Page 1

1

Climate Action in Megacities C40 Cities Baseline and Opportunities Volume 2.0 February 2014


2


Contents 2

■ Foreword ■ Section 1

■ Section 2

■ Section 3

Executive Summary

5

Overview11

Comparison 2011–201333

SECTOR REVIEW ■ Section 4

■ Section 5

■ Section 6

transport41

Energy Efficiency

73

energy Supply

101

■ Section 8

Waste Management

147

■ Section 10

Sustainable Communities

■ Section 7 ■ Section 9

■ Section 11

■ Section 12

Adaptation & Water

Finance & Economic Development

119

173

189

Methodology223

Appendix

235


2

Foreword Michael R. Bloomberg 108th Mayor of New York City President of the C40 Board of Directors February, 2014

C40 cities – over a relatively short period of time – have taken a leadership role on the world stage. A global network now 63 members strong, our cities are informing and shifting the global conversation on climate change because they have shown themselves to be uniquely capable of devising and implementing climate change solutions – both reducing emissions and increasing urban resilience. During my tenure as C40 Chair (2011 – 2013), C40 cities have delivered on a critical commitment to measurement and reporting to ensure better management of their investments and actions. The Climate Action in Megacities Volume 1.0 report published in 2011 provided a baseline of actions across key sectors, and created a first-of-its-kind catalogue of mayoral powers to better understand both future opportunities and current efforts. As a result, we provided a more transparent view into the effect cities can have but, more importantly, created a roadmap to enable cities to have an even greater impact through knowledge-transfer and collaboration.


3

This latest edition of Climate Action in Megacities provides compelling evidence of the importance of the C40 network. The report presents a rich set of data on current and planned climate actions in 59 C40 cities, further analyses mayoral powers, and identifies major trends across sectors and geographies. It demonstrates – unequivocally – that cities have the power, the expertise, the political will and the resourcefulness to continue to take meaningful climate action, and are, more than ever before, at the forefront of the issue of climate change as leaders, innovators and practitioners. The new C40 Chair, Rio de Janeiro Mayor Eduardo Paes believes strongly in the organisational commitment to ensuring that sound data, collected through the Climate Action in Megacities survey, will continue to guide the work of C40 cities both individually and as a collective. By quantifying what is being done and identifying what works, cities can take action more quickly, more easily and more cost effectively. In my new role as President of the C40 Board of Directors, I look forward to continuing to support and champion these critical efforts. Our success will go far in safeguarding urban populations against the climate challenges that lie ahead, leaving behind a better planet for future generations.


5

SECTION 1

Executive Summary C40 cities deliver climate action

What happens in C40 cities matters to the whole world. In the continuing absence of tangible outcomes from inter-governmental efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it is increasingly significant that mayors of the world’s greatest cities are taking concrete actions that demonstrate that preventing catastrophic climate change is possible.


6

1.7m C40 has collected 1.7 million unique data points from cities – one of the largest datasets developed on city action.

8,068 The number of actions collectively taken has nearly doubled to over 8,000.

90% More than 90% of respondents report that they are taking action to reduce emissions from outdoor lighting.

The Climate Action in Megacities 2.0 (CAM 2.0) report is the result of a survey of the 63 C40 Cities that includes data from 94% of its members. This was carried out by the C40 research team and supported by consultancy firm, Arup. Data was primarily collected through the CDP Cities reporting platform. It shows a clear trend of expanding climate action in cities, with mayors acting most where they have strong powers, but also innovating where they do not.

Reported action has doubled

The Climate Action in Megacities survey is a quantitative study of efforts to reduce GHG emissions and improve urban resilience to climate change. It does this by measuring the number of ‘actions’ each city has taken across seven different sectors. The results from CAM 2.0 show that in the two years since C40 last surveyed its members, the numbers of actions they have collectively taken has nearly doubled to over 8,000.

Sharing is working

There is clear evidence that C40’s networking strategy is working to spread and accelerate best practice. For example, one of the most cost-effective ways to increase urban mobility and reduce emissions from transport is to enable more cycling. In 2011 just six C40 cities reported cycle share programmes. The 2013 data shows that 36 cities have now followed the example of Paris and others – a 500% increase. And as a signal that further progress is likely, 80% C40 cities have now introduced cycle lanes. In 2011 20 cities (just over half of those surveyed) reported that they were introducing LED streetlighting (a technology that reduces energy consumption by up to 60% compared with standard sodium bulbs). In 2013, more than 90% of respondents report that they are taking action to reduce emissions from outdoor lighting and 52 cities are introducing LEDs.

Ideas are flowing from South to North, as well as from developed to developing cities

C40 cities are collaborating in unique and interesting ways. There is cross-continent sharing for certain, and sharing between the hemispheres, but some might be surprised to learn that our data shows that developing cities’ best practices are being adopted by developed cities as much as the other way around.


7

35 35 C40 cities now have or plan on developing BRT systems and 57% of these are now in the more developed northern hemisphere.

Every city is taking at least one action in each action area.

For example, the 2011 survey showed that every C40 city in South America had or planned a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system (a low cost method of delivering fast transport for large volumes of passengers). Many of these programmes have continued to grow. Notably, the Mayor of Rio, Eduardo Paes and current Chair of C40, expects that by the time a fourth BRT line has been opened in 2016 he will have achieved a remarkable increase in the share of trips made by mass transit (public transport) from 18% to 63%. But it is now not just Latin America that believes in Bus Rapid Transit. Following the lead of cities like Curitiba and Bogota in South America, 35 C40 cities now have or plan on developing BRT systems and 57% of these are now in the more developed northern hemisphere.

C40 Cities are holding each other accountable

Participation in the CAM 2.0 survey has risen steeply in comparison with the first report in 2011. This year saw 94% of C40 cities participating, against 61% in 2010. This demonstrates delivery on one of the key objectives set by Mayor Bloomberg when he became Chair of the C40 in 2011: to increase city participation and move towards performancebased membership standards. It also reflects an improved process of data collection and analysis by C40 and its partners.

Growing need to act

1,024 1024 reported climate adaptation actions, nearly 50% of which are being carried out at citywide scale.

It is no accident that C40 cities are taking a global lead in tackling climate change – 98% of reporting cities indicate that climate change presents significant risks to their city. Indeed, in one of the bigger shifts in the survey data compared with 2011, climate adaptation is the third highest-ranking action area, with 1,024 reported actions, nearly 50% of which are being carried out at citywide scale.

Innovation is continuing apace

Climate adaptation is not the only sector to demonstrate an increasing focus from member cities. For example, C40 now has thriving ‘Finance’ and ‘Green Growth’ sub-networks (where a smaller group of member cities work together on specific areas of action). And across the C40 as a whole 62% of cities have established their own funds to invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy or carbon reduction projects.


8

Smart Cities

There has been a significant focus on the concept of ‘smart’ cities – the use of information technology to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of urban systems – since the inaugural 2011 survey, and the 2013 report logs an increase in activity in this area. Interestingly, cities at the extremes of relative levels of wealth – those with either very low or very high GDP per capita – have the largest pipelines of emerging actions (currently at the pilot or proposal stage) on Information Communication Technology.

There is massive opportunity to increase action

While the CAM 2.0 survey demonstrates definitively that C40 mayors are clearly leading the charge on taking climate action, it also illustrates the massive continuing opportunity to scale up emissions reductions and improve resilience.

68% 68% of existing outdoor luminaires in C40 cities remain high-energy sodium bulbs.

The Finance & Economic Development sector has emerged as a leading arena for future climate action, with 62% of C40 city action currently at the ‘proposed’ or ‘pilot phase’. Likewise, member cities intend to expand the scale of effort in over twothirds of existing adaptation actions. Similarly, the scale of remaining issues to confront should not be understated. For example, while we noted above the increase in LED lighting action, the survey also recorded that 68% of existing outdoor luminaires in C40 cities remain high-energy sodium bulbs.

Conclusion

The Climate Action in Megacities 2.0 data again underlines the important contribution that cities are already making to tackle climate change, and the potential that exists for extending this role. The data does show that big city mayors are continuing to do what they do best – take pragmatic action to improve their cities. Their residents hold them accountable for improving conditions in their communities today – so mayors cannot wait for tomorrow. If the world wants cities to take more responsibility for tackling climate change, then C40 members are ready to take it.


9

98% of reporting cities indicate that climate change presents significant risks to their city.

The Finance & Economic Development sector has emerged as a leading arena for future climate action, with 62% of C40 city action currently at the ‘proposed’ or ‘pilot phase’.

This year saw 94% of cities participating in the Climate Action in Megacities Survey compared to 61% in 2011. Actions to improve energy efficiency in buildings account for more than 20% of activities across all sectors reported by C40 cities.

The 2013 data now shows that 36 cities have followed the example of Paris and others (and introduced cycle hire schemes) – a 500% increase. And as a signal that further progress is likely, 80% C40 cities have now introduced cycle lanes.


11

SECTION 2

Overview 2.1

Key Findings

12

2.2

Key Concepts

13

2.4

Powers

18

2.3

2.5

2.5.1

2.5.2 2.6

2.7

C40 Cities Collective Action in 2013

13

Climate Actions across C40 cities

20

Economic Trends

26

Comparison of Regional Trends and Characteristics CO2e emissions in C40 cities Future Climate Actions

20

28

30


12

2.1 KEY findings

70%

8,068

70% of actions in Europe are transformative or significant, which makes climate action in Europe the most established of any region.

8,068 climate actions are being taken by the C40 cities across all sectors.

Mayors have the most significant power over assets/functions in the Water, Buildings and Community-scale Development sectors. 50% of action in high and very high GDP per capita cities is transformative, compared with around 15% of action in low GDP per capita cities.

175 At an average of 175 actions per city, North America is reporting more action than any other region, followed by East Asia and Europe with 136 and 131 actions respectively.

79% In Southeast Asia & Oceania 79% of actions are currently in effect at a significant scale across cities.

41% Currently 41% of actions are in effect on a citywide scale.

84 Very low GDP per capita cities are implementing an average of 84 actions per city, compared with 185 actions per city in very high GDP per capita cities.


13

2.2 KEY CONCEPTS

Actions Comprehensive range of methods by which city governments are tackling climate change. This is the principal unit being quantified and assessed throughout the survey.

LEVERs The delivery mechanism of climate change actions: Project/Programme, Procurement, Policy/ Regulation, Incentive/ Disincentive.

interventions Interventions or Action Groups are thematic groupings of actions.

Mayoral Powers

scale The implementation status and the geographical breadth of an action: Pilot, Proposed, Significant, Transformative.

The degree of control or influence Mayors exert over assets (e.g. buses, municipal housing, etc.) and functions (e.g. economic development) across key sectors.

444 Number of possible climate actions.

2.3 C40 Cities Collective Action in 2013 In this chapter, C40 city trends and results are considered across all climate action sectors. C40 cities are planning for or implementing a total of 8,068 actions out of 444 possible questions. The 59 cities included in CAM 2.0 are reporting an average total of 137 across all 12 sectors.


14

Figure 2.1: Buildings are the focus of city climate action, and account for 47% of emissions1 Total number of actions by sector including percentage share of cities taking action.

90%

Private Transport

90%

Mass Transit

88%

Buildings

64%

Outdoor Lighting

80%

Energy Supply

90%

Waste

1039

90%

Adaptation

1024

83%

Water

Water and adaptation

 Report SectorChapter

73%

Finance & Economic Development

92%

Community-scale Development

1038

66%

ICT

Sustainable Communities

% of 59 cities responding

64%

Food & Agriculture

661

1668

370

Finance

590

167

348 176 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Number of actions

Based on responses from 56 cities.

1,668 More activity takes place in the Buildings sector, with 1,668 actions.

The Buildings sector is the largest sector for climate action in C40 cities.

When considering private transport and mass transit together, Transport as a whole represents the second largest sector for climate action, with 1,543 actions in total.

The number of actions related to Community-scale Development, Adaptation and Waste is very similar, with close to 1,030 actions each.

The Finance sector accounts for 167 actions, which is 2% of the total actions across sectors.

1

CAM 1.0

Waste

Energy Supply

114

Energy Efficiency

Transport

873


15

Figure 2.2: Adapting to climate change accounts for 3 of the top 4 most common action groups Most common interventions by number of related actions (including percentage share of all actions taken by C40 cities).2 Reducing flood risk Climate adaptation planning and preparation Increasing renewable/low-carbon energy generation Reducing vulnerability to heat stress Preservation and improvement of bio-diversity and natural assets Developing cycle-friendly infrastructure Stormwater management Improving water consumption efficiency Encouraging sustainable agriculture Transportation demand management

Number of actions Based on responses from 56 cities.

27% The top ten interventions account for 27% of action across all sectors.

The top ten most common interventions account for 27% of all climate action.

Three of the top four most common interventions are in the Adaptation sector.

The third most common intervention is increasing renewable and lowcarbon energy generation. This is the most common climate change mitigation intervention, followed by developing cycle-friendly infrastructure.

The most frequently reported action is reducing flood risk, with 311 actions across cities. This accounts for 4% of all climate actions.

Five of the top ten interventions are related to Adaptation & Water, accounting for more than 50% of all actions in the top 10.

Despite the large number of actions associated with Buildings (Figure 2.1), Buildings do not rank amongst the most common intervention/action group due to the survey design. See Appendix for the comprehensive list of Buildings interventions.

2


16

Figure 2.3: Actions at citywide scale are more common than those awaiting implementation Scale of actions reported by C40 cities.

