.
respect to rankings:
One of the consequences of the But they can only learn from
diversity of methodologies is that cities comparable cities. Benchmarking
score differently in different rankings. therefore requires a tailor-made
Not only does this create a surprising approach, based on comparing cities
picture, there is also the risk that the with a similar profile (instead of
parties involved – cities as well as comparing apples and pears!) (see
critical observers – start to pick and chapter 4).
choose from the available data and
rankings to reinforce their arguments. • Performance needs to be
Rankings mainly have a PR value. contextualised. Contextual differences
across cities make it somewhat
Measuring is knowing. But perversely, ways in which tools could serve arbitrary to compare cities according
measuring too much can also result in cities better: to their actual energy and climate
not knowing anything at all. This also • Improve the comparability of tools. performance at a fixed date. Rather
applies to the great diversity of Inconsistencies between tools than measuring cities’ current
initiatives and tools, which results in undermine their value (confusion, performance, benchmarks should
high degree of incomparability. While administrative burden, etc.). Some therefore also take into account the
we do not doubt that benchmarks and form of harmonisation will be policy that has been implemented: i.e.
monitoring tools are valuable, we inevitable to stop proliferation monitoring the progress made
would like to suggest a number of (see chapter 3). compared to the status quo.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.City typology as the basis for policy 19
Viewpoint
Methodologies for monitoring progress
Ulrike Janssen, Executive Director, Climate Alliance
With the commitment of more than 1.500 cities, With Climate Alliance’s members committing to a concrete
municipalities and regions of the Climate Alliance, more CO2 emissions reduction target (10% every 5 years),
and more local authorities are assuming the responsibility developing methodologies for monitoring progress is a
to contribute actively to the achievement of the European central pillar of our work. Over the past 15 years, the Climate
energy and climate targets. Furthermore, they see energy Alliance Group of Local Experts has developed guidelines
efficiency and the use of locally available renewable energy and recommendations for CO2 inventories and has jointly
resources as fundamental means to stabilize their local developed the methodology for the ECORegion tool.
economies, create jobs, reduce energy poverty and The variety of existing approaches – all of them reproducible
decrease dependence from ending fossil fuels. due to different contexts, tasks and purposes – ask for two
next steps: to offer descriptions of the existing monitoring
Assigning concrete figures to the impact of local action is methodologies in order to support local authorities in
fundamental, both in terms of monitoring of progress at selecting the most appropriate for their individual
city level to improve their own policy, but also to convey background and requirements; and to look for ways to
the actual and the potential contribution of local authorities transcribe the results of the different methodologies with
to national or European climate targets in the fight for the aim of reaching common messages when
improved framework conditions. communicating results and achievements.
Quality, sustainable built environment in Europe
Adrian Joyce, Director, Architects´ Council of Europe
The Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE) has long recognized There are many cities that are taking important and valid
that it is in cities and regions that the true advances in steps towards truly and ambitiously addressing the
relation to the creation of a more sustainable future will challenges posed by energy and climate change issues, but
occur. For this reason the ACE has long regretted that there these initiatives and good work are isolated cases. The fact
is not a “department” of the European Commission that is that they are generally being formulated, implemented and
dedicated to the question of Urban Issues. It is aware that monitored at a purely local level condemns the work to be
this is because of the existence of the subsidiarity principle, lost from making its contribution to the common good.
but it is a matter of some regret.
