Urban Environment Good Practice & Benchmarking Report

URBAN ENVIRONMENT GOOD PRACTICE & BENCHMARKING REPORT

European Green Capital Award 2015

The authors of the Good Practice Report are Katie O’Neill and Ian MacHugh, RPS Group, Ireland together with the assistance of the Expert Panel.

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

The secretariat also assists with PR activities related to the award scheme through the European Green Capital Award website, Facebook and Twitter pages, and through various communication channels such as brochures and press releases. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1 EUROPEAN GREEN CAPITAL AWARD ...... 2 1.2 THE INDICATOR AREAS ...... 3 1.3 APPLICANT CITIES FOR 2015 AWARD ...... 3 1.4 THE AIM OF THIS REPORT ...... 6 1.5 STRUCTURE AND APPROACH OF THIS REPORT ...... 6 2 LOCAL CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 7 3 LOCAL TRANSPORT ...... 11 4 GREEN URBAN AREAS INCORPORATING SUSTAINABLE LAND USE ...... 15 5 NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY ...... 19 6 QUALITY OF LOCAL AMBIENT AIR ...... 23 7 QUALITY OF ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT ...... 25 8 WASTE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT ...... 30 9 WATER CONSUMPTION ...... 33 10 WASTE WATER TREATMENT ...... 36 11 ECO-INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE EMPLOYMENT ...... 39 12 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF THE MUNICIPALITY ...... 41 13 ENERGY PERFORMANCE ...... 45

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Expert Panel Profiles

1 1 INTRODUCTION

7th Environmental Action Programme (EAP)

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

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

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

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

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

1.1 EUROPEAN GREEN CAPITAL AWARD

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

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

The objectives of the European Green Capital Award are to:

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

2 b) Encourage cities to commit to ongoing and ambitious goals for further environmental improvement and sustainable development;

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

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

1.2 THE INDICATOR AREAS

The selection of the European Green Capital 2015 is based on the following 12 environmental indicator areas:

1. Local contribution to global climate change

2. Local Transport

3. Green Urban areas Incorporating Sustainable land use

4. Nature and biodiversity

5. Quality of local ambient air

6. Quality of the Acoustic Environment

7. Waste production and management

8. Water consumption

9. Waste water treatment

10. Eco-innovation and sustainable employment

11. Environmental management of the local authority

12. Energy performance

1.3 APPLICANT CITIES FOR 2015 AWARD

Eight cities applied for the 2015 Award. A map and list, in alphabetical order, of these applicant cities are presented below.

3 Of the 8 cities to be evaluated 7 are signatories of the Covenant of Mayors and 7 European Countries are represented. The smallest city by population is Kutahya in Turkey with a population of 235,000, whereas Brussels in Belgium has a population of 1,048,491.

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

4 5

1.4 THE AIM OF THIS REPORT

The aim of this report is to showcase “Environmental Good Practice” currently undertaken in the applicant cities for the European Green Capital Award 2015 title, while also benchmarking these cities environmental performance in order to provide quantitative data for use by cities.

It is anticipated this Report will be widely read throughout European cities, including current, previous and potential applicants of the Award. In this way all cities will be inspired to adopt some of the tried and tested Environmental Good Practices that already exist and also to learn of technologically advanced innovations that can greatly add to resource efficiency. This in turn will lead to greater economic prosperity and job creation in accordance with the 7th EAP priorities and the EU 2020 Strategy which are the key drivers for all European Policies.

1.5 STRUCTURE AND APPROACH OF THIS REPORT

The members of the Expert Panel (details in Appendix A) were requested, as part of their duties, to indicate two examples of Environmental Good Practice for their primary indicator area. These examples were to include novel initiatives which may be transferable to other European cities.

The report presents and in some cases elaborates on the data presented by cities in their application forms. As such all data is the most up to date as of 2012 unless otherwise stated. It aims to benchmark the eight applicant cities, however, where data provided by cities was not comparable, (e.g. different years or units of measure, only qualitative answers available, etc.), other data sources (e.g. EEA or Eurostat) have been used, or the “benchmarking” approach has been avoided.

The European Green Capital Secretariat compiled and edited this information which is now presented in twelve individual Chapters, one per environmental indicator area.

2 LOCAL CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confirmed that climate change is a reality and that the use of energy for human activities is largely responsible for it. It is recognised that local and regional governments share the responsibility of fighting global warming with national governments. Towns and cities account directly and indirectly (through the products and services used by citizens) for more than half of the greenhouse gas emissions derived from energy use related to human activity.

On 9th March 2007 the EU adopted the Energy for a Changing World package, committing unilaterally to reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 20% by 2020 (from a 2005 baseline), as a result of a 20% increase in energy efficiency and a 20% share of renewable energy sources in the energy mix.

The EU commitment to reduce emissions will be achievable only if local stakeholders, citizens and their groupings share it. Therefore local and regional governments, representing the closest administration to the citizen, need to lead action and set a good example. Many of the actions, on energy demand and renewable energy sources, necessary to tackle climate disruption fall within the scope of competence of local governments1.

The following Table 2.1 outlines the state of play regarding CO2 emissions per applicant city, it details their progress to date and targets for to 2020.

Table 2.1: CO2 data per applicant city

% from Target reduction by City t/inh transport 1990 - 2005 reduction 2020 Bristol 4.7 21% 19% (2005 - 2010) 40% Brussels 5.24 17% 18% (2004 - 2010) 30% 13.4% increase (2005 - Bydgoszcz 10 20% 2009) 20% Dublin 8.86 24% - 20% Glasgow 6.2 23% 13% (2005 - 2010) 30% Kaunas - - 32% (1990 - 2008) 30% Kutahya - - - - 44.6% increase (1996- Ljubljana 7.3 35% 2005) 30%

The following examples, extrapolated from the applications for the 2015 European Green Capital Award title, offer insight into what cities are doing in terms of Climate Change in an urban environment.

Brussels

The Brussels Air, Climate and Energy Code (COBRACE), which came into force at the start of 2013, aims to meet simultaneously the energy, climate and air quality challenges and defines a number of ambitious new standards in this regard. This law radically reorganises the Brussels legislation in these three areas and stipulates, in particular, the following measures:

1 COMO website

 Imposing the Local Energy Management Action Plan (PLAGE) for owners possessing or occupying buildings of more than 100,000 m² and for the public authorities possessing more than 50,000 m²

 Imposing the passive standard for all new construction from 2015 onwards

 Creating a label for the energy and environmental performance of the building

 Setting a renovation rate for public buildings

 Imposing requirements in terms of energy efficiency and electricity produced from renewable sources for public lighting

 A policy of leading by example for all public authorities present in the Brussels region

 Setting up the Maison de l’Energie [Energy Centre] (€5m p.a.) a comprehensive and free support service for residents in order to help them improve the energy efficiency of their homes

Brussels was one of the first cities to sign the Covenant of Mayors in 2009 and, following its signature, adopted an Action Plan for a Low-Carbon Brussels Region by 2025 in 2010. The aim of this plan is to reduce GHG emissions by 30% by 2025. The following Table 2.2 compares all applicant cities in terms of their target reduction by 2020 (where information was available).

Table 2.2: Target CO2 reduction

Target reduction by 2020

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

cz tol ow is osz g jana Br Dublin as Kaunas Brussels ydg Gl jubl B L

The policies implemented by the Region since 2004 focusing on this goal have been demonstrable successful with the total amount of GHG emissions per inhabitant was reduced by 18% between 2004 and 2010.

The strategy regarding climate has been integrated into the Regional Sustainable Development Plan (PRDD in French), which has at its core the aim to orientate all public policies towards the sustainable city. This is clearly defined in the Figure 2.1 below.

Figure 2.1: Link between the vairous plans

The Air, Climate and Energy Code (COBRACE) will put this aim into practice. This is part of a long- term view up to 2050 and will determine the current action plan up to 2020. The Regional Sustainable Development Plan will also integrate measures relating to adaptation to climate change.

Glasgow

In late 2010, the Council approved and published its Climate Change Strategy. The strategy incorporates priorities for corporate climate change mitigation and adaptation by means of five‐yearly action plans. The strategy and action plans are underpinned by 8 integrated key themes, each with an action plan for the 5 year period:

 Education and awareness CO2 emissions  Energy 12  Resource management 10 8  Transport 6 % from transport t/inh 4  Sustainable procurement 2 0  Cultural and natural heritage Bristol Brussels Bydgoszcz Dublin Glasgow Ljubljana

 Water

 Planning and the built environment

In order to reflect the principles of sustainable development and the holistic approach required to address the complexities of climate change, the strategy adopts a sectoral structure. It is reviewed and updated annually.