Transformative (citywide) Significant (across most of the city) Pilot (being tested) Proposed (awaiting final authorisation) Based on responses from 56 cities.

137

Figure 2.4: Cities are responsible for directly delivering half of all actions

Average number of reported actions per city.

Levers used to deliver climate actions globally.

Incentive/Disincentive Policy/Regulation Procurement Project/Programme Based on responses from 56 cities.

The C40 Impact in 2013 Mayors have the most significant power over assets/ functions in the Water, Buildings and Communityscale Development sectors.

Actions are being implemented at progressively larger scales. Transformative actions account for 41% of all actions.

Projects/Programmes and Policy/Regulations are used to deliver more than 80% of actions.

Procurement is the least utilised lever and is associated with 424 actions. This comprises only 6% of all reported actions.


17

Figure 2.5: Adaptation is becoming one of the most established sectors, with Finance & Economic Development showing the most emerging action

59%

% of actions by scale

Scale of actions by sector.

te

W at er

ns Tr a

W as

rt

ti n gh Pr

i va

te

or

Li

Tr a

ut do

O

po

g

it ns

T

s as M

& od

Fo

IC

ul

tu

en

ric Ag

lo

pm

pp

ve De

ic

re

t

ly

t

nc na Fi

C

om

e

m

&

un

Ec

on

it y -s

ca

om

le

En

er

ve

gy

lo

Su

pm

en

gs in ild De

Ad

Bu

ap

ta

ti o

n

Waste is the most established sector for climate action, with 59% of transformative action.

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 55 cities.

62% of reported actions in the Finance & Economic Development sector are currently proposed or being piloted. This is the highest proportion of emergent actions in any sector, revealing that C40 cities have a growing interest in identifying ways to finance climate action and creating sustainable, wealthier communities.

59% of reported actions in the Waste sector are transformative. This is the highest proportion of transformative actions in any sector.

55% of reported actions in the Energy Supply, Food & Agriculture and Outdoor Lighting sectors are proposed or being piloted, demonstrating high levels of new interest and an area of innovation amongst C40 cities.

Mass Transit has the highest proportion of actions in effect at a significant scale, accounting for 28% of total actions within that sector.


18

2.4 Powers Figure 2.6: C40 mayors have power to reduce GHG emissions and climate risks Relative proportion of assets/functions over which cities have strong and partial power, by sector and type of power. Sector

Power types Own/operate

Set/enforce policy

Control budget

Set vision

Water

Buildings

Community-scale Development

Waste

Transport

Finance

Adaptation

Food and Agriculture

Energy Supply

ICT

Strong power

Partial power

Based on responses from 57 cities.

Cities yield the greatest proportional power in Water, Buildings, and Community-scale Development. In fact, they are most likely to use their enforcement or regulation mechanism to direct climate related activities in Water and Community-scale Development as opposed to direct ownership/operation in Buildings.

Mayors exercise control over 50% of the assets/functions in each of the types of power in seven of the 10 sectors surveyed. Additionally, the sectors ranking in the top five of the powers spectrum represent areas of greatest opportunity to the carbon footprint of cities.

In addition to having significant power to deliver action, Mayors have power at the conceptual end of the scale. They have tremendous ability to set vision and drive the policy agenda.


19

Figure 2.7: Cites all over the world are delivering ICT action despite having limited power to do so

Partial power

Limited power

Project/Programme

Policy/Regulation

Incentive/Disincentive

Procurement

12

27

60%

24%

0%

16%

7

11

29

63%

25%

4%

8%

10

7

24

59%

23%

14%

5%

5

10

35

48%

24%

10%

19%

5

10

35

57%

19%

5%

19%

6

13

21

80%

5%

15%

0%

4

7

34

41%

35%

12%

12%

Centralised power generation (outside the city)

4

12

36

67%

8%

0%

25%

  9 Hoteling/Port electrification12

Ports

10

7

24

42%

50%

0%

8%

10 On shore wind

Centralised power generation (outside the city)

4

12

36

50%

10%

0%

40%

Asset/function

Number of cities taking action

8

Action

Strong power

This table analyses areas where cities are pursuing action even when there is limited power.

Wireless Internet communication infrastructure Internet communications infrastructure

  1 Increasing wireless hotspots

25

  2 Increasing access to internet connection

24

  3 Fuel switching

22

Ports

  4 Smart Grids

21

Retail power distribution

  5 Smart meters/controls

21

Retail power distribution

  6 Commercial urban food production

20

Commercial urban food production

  7 Increasing mobile  phone coverage

17

Mobile telecommunication network

  8 On shore wind

12

Most common actions over which cities have low power

10

Number of cities that have power over these actions

Levers used to deliver these actions

Based on responses from 57 cities.

Over some climate actions, cities have a comparably low level of power. These tend to be sectors like ICT where other entities, for example the private sector, have higher levels of involvement and power. The fact that more than half of actions come from the ICT sector also reflects the rise in interest cities express in the Smart Cities agenda.

The ICT sector is least dependent on the city to deliver action but where it does rely on the city, action is mostly delivered through projects and programmes.

Cities also appear to have particularly low levels of authority over both on and off shore wind, with 36 cities reporting limited power for each asset. Where action is taken by cities in these areas, it tends to be achieved through projects/programmes as well as procurement. Offshore wind, for instance, uses a comparably high level (40%) of procurement to deliver action.

Port electrification and fuel switching are the most balanced in terms of city power. Port electrification also shows the highest use of policy or regulation to deliver action.


20

2.5 Climate Actions

2.5.1 COMPARISON OF REGIONAL TRENDS AND CHARACTERISTICS Individual regional characteristics resulting from different environmental, economic, or political factors have a strong influence on cities. This section considers how climate action in C40 cities varies by region.

Figure 2.8: North American cities lead the way in numbers of climate actions Average number of climate actions per city, by region.

Average number of actions per city

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North South & Southeast America West Asia Asia & Oceania

Based on responses from 53 cities.

North American cities are reporting the most action across the C40.

48%

The global average is 137 actions reported per city.

The average number of reported actions taken by East Asian cities is the lowest of all regions.

48% of actions in Communityscale Development are carried out through policy/regulations, the highest of any sector.

South & West Asian cities are the second most active region, where cities are implementing an average of 170 actions per city.

European cities are the third most active, closely followed by cities in Africa.


21

Figure 2.9: Adaptation and Buildings actions show the most regional variance Distribution of actions in cities by sector and region. 100% 90%

Proportion of actions by region

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

South & West Asia

Mass Transit

Private Transport

Buildings

Outdoor Lighting

Energy Supply

Waste

Water

Adaptation

Community-scale Development

Food & Agriculture

Finance & Economic Development

Southeast Asia & Oceania

ICT

Based on responses from 55 cities.

3/4 3 of the top 4 reported areas of action are in the Adaptation sector.

Action taken in the Buildings, Waste and Adaptation sectors is most variable across the regions. Others sectors show a fairly consistent level of action between regions.

In South & West Asian cities 32% of city climate actions are within the Buildings sector, which is the highest level of focus given to any single sector across all regions.

Cities in Africa and South & West Asia have a higher than average percentage of Waste actions.

Cities in Africa and Southeast Asia & Oceania are the most active in Adaptation.

Private Transport and Mass Transit actions account for 23% of total actions in Latin American cities, which is the highest share of Transport actions globally.

Europe shows the highest proportion of actions in ICT.


22

Figure 2.10: Climate action is the most established in East Asia, Europe and North America Scale of actions taken in cities across regions. 100% 90% % of actions by scale

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

South & West Asia

Southeast Asia & Oceania

Based on responses from 54 cities.

79% of actions in East Asian cities reported as transformative or significant, followed closely by European cities with 74%.

European and North American cities show a very similar profile in the scale of actions, more so than any other two regions.

In South & West Asia there are no transformative actions currently in effect, but 62% of actions are in effect at a significant scale. This region also has the highest proportion of actions still under consideration or awaiting final authorisation.

Cities in Southeast Asia & Oceania hold the largest percentage share of actions being piloted, accounting for 32% of actions in the region.


23

Figure 2.11: Five of the seven regions use a closely comparable mix of approaches to deliver climate action Distribution of levers across regions. 100% 90%

% of actions by lever

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

North America

South & West Asia

Southeast Asia & Oceania

Based on responses from 53 cities.

With the exception of cities in East Asia and South & West Asia, all regions display strong similarity in the distribution of levers used to deliver climate actions.

The highest proportion of actions across all regions is delivered via Projects/ Programmes. East Asian cities are the anomaly in this trend, where Project/ Programmes comprise a minority of actions. Therefore, East Asian cities utilise the other levers at a greater rate than any other region in the C40. For example, 47% of actions are delivered through Policy/Regulation, 25% thorough Incentives/Disincentives, and 20% through Procurement.

Cities in South & West Asia have the least frequent use of Incentives/ Disincentives (5%) and Policy/Regulation (17%). Projects/Programmes are used to deliver 79% of actions in this region.


24

Figure 2.12: North American cities report twice the carbon intensity of their European counterparts Average city CO2e emissions per capita, by region. 9

CO2e emissions, (tons per capita)

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

Southeast Asia & Oceania

Based on responses from 40 cities.3

240 With 240 actions, renewable and low-carbon energy generation is the most common climate change mitigation action area.

North American cities reported the highest average CO2e emissions per capita; 60% higher than cities in East Asia, which is the second most carbon intensive region.

European cities are the third highest emitters of carbon, with around half the emissions per person of North American cities.

The lowest average emissions per person is reported by cities in Southeast Asia & Oceania, where emissions are less than 25% of the average in North America.

3

No data was provided for cities in Africa or South & West Asia.


25

2.5.2 Economic TRENDS This section considers how climate action varies across different economic categories.

Figure 2.13: Wealthier cities take more climate action Average number of actions in cities, by level of GDP per capita.

Average number of actions per city

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Based on responses from 45 cities.

Cities with very low GDP per capita reported less than half the number of actions seen in very high GDP per capita cities, with 84 actions compared with 185.

Cities with low to high GDP per capita show limited variation in the number of actions; there appears to be no correlation between GDP and number of actions implemented in these middle GDP groups.

At the extreme levels of GDP per capita, GDP does appear to influence the number of climate actions taken by cities.


26

Figure 2.14: Cities with higher GDP are taking more transformative action Scale of climate actions in cities compared with level of city GDP per capita. 100% 90%

% of actions by scale

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 45 cities.

Cities with higher city GDP per capita have fewer actions at the proposal stage, compared with lower GDP cities. In very low GDP per capita cities, 35% of actions are at the proposal stage, compared with 10% of actions in cities with high and very high GDP per capita.

Pilot actions account for approximately 20% of actions across all GDP groups.

There is very little difference in the scale of actions undertaken by cities with high and very high GDP per capita.


27

Figure 2.15: More carbon efficient cities tend to implement higher levels of climate action Average number of actions in cities compared by carbon efficiency. Average number of actions per city

250 200 150 100 50 0 Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per tonne of CO2e Based on responses from 34 cities.

Cities with high carbon efficiency report an average of 194 climate actions, more than double the number (80) of low-carbon efficiency cities.

There is a steady increase in the number of actions undertaken by cities from very low through to high GDP per tonne of CO2e. Cities with very high GDP per tonne of CO2e are the only group who do not conform to this trend.


28

2.6 CO2e emissions in C40 cities Based the data reported by cities, this section makes a high level assessment of the drivers of CO2e emissions. It should be noted that cities use a range of different calculation methods for assessing emissions, and so this data is purely indicative.

Figure 2.16: Carbon emissions not purely driven by wealth City carbon emissions compared with GDP per capita.

City carbon dioxide emissions per capita (tons/yr)

6

311 Reducing flood risk encompasses the most common set of actions across all sectors, with a total of 311 actions.

5 4 3 2 1 0 0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

GDP per capita (USD/capita/yr) Based on responses from 33 cities.

The data shows that city GDP per capita alone is not sufficient to understand emissions production patterns.


29

Figure 2.17: In some cases city population can impact per capita emissions City carbon emissions per capita compared with city population. 6

City carbon dioxide emissions per capita (tons/yr)

5 4 3 2 1 0 0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

Population Based on responses from 33 cities.

•

There is a very limited relationship between city emissions per person and population for a city.4

Figure 2.18: Population density is a driver of per capita carbon emissions City carbon emissions per capita compared with city population density. 6

City carbon dioxide emissions per capita (tons/yr)

5 4 3 2 1 0 0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Population density (People per km ) 2

Based on responses from 16 cities.

•

There is an inverse relationship between carbon emissions and population density. As cities become denser, it appears that the emissions per capita decreases. It should be noted that this calculation of per capita emissions does not account for Scope III emissions.

Cities with more than 15 million people appear to have emissions less than 3 tonnes CO2e per capita per year, compared to a roughly 50:50 split below and above that figure for smaller cities. This is however a very loose correlation.

4


30

2.7 F  uture Climate Actions This section seeks to understand which actions cities intend to initiate or expand upon in the future. Buildings is the sector with the most action planned for expansion across all cities, with 1,013 actions reported for future developments. Cities plan 682 and 694 future actions in the Adaptation and Community-scale Development sectors, respectively.

Figure 2.19: With the exception of Africa and South & West Asia, regions share similar priorities for future expansion of action Proportion of actions planned for future introduction or expansion, by sector and region. 100%

42%

Proportion of action planned for further expansion

90%

Mass Transit has a comparable level of action planned by cities in all regions, comprising approximately 10% of actions in each region.

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

The Buildings sector represents 42% of future climate actions in South & West Asian cities – the largest focus area of any region.