What is needed is a coherent, valid and well-structured way
The Commission has an Inter-Service Group that works of ensuring that the best policies, implementation strategies
on Urban Development and it has produced a very useful and monitoring mechanisms are widely known so that other
overview of how urban issues have been dealt with at cities and regions can adopt and/or adapt them to their local
EU level. It is an encouraging development because it conditions. ACE is ready to further contribute to the
shows that the Commission is beginning to think about development of a valid benchmarking approach as one
urban development in a more integrated way and it contribution in an array of new tools that are necessary to
clearly demonstrates that there is much the EU can do assist in the creation of a quality, sustainable built
on this topic. environment in Europe.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.20 City typology as the basis for policy
03
Harmonising the
collection of data
Cities are looking for more efficiency While there are various reasons why sustainability and more specifically for
The preceding inventory and analysis steps need to be taken towards energy and climate, including in the
have shown that the approach adopted harmonisation, the need to improve context of the Covenant of Mayors and
until now is very fragmented, with efficiency is a particularly urgent one. the Urban Audit. The underlying idea
widely varying definitions, approaches At present, civil servants in cities are is that such harmonisation encourages
and demarcations. This situation, which inundated with requests for comparability and boosts the impact
is also typical for the current state of information by numerous initiatives, and effectiveness of cities’ energy
the climate issue, is an almost classic and it takes them a great deal of time and climate policy. It also has the
one. Take, for example, the rise of to meet all these requests. Obviously, additional benefit of reducing the
private equity at the end of the last the diversity of concepts outlined administrative burden of cities and
century: it only gained a boost after above does not make matters any improving the reliability and integrity
private equity parties established their easier. Moreover, the information of data. It should be noted that cities
own network, began standardising systems to address this issue are still can already anticipate this development
concepts and started speaking with in their infancy. by improving the design of their
one voice to regulators on the capital information systems with respect to
market. In the coming decades, cities In recent years, the European Union this issue, so that they can more easily
will also need such a harmonisation to has exerted pressure to arrive at a address the various information
give the issue of sustainability a boost. harmonised set of indicators for requests.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.City typology as the basis for policy 21
Viewpoint
Harmonisation in inventories
Gino Van Begin (European Director and Deputy Secretary
General, ICLEI) and Maryke van Staden (Coordinator Climate
and Air, ICLEI)
GHG inventory tools and benchmarks certainly are beneficial on the national and European level. Benchmarking typically
in cities’ fight against climate change. They support the is a means for cities to politically and strategically advance
political commitments for community-wide GHG reductions themselves. Secondly, favourable rankings help cities
and help cities save money. It is apparent that cities and position themselves against peers. We live in a competitive
towns actively involved in using such tools are Europe’s world, and this is no different for cities. Thirdly, benchmarking
frontrunners, and also leading internationally. allows for best practice dissemination. It tells cities what
elements they should include to become more sustainable.
Inventories are a basic necessity. Among other things, Addressing these issues will certainly lead to improved
inventories are baselines that reveal whether or not money conditions in communities – and thus also to a better quality
on measures is spent well; that the measures provide for of life for inhabitants.
genuine CO2 reductions and that savings can be made in
the short term and long run. As much as GHG inventory However, the variations resulting from different tools also
tools provide for valuable insight, Maryke van Staden create confusion. The majority of cities need guidance on
stresses that there are many tools which differ in terms of what standards and tools to use. ICLEI recommends that
scoping, boundaries, definitions, data etc. These differences all cities base their selection of a GHG tool on the now
rightfully address differences across communities, or widely accepted International Local Government GHG
differences in purpose. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ inventory Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP). IEAP aims at introducing
tool. However, these differences also cause difficulties in widespread harmonisation in inventories. “Harmonisation
comparing data in a useful way – a deficit that has to be is a commonly used word. However, using a harmonised
addressed in the near future. standard should not imply that all cities and regions are alike.
Furthermore, it does not mean that all tools should be the
Inventories are a precondition to benchmarking. Cities need same. “Harmonisation of the standard recognises today’s
to have their own house in order first. Comparing comes different tools, yet ensures that outputs of future tools are
second. Still, Europe has a long tradition of benchmarking. more comparable by setting standards for data accounting
We love fishing out pioneers. Van Begin stresses different and reporting.
reasons for cities to engage in benchmark initiatives: money,
marketing, mutual learning, and, last but not least, improving ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability is an international
association of local governments as well as national and regional local
quality of life for citizens. Firstly, a favourable ranking government organisations that have made a commitment to sustainable
increases the chance of successfully applying for funding development. ICLEI currently has over 1100 members worldwide.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.22 City typology as the basis for policy
04
So many cities,
so many challenges
The typology of cities determines the
optimal mix of energy and climate policies
The benchmarking of the sustainability These differences are so great that the this is like picking low-hanging fruit.