In accordance with the responsibilities designated in the strategy, a revised approach to implementation of climate change actions was adopted. This approach uses existing working groups within the Council as opposed to the creation of new forums and management structures. Theme leaders for each of the 8 action plans provide regular updates through the Sustainability and Environment Senior Officers Group.

3 LOCAL TRANSPORT

Mobility in an urban environment is paramount to citizen’s quality of life. However, mobility is often at odds with good air quality and a good acoustic environment. Policies for greening transport follow three interlinked principles:

 Optimising transport demand, i.e. avoiding or reducing trips through integration of land use and transportation planning, and localised production and consumption;

 Obtaining a more suitable modal split – shifting to more environmentally efficient modes such as public and non-motorised transport for passengers, and to rail and water transport for freight;

 Using the best available technology, i.e. improving a vehicle and fuel technology to reduce the negative social and environmental effects from each kilometre travelled (UNEP, 2011).

Studies indicate that the environmental and social costs of local air pollutants, traffic accidents and congestion, can be far in excess of the amounts required to jump start a transition to a green economy (UNEP, 2011)2.

The Reference Framework for European Sustainable Cities (RFSC) offers guidance to cities in order to encourage its citizens to change their travel behaviour e.g. trying alternatives to the car such as cycling, walking and public transport. The following table shows the availability of cycle paths and lanes in each of the applicant cities. Brussels is clearly leading the way with Dublin doing very well in light of cycling being a relatively recent initiative in the city i.e. Dublin Bikes Scheme was launched in 2009.

Table 3.1: Availability of cycle paths and lanes per applicant city

Availability of cycle paths and lanes City m/inh km total Bristol 0.6 299 Brussels 1.04 1134 Bydgoszcz n/a 49.59 Dublin 0.43 220 Glasgow 0.5 n/a Kaunas 0.15 n/a Kutahya n/a 5 Ljubljana 0.6 216

The following graph, Figure 3.1, shows the levels of mobility in each of the cities. The majority of applicant cities show +75% of its citizens living within 300m of an hourly or more frequent public transport service.

2 Environmental indicator report 2012, EEA

Proportion of population living within 300m of an hourly public transport service

100 80 60 % 40 20 0 Bristol Brussels Bydgoszcz Dublin Glasgow Kutahya Ljubljana

Figure 3.1: Proportion of population living within 300m of an hourly public transport service

The following examples from Brussels and Kaunas offer some excellent mobility initiatives for cities.

Brussels

In a region with a very high density of activity, and an influx of 300,000+ commuters every day, there is a great demand for mobility. Brussels has been implementing policies under IRIS Plans 1 and 2 to achieve a 20% reduction in traffic by 2018. Examples of such policy success include:

 The use of regional public transport (STIB) increased by 94% between 2000 and 2011, increasing from 170 to 330 million journeys per year;

 Cycling has quadrupled since 1998;

 Car use for travelling between home and work fell by 17% between 2004 and 2011.

Brussels has set a number of objectives to improve its public transport network going forward with particular emphasis on the RER, Metro and Tram:

 Brussels is in the process of implementing a very ambitious programme for the RER, with some lines already partially completed. Full commissioning is due by 2025 but the greater part of the network (~90%) is expected to be available by 2016. A memorandum of understanding between the federal government and the three regions involved in the RER project was signed in 2004, which shows a top-down commitment to the citizens of Brussels.

 The metro is being extended into the north of the Brussels region. The feasibility study (on the social-economic and strategic aspects) has been completed and the technical feasibility study will be started this year (2013). Preliminary studies show a total cost of ~€40 million. This budget will be provided through the cooperation agreement (Beliris) between the federal government and the Brussels Capital Region, which allows financing of a series of major infrastructure projects in Brussels.

 From the 1st of January 2013, the public transport company STIB uses only electricity from renewable sources. As metro and tram represent 72% of STIB usage, this means 72% of the passengers are transported by means of this electricity from renewable sources.

There is a growing awareness among citizens about the stakes concerning mobility. This can be seen in initiatives such as “PicNic the streets”, which is a series of organised protests against car transportation, or the pedestrianisation of some major roads (Walking Madou).

Kaunas

Kaunas has installed an electronic payment method for the benefit of public transport passengers. Passengers using the E-ticket scheme can pre-pay for journeys on buses as well as parking services in the city. In August 2010, a single monthly e-ticket operating on radio-frequency identification was implemented.

In order to help promote the shift from travel in private cars to travel on public transport, in November 2008 a real-time electronic information display system was implemented at public transport stops. This scheme was further extended in 2011 when additional panels were installed at bus stops in

Kaunas. These have increased the travel options for disabled passengers as low-floor public transport vehicles are marked on the panels. Real-time information including a vehicles expected arrival time and its location are shown on the web-site http://googlemap.kvt/ which is available through a mobile phone application.

The real-time information system software records information about each stop, whether there has been a stop, whether the vehicle doors have been opened, how early or late the vehicle arrived, an option to identify the vehicle’s driver, mileage travelled and how long the vehicle has been stopped. The system is able to calculate “good” or “bad” mileage as per distances between stops. As a result of this system, the city has an option to pay the public transport operators accurately only for the mileage travelled.

4 GREEN URBAN AREAS INCORPORATING SUSTAINABLE LAND USE

As urban areas grow and population densities rise, it is easy for municipalities to neglect the need for green areas, and sacrifice these spaces for industrial growth. Green spaces, quiet streets and recreational parks are vital to the sociological well being of citizens and it is vitally important that they are maintained and enhanced in the urban setting.

Urban sprawl is a natural occurrence within cities, a balance between the needs of urban, rural and residential areas is needed and sustainable land use policies and practices need to be in place to help find this balance. The Territorial Agenda of the European Union was developed and adopted informally in 2007 by EU ministers to promote spatial development plans to address sprawl and promote stronger partnerships between urban and rural areas. The EU’s Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme enables the monitoring of land use in Europe through mapping at continental (“CORINE land cover”) and local hot spot (“Urban Atlas”) areas.

The EU utilises funding programmes to foster green space initiatives such as the “Green and Blue Space Adaption for Urban Areas and Eco Towns” (GRaBS) project which is supported by Cohesion Policy funds and promotes urban planning efforts aimed at preserving and adapting open spaces to improve quality of life while also combating climate change.

The following examples showcase what cities are doing in terms of Green urban areas Incorporating Sustainable land use in the urban environment.

Bristol

The ‘West of England Partnership’ is a cooperation between several adjoining authorities which ensures that strategic housing, transport and green infrastructure are coordinated between these authorities. Consequently, growth focuses on existing centres and brownfield land and protects ‘established Green Belt’ land, which in turn limits urban sprawl.

This cooperation has led to the establishment of a Strategic Green Infrastructure Framework, to protect and enhance green corridors and green areas where rivers, wildlife corridors and parks cross authority boundaries, see Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Strategic Green Infrastructure Diagram (extract) for Bristol and neighbouring municipalities

The graphic below, Figure 4.2, shows the area types in Bristol, as expected the largest area is residential. But what is interesting is the residential area is almost completely matched by green areas.

Area Types ‐ Bristol

Green Area Water Area Residential Area Industrial Area Mixed Area Brownfields other

Figure 4.2: Area types in Bristol

Brussels

In 2010 the Sustainable Neighbourhood contracts system, which had been countering the disparities between neighbourhoods through an integrated approach to combat poverty, reinforce social cohesion and ensure ecological transition of the existing neighbourhoods since 1993, was reformed to incorporate environmental innovation in buildings, as well as the creation of green areas, urban collective kitchen gardens, etc.

Sustainable Neighbourhood contracts help to compensate for the lack of infrastructure, increase the housing stock and improve the surroundings and living environment of residents in working-class neighbourhoods. They also promote the local economy and the creation of new green areas in densely-populated neighbourhoods.

Public open areas

600 500 400 300

m2/inh 200 100 0 Brussels Dublin Glasgow Kutahya Ljubljana

Sustainable Neighbourhood contracts follow a ‘bottom-up’ strategy by incorporating local participants through participatory processes, co-decision on the programme and follow-up of the process by the residents. These programmes represent €60m investment annually and have led to the creation of over 1,400 social housing units and 156 facilities in over 60 neighbourhoods.