10%

80%

0% Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North South & Southeast America West Asia Asia & Oceania

Mass Transit

Private Transport

Buildings

Outdoor Lighting

Energy Supply

Waste

Water

Adaptation

Community-scale Development

Food & Agriculture

Finance & Economic Development ICT

Based on responses from 51 cities.

African cities also have the highest focus of future action on Water, demonstrating solid future progress from current levels of action.

Cities in Europe have the highest proportion of actions planned for Private Transport, which forms 17% of the region’s future focus. This is the second highest priority for future action in Europe, following behind the Buildings sector (19% of future actions).


31

Figure 2.20: Cities focus on adaptation actions for future expansion Most common future interventions planned by C40 cities, compared with existing scale of implementation. Reducing flood risk Climate adaptation planning and preparation Increasing renewable/low-carbon energy generation Preservation and improvement of bio-diversity and natural assets Reducing vulnerability to heat stress

3,786 The most common lever for delivering actions is through projects/programmes, which cover 3,786 actions, almost 50% of all actions.

Developing cycle-friendly infrastructure Stormwater management Improving water consumption efficiency Encouraging sustainable agriculture Transit oriented development

Number of times action is reported for expansion Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 51 cities.

Reducing flood risk is the single most common intervention planned by cities in the future. This is also the most common intervention already in place across cities.

There is a strong correlation between the most common existing actions and the actions that are most frequently proposed for future expansion. This suggests that these actions are having an impact and, as such, cities are planning on scaling them up even further. Interestingly, transformative actions account for the largest proportion of actions being considered for future expansion while actions that are currently proposed represent the smallest number of actions considered for future expansion. This may indicate that cities are pursuing actions that they know are working to achieve the biggest impact before turning to actions that require proof of concept.

Four of the top ten most common interventions planned for future development are in the Adaptation sector. Climate adaptation and planning is the second highest priority for the future across all cities.


33

SECTION 3

3.1

3.1.1

3.1.2 3.1.3

3.1.4

3.1.5

Comparison 2011 – 2013

Actions Comparison

34

Key Results

34

The Report

Number of Actions Scale of Actions

Progression of Proposed and Pilot Actions

34

35 37

38


34

3.1 ACTIONS COMPARISON

This report is the second assessment of climate actions underway in C40 cities around the world. The first was in 2011. This chapter assesses what has changed since the 2011 benchmark. 3.1.1 the report

36

59

2011

2013

The number of cities in the analysis has increased by over 60% 36 cities responded in 2011. 59 cities responded in 2013.

3.1.2 KEY RESULTS

41% For the cities which responded in 2011 the reported number of actions taken has increased by 41%.

23 23 new cities are included in the 2013 report.


35

3.1.3 number of actions

This section compares the actions taken in 2011 and 2013, for the cities responding to both surveys.

Comparing actions in 2011 and 2013 To allow like-for-like comparison, the number of actions reported in 2013 has been normalised by assessing the proportional difference in questions asked within each sector between 2011 and 2013. This normalisation process better reflects the fact that fewer actions questions were asked in 2013 than 2011, in an effort to reduce the reporting burden on cities and to streamline the reporting process.

The Adaptation, energy supply, ICT, Waste and Water sectors all showed an increase in the level of reported activity between 2011 and 2013.

The sectors which have seen the largest proportional increase in activity are Adaptation, Transport & Water (See Figures 3.1 – 3.3).

Buildings, Finance and Food & Agriculture sectors have all seen a decrease in the number of reported actions, however these are taking place at larger scales across C40 cities.

There was no opportunity to conduct a comparison on Community-scale Development and urban land use due to significant changes in the survey questions between 2011 and 2013.


36

Figure 3.1: Comparison of Adaptation sector actions between 2011 and 2013 800 Number of actions

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Based on responses from 36 megacities.

Adaptation actions have increased by 49%, with an additional 221 actions reported across the cities involved in both the 2011 and 2013 reports.

Figure 3.2: Comparison of Transport sector actions between 2011 and 2013

Number of actions

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Based on responses from 36 cities.

Transport actions have increased by 150%, with an additional 338 actions being undertaken across the cities involved in both the 2011 and 2013 reports.

Figure 3.3: Comparison of Water sector actions between 2011 and 2013

Number of actions

1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Based on responses from 36 cities.

Activity in the Water sector has increased by 53%, with an additional 349 actions reported across the cities involved in both the 2011 and 2013 reports.


37

3.1.4 scale of actions Figure 3.4: Scale of actions in 2013 and 2011

100%

% of actions by scale

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 36 cities.

Cities are not only reporting more action, but they are also working to rapidly bring them to a transformative scale. The percentage of reported actions being implemented at a transformative scale has increased from 14% in 2011 to 36% in 2013. This is in stark contrast to the number of actions occurring at a significant scale, which showed the largest proportional reduction from 47% of actions reported in 2011 to 28% in 2013.

The level of actions in the early stages of deployment (i.e. proposed and pilot actions) has remained fairly constant, decreasing only slightly from 39% to 37%. It would appear the C40 cities are focusing on maximising the geographic impact of the actions in effect by continuing to roll out successful pilots and programmes to the benefit of all city residents.


38

3.1.5 Progression of proposed and pilot actions Figure 3.5: More than a quarter of piloted actions in 2011 have been significantly expanded in 2013 Progression of proposed and pilot actions from 2011 to 2013. Status in 2013 of proposed actions in 2011

8%

4% No change

11% 41%

Not continued Pilot (being tested) Significant (across most of the city) Transformative (citywide)

36%

Status in 2013 of pilot actions in 2011

17% No change 43%

9%

Not continued Pilot (being tested) Significant (across most of the city) Transformative (citywide)

31%


39

Figure 3.6: Buildings and Adaptation actions have expanded the most

t en

ti n De

ve

lo

pm

g

T

gh Li Ec

on

om

ic

or ut do

O

od Fo

& Fi

na

nc

e

m om C

IC

ly W at & er Ag ric ul tu re

pp

gy

er

lo

Su

en

t

it

ca it y -s un

En

ve

le

De

as

Pr

pm

ns

rt

Tr a

po

i va

M

te

s

Tr a

ns

W as

ti o

in

ta ap

Ad

ild Bu

te

n

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

gs

Number of actions

Those proposed or pilot actions in 2011 which in 2013 are reported as significant or transformative.

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Based on responses from 33 cities with comparable actions data between 2011 and 2013.

Only 23% of proposed actions reported in 2011 have moved beyond the proposal stage. Meanwhile, 26% of pilot actions reported in 2011 have progressed to a significant or transformative scale.

The sectors showing the most progression of actions from the proposal and pilot stages are Buildings and Adaptation.

Cities seem to be focusing the most on buildings and adaptation actions, which comprise 51% of the total number of pilot actions progressed. Cities also appear to be rapidly scaling buildings and adaptation actions, with 45% of pilot actions in 2011 now at a transformative level.

Analysis of both proposed and pilot actions lends further credence to the notion that C40 cities focused more on scaling than exploring new actions.


41

SECTION 4

Transport 4.1

Key Results

42

4.3

Mayoral Powers

44

Overview

45

4.2 4.4

4.4.1

4.4.2 4.4.3

4.5

4.6

Introduction 43 Climate Actions

Private Transport in Detail Mass Transit in Detail

Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers

Future Climate Actions

45 55

65

68

70


42

4.1 KEY RESULTS

1,534 Cities are taking 1,534 actions in transport, 873 of which are in private transport, 661 in mass transit.

2/3

More than two-thirds of all actions in mass transit pertain to buses.

20% On average, walking accounts for 20% of journeys made in C40 cities, and cycling accounts for 6%.

219 actions are being taken across C40 cities to reduce the carbon intensity of motorised vehicle use.

230 actions are being taken across C40 cities to reduce private vehicle use.

84% 84% of C40 cities exert control over private transport assets, in particular sidewalks, on-street car parking and city roads.

60%

15% In cities with low city per capita GDP, 15% of all city journeys are made by private motorised vehicles compared to nearly 40% in cities with high city GDP per capita.

60% of the 10 most common actions in private transport focus on cycling and 424 actions are being taken to promote walking and cycling across the C40 combined.


43

4.2 INTRODUCTION Transportation in cities is an essential aspect of everyday life for residents, businesses, and visitors – connecting people to their jobs, their schools, their homes and their communities. Sustainable city transportation can meet the needs to move people and goods, while also creating opportunities for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and associated air quality benefits. The data presented in this chapter are comprised of a survey of city-led transport actions pertaining to both private transport (e.g. walking, cycling, cars, taxis, rickshaws, trucks, private boats) and public transport (e.g. buses, rail, metro, trams, in-city ferries). The areas of action in transport are further broken down as outlined below.

1. Private Transport

Promoting walking and cycling: Actions to promote cycling, develop cycle-friendly infrastructure, and walking. Reducing the use of private vehicles: Actions to manage transport demand, and promote vehicle sharing. Reducing the carbon intensity of private vehicles: Actions to improve personal transport fuel economy, and the efficiency of city government fleets, taxis and trucks, as well as marine and airport operations.

2. Mass Transit

Buses: Actions to improve existing bus infrastructure and transit times and fuel economy and expand the reach of bus services. Rail, metro and trams: Actions to improve existing rail, metro and tram infrastructure transit times and fuel economy and expand the reach of services. Ferry and river boats: Actions to improve ferry and river boats infrastructure, transit times and fuel economy and expand the reach of services.


44

4.3 Mayoral Powers Figure 4.1: C40 City Mayoral Powers: Transport Number of cities (out of 57 responding) with strong and partial powers over assets/functions supporting public and private transport, by types of power. Assets/functions

Types of power

Cycling

Private vehicles

Private Transport

Taxis (including motorised rickshaws) N/A

Ports Airports

All transport

Pavements/sidewalks On-street car parking City roads

Municipally owned fleet Bus stops Mass Transit

Buses Underground & other intra-city rail systems On-street railway system Passenger ferries/ boats Intercity-rail & freight systems Own/operate Strong power

Set/enforce policy

Control budget

Set vision

Partial power

Nearly all C40 cities exert strong control over assets supporting private transport. In particular, 84% of C40 cities own or operate sidewalks, on-street car parking and city roads: •

Cities tend to exert ownership and operational power over city roads, sidewalks and on-street car parking, while regulatory and agenda-setting approaches are more frequently used to influence taxis, private vehicles, ports and airports.

61% of cities also report owning or operating cycling assets.

Cities have strong control over basic transport assets, such as bus stops and buses.


45

81% of cities also report that they own/operate their own municipal fleet.

Many cities own/operate underground (25 cities or 44%) or on-street rail (22 cities or 39%), however, the data also suggests that roughly the same proportion of cities rely on the power of influence over operations (e.g. where transit systems are managed by state or regional authorities rather than city governments).

Few cities have direct control over passenger ferries or inter-city rail and freight, but the majority do exert influence over policies, budget and vision.

4.4 Climate Actions

72

This section presents the data collected from C40 cities on their climate actions in the Transport sector. Key areas of analysis include: scale of actions, regional and economic trends, mayoral powers over key assets and functions, and the levers used to implement action. The C40 survey posed a total of 72 questions relating to the Transport sector; more information on the survey is provided in the Appendix.

The survey posed 72 questions relating to the transport sector.

4.4.1 Overview Figure 4.2: Private motorised transport accounts for less than one-third of journeys, but contributes to 72% of emissions Transport modal share and modal CO2e emissions contribution. 100%

Ferries/River boats

90%

Buses

80%

Rail/Metro/Tram Cycling

% mode share

70% 60%

Private motorised transport

50%

Taxi

40%

Walking Other

30%

Based on responses from 53 cities.

20% 10% 0% Modal share

CO2e emissions share

Walking accounts for 20% of all journeys made, and cycling 6%; both emit zero carbon emissions.

18% of journeys are made on buses, which accounts for only 9% of CO2e emissions.

Private motorized transport accounts for less than a third of journeys reported by the cities, but contributes to 73% of emissions.


46

Modal share focus

Figure 4.3: Private motorised vehicle use increases with city GDP per capita Transport modal share by city GDP per capita.3

100% 90% 80%

% mode share

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per captia Ferries/River boats

Buses

Rail/Metro/Tram

Cycling

Private motorised transport

Taxi

Walking

Other

Based on responses from 43 cities.

3

In cities with very low city GDP per capita private transportation makes up a much smaller percentage of modal share (around 15% of total journeys) than cities with high city GDP per capita (nearly 40% of total journeys).

Walking is a more prevalent form of transportation in cities with lower city GDP per capita: around 30% in the very low category compared with 12% in the very high.

Please see Methodology chapter for definition of GDP typology.


47

Rail/Metro/Tram transport options are utilised fairly uniformly across all economic groupings, at around 16% of modal share; cities with very low city GDP per capita are the exception, with only 5% of journeys made this way.

Buses account for one-third of all journeys in very low city GDP per capita cities, which is significantly higher than all other categories.

Figure 4.4: Modal split is characterised by regional differences Transport mode share by region. 100% 90% 80%

% mode share

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Ferries/River boats

Buses

Rail/Metro/Tram

Cycling

Private motorised transport

Taxi

Walking

Other

Based on responses from 53 cities.

North American cities are home to the largest percentage of private motorised vehicle use, making up around 55% of journeys. European cities rank second largest at 35%.

Latin America cities rely on buses for 35% of journeys – the largest proportion reported in any region.

East Asia has a higher modal share of cycling than any other region with cities reporting 13% of all journeys using cycling, followed by European cities at 10% of journeys.