performance of cities can help to significance of a ranking must at least The expectation is that in the coming
identify front runners and leading be put into serious perspective. In fact, years cities will (have to) develop
practices. If these are shared, cities the ranking is based largely on greater ambitions with respect to
can benefit from the knowledge and coincidence since the energy and their contribution to addressing
experience of colleagues in other cities climate policy of cities is often the energy and climate issues. They will
and that obviously benefits their consequence of the natural and then have to resort to measures that
sustainability policy. Benchmarking historical conditions of a city. One are rather less ‘natural’ and in many
thus contributes to an increase in the example of this is a city that has had cases also more expensive. They will
effectiveness of the policy. metro network for years and has now therefore look for the most effective
optimised it to meet the growing package of measures for energy
With the current overload of mobility. A city with an existing district conservation, energy efficiency and
benchmarks, however, this barely gets heating system is also an example. The renewable energy. At present,
off the ground. Besides the previously optimisation of existing – naturally and/ benchmarks unfortunately provide
described diversity of definitions and or historically determined – elements little useful information for improving
approaches, this is also caused by the can then be grouped under the climate policy, especially since no account is
diversity of the cities themselves. efforts, so that an extra contribution to taken of the various typologies of
A rich city with a great deal of history addressing the climate problem can be cities.
and a high-quality service economy is, made fairly ‘painlessly’.
for example, faced with very different Be that as it may, in the coming years
challenges than a port city with a large The current energy and climate policy cities will try to find an optimal climate
manufacturing sector and a relatively of many cities mainly capitalises on policy. A policy that is very cost-
low average income per capita. these natural possibilities. In a sense, effective – since the budgetary
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.City typology as the basis for policy 23
Abatement cost
€/ t CO2
Hybrid
pertrol
Coal to gas shift Cumulative abatement
potential
Hybrid Mt CO2
bus
Traffic New buildings
Heat management with extremely
Loft
recovery high energy
insulation
Gas Engine CHP efficiency
Residential
lighting
pressures are in many cases enormous snapshot of potential measures cities’ and usually have greater effects on
– and that also demonstrably benefits may take). The measures on the left of reducing emissions.
the climate. In general terms, a proper the figure with negative values on the
balance is needed between costs and y-axis are those that produce financial The graph therefore provides insight
benefits; CO2 abatement cost curves savings and also contribute to reducing into the most effective measures for
are very useful in this respect (the CO2 CO2 emissions. The other spectrum reducing CO2.
abatement cost curve above refers to a includes measures that cost money
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.24 City typology as the basis for policy
Low Middle High
Oslo 1
Copenhagen 2
Stockholm 3
Zurich 4
Vienna 5
Brussels 6
Amsterdam 7
Rome 8
Madrid 9
London 10
Paris 11
Berlin 12
Helsinki 13
Istanbul 14
Warsaw 15
Lisbon 16
Athens 17
Dublin 18
Riga 19
Ljubljana 20
Bratislava 21
Belgrade 22
Zagreb 23
Budapest 24
Bucharest 25
Prague 26
Vilnius 27
Sofia 28
Tallinn 29
Kiev 30
Services • Size: “small”, population < 1 million; “middle-sized”, • History: not plotted as it can not be captured in the grid
population between 1 million and 3 million; and “large”, structure. Impact of history should be addressed for
Tourism
population > 3 million. each city individualy.
Transport
• Income: “low income”, with GDP per head of • Population density: “low”, less than 2.000 residents per
Light industry less than €21,000; “middle income” of €21,000 km2; “middle”, 2.000 – 4.000 residents per km2; “high”,
Heavy industry to €31,000; and “high income” of more than €31,000; more than 4.000 residents per km2.