Figure 4.2: New sustainable housing constructed in the framework of the “Van Artevelde” Sustainable Neighbourhood Contract (© F. Dujardin for MDW Architecture)

Figure 4.3: New green area created in the framework of the “Rue Verte” Sustainable Neighbourhood Contract (© M-F Plissart)

The Regional Land Allocation Plan (PRAS), is a regulatory allocation plan which ensures a balance between functions within the city and green areas to be legally preserved. This allows the conversion of former industrial areas into mixed areas which serves to increase urban density while maintaining economic activity in these neighbourhoods and continuing to protect the various green areas of the Region.

The graphic below shows the area types in Brussels. Interestingly green area is the largest category!

Area Types ‐ Brussels

Green Area Water Area Residential Area Industrial Area Mixed Area Brownfields

5 NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY

Closely related to the implementation of green urban areas in cities, is the need to maintain nature and biodiversity in an urban setting. Biodiversity makes our cities green, habitable and beautiful places to live. The social impacts of nature and biodiversity are endless, providing aesthetic pleasure, artistic inspiration and recreation. Normally associated with more rural areas, it may come as a surprise that cities are still now very biologically diverse places e.g. over 50 per cent of Belgium’s floral species can be found in Brussels. Cities are required to recognise the delicacy of biodiversity, the negative effect that urban expansion can have on it and that it is their policies which will protect it.

The EU has committed itself to the protection of biodiversity through different policy actions. It is a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 1992, which seeks to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of the diversity of species, habitats and ecosystems on the planet. The EU has adopted a series of measures to implement this Protocol, the most recent of which was in March 2010. It was pledged to halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restore them in so far as feasible. CBD parties agreed in 2010 on 20 key biodiversity goals, which are know as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and urban areas play a central part in achieving these goals.

Directives which require the integration of biodiversity concerns into spatial planning is one way the EU have employed to reach the 2020 target. These Directives are the Habitats (92/43/EEC) and Wild Birds (2009/147/EC) Directives which require Member States to protect habitats and species of EU conservation concern. Through these Directives it has been recognised that the most important sites for these habitats and species should become protected areas. This led to the establishment of the Natura 2000 network which is the largest network of protected areas in the world. It comprises of over 26,000 protected areas with an area of more than 750,000 km2 which is nearly 20% of the EU’s land area. The Sonian forest in Brussels is one example of a growing number of sites within urban boundaries.

The following examples showcase what cities are doing in terms of Nature and Biodiversity in the urban environment.

Glasgow

Over the past ten years, a variety of management initiatives have been implemented at Council owned designated sites. These include:

 All eight Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) have management plans in place which are updated/reviewed every 5 years

 Management Groups are in place for each LNR, ensuring that the needs of local communities are met as well as biodiversity targets

 Management work has been undertaken by the Council’s Land and Environmental Services (LES) team and through partnership projects

 Resources are provided by LES Parks Develeopment Budget, partner organisations and grants such as the Landfill Communities Fund (LCF), Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) and Woodland In and Around Towns (WIAT)

 Three LNRs and two Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) have recently been part of a management lease to Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). The management of these woodland sites is now directly funded by FCS

Grassland management initiatives

Over the past ten years, the Council, through the Park Grassland Review and the implementation of grassland Habitat Action Plans (HAPs), has significantly developed its programme of grassland management and meadow creation. Management of all meadows across the City is carried out in partnership with local farmers through agri‐environment schemes, Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT) trainees and volunteers from The Conservation Volunteers (TCV). Details of grassland management initiatives are provided in Table 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Successful meadow creation trail at Trinley Brae

Table 5.1: Glasgow’s grassland management initiatives

Initiative Positive outcomes Partnership working Trial of the creation and Due to its success this has been Scottish Natural Heritage management of wildflower rolled out City-wide at a number of (SNH) funded meadows designated sites and parks In the past 10 years, new 15 new areas have been created in wildflower meadows have been parks and nearly 30ha are managed created across the City for biodiversity in parks and open spaces Glasgow’s Buzzing This is a three year project to Funded by Landfill create/enhance and survey three Communities Fund (LCF). new meadows per year. Six-spot Developed in partnerships Burnet moths have been discovered with Buglife – The at three new sites in the City due to Invertebrate Conservation meadow creation and it is hoped Trust and Glasgow City further surveys will reveal more Council (GCC) success Farmland species rich meadows The work carried out here has Funded by SRDP and LCF resulted in new SINC designations and developed in partnership with a local farmer, Scottish Government and GCC

Wetland management initiatives

Wetland habitats form an important part of Glasgow’s landscape. There are seven open water bodies exceeding 1ha. With seven Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAP) HAPs covering various wetland habitat types, their importance is clearly recognised in the City. A number of partnership projects are ongoing to enhance existing and create new wetland habitat in the City. These projects have contributed enormously in helping Glasgow achieve a robust network of well managed wetland sites (see Table 5.2 & Figure 5.2).

Table 5.2: Glasgow’s wetland management initiatives

Initiative Positive outcomes Partnership working Glasgow Living Waters  40 new ponds created GCC, LCF, and Biffa funded. Project (2009-12)  25 existing ponds enhanced Partnership between Froglife and GCC Lowland raised bog  10ha of degraded bog restored to LCF and GCC funded. restoration (2009-12) favourable condition Partnership between SWT  Access improvements and and GCC interpretation to promote this important habitat to local communities Pond Naturalisation  10 defunct park boating ponds Funded by LCF and GCC Project (2002-12) naturalised  Bingham’s Pond awarded overall winner in SEPA Habitat Enhancement Initiative Proposed 7 lochs Wetland  Proposals to create a 16.4km2 Organisations involved: GCC, Park (2011 onwards) wetland park in east of the City. SNH, GCVGNP, CSGN, FCS,  Would contribute to Central Scotland RSPB, IRRI, Sigma for Water Green Network and Glasgow and Project Clyde Valley strategic priorities

Figure 5.2: The award winning Bingham’s Pond naturalisation project

Bristol

In 2012 the UK government awarded Local Nature Partnership Status to the West of England, a partnership of organisations including Bristol City Council. This major new initiative reflects the commitment of partners to deliver national targets to restore and create habitats at a landscape scale. The LNP seeks to influence local decision making bodies including the Local Enterprise Partnership which drives economic investment in the region, the unitary authorities reflecting their significant impact on land-use policy and the Health and Wellbeing Boards connecting quality of life through

contact with nature. A business plan has been produced and partners are making progress on a number of key outputs including the production of a West of England “State of the Environment” report.

In recognition of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, Bristol has made a long-term commitment to the conservation and improvement of biodiversity across the City, and is currently revising the Bristol Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (2013). Bristol BAP actions that go beyond 2012 include:

 Identify wildlife network sites suitable for delivery of priority habitat creation/restoration projects and develop implementation programme;

 Investigate, map and develop opportunities for biodiversity restoration within Blaise Strategic Nature Area;

 Identify sites for re-creation/restoration of species rich grassland and develop programme for implementation towards target of 3 hectares;

 Seek to develop a programme of habitat management on Bristol Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) open water habitat to bring into favourable conservation status;

 Develop and implement enhancement plans for selected rivers through Area Green Space Plans and working with local communities;

Just 19% of green and blue space in Bristol is not part of the designated Wildlife Network space. Future wildlife-based plans for these non-protected areas include:

 Biodiversity management of Bristol’s 108 hectares of allotments and a programme of activities to encourage allotment holders to take action for wildlife, e.g. participation in wildlife surveys

 Develop school grounds BAP

 Develop a specification for species rich grass green roofs, and promote through the planning system

 Identify strategic woodland corridors and opportunities to strengthen by planting; consider use of available areas of public open space and street trees, using species with value for wildlife

 Wildlife enhancements for cemeteries based on audits.

Reflecting the importance of ‘open mosaic habitat on previously developed land’ as detailed in the Bristol BAP, Bristol is starting work on its first new land on a site in South Bristol.

6 QUALITY OF LOCAL AMBIENT AIR

Clean air is vital to our well-being. Economic activities, in particular those related to road transport, power and heat production, industry and agriculture, emit a range of air pollutants. These have direct and indirect effects on human health, and adversely affect both ecosystems and cultural heritage.

Particulate matter (PM), ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are broadly considered to be Europe's most problematic atmospheric pollutants in terms of harm to human health. In particular, both high PM and O3 pollution have been linked to reducing life expectancy and to cardiovascular and chronic respiratory effects. The following graphic shows the annual mean concentrations for NO2 and PM across the applicant cities.