48

Figure 4.5: Population density does impact public transport use4 Transport modal share by population density. 100% 90%

% mode share

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Low

Medium

Very High

Population density Ferries/River boats

Buses

Rail/Metro/Tram

Cycling

Private motorised transport

Taxi

Walking

Other

Based on responses from 16 cities.

4

In cities with very low population densities, private motorised transport tends to make up a larger percentage of vehicle trips (at 55%) than in medium and very high density cities (at 15%). Rail and Metro account for a large proportion of this difference.

Cycling comprises approximately 17% of modal share in cities with high population density. Lower rates of cycling in low and medium density cities are offset, however, by higher levels of bus use.

Please see Methodology chapter for description and definition of typologies.


49

Figure 4.6: C40 cities are implementing nearly 400 actions to increase cycling and walking Number and scale of private transport actions, by action area.

49%

Increasing cycling and walking

49% of reported actions are to increase walking and cycling – more than any other action area in private transport.

Reducing carbon intensity of private vehicles

Reducing use of private vehicles

Number of actions Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 44 cities.

49% of reported actions are to increase walking and cycling – more than any other action area in private transport.

Cities are taking roughly the same number of actions to reduce private vehicle use and the carbon intensity of private vehicles (at 26% and 25% of total actions, respectively). However, the scale of these actions differs: 61% of actions to reduce the use of private vehicle transport are reported by cities as being transformative, whereas only 51% of actions to reduce carbon intensity are reported as such.

Overall, 36% of all reported private transport actions are in effect at a transformative, city-wide scale, and 25% are at a significant scale. 39% of all remaining actions are either being proposed or are in a pilot phase.

40% Roughly 40% of all reported private transport actions are either being proposed or in the pilot phase.

Figure 4.7: Two thirds of mass transit actions are focussed on bus services Number and scale of mass transit actions, by mode of transport. Buses Rail, Metro and Tram Ferries and River Boats

Number of actions Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 46 cities.

Action on buses dominates activity in mass transit, accounting for two-thirds, or 434 actions in total, when considering those actions for which no scale was reported.

The three mass transit modes show a similar proportion of actions at each scale or stage of development/implementation.


50

Figure 4.8: Cities are focussing on cycling and walking Top five private transport actions. Improve pedestrian crossings Dedicated cycle lane Cycle hire/share programs Pedestrian plazas Cycle signage

Number of actions Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 55 cities.

Cycling actions account for over 60% of the reported top 5 actions in private transport across the C40, the rest is to improve infrastructure for pedestrians.

Figure 4.9: Actions related to buses encompass the top 5 most reported pubic transport actions across the C40 Top five public transport actions. Increase routes, frequency and night services Upgrade buses to increase accessibility Provide more bus shelters Priority lanes Switch buses to hybrid engines

Number of actions Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 55 cities.

Increasing the reach of public transport services is the most commonly reported public transport action across the C40 cities.


51

Figure 4.10: East Asian cities reported the highest proportion of action in effect overall and at the transformative city-wide scale

% of actions by scale

Scale of Mass Transit actions taken by cities, by region. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 46 cities.

East Asian cities reported the most transformative actions, with a proportionally smaller amount of significant actions, suggesting actions tend to be delivered mainly at a citywide scale.

Cities in Southeast Asia & Oceania have the highest proportion of actions at a pilot stage.


52

Figure 4.11: Levers to deliver action on mass transit, by region Scale of Mass Transit actions taken by cities, by region. 100%

% of actions by lever

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 46 cities.

•

Projects/programmes are the most frequently used lever by cities in four out of the seven regions with 59% of actions on average being delivered via projects/programmes approaches.

•

In Africa, East Asia and Southeast Asia & Oceania, the reverse trend is found, with 55% of actions being realised through policy/regulatory measures and 27% via projects/programmes.


53

Table 4.1: Across regions, cities enjoy similar levels of power over private transport

Southeast Asia & Oceania

South & West Asia

North America

Latin America

Europe

East Asia

Assets/Functions

Africa

Average Mayoral Power over private transport by region.

Pavements/sidewalks On-street car parking City Roads Cycling Municipally owned fleet Taxis Private vehicles Ports Airports

Strong power

Partial power

Limited power

Based on responses from 57 cities.

City power profiles are generally consistent across regions, with mayors in most regions having strong power over pavements, on-street parking, city roads, cycling and municipally-owned fleets (cities in South & West Asia and Southeast Asia being an exception).

Across all regions, city power over taxis, private vehicles, ports and airports is partial or limited, except for ports in East Asia.


54

Table 4.2: Cities in Africa, East Asia and Europe have stronger power over mass transit

Southeast Asia & Oceania

South & West Asia

North America

Latin America

Europe

East Asia

Assets/Functions

Africa

Average Mayoral Power over mass transit by region.

Pavements/sidewalks On-street car parking Municipally owned fleet City roads Bus stops Buses Underground & other intra-city rail systems On-street railway system Passenger ferries/ boats Intercity-rail & freight systems

Strong power

Partial power

Limited power

Based on responses from 57 cities.

Mayoral power to control mass transit varies significantly from region to region.

Mayoral power over passenger ferries and inter-city rail is limited or partial across all regions.

The existence of independent transport authorities or regional transport authorities explains why some regions exhibit partial or limited power across mass transit.


55

4.4.2 Private Transport in detail Figure 4.12: Private transport actions are most likely to be at a transformative scale in European cities Scale of action by region for private transport. 100%

% of actions by scale

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 44 cities.

•

Europe and North America are the regions for action on private transport. South & West Asia is the region with the most proposed and pilot action.


56

Figure 4.13: Direct projects or programmes are the most popular delivery lever in every region except East Asia Comparison of levers used to deliver actions by region for private transport. 100% 90% % of actions by scale

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

CITY FOCUS C40 Cities Cities that reported activity in this area include Warsaw with 340km of cycle lanes, Rio with 300km and Portland with 290km.

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 43 cities.

•

Cities in most regions have a similar profile with regard to use of levers, but East Asia stands out for relatively high reliance on procurement and policy/regulation approaches.

4.4.2.1 Promoting walking and cycling Figure 4.14: Total number of walking and cycling actions Promoting walking Promoting cycling

72% In the area of carbon-free, non-motorised transport, cycling actions,and particularly those related to cycle-friendly infrastructure, account for 72% of actions.

Developing cycle-friendly infrastructure

Number of actions Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 55 cities.


57

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number of cities taking action and scale of action on cycling and walking. Policy/Regulation

62%

31%

0%

7%

Dedicated cycle lane

63%

24%

0%

13%

Cycle signage

57%

37%

0%

6%

Shared cycle lane

57%

29%

0%

14%

Cycle parking

70%

26%

4%

0%

Cycle priority at traffic lights

56%

17%

17%

11%

Cycle redistribution systems

59%

27%

0%

15%

Improve pedestrian crossings

54%

34%

5%

7%

Pedestrian plazas

84%

13%

0%

3%

Walking maps and signage

77%

10%

5%

8%

Cycle hire/share programs

77%

3%

13%

6%

School and workplace travel plans

73%

10%

13%

3%

Cycle training

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Promoting walking

Developing cycle-friendly infrastructure

Transformative (citywide)

Promoting cycling

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 4.15: Forty-one cities are delivering dedicated cycle lanes

Number of cities taking action Based on responses from 49 cities.

83% 83% of cities installing dedicated cycle lanes have done so at a citywide scale, making this the most scaled up reported action across C40 cities.

More cities are reporting action to install dedicated cycling lanes than any other approach to promote cycling.

Of the cities installing dedicated cycle lanes, 83% have achieved this action at a citywide or significant scale, making this the most established action across C40 cities.

Improvement of pedestrian crossings is the most frequently cited action to incentivise walking in cities. With 76% of actions in effect at a citywide or significant scale, pedestrian crossings are the second most established action among cities.

Cycle hire/share programs are the fastest growing action, with 18 reported actions in the pilot or proposal phase. Of all the actions related to walking and cycling, these programs constitute the largest share of action at a significant scale and yet one of the smallest shares at the citywide level, reflecting the speed of growth in this action.

Projects and programmes are the preferred delivery lever for cycling and walking initiatives.


58

Figure 4.16: Cycling growth in C40 is not all about expansive infrastructure

Chicago, has introduced the ‘Safe Streets for Chicago’ program which employs a range of strategies to improve pedestrian safety These include: “safety improvements to pedestrian crossings adjacent to parks and schools, expansion of traffic calming programs, introduction of pedestrian countdown signals on all new traffic signal constructions, traffic signal modernisations, retrofit of existing pedestrian signals with pedestrian countdown signals, (and) automated pedestrian sensors”.

Modal share of cycling compared with ‘cycle lane density’ (km of cycle lane per km2 of city x 10,000).

Modal share of cycling (%)

CITY FOCUS Chicago

km cycle lane per km2 of city (x10,000) Based on responses from 15 cities.

Figure 4.17: High GDP cities are investing to catch up with low GDP cities on cycling

9

9

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

Average modal share of cycling (%)

Average number of cycling actions per city

Number of cycling actions per city compared with average modal share of cycling, by GDP per capita.

0

0 Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Average number of cycling actions per city Average modal share of cycling (%) Based on responses from 32 cities.

Overall, cities with higher city GDP per capita tend to have lower cycling rates but do report more current and planned cycling actions on average.


59

4.4.2.2 Reducing the use of private vehicles Figure 4.18: More car ownership does not mean increased car usage

Private motorised transport modal share (%)

Percentage modal share of private motor transport compared with number of cars owned per 1000 people in C40 cities.

230 Cities report 230 actions to reduce private vehicle use, when including actions for which no scale was reported.

Registered cars per 1000 people Based on responses from 29 cities.

•

Having high levels of car ownership in a city does not directly result in high levels of car use compared to other modes of transport.


60

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on reducing private vehicle use, including the levers used to deliver those actions, by action area.

Policy/Regulation

13%

63%

0%

23%

Restrict parking

35%

19%

4%

42%

Car sharing/car clubs

17%

17%

0%

65%

School and workplace walking travel plans

24%

33%

5%

38%

Road tolls

25%

56%

0%

19%

Increase vehicle registration etc. fees

11%

67%

0%

22%

Congestion/Pollution charging

25%

8%

0%

67%

Personalised walking travel planning

0%

62%

0%

38%

Time/day restrictions on personal vehicle usage

0%

53%

0%

47%

Restricted truck access

14%

29%

0%

57%

Freight consolidation centres

11%

67%

0%

22%

Low emissions zones

0%

33%

0%

67%

Real time information for logistics

17%

33%

0%

50%

Taxis/motorised rickshaw sharing

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 44 cities.

CITY FOCUS Philadelphia Philadelphia has initiated a strategy to incentivise bicycle use and car sharing by reducing the number of parking spaces required for building developments when they include designated bicycle sharing and car share spots, thus reducing their land purchase requirements. The city reported: “as the City switches over from individual parking meters to centralised parking payment kiosks, (we) plan to convert roughly 1,800 former car parking meters into bike parking by replacing meter heads with metal rings”.

Transportation demand management

Transformative (citywide)

Improving the efficiency of truck freight

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 4.19: Cities employ a variety of levers to reduce private vehicle use

a1 Number of cities taking action

a1 = Increasing sharing of taxis/motorised rickshaw

Parking restrictions are the most common action related to transport demand management, with over 70% of reporting cities taking or considering this action.

Car sharing and car club initiatives are the second most common action, with 27 cities taking action in this sector.

19 cities (43%) are in the process of restricting (freight) truck access in certain areas and 14 cities (32%) have plans or actions to incentivise the consolidation of freight at designated centres.

65% of total actions to reduce private motor vehicle use are currently in effect city-wide or at a significant scale.


61

Figure 4.20: Electric Avenue: cities target e-vehicles to provide low-carbon mobility

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on reducing the carbon intensity of private vehicles, including the levers used to deliver those actions, by action area.

38%

17%

38%

7%

Switch to electric vehicles

62%

23%

8%

8%

Electric vehicle charging infrastructure

33%

17%

39%

11%

Switch to other lower-carbon fuel

16%

11%

58%

16%

Switch to hybrid engines

18%

27%

55%

0%

Registration fees tied to vehicle efficiency

32%

18%

0%

50%

Switch vehicles to electricity

42%

50%

0%

8%

Hoteling/Port electrification

83%

17%

0%

0%

Fuel switching

60%

20%

20%

0%

More efficient vehicles

50%

50%

0%

0%

Labelling programs

24%

57%

14%

5%

Improve taxis/motorised rickshaw fuel economy and reduce CO2e

50%

17%

33%

0%

Switch to electric vehicles

20%

60%

20%

0%

Switch to other lower-carbon fuel

25%

25%

50%

0%

Switch to hybrid engines

0%

100%

0%

0%

Registration fees tied to vehicle efficiency

50%

50%

0%

0%

Reduce emissions from ground operations

0%

75%

25%

0%

Mandatory continuous descent approach

100%

0%

0%

0%

Reduce emissions from flights

100%

0%

0%

0%

Towing airplanes to runways

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Improving personal motor vehicle fuel economy and reduce CO2e

Transformative (citywide)

Improving the operations of shipping ports

a1

Reducing emissions from aviation

Improving truck fuel economy and reduce CO2e

a2

0 Based on responses from 40 cities.

10

20

30

Number of cities taking actions a1 = Improving the city authority fleet vehicle efficiency a2 = Improving taxis/motorised rickshaw fuel economy and reduce CO2e


62

4.4.2.3 Reducing the carbon intensity of private vehicles

219 219 actions are in place to reduce the carbon intensity of private vehicles.