Size • Temperature: “cold”, average temperate of 4-8 Co; • Sector composition: “services” financial, R&D, real
Income “temperate”, average temperature of 9-12 Co; “hot”, estate, health care, public administration, wholesale and
average temperature of more than 13 Co; retail trade, post & telecoms (ICT); “tourism”
Temperature restaurants, hotels; “transport” road transport, land
People • People: following EU’s index for voluntary participation transport (pipelines), air transport, water transport (port
in organizations (based on the average number of activities); “light industry” pharmaceuticals, timber
History voluntary organizations, such as religious groups, production, food & beverages, textiles, electrical and
Population density trade unions and sports, professional or charitable optical equipment, consumer electronics, pulp, paper,
bodies that citizens belong to). “Low” index 1. (Source: mining, chemicals and plastics, utilities, industrial
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living machinery, automotive.
and Working Condition (2006) First European Quality
of Life Survey: Participation in civil society. Dublin.) Ranking based on European Green Cities Index (Siemens
AG, 2009), compilation of CO2 and energy performances.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.City typology as the basis for policy 25
The specific character of a city typology, although this is an essential temperature, the environmental
obviously plays a role in this. In a city insight for the definition of an effective awareness of its residents, and its
with many old houses, an ambitious climate policy. The key question is: What history. This table has no scientific basis
insulation programme will be of more is the best thing for a city to do in view but is an excellent way to focus one’s
use than in a modern city with a more of its natural conditions? Answering this thoughts when defining a climate policy.
average climate. Furthermore, the question requires a tailor-made approach. Relating this table to the rankings on
possibilities for exerting an influence We have developed a typology grid on the European Green Cities Index3 at the
differ considerably. A city which is the basis of which cities can engage in end of 2009 also provides sufficient
almost entirely driven by business and an internal discussion about where their food for thought. It is striking, for
financial services can impose strict optimum lies. To this end, we have listed example, that the cities ranked first,
conditions for the construction of new at the left a number of characteristics of second and third (Oslo, Copenhagen
offices (energy consumption/compelling European cities. and Stockholm) have an almost identical
particular modes of transport), while a profile. This could point to the fact that –
city with a few large manufacturers has This table provides a concise insight as previously argued – the climate
other possibilities for intervention, for into a number of elements that are performance of a city largely depends
example by means of a system of crucial for energy and climate policy. on its ‘natural’ conditions and (far) less
environmental permits. These relate to the city’s economic on conscious policy.
typology (the dominant economic
At present, there is hardly any insight sectors that are represented by the
into how cities score in technical climate bars), the size of the city, the average
terms in relation to their specific income of its population, the average
3. European Commission (2008) Covenant of Mayors Brochure.
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.26 City typology as the basis for policy
City viewpoints
Learn from peers
Bruno Villavecchia, Director, Energy and Environment
Department of Mobility, Environment and Landscape Agency
of the Municipality of Milan
Just like many other European cities, Milan has set Milan takes part in various initiatives, primarily the Covenant
ambitious targets: 20% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2020 of Mayors. “There’s a lot to learn from our peer cities:”
(relative to the 2005 emission level). The goal was officially
confirmed in 2009 with the signatory of the Covenant of • what measures are most effective;
Mayors and the development of the Sustainable Energy and
Climate Action Plan (SEAP). Milan’s SEAP foresees a set of • what measures are the easiest to implement and most
measures covering different sectors: transport, residential accepted by citizens;
and tertiary sectors, energy production, waste and
agriculture and municipal buildings. Measures have been • how to implement measures (this is really important).
developed and selected by taking into account specific
characteristics and environmental factors of the city. Milan also is a best practice example itself in many aspects.
”Milan was one of the first cities (with London and some
The development of the Plan started before the publication other cities) that introduced a (pollution) charge for vehicles
of the SEAP Guidelines. “We are currently comparing our entering into the city centre. Furthermore, in the residential
initial Plan with the Guidelines, making sure our format is and tertiary sectors tax reductions were introduced for new
coherent with SEAP’s. The SEAP anyway is a work in constructions and refurbishment activities when buildings
progress, and is subject to regular updates, deepening (new and refurbished) have better performances than
elaborations and modifications.” current regulations. Moreover, incentives for energy
efficiency and renewables will be introduced in the building
“In order to monitor progress adequately we continuously code, which is currently being updated. The newest District
update indicators best disclosing sustainability. Data Heating Plan foresees a wide extension of the district
collection is a demanding and time consuming job. Yet, data heating network within the city. The goal is connecting
are essential for analysis, planning, designing and 730.000 inhabitants equivalent by 2015 (currently about
monitoring activities.” 225.000 inhabs. eq. are connected).”
© 2010 KPMG Advisory N.V.You can also read