Annual Mean Concentrations

80 60 NO2 40 PM10 ug/m3 20 PM2.5 0

tol ls cz Bris Dublin Brusse Glasgow Kaunas Bydgosz Ljubljana

Figure 6.1: Annual Mean Concentrations

17% of the European urban population lives in areas where the EU ozone target value for protecting human health3 was exceeded in 2009. In the period 1997–2009, this figure ranged between 13% and 61%. High ground-level ozone concentrations are most pronounced in southern Europe. In order to reach long-term air quality objectives, with ozone levels that avoid significant negative effects on human health and the environment, substantial emission reductions of both Nitric oxide (NOX) and Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are needed at the local, regional and hemispheric levels. Moreover, further substantial emission reductions of primary particulate matter and PM precursors 4 such as Ammonia (NH3), NOX, and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) are needed to bring down current PM levels .

The following examples showcase what cities are doing in terms of Air quality in the urban environment.

Dublin

An innovative approach to putting air quality data in the hands of citizens is by making the data available on the Dublin City Council Open data Platform called “Dublinked”. Here, data is available on Air Quality Monitoring, consisting of five spreadsheets taken from five air monitoring sites around

3 120 mg O3/m3 daily maximum 8-hourly average, not to be exceeded more than 25 times a calendar year by 2010, averaged over three years. 4 Environmental indicator report 2012, EEA

Dublin City that show hourly results for the pollutants Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Particulate Matter (PM2.5 & PM10). The regulations are set by the Clean Air for Europe Directive 2008 (2008/50) and from January 1st, 2010 the directive also required PM2.5 monitoring. There is no real time data for PM10 or PM2.5 as of yet.

Black smoke monitoring is also carried out as a form of background monitoring using the benchmark of EU Directive 80/779/EEC as a guide however this has been scaled down since the 1990s following the introduction of the coal ban.

Bristol

Existence and implementation status of an air quality management plan

Bristol City Council developed an Air Quality Action Plan in 2004. The plan aimed to reduce traffic pollution by strategic management of the road network and encouraging residents and commuters to shift to more sustainable travel modes.

As the main source of pollution is road traffic, Bristol decided to integrate the Air Quality Action Plan with the second Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP). This aimed to:

 Improve air quality in the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and ensure air quality in all other areas remains better than the national standards

 Reduce congestion by reducing demand for and promoting alternatives to the private car

 Improve accessibility to employment, education and services

 Improve the quality of life by enhancing public spaces, community safety, and creating sustainable communities.

The JLTP is produced with the adjoining three municipalities and is the plan for transport at the city region scale. It specifically addresses commuting into the city from rural areas, nearby towns and suburbs.

7 QUALITY OF ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT

The quality of the acoustic environment is very important to the quality of life of the population of a city. Ambient sound levels that are beyond comfort levels are referred to as environmental noise pollution. This can be caused by many different sources, such as traffic, construction, industry as well as some recreational activities. Generally the level of noise in cities is continuing to grow - as the demand for mobility grows, the use of cars, trains, and planes increases, and so does the level of noise. Excess levels of noise can cause damage to hearing, increased stress levels and unnatural sleeping patterns.

The Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC) relates to the assessment and management of environmental noise. Its principle aim is to “define a common approach intended to avoid, prevent or reduce, on a prioritised basis, the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to the exposure to environmental noise”. The Directive refers to noise that people are exposed to continuously and not to noise created by persons themselves, their neighbours, their workplaces or while in transit. Its aim is to provide a basis for developing EU measures to reduce noise emitted by major sources, in particular road and rail vehicles and infrastructure, aircraft, outdoor and industrial equipment and mobile machinery.

EU regulations on noise management have been based on internal market objectives such as setting harmonized noise limits for motor vehicles, household appliances and other noise-generating products. These laws have helped spur innovations that can help limit noise pollution, such as low noise tyres and more silent road surfaces, as well as noise barriers and soundproofing, which are very positive towards the effort of improving the acoustic environment of cities around Europe.

The following figure 7.1 shows the exposure to noise in each of the applicant cities, where available. Lden is an abbreviation for Day-evening-night level. It is a descriptor of noise level based on energy equivalent noise level (Leq) over a whole day with a penalty of 10 dB(A) for night time noise (22.00- 7.00) and an additional penalty of 5 dB(A) for evening noise (i.e. 19.00-23.00)5. On the whole these exposure figures appear high, however no set trend can be observed across these cities.

Exposure to Noise

100 80 People exposed to Lden > 60 55 dB % 40 People exposed to Lnight > 45 dB 20 0

z in ljana Bristol b Dubl lasgow Kaunas u Brussels Bydgoszc G Lj

Figure 7.1: Exposure to Noise

The following examples showcase what cities are doing in terms of Noise in the urban environment.

5 EEA Definition http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/terminology/concept_html?term=lden

Bristol

Population Exposure to Noise

Bristol has pioneered the mapping of transport noise in UK cities, publishing a map of road and rail noise in 2007. Using that map, Bristol has calculated two population exposure statistics, L(day) >55 dB(A) and L(night) >45 dB(A) and this data is shown below:

L(day) >55 dB(A) L(night) >45 dB(A)

Population below threshold 307,326 251,066

Population above threshold 62,454 118,714

Percentage above threshold 17% 32%

The population exposure was assessed using a GIS method. This assigns population to buildings based on the relative area of the building and the population in the postcode unit in which the building is located. The centre of the building is taken as the point of the exposure and an interpolation of the L(day) and L(night) values in the surrounding 10m grid squares taken to provide an average value for noise exposure. Clearly there are uncertainties associated with this method but it provides a useful snapshot of noise exposure on which to base noise action planning.

The UK Government has also produced statistics for population exposure to noise in UK urban areas. As a result of the boundaries of urban areas used by the Government, the data published on the UK noise maps for Bristol includes large areas of adjoining municipalities. The two data sets are not therefore comparable. Aircraft noise was not included in the noise mapping exercise of 2007 and therefore is not included in the population exposure analysis. The map below (Figure 7.2) is from Bristol’s noise mapping work from 2007, with traffic data from 2005.

Figure 7.2: Road and rail noise map Bristol 2005

Quiet areas

Bristol was commissioned by the UK Government to research and develop a model for identifying ‘Quiet Areas’ in urban settings. Bristol citizens value green space for peace and quiet. The Cities annual Quality of Life survey regularly shows that 20-25% of visits to parks and open spaces are for ‘peace and quiet’ or ‘to relax and think’. The diagram below shows Bristol is among the top applicant cities for population living within 300 meters from green open areas.

Population living <300m from public open areas (over 5000m2)

100 80 60 % 40 20 0

cz tol ow ris osz B Dublin Brussels Glasg Bydg Ljubljana

Figure 7.3: Population living <300m from Public Open Areas

The study demonstrates that UK local authorities can use existing guidance and incorporate local criteria to nominate quiet areas for designation under the environmental noise regulations. These areas can then be protected. A list of potential quiet areas for nomination was identified by the city council and they have been recommended to Government for designation. The report is with Government for consideration and BCC is working with the UK Government to implement the quiet area policy in the city.

Ljubljana

Urban Ecological Zone

In recent years the city has taken on an entirely new appearance, above all thanks to the establishment of an ecological zone in the wider city centre area. The city centre has been closed to motor vehicles since autumn 2007 and this designated zone is gradually being enlarged every year. Today it already covers more than 30 streets or an area of 79.671 m2. Over the last five years the amount of public space reserved for pedestrians and cyclists has increased by 550%. Only non- motorised transport is permitted within the ecological zone, with the exception of delivery vehicles between 6.00 and 9.30 a.m. Two Kavalir electric vehicles are available to citizens and visitors free of charge.

Figure 7.4: Life in the city centre before and after the introduction of the ecological zone

The ecological zone consequently boasts extremely low noise values, see Table 7.1, with pedestrians and cyclists the only source of noise. Noise measurements carried out every year during European Mobility Week indicate an almost 6 dB(A) reduction in noise since the creation of the ecological zone.

Table 7.1: Results of noise measurement at two city-centre locations (2006 – 2010)

8 WASTE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT

The European Union's average annual domestic material consumption fluctuates between 15 and 17 tonnes per person, globally the material 'footprint' of a European citizen has been estimated at between 45 and 50 tonnes per year.