CITY FOCUS Paris In Paris the 2001 Mobility Plan and 2007 Plan Climate set ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions from traffic by 60% by 2020. · The city reduced available street parking by 9% (14,300 spots) since 2003 and started charging for 95% of spots that were previously free. · The city launched its bike sharing scheme Velib in 2007 (which now has 20,000 bikes in 1,800 stations available 24/7) and car sharing scheme Autolib in 2011 (now with 1,750 vehicles and 4000 charging points). · Vehicle kilometers travelled in the city are down by 13% since 2003

Cities show a strong preference for electro-mobility (104 actions) as a method for reducing the carbon intensity of motor vehicles. The three most common actions related to reducing vehicle carbon intensity are all directly connected with expanding the use of electric vehicles, with 28 cities taking related action.

There are few actions currently in place by cities to reduce aviation emissions. Of these actions, the majority are in the proposal/pilot stage. This may be related to the fact that only one in five cities have control over their airports.

Cities are also prioritising personal vehicles over commercial vehicles, with 104 out of the total 219 reported actions (47%) focused personal vehicles.

Cities reported the fewest private transport actions on shipping, trucks and aviation. The only exception are the twelve cities working to electrify their shipping ports. This signifies an area of opportunity across the C40.


63

Electro-mobility focus •

CITY FOCUS Various Oslo has taken decisive steps towards promoting electro-mobility. Oslo has set a goal to convert its city-owned fleet entirely to electric by 2015. To advance this goal, Oslo has introduced incentives to encourage people to purchase electric vehicles, including: waiving the Value Added Tax, free charging at public charge points, free access to bus lanes, free municipal parking and free access to toll roads. In addition, the city has provided 400 public charging stations, and plans to install 200 additional stations annually until 2015.

Cities are acting to support vehicle switching across all vehicle types (private, municipal and freight): ‘switching vehicles to electric’ accounts for 66 out of the 104 actions. However, cities report the greatest number of actions to introduce electric vehicles into cityowned fleets.

Figure 4.21: The highest percentage of transformative electro-mobility promotion actions are associated with the private vehicles Switch to electric vehicles a1

Electric vehicle charging infrastructure

Switch vehicles to electric

a2

Hoteling/Port electrification

a3

Switch to electric vehicles

a4 Number of cities taking action

a1 = Improving personal motor vehicle fuel economy and reduce CO2e a2 = Improving the city authority fleet vehicle efficiency

a3 = Improving the operations of shipping ports a4 = Improving truck fuel economy and reduce CO2e

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

32% of reporting cities are encouraging vehicle owners to switch to electric vehicles or are developing charging infrastructure. These same cities report that they are implementing these actions at a transformative scale.


64

Stockholm is aiming to incentivise the uptake of personal electric vehicles, using a procurement initiative that aims to make it easier and faster to purchase electric cars and plug-in hybrids. After procuring a test fleet of 50 electric vehicles in 20102011, the city has coordinated the procurement of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles. A total of 296 organisations and companies from across the country have registered their interest to purchase 1,250 electric vehicles per year over the next four years.

Figure 4.22: Electro-mobility actions are influenced by city wealth 3.0 Average number of actions per city

CITY FOCUS Stockholm

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per captia Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 43 cities.

•

The scale of action is correlated with increasing GDP. Cities with higher GDP tend to have more city-wide actions in place.

•

Cities with very low city GDP per capita do not report any actions in place and very few proposed actions related to electro-mobility, indicating a threshold level of GDP per capita, above which electromobility becomes viable. Above this level, the overall number of actions per city does not vary much between cities in each GDP group.


65

4.4.3 Mass Transit in detail Figure 4.23: The most popular mass transit actions relate to improving vehicle fuel economy Percentage of mass transit actions by action type.

201 22%

Cities are taking 201 actions to improve the fuel economy of private vehicles.

30%

Improving existing infrastructure Increasing the reach of services Improving transit times Improving vehicle fuel economy and reducing vehicle CO2e emissions

27%

Based on responses from 43 cities.

21%

Cities are taking 201 actions to improve the fuel economy of private vehicles.

Cities are taking the least number of actions to improve transit times of mass transit.


66

4.4.3.1 Buses 230

C40 Cities are taking 230 actions on buses.

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on buses. Policy/Regulation

53%

17%

17%

13%

Switch buses to hybrid engines

58%

19%

12%

12%

CNG

36%

32%

12%

20%

Bio fuels

40%

48%

12%

0%

Promote fuel-efficient driving and reduce idling

43%

26%

13%

17%

High efficiency, ultra-low emission buses

37%

21%

16%

26%

Switch buses to electric engines

55%

34%

0%

11%

Priority lanes

71%

16%

3%

10%

Bus rapid transit

67%

30%

0%

4%

Bus priority at traffic lights

58%

29%

8%

5%

Increase routes, frequency and night services

50%

32%

11%

7%

Increase the number of bus stops

13%

60%

27%

0%

Reduce fares

64%

18%

5%

13%

Upgrade buses to increase accessibility

51%

23%

10%

15%

Provide more bus shelters

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Improving bus transit times

Improving bus fuel economy and reduce CO2e

Transformative (citywide)

Increasing the reach of bus services

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 4.24: BRT goes global

a1 Number of cities taking action

CITY FOCUS Caracas

Based on responses from 48 cities.

In Caracas the Transmetropoli Program is a Strategic Transportation System that was implemented to reorganise the existing bus routes between different areas of the city, and also to modernise and improve the efficiency of the public transport service. The program brings together the organisations offering transport services in the city, and promotes the renewal of the current fleet to provide greater capacity and utilise SMART transportation.

Improving bus engine technology is the most common climate action cities are taking to address the carbon impact of public buses.

Upgrading buses to increase accessibility (and thereby increase ridership) is the most commonly reported action and the area with the greatest number of actions at scale.

Switching buses to fully electric engines is an action area with good potential for growth, with more actions at the proposal or pilot stage than nearly all other bus-related actions.

a1 = Improving bus infrastructure


67

4.4.3.2 Rail, metro and trams

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 4.25: Number and scale of city actions on rail, metro and trams, including the levers used to deliver those actions, by action area

56%

20%

0%

24%

Increase the number of rail stations

60%

24%

0%

16%

Increase routes, frequency and night services

42%

42%

17%

0%

Reduce fares

56%

28%

4%

12%

Improve station facilities

43%

24%

5%

29%

Increase number of carriages

71%

29%

0%

0%

Improve rail transit times

a1

58%

21%

0%

21%

Is your city taking action on improving rail, metro and tram fuel economy and reduce CO2e?

a2

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Improving rail, metro and tram infrastructure

Increasing the reach of rail, metro and tram services

Transformative (citywide)

Number of cities taking action a1 = Improving rail, metro and tram transit times Based on responses from 38 cities.

a2 = Improving rail, metro and tram fuel economy and reduce CO2e

CITY FOCUS Rio de Janeiro In Rio de Janeiro the metro lines are currently being extended by 40km in part through the addition of a new line. The project includes the addition of new rail stations and carriages on the metro lines to increase capacity and reduce waiting times. The new more efficient rail and metro trains will reduce electricity consumption by 20%.

The most common action area reported is increasing the reach of rail and tram services.

The single most commonly adopted rail action is to improve station facilities, with 27 cities reporting action. Approximately 70% of those actions are at the transformative or significant scales.

The most number of transformative actions are related to reducing transit times and improving fuel economy.


68

4.4.3.3 Ferries and river boats

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 4.26: Number and scale of city actions on ferries and river boats, including the levers used to deliver those actions, by action area

40%

20%

10%

30%

Increase routes, frequency for ferries/river boats

50%

38%

0%

13%

Increase the number of stops for ferries/river boats

0%

100%

0%

0%

Reduce fares for ferries/river boats

33%

33%

11%

22%

Improve ferry/river boat station facilities

a1

75%

13%

13%

0%

Improve ferries/river boat fuel economy and reduce CO2e

a2

50%

17%

0%

33%

Improve ferries/river boat transit times

a3

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation) Increasing the reach of ferries/river boat services

Transformative (citywide)

Number of actions Based on responses from 14 cities.

a1 = Improving ferries/river boat infrastructure a2 = Improving ferries/river boat fuel economy and reducing their CO2e emissions a3 = Improving ferries/river boat transit times

•

Cities are acting to increasing the reach of river boat services, primarily by improving river boat station facilities, and, secondarily, by improving fuel economy thereby reducing associated CO2e emissions.

4.5 Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers CITY FOCUS Warsaw To reduce the CO2e emissions from rail stock, Warsaw is purchasing more energy efficient trains, including 168 trams that have the capability of recovering energy from braking.

C40 cities have generally strong powers over assets/functions within mass transit and personal transport, with the exception of private vehicles, ports, airports, passenger ferries or inter-city rail and freight.


69

Table 4.3: Cities use their power over roads to deliver prolific transport improvements

41

Pavements/sidewalks

39

Buses

  5 Cycle hire/share programs 39   6 Increase bus routes, frequency and night services

38

No one particular power needed Buses

  7 Provide more bus shelters 38

Bus stops

  8 Cycle signage

38

City Roads

  9 Priority bus lanes

38

City Roads

10 Shared cycle lane

35

City Roads

Most common actions in Transport

Procurement

  3 Pedestrian plazas   4 Upgrade buses to increase accessibility

Incentive/Disincentive

City Roads

Policy/Regulation

41

Project/Program

  2 Improve pedestrian crossings

Limited power

City Roads

Partial power

42

Strong power

Relevant asset/ Function

  1 Dedicated cycle lane

Action

Number of cities taking action

The strength of power and levers used to deliver the ten most commonly reported actions in transport.

Number of cities that have power over these actions

Levers used to deliver these actions

Based on responses from 57 cities.

CITY FOCUS Venice In Venice, new ferry boat stations are planned in the city centre. Currently, a project to repower 50 boats is being led by the local public company. In addition, the city procured 17 low fuel consumption boats in the last five years.

The vast majority of cities have strong power over roads and pavements/sidewalks, and use them to deliver six of the top ten most reported transport actions.

The most frequent way of delivering transport actions is through projects and programmes.

More cities are implementing dedicated cycle lanes, rather than shared cycle lanes (42 cities as opposed to 35).

Procurement is used as a lever to deliver by at least one city in all actions across the transport sector.

The popularity of actions related to walking and cycling can be attributed to the power cities have over pavements/sidewalks, city roads and cycling.

Similarly the actions cities are taking with respect to reducing the use of private vehicles corresponds to the power cities have over pavements/ sidewalks, city roads and on-street parking.

Cities are using their power over city roads, street parking and municipallyowned fleets to encourage the transition to electric vehicles and are installing the charging infrastructure to support this.

C40 cities are also taking a variety of actions on buses, rail, metro and trams, using the power they have in owning/operating these assets/functions or setting policies and the vision for them.


70

4.6 Future Climate Actions The C40 survey asked cities which actions they intend to initiate or expand upon in the future. Figures 4.28 and 4.29 below illustrate their responses.

Figure 4.27: Cycling dominates C40 cities’ future low carbon transport plans Top 10 personal transport actions for future expansion. Cycle hire/share programs Dedicated cycle lane Improve pedestrian crossings Cycle parking Cycle signage Shared cycle lane Pedestrian plazas Switch vehicles to electric School and workplace travel plans Switch to electric vehicles

Number of actions

CITY FOCUS Oslo The City of Oslo has launched a new project to introduce ferries running on compressed natural gas (CNG)/biogas. All ferry drivers are required to attend a course in fuelefficient driving.

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 43 cities.

Cycling initiatives clearly dominate the future plans of C40 cities in the Transport sector, accounting for five of the top six actions with future expansion plans.

Despite its prevalence in city actions to reduce the carbon intensity of private motor vehicles, electro-mobility is not an area cities cite for future expansion.


71

Figure 4.28: C40 cities are planning to focus on buses to expand mass transit Top 10 mass transit actions for future expansion. Increase routes, frequency and night services Upgrade buses to increase accessibility Provide more bus shelters Switch buses to hybrid engines Priority lanes Increase the number of rail stations Improve station facilities Bus rapid transit Improve rail transit times Is your city taking action on improving rail, metro… High efficiency, ultra-low emission buses CNG

Number of cities planning to expand action Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 49 cities.

Cities reported increasing routes, frequency and night services of buses as the most common area for future expansion.

The top 5 actions reported by cities all relate to buses, primarily delivering improvements to bus infrastructure and bus transit times.

More cities are switching to hybrid buses than are switching to high efficiency, ultra-low emission buses.


73

SECTION 5

5.1

5.2 5.3

5.4

5.4.1

5.4.2 5.4.3 5.5

5.6

5.6.1

5.6.2

Energy Efficiency Key Results

Introduction

Mayoral Powers

74

75

76

Climate Actions

77

Buildings in Detail

84

Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers

96

Future Climate Actions for Buildings

98

Overview

Outdoor Lighting in Detail Future Climate Actions

Future Climate Actions for Outdoor Lighting

77

94

98 99


74

5.1 KEY RESULTS

90% More than 90% of responding cities are taking action on outdoor lighting.

1,668 Together, C40 cities are taking 1,668 actions related to buildings and 114 actions to improve the efficiency of outdoor lighting.

33% 37 cities are taking action to improve the efficiency of outdoor lighting, comprising 33% of all recorded actions in this action area.

31% 31% of actions in buildings focus on supplying clean energy within the building through integrated technology such as solar panels.