With managing waste, it is important to encourage the shift towards a prevention and recycling society in tandem with a green economy. Using material resources and generating waste are two sides of the same coin. Waste is a potential resource when re-used, recycled or recovered. Waste that is merely disposed of can be interpreted as a loss of resources and thus as an inefficiency of the economy.

The EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) is the cornerstone of EU waste policy. It introduced the five-step waste hierarchy, with waste prevention as the best option, followed by re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery including energy recovery. Disposal is the least preferred option. Furthermore, life-cycle thinking was also introduced as a new waste policy concept. Today EU waste legislation has a strategic approach to waste and resources, and manages different waste streams by setting specific recycling targets. For example, the 2015 target for recycling of vehicles will be 85% and the recovery target (including energy recovery) will be 95%. The EU 'Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe' reinforces this approach.

Recycling is seen as a key measure to decrease the amount of landfilled waste while reducing the extraction and imports of materials used in the economy. It thereby links environmental considerations with economic benefits.

Waste Production

600 500 400 Household 300 Municipal 200 kg/inh/year 100 0

z s w el o s g ahya ljana Bristol ublin D Kaunas Kut Brus Bydgoszc Glas Ljub

Figure 8.1: Waste Production across applicant cities

The following examples showcase what cities are doing in terms of Waste in the urban environment.

Glasgow

Glasgow’s recycling and waste awareness initiatives

Launched in 2008, Glasgow Recycles is an innovative socio‐environment initiative providing a mixed recycling solution and was the first such project in the UK. The project aims to tackle ‘away from home’ waste and increase recycling rates. This is achieved through the provision of City centre recycling infrastructure and awareness raising campaigns. In 2010, 20 split compartment bins (one side litter and one co‐mingled recyclates) were sited within the City’s main civic square to encourage recycling.

Recycling Rate

City % Bristol 47 Brussels 31 Bydgoszcz n/a Dublin 49 Glasgow 26.5

Kaunas 9.3 Kutahya n/a

Ljubljana 30 7

In 2012, recycling ‘away from home’ was developed further when the Council was awarded funding to purchase 180 stand alone ‘recycle on the go’ bins which are located within the city centre (100) and major parks (80). They collect the same materials as the other blue bin collection schemes and are aimed at encouraging recycling away from home and promoting behaviour change.

Glasgow’s recycling rate is currently 26.5% with the remainder of waste going to landfill. Through initiative such as Glasgow Recycles, the proportion of landfill should fall over the coming years.

Household Waste Disposal ‐ Glasgow

Landfill Recycling

Dublin

Reuse

The FreeTrade reuse service was launched and hosted on www.DublinWaste.ie from 2006. This is an online reuse service which allows its users to pass on unwanted items for free, from beds and furniture to electronic goods to garden equipment and more. This online service facilitates and promotes reuse and was shown to deliver tangible results. It is free to use and delivers real financial savings to all its users, as well as being good for the environment.

After 4 successful years’ operating in Dublin, the service was launched nationally in July 2010 through its own website www.FreeTradeIreland.ie. The initiative encourages the reuse of unused and old items by facilitating the free advertising of items for members (businesses and householders). It is hugely popular in Dublin with over 37,700 members (December 2011) and over 50,000 items have been reused. In April 2008 it was awarded a Taoiseach Award for Public Service Excellence, the highest accolade for a public sector initiative.

On the website, it lists some of the direct effects of reusing through FreeTradeIreland.ie:

 Reducing waste disposal costs by avoiding skip and bulky waste collections;

 Encouraging the better use of household and business resources by extending the lifespan and value of these items through reuse;

 Helping to protect the environment through the reuse of items and the avoidance of throwing useful items in the bin;

 Encouraging a change in behaviour when it comes to the management of waste in Ireland and contributing to a more sustainable lifestyle for the people of Dublin and Ireland.

9 WATER CONSUMPTION

The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) acknowledges that modern water management needs to take account of environmental, economic and social functions throughout an entire river basin (EEA, 2007). Indeed, more and more countries are considering both supply and demand in their river basin management plans, and particularly in their public water management (EEA, 2010).

Water pricing and governance are among the strategies and measures employed to encourage sustainable use. The WFD requires Member States to take account of recovery of the costs of water services (including environmental and resource costs) from users including farmers, industry and ordinary household consumers, based on the polluter-pays principle (EEA, 2007, 2010a).

Water metering has provided a high incentive to save water, and experience shows that households with water meters (and associated charges) generally use less water than those without them. Currently, only some European countries meter the majority of water uses; often metering is still limited, especially relating to agricultural water use.

Water Consumption

140,000,000 120,000,000 100,000,000 80,000,000 Total m3/yr 60,000,000 m3/yr Households m3/yr 40,000,000 20,000,000 0

ol s cz n w s a a st el z na i s go ahy ljan Br us Dubli as ut Br dgos Gl Kau K jub By L

Figure 9.1: Water consumption

The following examples showcase what cities are doing in terms of Water Consumption in the urban environment.

Ljubljana

Water pricing systems to reduce water consumption

In Ljubljana, a tariff on drinking water consumption has been in place since 2009 to encourage users to use water rationally. The cost of water consumption is dependent on the average daily consumption of water in the building. Normalised water consumption for an individual building is determined on the basis of the following criteria:

 in buildings where water consumption is measured by a water meter, normalised consumption is determined on the basis of the capacity of the water meter

 in buildings where water consumption is unmeasured by a water meter, normalised consumption is determined on the basis of the number of inhabitants and normalised consumption of drinking water (150l/person/day).

Annual water consumption that exceeds normalised consumption for the building is considered excessive consumption and is charged at a price that is 50% higher than the price for normalised consumption of water.

Table 9.1: Households with water metering installed

Households subject to individual water metering City % Bristol 37 Brussels 100 Bydgoszcz 99.2 Dublin 22 Glasgow <1% Kaunas n/a Kutahya 89 Ljubljana 100* *% of drinking water connections fitted to a water meter

The city considers that a water use fee is one of the most effective measures to encourage saving, when combined with awareness-raising activities. Indeed, because of the higher cost per unit of water consumed, the water use fee encourages users to save drinking water. As a consequence, the quantity of billed authorised consumption in Ljubljana has been falling since 1988. In the last three years the fall in consumption has been particularly significant, in part as a result of numerous awareness-raising activities. The fee is defined by a government decree.

Bristol

The city of Bristol undertook two initiatives to take into account long-term issues in the current planning. This is of tremendous importance for water consumption, as it is expected that water shortages and floods will both increase in the future in particular in the UK, but one or both of these issues will also occur in other Member States.

These two initiatives are:

 In 2008, Bristol Water made a Strategic Environmental Assessment of its water resource management plan, which demonstrated that the company’s short and long-term plans are environmentally sustainable.

 In 2011, the company undertook a full climate change risk assessment for all its activities. Bristol City Council and Bristol Water were among the first organisations in the UK to carry out this risk assessment process.

10 WASTE WATER TREATMENT

The treatment of waste water is a vital step in the continuous water cycle but also in terms of protecting the natural environment. With great advances in waste water treatment and the corresponding increase in the quality of water discharged into the received environment, all stakeholders are benefiting.

A clean urban environment is among the goals of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). Its objective is to protect the environment from the adverse effects of urban waste water discharges and discharges from certain industrial sectors and concerns the collection, treatment and discharge of:

 domestic waste water,

 mixture of waste water, and

 waste water from certain industrial sectors.

This Directive requires all cities and towns with populations of 2,000 or more to have sewage collection systems in place and to treat the waste water to certain minimum standards before it is discharged into the environment. Although it is the most costly of all of the EU environmental requirements to implement, the reductions in pollution it has brought are significant. This legislation has helped clean up rivers, lakes and coastal areas and has been important for meeting the health- based standards of the Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC).

Figure 10.1 shows the wastewater load per applicant city.

Annual Generated Wastewater Load

2,000,000

1,500,000 Industry (p.e.) 1,000,000 p.e. Population (p.e.) 500,000

cz w sz ya ristol o go ah ljana B Dublin las ut b G K Bydg Lju

Figure 10.1: Annual Generated Wastewater Load

The following examples showcase what cities are doing in terms of Wastewater in the urban environment.

Ljubljana

Treatment of urban waste water takes place at the Ljubljana Central Treatment Plant (CTP Ljubljana), which has a capacity of 360,000 p.e., and at three local municipal treatment plants (Brod: 5,800 p.e., Črnuče: 8,000 p.e. and Gameljne: 1,500 p.e.). At present, all waste water treatment plants provide at least secondary treatment and even more stringent treatments for a small fraction of the waste water. Since Ljubljana operates according to the principles of openness and transparency, all data on cleaning effects are freely available to the public online.

The effects of treatment and outflow parameters are compliant with legislation. From 31 December 2015, legislation in the Danube river basin district also requires the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from waste water in the case of treatment plants with a capacity above 10,000 p.e. Ljubljana therefore plans to upgrade CTP Ljubljana with more stringent treatment (removal of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds) by the end of 2015.

In sparsely settled areas, where construction of sewerage systems is not planned, small municipal treatment plants (SMTPs) are installed in the case of new developments. These are gradually replacing the current septic tanks of existing buildings. For existing septic tanks and SMTPs, Ljubljana provides removal of sludge. All quantities of sludge are received and processed at CTP Ljubljana. In the case of SMTPs Ljubljana also carries out assessments which include, as well as useful data, field inspections of the maintenance and operation of the SMTPs.

Annual Generated Sewage Sludge

60,000 50,000 40,000

t/a 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

l o s cz in sel gow Brist us ubl D las Kutahya Br Bydgosz G Ljubljana

Figure 10.2: Annual Generated Sewage Sludge

At the CTP Ljubljana considerable attention is dedicated to energy efficiency and the rational consumption of fuel. The use of biogas produced during anaerobic stabilisation of excess sludge is carefully monitored. In 2011 this energy product represented 77.3% of energy self-sufficiency in the process of drying excess sludge and heating digestion plants. LED lighting further contributes to reducing the amount of electricity used for public lighting at CTP Ljubljana. Through installation of a network of additional control probes in the waste water treatment process, optimisation of the parameters of the turbo blower’s regulator and reduction of pressure losses in air intake pipes, the intake of oxygen in the process of biological treatment of waste water was considerably reduced.

Bristol

In Bristol 100% of the city’s population is connected to mains sewerage, which carries sewage to the Bristol Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant (UWWTP). This plant has secondary treatment and complies with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD), with 98% and 92% removal of

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and Chemical oxygen demand (COD) respectively. The treatment provided at Bristol UWWTP is assessed by the UK Environment Agency as sufficient to meet water quality objectives without further treatment (such as disinfection or nutrient removal) in accordance with the National Environment Plan for England and Wales.

Table 10.1: Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants

Urban Waste Water Treatment Plants City Organic Design Capacity (p.e.) Treatment Level (m3/a)

Bristol 830,500 109,500,000 Brussels 1,460,000 131,214,829 Bydgoszcz 525,180 42,408,623 Dublin 1,640,000 - Glasgow 1,117,000 252,288,000 Kaunas 374,350 24,800,000 Kutahya 354,789 21,087,875 Ljubljana 375,300 25,498,000

One quarter (30,000 m3) of treated effluent is used as cooling water at the nearby gas turbine power station; the remainder is discharged to the Severn Estuary. Due to the highly turbid waters that permit little light penetration, algal productivity is generally low and eutrophication is not considered a major issue within the Estuary.

Bristol UWWTP is one of the most energy efficient UWWTPs in Europe and is self-sufficient for its electricity use. Its performance equates to the most energy efficient UWWTPs in Europe in terms of the ratio of energy generated to energy used. Due to the use of interactive dynamic simulation, the treatment processes in the UWWTP were optimised to reduce energy use by 1 GWh per year whilst maintaining high environmental standards for its discharges. In 2008 Bristol UWWTP became one of the first in the UK with advanced acid-phase anaerobic sludge digestion. This results in a lower mass of biosolids (which means less fuel use by vehicles taking the biosolids to agriculture) and increased biogas production.

The operators of Bristol’s sewerage and sewage treatment systems (Wessex Water Services Ltd – WWSL) aim to educate the general public about wastewater treatment. During summer 2012 around 400 people were received as part of Bristol Big Green Week and Bristol Doors Open Day. WWSL’s education advisers frequently visit schools in Bristol, leading discussions about the water cycle, including wastewater collection and treatment.

11 ECO-INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE EMPLOYMENT

In order for cities to create a future for its citizens, sustainable employment is key and this is often realised through eco-innovation. Many cities are fostering an ethos of eco-innovation via clean tech initiatives.

Preventing (and adapting to) adverse climate change is one the greatest challenges of our time, and closely interlinked with a range of other environmental and societal challenges (EEA, 2010). Achieving a low-carbon economy is a therefore a critical element in a transformation towards a green economy. Succeeding in substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while avoiding adverse economic effects so far as possible, is at the core of efforts to improve resource efficiency6.

Technological innovation and creativity are indispensable for ensuring the sustainable future of cities. The promotion of creativity and innovation are central to the Europe 2020 Strategy. The European Commission has supported programmes to integrate science and technology into all cities. These include RuNuP (“Role of universities in urban poles”) projects for small and medium-sized cities without university centres. Under the Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP), the EU is promoting the adoption of eco-friendly technology projects such as recycling plants for waste water from baths, showers and washing machines. Many of these initiatives are creating green jobs, ranging from mechanics trained to repair low-emissions vehicles to new enterprises building solar panels. The EU is supporting this type of job creation by providing €105 billion in green projects under its Cohesion Policy funds (2007-2013). The EU 2020 Strategy also puts innovation and green growth at the heart of its blueprint for competitiveness.

The following examples showcase what cities are doing in terms of Eco-Innovation and Sustainable Employment in the urban environment.

Ljubljana

Ljubljana wireless network unique in the world

In 2012, all 115 city institutions and public companies (326 locations) in Ljubljana were linked into a single network which has resulted in raising efficiency and reducing operating costs. The IT infrastructure of the city administration and its companies was standardised in the most up-to-date way. The first wireless points will start to operate in the city this year (2013), and by spring 2014 approximately 1,500 wireless points will be set up across the entire city area.

Dublin

Green Finance

The Green IFSC (International Financial Services Centre) is a green finance initiative supported by Dublin City Council (DCC). The initiative seeks to position the financial services district of Dublin as a global hub for green finance.

6 EEA 2012 indicator report

It involves the physical ‘greening of the IFSC’ and a Green IFSC Education Programme. This programme has created new education courses, and one of DCC’s own employees has completed the Dublin City University Postgraduate in Sustainable Energy Financing. Research by PwC and KPMG indicates that green assets under management in Ireland have doubled in the past year and tripled in four years. As a result, Ireland now manages or services more than €7.7 billion in green assets.

Additionally, the Green IFSC is making progress at positioning the financial district as a centre for green finance and funds management. The initiative hosted a major green economy summit in June 2013 to coincide with Ireland’s EU Presidency.

12 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF THE MUNICIPALITY

The environmental management of a city is a very complex and often overlapping task. This all encompassing area includes elements such as Green Public Procurement and energy efficiency and management of public buildings.

Green Public Procurement (GPP)

“Europe’s public authorities are major consumers. By using their purchasing power to choose environmentally friendly goods, services and works, they can make an important contribution to sustainable consumption and production – what we call Green Public Procurement, or GPP.

Although GPP is a voluntary instrument, it has a key role to play in the EU’s efforts to become a more resource-efficient economy. It can help stimulate a critical mass of demand for more sustainable goods and services which otherwise would be difficult to get onto the market. GPP is therefore a strong stimulus for eco-innovation.

To be a success, GPP needs clear and verifiable environmental criteria for products and services. A number of European countries already have national criteria, and the challenge now, as GPP becomes more widespread, is to ensure that the criteria are compatible between Member States. A level playing field will boost the single market, ensuring that what is good for the EU is also good for the environment” EU Commissioner for Environment Janez Potočnik on GPP7.

Energy Efficiency and Management in Public Buildings

Cities make demands on a wide range of resources, from energy and water to minerals and metals. The EU’s Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable use of Natural Resources highlights the danger of using natural resources at a rate that exceeds their regeneration capacity.

Green buildings that require less energy for lighting, heating and cooling through more sophisticated use of minerals, façade design and innovative air flow systems, are an important component of the effort to achieve efficient and sustainable European cities. Similarly, those buildings that actively incorporate lower-carbon energy generation can make a significant contribution to the overall energy performance of our cities. The development of block, district and city ‘group-thinking’ in relation to energy performance in cities is also critical. Development of compatible and integrated energy infrastructure on a whole city basis will form the platform on which smart-cities can optimise their energy performance.