The most popular actions for planned expansion focus on building retrofits. Cities highlight energy efficiency retrofit for municipal (non-housing) buildings as the most common action stated for future growth. Private and public housing retrofits are second and third, respectively.

Actions to improve energy efficiency in buildings account for more than 20% of all activities reported by C40 cities, across all sectors. This is important as C40 research shows that on average 45% of total citywide emissions are from energy consumed in buildings, of which approximately two-thirds come from private buildings. Energy Efficiency in buildings is both the sector with the most action within C40 member cities, as well as an area with potential for significant emissions reduction.

69% 69% of actions focus on energy demand reduction – reducing the energy needed to heat and power buildings – through measures such as insulation or more efficient lighting.


75

5.2 INTRODUCTION The energy used to light, heat and power buildings and public spaces makes up a significant portion of total CO2e consumption in many cities and is therefore an important driver of a city’s greenhouse gas emissions. These factors make energy efficiency an important area for climate action – and one that is particularly attractive due to strong financial returns on investment through energy cost savings. For this report, climate action pertaining to the Energy Efficiency sector can be categorised into two key action areas: Buildings and Outdoor Lighting. Buildings are further segmented into five distinct types: public housing; private housing; municipal (non-housing); commercial; and industrial. The areas of action in Energy Efficiency are further broken down as outlined below.

1. Buildings

Reducing energy demand: Actions on energy efficiency retrofits, energy building monitoring, and reducing emissions from industry. Promoting on-site low-carbon energy generation: Actions on low and zero CO2e, on-site energy generation and switching to lower CO2e fuels.

2. Outdoor Lighting

Reducing carbon emissions: Actions to reduce emissions from streetlights and to introduce smart streetlighting technology.


76

5.3 MAYORAL POWERS Figure 5.1: C40 cities have relatively strong power over energy efficiency and outdoor lighting Number of cities (out of 57 responding) with strong or partial powers over assets/functions, by types of power. Types of power

Outdoor Lighting

Assets/functions Streetlights Traffic lights and signals

New municipal buildings Existing municipal offices New non-residential buildings (private) Energy Efficiency

Existing municipally-owned housing Existing public education buildings New residential buildings (private) N/A Existing commercial/ industrial buildings (private)

N/A

Existing residential (private)

N/A

Private housing

N/A Own/operate Strong power

70% At least 70% of cities have strong ownership or operational control, policy setting and enforcement, and budgetary control across municipal buildings.

Set/enforce policies

Control budget

Set vision

Partial power

C40 cities have the strongest and broadest powers over existing and new municipal buildings, with at least 70% of cities having strong ownership or operational control, policy setting and enforcement, and budgetary control.

Interestingly, a number of cities reported having an influence over budgets for privately owned buildings – 11 cities (19%) reported influence over private single family housing budgets, while 15 cities (26%) reported similar influence over budgets for commercial and industrial buildings.

Cities also reported significant control over outdoor lighting, with 81% of reporting cities exerting strong ownership and operational power over streetlights and 72% over traffic lights.

A majority of cities also reported strong policy setting and enforcement capability across every building and lighting asset.


77

5.4 Climate Actions This section presents the data collected from C40 cities on their climate actions in the Energy Efficiency and Outdoor Lighting sectors. Key areas of analysis include: scale of actions, regional and economic trends, mayoral powers over key assets and functions, and the levers used to implement action. The C40 survey posed a total of 131 questions relating to Energy Efficiency and six relating to Outdoor Lighting; more information on the survey is provided in the Appendix.

5.4.1 OVERVIEW

1,668 The C40 cities are taking 1,668 actions related to buildings.

Figure 5.2: Asian cities report the highest number of actions to cut emissions in the Buildings sector Average number of buildings actions per city in the Buildings sector, by region.

Average number of actions

60 50 40 30 20 10 –

114 114 actions are being taken to improve efficiency of outdoor lighting.

Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

South & West Asia

Southeast Asia & Oceania

Based on responses from 53 cities.

•

Cities in the South and West Asia region reported the highest average number of actions per city across the region (55).


78

Figure 5.3: Building insulation is the most popular action in the sector Top five buildings actions. Insulation Audits and advice Energy performance certification Benchmarking Heating and cooling efficiency

Number of actions Based on responses from 53 cities.

Insulation is the most popular action across the 53 responding C40 cities.

Three of the top five most popular actions (audits and advice, energy performance certification and benchmarking) undertaken by the responding cities focus on measuring building performance rather than directly implementing changes to the building fabric or operation.

Figure 5.4: Two-thirds of Buildings actions are at the transformative or significant scale Scale of actions reported in the Buildings sector.

Transformative (citywide) Significant (across most of the city) Proposed (awaiting final authorisation) Pilot (being tested) Based on responses from 49 cities.

The prevalence of actions at the significant or transformative scale demonstrates the established nature of activity in this sector.

More than a third of actions are currently in the pilot or proposal stage, signaling that there is potential for even more future impact and on energy use and emissions reduction across C40 cities.


79

Figure 5.5: Buildings actions are more likely to be transformative (citywide) in Europe and North America Scale of buildings actions, by region. 100% 90%

% of actions by scale

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

South & West Asia

Southeast Asia & Oceania

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 49 cities.

In Africa and Latin America, the majority of actions are currently in the pilot stage (44% in African cities and 36% in Latin American cities).

In East Asia, the largest proportion of actions (47%) are proposed but awaiting final authorisation.

In South and West Asia, 81% of actions are significant and are being implemented across most of the city.


80

Figure 5.6: Nearly half of buildings actions are delivered through projects and programmes Levers used to deliver buildings actions.

Incentive/Disincentive Policy/Regulation Procurement Project/Programme Based on responses from 53 cities.

Nearly one-third of building–related actions are delivered through policy or regulations.

Incentives and disincentives are the preferred method of implementation for one-fifth of actions in the Buildings sector across C40 cities.

Figure 5.7: Cities are using all levers available to deliver actions in buildings Levers used to deliver buildings actions, by region. 100% 90%

% of actions by lever

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

South & Southeast West Asia Asia & Oceania

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 50 cities.


81

Cities in all regions except East Asia utilise projects and programmes as their most common lever for delivering building energy efficiency actions.

East Asian cities employ policy and regulation to deliver 62% of actions.

Cities in Latin America use incentives and disincentives to deliver 38% of actions.

Figure 5.8: Wealthier cities lead the way in increasing LED lighting Average lighting technology mix, by city GDP per capita. % contribution by lighting technology

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Incandescent

LED

Sodium

Other

Based on responses from 41 cities.

Sodium lighting is the most common lighting technology in C40 cities, ranging from 91% of lighting in very low city GDP per capita cities to 76% of lighting in very high GDP per capita cities.

Incandescent lighting is most prevalent in cities with medium city GDP per capita or less.


82

Figure 5.9: C40 cities are focussing on luminaire efficiency the most Top five outdoor lighting actions. More efficient luminaires (e.g. LED) Timed lighting Computerised lighting Solar-powered streetlights Sensor-based lighting

Number of actions Based on responses from 38 cities.

Cities are focussing on the energy efficiency of luminaires, which is the most popular action across the responding cities.

Table 5.1: Cities across all regions have significant power over municipal buildings

Southeast Asia & Oceania

South & West Asia

North America

Latin America

Europe

Assets/Functions

East Asia

Africa

Average mayoral powers, by region (Buildings).

New municipal buildings Existing municipal offices New non-residential buildings (private) Existing municipallyowned housing Existing public education buildings New residential buildings (private) Existing commercial/ industrial buildings (private) Existing residential (private) Private housing

Strong power

Partial power

Limited power

No data or N/A

Based on responses from 57 cities.

Cities in Africa reported strong power across all assets and functions related to buildings, while cities in South & West Asia reported the most limited power to act.


83

Table 5.2: Power over outdoor lighting remains consistently high across all regions

Southeast Asia & Oceania

South & West Asia

North America

Latin America

Europe

Assets/Functions

East Asia

Africa

Average mayoral powers, by region (Outdoor Lighting).

Streetlights Traffic lights and signals

Strong power

Partial power

Limited power

Based on responses from 57 cities.

•

All regions with the exception of South & West Asia and Southeast Asia &Â Oceania reported strong mayoral powers in street lighting.


84

5.4.2 BUILDINGS in detail In order to reduce carbon emissions from buildings, cities have two distinct options. They can either focus on reducing the energy used in buildings through energy demand reduction measures (such as installing energy efficient lighting), or they can deliver clean energy through building-integrated renewable energy generation (e.g. installing photovoltaic panels).

Figure 5.10: C40 cities focus on efficiency and demand reduction before energy generation Response rate to buildings questions, by action area. Building energy generation Building energy demand reduction

% of actions Yes, this action is being taken Based on responses from 53 cities.

No, this action is not being taken

This figure shows the proportion of responses where C40 cities are taking a buildings-related action across all potential responses.

Regardless of building type, C40 cities report pursuing more than 50% of available buildings action in the survey.

Cities indicate that they are focusing energy efficiency and demand reduction over on-site energy generation. In fact, cities report approximately 967 emissions reduction actions to 701 energy generation actions. This is slightly more than 5 energy demand reduction actions per reporting city.

Figure 5.11: Cities are pursuing more building energy demand reduction actions

Performance rating and reporting Measures to reduce carbon emissions from industry Renewable/low-carbon on-site energy generation Switching to lower-carbon fuel

Based on responses from 53 cities.

Building energy generation

Energy efficiency/retrofit

Building energy demand reduction

Distribution of actions in the Buildings sector, by action area.


85

CITY FOCUS Sydney Sydney is retrofitting 45 of its major municipal buildings with energy and water savings measures. The retrofit will cut energy use by 6,641 MWh (megawatt hours), reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 23% per year and water consumption by 53,313 kJ per year. The city’s payback period on investment is estimated to be within nine years of project completion. The two-year, $6.9 million project will include an upgrade of the City of Sydney’s pools, community centres, libraries and car parks. Old inefficient lights are being replaced, and heating and air-conditioning systems are being upgraded and improved. Water-saving devices will include aerated taps and shower heads, cistern modifiers in toilets and waterless urinals.

Of cities that indicated they were taking action, efforts to deliver energy efficiency or retrofits of buildings makes up over a quarter of actions taken in buildings.

17% of actions focus on reducing the carbon emissions from energy used in buildings, rather than reducing the total amount of energy consumed.

Figure 5.12: Cities use the full toolkit to deliver building emissions reductions Number of actions by action area and lever.

Energy efficiency/retrofit Performance rating and reporting Renewable/low-carbon on-site energy generation Switching to lower-carbon fuels Measures to reduce carbon emissions from industry Number of actions Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 50 cities.

Project/programme approaches are the most commonly used method of implementation (47% of all actions within the sector).

Approximately 74% of cities curbing emissions from industry appear to implement their actions through policies/regulations. This signals a significant trend across C40 cities.1

1

Differences in total actions counts between the global sum and details are due to responses with blank levers.


86

Figure 5.13: Cities are monitoring and managing their energy use in buildings, using data to inform action

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of the most commonly reported city actions in the Buildings sector, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

25%

22%

9%

44%

Insulation

15%

26%

5%

54%

Audits and advice

10%

48%

3%

38%

Energy performance certification

8%

54%

0%

38%

Benchmarking

23%

18%

9%

50%

Heating and cooling efficiency

4%

26%

19%

51%

Smart meters

24%

17%

6%

54%

Installation of efficient lighting systems

13%

41%

6%

41%

Purchase of ‘green’ electricity from the grid

14%

16%

12%

59%

Building energy management system

19%

32%

9%

40%

Sub metering

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Number of actions Based on responses from 49 cities.

Although the most widely implemented actions remain lower-tech solutions, such as insulation, energy audits and benchmarking, cities are pushing towards implementing smarter solutions in buildings. For example, cities report a total of 52 actions to implement smart meters and another 51 actions related to building energy management systems. And there is significant room across these reporting cities to scale.

The majority of the ten most common actions in the buildings sector are related to building energy demand reduction. The only outlier is the purchase of ‘green’ electricity.

Building insulation is the most commonly reported action, with 56 transformative actions currently underway in cities, and a further 34 actions in the pilot or proposal stage. This demonstrates the scale of both existing and planned future focus in this area.

Building energy benchmarking is the strongest emerging area for action, with 38 actions currently in the pilot or proposal stage across all cities.


87

Figure 5.14: Cities are focussing on energy efficiency regardless of wealth Actions on energy generation in buildings, by city GDP per capita. 100% 90% % of actions by intervention

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Low

Building energy demand reduction

The Chicago Green Homes Programme is a voluntary certification programme for Chicago homeowners, residential builders, and developers looking to incorporate sustainable design into residential buildings. The programme provides a flexible framework for innovative construction, while contributing to environmental awareness and sustainable living. The programme applies to new construction and major renovation of single-family and multi-family homes.

5.4.2.1 Reducing Energy Demand in Buildings

Building energy generation

CITY FOCUS Chicago

Low

Medium

High

Very High

City GDP Energy efficiency Measures to reduce carbon emissions from industry Performance rating and reporting Renewable/low-carbon on-site energy generation Switching to lower-carbon fuels

Based on responses from 46 cities.

Energy efficiency is the most commonly reported action, regardless of city GDP.

Cities on the lower end of the GDP spectrum report little-to-no action in reducing emissions from industry.

55% of energy used by the C40 cities is generated from raw primary fuel transported into the city, with the remaining 45% being electricity, imported from outside the city.


88

Figure 5.15: Building energy is primarily used for space conditioning Percentage building energy use, by usage type.