The following examples showcase what cities are doing in terms of Environmental Management in the urban environment.

Brussels

Public Buildings

Every year, Brussels launches an “Exemplary Buildings” call for projects in order to encourage the construction or renovation of buildings that qualify for a very high energy efficiency rating. Beginning in 2007, 68 of the 156 projects selected were commissioned by public authorities (170,119 m2 out of a total 371,000 m2), which has led to an average reduction in energy consumption of 70% - 85%.

7 EU Commissioner for Environment Janez Potočnik on GPP. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm

Since 2010, all new public building developments must meet the passive standard while any renovation works must also satisfy the standard. Figure 12.1 shows the dramatic increase in passive building in the city since inception.

Figure 12.1: Share of passive housing in the total housing build in Brussels

To symbolise its public commitments, the Region has started to move its Brussels Environment Administration to a building with a surface area of 19,000m2, which will be the largest passive office block in Belgium, see Figure 12.2.

Figure 12.2: The future passive offices of Brussels Environment

All New Buildings Passive in 2015!

The calls for exemplary buildings projects and the passive regulations governing all public buildings have served as a testing ground. More than, 350,000m² worth of exemplary building projects (of which 40% are passive) completed so far or still in progress have confirmed that the passive standard for new housing, schools or offices is perfectly attainable at no major extra cost and that it is also within reach for anybody renovating.

As such, the Brussels Government has committed itself to imposing the passive standard on all new buildings from 2015.

Glasgow

Commonwealth Games and ISO 20121

Glasgow is hosting the twentieth Commonwealth Games in 2014 and as part of the environmental legacy from the Games the Council is committed to implementing ISO 20121 on sustainable event management.

The Council runs many international events including those listed below, therefore ISO 20121 accreditation would be highly beneficial for the city.

 The World Pipe Band Championship;

 The Glasgow Show;

 International Athletics events;

 Hogmanay event in George Square.

It is anticipated that all Glasgow events will be accredited under this international standard. The actual eleven days of Commonwealth Games sports will be managed by Glasgow 2014 Ltd who will also be accredited under ISO 20121.

ISO 20121 replaced BS 8901 in June 2012 and was developed in conjunction with the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) and launched to coincide with the London 2012 Olympic Games. The standard has been specifically developed for the events sector by volunteer representatives from across the industry. The aim is that ISO 20121 will be used throughout the world on all types of events in order to make a difference to society through knowledge transfer or legacy projects.

ISO 20121 shares many of the common management principles of other management system standards such as ISO 9001 (Quality Management), ISO 14001 (Environmental Management Systems) and BS OHSAS 18001 (Health and Safety Management) including the Plan‐Do‐Check‐Act approach. Key aspects if ISO 20121 are shown in Table 12.1.

Table 12.1: ISO 20121 – key requirements of the standard

ISO 20121 key requirements

ISO 20121  Identify your issues in relation to your event management operations asks the event  Outline your commitments to sustainability in the form of a sustainability policy organiser to:  Develop SMART objectives and targets in relation to sustainability  Train your staff on sustainability  Engage your suppliers on sustainability  Develop a sustainability communications plan  Monitor and measure your success  Audit and review your documentation

13 ENERGY PERFORMANCE

The current fossil fuel-based energy and transport systems, which emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, are at the root of climate change. Globally, energy supply accounts for some 25% of greenhouse gas emissions; in the European Union the figure is even higher at a little more than 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions from energy production have reduced significantly in Europe since 1990 (more than 17%), in part due to an increase in the share of renewable energy sources (EEA, 2011).

The Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (EC 2010) explicitly links a triplet of interconnected headline targets to be accomplished by 2020: reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% (or more, depending on international negotiations) relative to 1990; increasing the share of renewables in the EU's energy mix to 20%; and increasing energy efficiency by 20% by 2020.

Promisingly, the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption (i.e. the total energy consumed by end users, excluding what is used by the energy sector, taking into account also losses that occur during transmission and distribution of energy) increased in the European Union over the past two decades: from under 7% in 1998 to almost 12% in 2009. This represents a significant effort but also highlights the need for further efforts to meet the legally binding 20% target for the share of renewables by 2020 for Europe as a whole.

Meanwhile, regarding energy efficiency, substantial steps have been taken towards increasing energy savings in primary energy by 20% including recent Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency.

The following examples showcase what cities are doing in terms of Energy Performance in the urban environment.

Bristol

Energy Supply

Natural gas, national grid electricity and petroleum products are the main energy supplies to Bristol (Figure 13.1) which is typical of English cities:

Figure 13.1: Energy Supply to Bristol

Bristol City Council, to date, has no statutory responsibility for managing the provision of energy or influencing the energy mix in the city. However, as part of its energy and climate strategies it is working to increase the generation of renewable energy.

Bristol city is a dense urban area and the municipality boundary does not include a rural greenbelt. As a result Bristol’s plans and activities have focused on reducing energy use whilst promoting renewable energy as the UK renewables market develops.

Despite the limited resource and constraints Bristol’s land use planning policy to encourage renewable energy development has led to a rapid growth in installed generation capacity. Voluntary targets were set for the combined area of Bristol and adjoining three municipalities of 35 - 52 MWe consented by 2010. Bristol has achieved this target within the city boundaries alone. Installed capacity for electricity and thermal from cumulative renewable installations in the City of Bristol is presented in Tables 13.1 and 13.2 and Figure 13.2 below.

Table 13.1: Installed Electrical Capacity (MWe)

Installed Electrical Capacity (MWe) Year: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 - No. of Projects 2 2 3 6 8 8 30 794 1,758

Advanced Waste Treatment 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 7.7 Onshore Wind 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Sewage Gas 2.3 2.3 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 Solar PV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.2 5.4 Waste to Energy Biomass & Biofuel Total 2.4 2.4 5.9 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.1 14.1 24.9

Table 13.2: Installed Thermal Capacity (MWth)

Installed Thermal Capacity (MWth) Year: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 - No. of Projects - - 2 4 7 13 39 73 73 Sewage Gas 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Biomass 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.8 3.8 6.9 6.9 Heat Pumps 0.2 0.2 Solar Thermal 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 Total - - 7.4 7.8 8.2 9.8 11.0 14.4 14.4

Figure 13.2: Cumulative Renewable Installations (Existing and Consented) in Bristol 2004 - 2012

Ljubljana

Ljubljana has prioritised the supply of the entire city centre with heat from the district heating system, operated by public company Energetika Ljubljana. This will ensure energy efficiency in heat generation through the use of high-efficiency electricity and heat cogeneration (CHP). Ljubljana have been using biomass, a renewable energy source for a number of years in order to limit the effect of the city’s energy generation on the environment.

The primary production source at Energetika Ljubljana is natural gas. Its subsidiary Termoelektrarna-Toplarna Ljubljana (TE-TOL, pictured), which is the largest Slovenian heat and power producer, mainly uses wood biomass as its fuel source. By connecting individual heating systems to the district heating system, the fuel conversion into useful heat is performed in central energy plants rather than in local boiler plants. This allows more than 90% production of heat in combination with electricity, which results in high fuel efficiency.

By using wood biomass and coal co-incineration, 45,000 tonnes of wood biomass are being used each year which has reduced coal consumption for CHP by 32,000 tonnes per year. This has led to a sizeable CO2 emissions reduction of 59,000 tonnes CO2 per year. Each year TE-TOL produces 30 GWh of “green” electricity and 90 GWh of heat from renewable sources.

APPENDIX A

Expert Panel Profiles

Indicator No. 1 - Local contribution to global climate change.

Expert: Dr. Liz Mills, Independent Policy Analyst & Associate, Institute for European Environmental Policy.

A freelance policy analyst since 1994, Liz Mills specialises in policy for sustainability, planning and the urban environment in Europe, EU funding programmes, comparative research and good practice. Originally an urban geographer with a PhD from Bristol University, she previously spent 16 years in university teaching and research in public policy, specialising in local government.

Liz has had a longstanding involvement with policy development for the urban environment at European level, having been a consultant to the Commission’s Expert Group on the Urban Environment from 1993 and desk officer in DG Environment 1997-8. She co-drafted the first European Sustainable Cities report, the Aalborg Charter and the Commission’s 1998 Communication Sustainable Urban Development in the EU: A Framework for Action.

Liz often works with individual cities and networks in EU-funded projects. She was UK Contact Point for INTERREG IIIC. She is a thematic expert for URBACT II and experienced as an evaluator in LIFE, Intelligent Energy Europe and FP7.

Liz has a portfolio of policy and advisory work in the UK, mostly in Wales, relating to the built environment, land use planning, energy and adaptation to climate change.

Indicator No. 2 - Local transport.

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

Henrik Gudmundsson has been a Senior Researcher in Sustainable Transport at the Technical University of Denmark since 2006. He is educated as an Environmental planner and has a PhD from Copenhagen Business School. His main area of research is sustainable transport governance and policy analysis, including the use of knowledge and indicators in the design, implementation and monitoring of transport plans. Henrik is the National Principle Contact Point (PCP) on transport indicators in Denmark for the European Environment Agency (EEA), and a member of the scientific advisory board for the Swedish Government’s Transport Analysis agency. Henrik is currently involved in fourmajor research projects on transport policy and planning. He is a member the Committees on ‘Performance Measurement’ and ‘Transportation and Sustainability’ of the US Transportation Research Board.

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

Indicator No. 3 - Green Urban areas Incorporating Sustainable land use.

Expert: Ms Ir. Hedwig van Delden, Director, Research Institute for Knowledge Systems (RIKS), Maastricht, The Netherlands.

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

Her academic work focuses on issues relating to model integration on the conceptual level and process management in integrated modeling system implementations. In this capacity she has authored or co-authored a long list of peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. Her most recent conference presentations were at the International Environmental Modelling and Software Societies Fifth Biennial Meeting in Ottawa, Canada and the International Conference on managing the Urban Rural interface in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Indicator No. 4 - Nature and biodiversity.

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

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

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

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

Indicator No. 5 - Quality of local ambient air.

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

Steen Solvang Jensen is Senior Scientist, PhD at the Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University in Denmark. He is a civil engineer with a specialization in planning with 22 years of experience within traffic planning and urban air quality assessment and management. He has worked as project manager within research, consultancy and administration, and has acted as an advisor for the Danish Environmental Protection Agency and international development agencies. His main experience is within research and development of integrated modelling systems for air pollution and human exposures for application in decision-support systems in urban air quality management and in air pollution epidemiological studies. These studies include mapping, impact assessment, scenario analysis, and policy options within emission, air quality, human exposures, health and external costs of air pollution as well as environmental impacts of renewable energy systems and technologies (hydrogen, biofuels, biomass).

Indicator No. 6 – Quality of the Acoustic Environment.

Expert: Prof. J. Luis Bento-Coelho, Professor, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal.

J. Luis Bento Coelho is an Electrical Engineer with a MSc. and a PhD. in Acoustics and is a Fellow of the International Institute of Acoustics and Vibration (IIAV). He is a Professor of Acoustics at Instituto Superior Tecnico (IST), TULisbon, Portugal, where he is the Head of the Group of Acoustics and Noise Control and the Director of the Diploma on Advances Studies on Acoustical Engineering post-graduate course. He is the Immediate Past President of the IIAV, is a member of the Expert Panel on Noise (EpoN) of the European Environmental Agency and a member of the EU-CNOSSOS Technical Committee. He is a Chartered Acoustical Engineer with a large experience on environmental noise, transportation noise and urban acoustics. He has been involved with noise mapping and action plans, being responsible for projects in large cities in Portugal and in Brazil, and for many transport infra-structures. He has published more than 200 technical and scientific papers, is the author of a chapter in the “Handbook of Acoustics & Vibration Control” (John Wiley & Sons, 2007) and is the co-author of a number of recent international technical reports.

Indicator No. 7 - Waste Production and management.

Expert: Mr. Larry O’Toole, Director, Waste, Energy & Environment Division, RPS Consulting Engineers, Dublin, Ireland.

Larry O’Toole is Director of the Waste and Energy Division at RPS Consulting Engineers. He is a Chartered Civil Engineer with 24 years experience of civil and environmental engineering and waste strategy and planning in Ireland and in the UK. He has been Project Manager for a broad range of waste and energy projects and is currently responsible for a team of engineers, scientists and waste planners providing a wide range of services to both the public and private sectors in UK and Ireland. These include national strategic studies, regional waste plans, siting studies, feasibility, design and procurement of recycling, recovery and disposal facilities and renewable energy projects including wind energy, anaerobic digestion and biofuels.

He is a chartered member of Engineers Ireland and was invited to presented on “Integrated Waste Management and Climate Change” at International Conference on Cities and Climate Change, New Delhi, India, Feb 2011.

Indicator No. 8 - Water consumption

Expert: Mr. Shailendra Mudgal, Executive Director, Bio Intelligence Service, France.

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

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

During last 10 years, he has worked on water policy sector in France and Europe. He led several studies for the European Commission on Water Efficiency Standards and the Water Performance of Buildings (http://www.waterefficiency.eu) and also contributed to studies for the European Parliament. He contributed to the 2011 UNEP Green Economy Report and also supported the EEA on two chapters dealing with social and technological megatrends of the European Environment State and Outlook Report (SOER) 2010. Recently, he advised the UNFCCC on the methodology for evaluating the water saving devices in the context of the clean development mechanism.

Indicator No. 9 - Waste water treatment

Expert: Dr. Katharina Lenz, Surface Water Unit, Environment Agency Austria

Katharina Lenz is a specialist in waste water management and water statistics, who holds a PhD in Land and Water Management and Engineering. Since 2006 Katharina has been involved in DG ENV service contracts for technical and administrative assistance for implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC). She was furthermore involved as expert in the 2004 Transition Facility Multi-Country Statistical Integration Programme and the Multi-Beneficiary Statistical Co-operation Programme for Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Turkey 2005 – Lot 2, dealing with the implementation of EUROSTAT waste water statistics in new Member States and Accession Countries. Katharina is also a co-author of the EUROSTAT “Data Collection Manual for the OECD/EUROSTAT Joint Questionnaire on Inland Waters (version 2.2).

Katharina has profound and thorough experience and knowledge with the situation of waste water treatment in Europe, the process of the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the availability and quality of data describing this situation.

Indicator No. 10 - Eco-innovation and sustainable employment

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

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

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

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

Indicator No. 11 - Environmental management of the local authority

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

Jan Dictus is an independent consultant and founder of GOJA Consulting. Jan has Dutch nationality and has been living and working in Austria since 2000. He has provided services to a wide range of clients at international, European, regional and local levels on environmental and sustainable development issues.

For the City of Vienna Jan has lead the development of the Environmental Vision of Vienna. He also represented Vienna as Technical Chair of the Environment Forum of EUROCITIES in 2009 and 2010.

As a UNIDO expert Jan has been involved in the organisation and reporting of conferences in Jordan and Bahrain on urban sustainability and green business and in the promotion of Eco-business projects in India and Thailand. At the moment Jan is working on the development of Green Award mechanisms in Cambodia.

In Europe Jan works presently as urban expert for several EU funded projects, e.g. on energy efficiency, on social housing and on public lighting. In some of these projects Jan is using Deep Dives and Peer Reviews to structure the systematic exchange between cities. Jan is a Lead Expert for URBACT-II and a member of the expert group for the “UNEP-JCEP Sustainable Urban Development and Liveable Garden Community - China Programme“ in China.

Indicator No. 12 - Energy performance.

Expert: Prof. Per G. Berg, Professor in Landscape planning with a special focus on Sustainable Community Development at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.

Per G. Berg is professor in Landscape Planning with a special focus on Sustainable Community Development in Urban and Rural settings. He has been Research Director for local community studies in 11 cities in the Baltic Sea region for 20 years and is at present investigating functional densification in Swedish townscapes in three cities. He has recently taken the initiative to study Sustainable Cities in a Research consortium including 12 European cities from north-Eastern St Petersburg to Southern Milan as a lead partner in a FP7 EU application currently under revision for a new application. The Research of sustainable cities and local communities is done theoretically drawing from the cutting-edge policy documents of the UN Habitat agenda, in practical case studies and in leading a practical implementation project in Uppsala Sweden: Hågaby resilient cityland. With a background in Biology and Chemistry he has for 30 years had a particular interest in renewable energy issues.

Per G. Berg is member of the ICE Engineering Sustainability Journal and Journal of Environmental Quality Editorial Advisory Board and has been invited to join the expert panel of Sustainability and currently is organiser of the 6th international landscape architecture conference in St. Petersburg, Helsinki, Stockholm and Uppsala in June 2012.

www.rpsgroup.com/ireland Editors: Katie O’Neill & Ian MacHugh