Hot water Lighting Plug loads Refrigeration Space conditioning Others Based on responses from 42 cities.

•

Space conditioning and the provision of hot water together account for more than half of building energy use for C40 cities.

•

Electricity generally powers lighting, plug loads and refrigeration.


89

Figure 5.16: Cities take the most actions to keep the cold out, or the heat in

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on building energy demand reduction, including the levers used to deliver those actions

25%

22%

9%

44%

Insulation

23%

18%

9%

50%

Heating and cooling efficiency

24%

17%

6%

54%

Installation of efficient lighting systems

14%

16%

12%

59%

Building energy management system

25%

17%

4%

54%

Energy efficient appliance purchases

23%

6%

2%

69%

Revolving EE loans

8%

15%

18%

60%

Installation of CFL or other efficient lighting mechanisms

42%

33%

0%

26%

Tax incentives

20%

24%

0%

56%

HVAC operations & maintenance

26%

8%

0%

66%

Pay back schemes (utility adjusted billing)

23%

12%

12%

54%

Energy performance contracting

36%

23%

0%

41%

CFL or other efficient lighting mechanisms

0%

33%

0%

67%

Long term property tax based loans

7%

36%

0%

57%

Daylighting

27%

45%

0%

27%

Energy efficiency in industrial processes

33%

22%

0%

44%

Energy recovery in industrial processes

25%

25%

0%

50%

Other innovative financial mechanisms

40%

0%

0%

60%

PACE (long term property tax based loans)

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Number of actions Based on responses from 47 cities.

By a large margin, insulation is the most established action with 56 transformative actions across different building types. It is also the action receiving the most new attention, with 34 proposed and piloted actions.

The least reported action was PACE financing, or property-lien secured financing for retrofits. Conventional long-term loans available to the building owner were reported more frequently, ranking five places higher in this area.


90

Figure 5.17: Cities use measurement to deliver better building energy management

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on building performance rating and reporting, including the levers used to deliver those period after actions.

15%

26%

5%

54%

Audits and advice

8%

54%

0%

38%

Benchmarking

10%

48%

3%

38%

Energy performance certification

4%

26%

19%

51%

Smart meters

19%

32%

9%

40%

Sub metering

9%

42%

6%

42%

Net metering

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Number of actions Based on responses from 42 cities.

C40 cities are ratcheting up assessment actions, with audits and advice being the most commonly reported action in building energy management. Cities taking action in this space average two actions in both auditing and certification (for a total of four per city, on average), and more than half of these actions are implemented at a significant or transformative scale.

The most established or scaled action is energy performance certification, where cities report a total of 53 transformative and significant actions. The greatest area for planned future action is energy benchmarking, where cities have 38 pilot and proposed actions underway.


91

Figure 5.18: Thirteen cities are taking action to reduce carbon emissions from industrial buildings Number and scale of industrial buildings, by action area. Carbon emissions reporting Taxation on CO2e-heavy industrial fuel consumption Smaller, more efficient factories Carbon reduction targets Energy use restrictions Industrial emissions trading system

Number of actions Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation) Based on responses from 13 cities.

Carbon emissions reporting is not only the most commonly reported action, but it is also the activity being delivered at the most transformative scale (no reported actions are being piloted to reduce emissions from industry).

Cities are exploring carbon emissions reporting and reduction targets for potential future action: three cities have actions that have been proposed but are awaiting final approval.

The most commonly reported assessment action is audits and advice. Cities taking action in this space average 2 actions in both auditing and certification (for a total of 4 per city, on average), and more than half of these actions are implemented at a significant or transformative scale.


92

5.4.2.2 Energy Generation in Buildings Figure 5.19: Cities are taking action to green the electricity grid

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on switching to lower carbon fuels, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

13%

41%

6%

41%

Purchase of ‘green’ electricity from the grid

15%

38%

6%

40%

Switching from heating oil to natural gas

8%

33%

3%

56%

Switching to biogenic heating fuels

6%

47%

9%

38%

Switching from coal/wood fire to electricity

17%

42%

0%

42%

Switching from residual fuel oil to distillate fuel oil

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Number of actions Based on responses from 32 cities.

C40 cities report a total of 51 actions related to purchasing green electricity from the grid, making it the most common action associated with switching to lower carbon fuels.

Purchasing green power is also the most frequently cited action for future expansion, with a total of 16 actions identified as either in proposal or pilot phase.

The most established action is switching from oil to natural gas, with 38 transformative and significant actions reported across C40 cities.


93

Figure 5.20: There are signs of considerable growth in the C40 building-integrated renewable market

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on low and zero carbon on-site energy generation, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

28%

20%

2%

50%

Solar electricity

28%

26%

2%

44%

Solar heating/hot water

5%

38%

5%

51%

Combined heat and power

27%

24%

0%

48%

Heat pumps

29%

36%

0%

36%

Geothermal heating supply

17%

30%

9%

43%

Micro wind

14%

43%

5%

38%

Fuel cells

23%

32%

5%

41%

Biomass heating

26%

26%

5%

42%

Distributed solar electricity

23%

15%

0%

62%

Distributed solar heating/ hot water

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Number of actions Based on responses from 37 cities.

•

Solar energy (electricity) actions are the most commonly reported, both in terms of being the most widely established across cities (21 actions, or 7%, are transformative or significant), and in terms of emerging actions being proposed and piloted (9%).1

•

Four of the top five action areas are related to heat generation.

1

Solar energy is considered in more detail in Section 4.2 of the Energy Supply chapter.


94

5.4.3 OUTDOOR LIGHTING IN DETAIL

Number and scale of city actions on outdoor lighting, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

8%

6%

19%

67%

More efficient luminaires (e.g. LED)

0%

0%

0%

100%

Reduce number of street lights

0%

10%

9%

81%

Timed lighting

0%

10%

9%

81%

Computerised lighting

0%

0%

20%

80%

Solar-powered streetlights

0%

14%

7%

79%

Sensor-based lighting

Reducing emissions from street lights

Transformative (citywide)

Introducing smart street lighting

Project/Programme

Procurement

Policy/Regulation

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 5.21: 36 cities are focussing on changing the bulbs

Number of cities Based on responses from 41 cities.

The most common individual action related to outdoor lighting is the transition to more efficient luminaires, such as LED lighting. This action makes up 35% of reportable actions on outdoor lighting.

Only 12% of cities are actively reducing their number of streetlights.

61% of outdoor lighting actions are related to smart street lighting.

Actions to introduce more efficient luminaires are most often transformative in scale and also comprise the highest proportion of pilot projects currently underway. This shows a sustained city focus on this action for the foreseeable future.

There are a greater proportion of smart street lighting actions currently underway at the pilot scale than at the citywide scale.


95

Figure 5.22: Wealthier cities are more likely to take action on low-emission lighting The breakdown of outdoor lighting by technology and GDP per capita. 100 90

% of city lighting

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Incandescent

LED

Sodium

Other

Based on responses from 41 cities.

Most outdoor lighting actions underway in cities with a very low or low city GDP per capita are currently being implemented at the pilot scale. Cities in the very low city GDP group currently have 83% of actions in the pilot phase. This indicates the potential for future growth in action in this area.

Cities in the high or very high city GDP per capita groups have the most actions currently underway, comprising 60% and 52% of actions in these two groups, respectively.

Cities with a very high city GDP per capita have a higher proportion of actions in the pilot phase than cities in the high GDP per capita bracket. Future C40 work will seek to understand what types of actions these cities are proposing and whether this is an emerging trend that can be shared throughout the network.


96

CITY FOCUS Sydney Many C40 cities are advancing citywide replacement programmes for their outdoor lighting systems. Sydney has initiated a three-year project costing AU$7 million to replace more than 75% of city-owned lights. This programme is projected to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from the city’s outdoor lighting by 51%, and save nearly AU$800,000 per year in electricity costs.

Figure 5.23: Cities choose direct implementation of lighting projects Levers used to deliver outdoor lighting actions, as percent of actions.

Incentive/Disincentive Policy/Regulation Procurement Project/Programme Based on responses from 41 cities.

Projects and programmes are by far the most common lever for delivering actions on outdoor lighting, representing 76% of all actions in the sector.

Procurement is the second most prevalent lever for delivering outdoor lighting actions, making up 14% of actions.

5.5 Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers CITY FOCUS Philadelphia The Energy Works, AFC First, and Keystone programmes help make low-interest loans available to assist residential and commercial building owners in Philadelphia with planning, financing, implementing and assessing energy saving projects through energy efficient building retrofit.

C40 cities have a high degree of control and influence over assets and functions within the Energy Efficiency sector, particularly with regards to municipal buildings, new non-residential buildings, and outdoor lighting. Combining this information with analysis from city-reported actions indicates significant opportunity to drive climate action.


97

Table 5.3: The strong power cities have over public housing allows them to deliver many actions in building energy efficiency

2  Energy efficiency/retrofit of municipal (non-housing) buildings: 31 Heating and cooling efficiency

Existing municipal offices

3  Energy efficiency/retrofit of municipal (non-housing) buildings: 31 Installation of CFL or other efficient lighting mechanisms

Existing municipal offices

4  Energy efficiency/retrofit of public housing: Installation of efficient lighting systems

29

Existing municipallyowned housing

5  Energy efficiency/retrofit of public housing: Insulation

29

Private housing

6  Energy efficiency/retrofit of municipal (non-housing) buildings: 26 Insulation

Existing municipal offices

7  Renewable/low-carbon on-site energy generation for private housing: Solar electricity

Private housing

25

8  Performance rating and reporting 25 of municipal (non-housing) buildings: Audits and Advice

Existing municipal offices

9  Energy efficiency/retrofit of 25 public housing: Energy efficient appliance purchases

Existing municipallyowned housing

10 Performance rating and reporting for commercial buildings: Benchmarking

Existing Commercial/ industrial buildings (private)

Most common actions in Energy Efficiency

24

Number of cities that have power over these actions

Procurement

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Project/Programme

Limited power

Streetlights

Partial power

Relevant asset/ Function

36

1  More efficient luminaires in street lights (e.g. LED)

Strong power

Number of cities taking action

Action

The strength of power and levers used to deliver the ten most commonly reported actions in energy efficiency.

Levers used to deliver these actions

Based on responses from 57 cities. Deeper colour represents greatest number of cities or highest % of levers

Cities tend to have a strong level of power over the ten most common actions they are undertaking. In fact, mayors appear to be utilising their strong powers across energy efficiency and lighting to delivery action primarily through Projects and Programmes.

In the Buildings sector, where cities are carrying out the highest number of actions, mayors tend to use the existing housing and office stock to implement energy efficiency measures.

Actions to generate on-site energy appear to break the trends above. Mayors tend to implement action through projects and programmes even though there appears to be limited power over private housing. This≈is definitely an area for further investigation across the C40.


98

5.6 Future Climate Actions

5.6.1 Future climate Actions for Buildings Cities have significant plans to expand insulation efforts and to measure and monitor energy performance Top 15 most common actions for future expansion in the Buildings sector, by scale. Insulation Audits and advice Benchmarking Energy performance certification Heating and cooling efficiency Smart meters Building energy management system Solar heating/hot water Energy efficient appliance purchases Installation of efficient lighting systems Purchase of ‘green’ electricity from the grid Solar electricity Sub metering HVAC operations & maintenance Revolving EE loans

Number of cities planning to expand action Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 43 cities.

Three of the top four most commonly reported actions, as planned for future expansion, are related to measurement and reporting.


99

5.6.2 Future climate Actions for Outdoor Lighting Figure 5.25: Cities have significant plans to expand efforts to insulate buildings and measure and monitor performance

Introducing smart street lighting

Most common actions for future expansion in the Outdoor Lighting sector, by scale. More efficient luminaires (e.g. LED) Timed lighting

Reducing emissions from street lights

Computerised lighting Solar-powered streetlights Sensor-based lighting Reduce number of street lights

Number of cities planning to expand action Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 32 cities.

The transition to more efficient luminaires is both the most common existing action and the most common action currently proposed by cities for the future, accounting for 34% of lighting actions marked for future expansion.

The scale of action on smart street lighting is anticipated to increase in the future. 55% of proposed future actions are in smart street lighting. Timed lighting in particular is anticipated to increase, with 20% of the reported actions planned for expansion focussing on this initiative.

14% of future city actions in lighting are targeting the expansion of solarpowered lighting.


101

SECTION 6

6.1

6.2 6.3 6.4

6.4.1

6.4.2 6.4.3

6.5

6.6

Energy Supply Key Results

102

Mayoral Powers

104

Overview

105

Introduction 103 Climate Actions

105

Low and Zero Carbon Energy Generation in Detail

109

Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers

116

Improving the Efficiency of Conventional Energy Generation in Detail

Future Climate Actions

113

117


102

6.1 KEY RESULTS

293

Cities are taking 293 actions to develop low and zero carbon energy generation.

1/3 A third of future planned actions will focus on generating energy from waste.

30%

Deploying solar energy is the most common Energy technology, accounting for 30% of Energy Supply actions.

South and West Asian cities reported the highest number of solar generation actions.

77

Cities are taking 77 actions to improve conventional energy generation.

24 24 24 cities report having full control of their energy supply.

With a total of 24 actions, the installation of anaerobic digestion systems is the second most common Energy Supply action. Most of these actions are in the early proposal or pilot phase, indicating cities’ growing interest.


103

6.2 INTRODUCTION A stable and sustainable energy supply is necessary to ensure the smooth operation of city functions and services, including lighting, heating and cooling, and transport. Much of the energy used to fuel these functions is provided by electricity. Therefore, the source of that electricity (whether it be from fossil-fuel powered power plants, large-scale renewable sources, or distributed generation) is a significant driver of the greenhouse gas footprint of C40 cities. Energy consumption – and the associated greenhouse gas impact – is further influenced by growing urban populations and city dwellers’ access to electricity. To combat the climate impact of increasing demand, cities can either increase the efficiency of existing energy supplies, or develop new, low and zero carbon energy sources. This chapter explores the actions that are underway in C40 cities to reduce the greenhouse gas impact of energy supply.1

1. Low-Carbon and Renewable Energy Generation

Providing incentives: Actions that focus on financial tools that stimulate low-carbon energy generation. Increasing supply: Actions that identify and develop low-carbon generation methods.

90% C40 cities across all regions report that over 90% of their populations have access to electricity, and a very high percentage of cities have close to 100% access to electricity.

2. Improving the Efficiency of Conventional Energy Generation

Optimising heat generation: Actions that minimise the emissions impact of generating heat (for example, district heating or cooling systems). Optimising existing and new power stations: Actions that improve the efficiency of current energy generation methods, especially new or old power stations.

A separate ‘Energy Efficiency’ chapter looks at efforts to reduce demand for energy, particularly in buildings and including small-scale.

1


104

6.3 Mayoral Powers Figure 6.1: Cities exert control over their own energy supply Number of cities (out of 57 responding) with strong or partial power over energy supply assets/functions, by types of power. Assets/functions

Types of power

Municipal energy supply Distributed power generation (within the city) District heating or cooling network

District heating/cooling generation Centralised power generation (outside the city) Retail power distribution Own/operate

Set/enforce policy

Strong power

Control budget

Set vision

Partial power

Cities have less direct control over energy supply relative to other sectors. However, a high number of cities reported having the ability to influence assets and functions across the energy sector, particularly in terms of setting policy and vision.

The area where cities have the most direct control is managing the makeup of their municipal energy supply; a total of 24 (42%) cities have control of their municipal energy supply. Of these, 13 cities own/operate their own power utilities, and 11 are able to set the terms (price, energy mix, etc.) for their own energy supply. These 24 cities have a strong ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their energy supply.

Only 13 (23%) cities have control over centralised power generation – these are the same 13 cities which own/operate their own municipal supply. Of these, 11 also own the distribution network and serve as retail power providers.

14 (25%) cities own/operate their own district heating/cooling systems: 7 in Europe, 4 in East Asia and 3 in North America.

The vast majority of city authorities (94%) purchase the energy used in public buildings.

Cities reported having the least control or influence over retail power distribution, but report widespread ability in setting a citywide vision for both retail and distributed power generation.


105

6.4 Climate Actions This section presents the data collected from C40 cities on their climate actions in the Energy Supply sector. Key areas of analysis include: scale of actions, regional and economic trends, mayoral powers over key assets and functions, and the levers used to implement action. The C40 survey posed a total of 24 questions relating to the Energy Supply sector; more information on the survey is provided in the Appendix.

6.4.1 overview Figure 6.2: Cities are pursuing over four times more low and zero carbon energy actions Number and scale of action for energy supply, by action area. Low-carbon and renewable energy generation Optimising conventional energy generation

Number of actions Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 37 cities.

More than half of the low-carbon and renewable energy generation actions are at the proposal or pilot stage, indicating that the potential carbon impact of these actions has yet to be fully realised.2

Compared to the low and zero carbon energy generation category, cities report significantly fewer – but more transformative – actions on improving the efficiency of conventional energy generation.

The high number of actions in low and zero carbon energy generation reflects the strong degree of control and influence cities exert over setting policy and vision for distributed power generation within cities.

2

Graph only includes actions for which cities reported scale.


106

Figure 6.3: Solar electricity accounts for the most low-carbon and renewable energy action in C40 cities Top five low-carbon and renewable energy actions. Solar electricity (photovoltaics, concentrating solar) Solar heat (solar thermal) Biofuels Anaerobic digestion Community renewable energy projects

Based on responses from 39 cities.

Number of cities taking actions

The top five actions account for 38% of action reported across the Energy Supply sector.

Figure 6.4: The majority of cities deliver action on energy supply through a project or programme Levers used to deliver energy supply actions, by city GDP per capita. 100% 90%

% actions by lever

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 37 cities.

Projects and programmes are the most common lever C40 cities use to deliver energy supply actions, and are the predominant method of implementation across four of the five GDP categories. Cities in the very high category appear to break this trend, as they implement action through a broader distribution of levers, especially policy and regulation.

Procurement becomes an implementation lever in wealthier cities. Only cities categorised as being in the medium, high, and very high GDP groups report using procurement to implement their energy supply actions.


107

Figure 6.5: Market mechanisms do not have widespread use in delivering renewable energy across C40 cities Levers used to deliver energy supply action, by region. 100% % use of levers to deliver energy action

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 47 cities.

•

Projects and programmes are the most common lever for delivering Energy Supply actions, accounting for 61% of total reported actions.

•

There is a large degree of regional variation in how C40 cities implement Energy Supply actions. Procurement is absent outside of North America, Europe and East Asia as a mechanism to deliver energy actions. Policy and Regulation play a prominent role throughout East Asia as well as South and West Asia, while projects and programmes have a significant role across Africa and Southeast Asia & Oceania.


108

E as t As ia

E urope

North America North America

S outh & Wes t As ia S outh & Wes t As ia

Southeast Asia & Oceania

Africa

Municipal energy supply

Latin America Latin America

South & West Asia

E urope

North America

E as t As ia

Latin America

Africa

East Asia

As sets/Functions Municipal energy supply

Africa

Assets/Functions As sets/Functions

Europe

Table 6.1: Cities in East Asia have strongest power over energy supply

S outheast As ia & outheast SOceania As ia & Oceania

Municipal energy supply

power generation DistributedDistributed power generation (within the city) power generation (within the Distributed city) (within the city)

District heating or cooling District heating or network District heating or cooling cooling network network

District heating/ cooling District heating/ generation District heating/ cooling cooling generation generation

power generation CentralisedCentralised power generation (outside the city) (outside theCentralised city) power generation (outside the city) Retail power distribution

Retail power distribution

Retail power distribution

Strong power Strong power Strong

power

Partial power Limited power Partial power Limited power Partial Limited

power

power

No data or N/A No data or N/A No data

or N/A

Based on responses from 57 cities.

•

On average, most regions have limited or partial power with respect to energy supply. C40 cities in all regions report having less power and influence over centralised energy generation and retail power distribution, while having more power over distributed power generation and municipal energy supply.

•

6 main exception is East Asian cities, which stand out for having strong The 6 power over most assets/functions, except centralised power generation and retail power distribution. Latin American and Southeast Asian & Oceania cities consistently reported low power across all assets in this sector.


109

6.4.2 Low and zero carbon energy Generation in detail

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Figure 6.6: C40 cities are advancing solar energy

9%

22%

9%

59%

Solar electricity (photovoltaics, concentrating solar)

12%

27%

8%

54%

Solar heat (solar thermal)

0%

16%

4%

80%

Anaerobic digestion

15%

20%

0%

65%

Community renewable energy projects

0%

32%

18%

50%

Biofuels

11%

16%

5%

68%

Renewable fuel Combined Heat and Power or Trigen

0%

33%

6%

61%

Advanced thermal treatment/Waste - energy

0%

13%

25%

63%

Fossil fuel Combined Heat and Power or Trigen

0%

31%

6%

63%

Biomass gasification/pyrolosis

0%

8%

25%

67%

Onshore wind

0%

10%

40%

50%

Offshore wind

22%

22%

11%

44%

Mechanical biological treatment

13%

0%

0%

88%

Large-scale biomass heating

20%

50%

0%

30%

Property tax rebate

40%

30%

0%

30%

Generation incentives

33%

11%

0%

56%

Investment incentives

0%

25%

25%

50%

Entering into long-term contracts with renewable heat generators

0%

0%

0%

100%

District tax incentives for district heating/electric

Number and scale of city actions on low and zero carbon energy generation, including the levers used to deliver those actions. Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 30 cities.

Number of cities

•

Solar energy actions, generating both electricity and heat, are the most common within Energy Supply.

•

Cities reported a relatively small number of actions as transformative. This is in contrast to the 57% of Energy Supply actions in the proposed or pilot phase, signalling an area of prominent city action.


110

Anaerobic digestion and solar thermal actions are the second most common low or zero carbon energy generation actions, each totalling 24 (80% of total). In fact, 79% of anaerobic digestion actions are currently proposed or being piloted, the highest proportion of proposed/pilot actions across the Energy Supply sector. This suggests anaerobic digestion is an area of strong interest across the C40 and could be a potential source of innovation amongst cities.

These results are consistent with the powers analysis which shows cities have more control and influence over policy setting and vision for distributed power generation (e.g. solar thermal) and less control and influence over centralised power generation (e.g. offshore wind).

CITY FOCUS Portland In Portland anaerobic digestion provides biogas that fuels two 865-kW turbines at Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant (converting biogas to electricity). The annual generation is 12,636,000 kWh, which is 7.9% of the city’s total energy use for municipal operations.

CITY FOCUS Mexico City Mexico City is actively capturing and using biogas in Stage IV of the Bordo Poniente Landfill. Due to the landfill’s characteristics, including its size, amount of waste stored, and biogas produced, the Bordo Poniente Landfill has obtained and confined around 72 million tonnes of urban solid waste in an area of 375 hectares.

Cross Sector Actions: Anaerobic Digestion, Waste Management & Energy Supply Sectors Actions to generate low-carbon energy through anaerobic digestion are integrally linked to cities’ waste treatment actions. Section 8.4.4.2 of the Waste Management chapter shows how cities are accessing this “fuel source” largely through policies promoting source separation as reported by 14 cities.

The delivery of waste-to-energy and advanced thermal treatment actions, such as gasification, is the seventh most commonly reported low-carbon energy generation action. But, it does have the highest proportion (64%) of transformative and significant actions.

There are more transformative and significant investment incentive actions for low-carbon energy generation than for any other action (48%).

Only one city reported district tax incentives for district heating.

Community renewable energy is also a commonly reported action, and has the second highest number (14) of pilot and proposed actions in the low and zero carbon energy generation action areas.

Cross Sector Analysis: Landfill Gas Energy Generation, Waste Management & Energy Supply Sectors Fugitive methane gas produced by the decomposition of organic waste in landfill sites can be captured and burnt to generate electricity or heat. In the Waste Management sector, cities report a total of 24 actions in “Landfill energy” - 18 of which are at significant or transformative scales. This makes it the most common action reported in landfill management, but also an important contributor to Energy Supply.


111

As shown in Figure 6.7, solar energy is also the energy generation technology cities are considering most frequently for further expansion.

Figure 6.7: C40 cities expect solar to continue as the key opportunity for urban renewable energy

Renewable/lowcarbon on-site energy generation for private housing

Number of solar energy actions across different sectors. Buildings Solar electricity Solar heating/hot water

Renewable/lowcarbon on-site energy generation in public housing

The City of Oslo is also capturing heat for low-carbon energy generation through large-scale development projects, incorporating recovery of waste heat from industries like data centres, geothermal energy, energy from sea water, etc. Data centres provide a local source of waste heat, which is now being utilised in new building projects. The city expects to more readily use this source of energy in the future as Oslo makes the shift to local and building integrated energy production.

C40 cities report 210 actions on solar energy across three sectors: Energy Supply, Buildings and Outdoor Lighting. These actions include both building-integrated and non-building integrated solar.

Buildings Solar electricity Solar heating/hot water

Renewable/lowcarbon on-site energy generation for commercial buildings

Oslo has majority ownership of shares in its District Heating Corporation. The city used its ownership position to influence the Corporation’s decision to convert to 100% renewable energy sources for district heating production by 2016.

Solar energy focus

Buildings Distributed solar electricity Distributed solar heating/hot water

Energy Supply Solar electricity (photovoltaics, concentrating solar) Solar heat (solar thermal)

Increasing renewable/lowcarbon energy generation

CITY FOCUS Oslo

Lighting Solar-powered streetlights

a1

Number of cities taking actions Based on responses from 50 cities.

a1 = Introducing smart street lighting

Of the 210 solar actions, 128 are in the buildings sector, 67 in energy supply and 15 in Outdoor Lighting. Private homes are the most common building type to incorporate solar energy, where 51 actions are reported, 43 actions are reported in public housing.


112

Figure 6.8: The largest number of solar energy actions are in South & West Asian cities (regional averages)

Average solar actions per city

Average number and scale of city solar actions, by region.

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 47 cities.

57% of C40 cities use Solar PV (electricity) compared to 43% for solar thermal (heating). South and West Asian cities reported the highest level of solar actions per city, as well as the highest number of proposed actions, indicating the growing interest in solar energy in this region. Cities in East Asia most commonly report transformative solar action, with more than two transformative solar actions per city. European and North American cities report more than one transformative action each. Some project examples for solar electricity generation are: •

Changwon has set the goal to supply solar electricity to private buildings for 10,000 households. At present, the City has provided incentives for 5,000 private buildings to incorporate solar electricity.

San Francisco has 13 municipal solar installations (with more in development) and over 3,700 systems on private homes and businesses. The City has incentivised these systems through a combination of a local solar rebate programme; education and outreach; aggregated purchasing programmes; streamlined solar permitting; and is currently in the process of developing a solar requirement for new construction.


113

6.4.3 Improving the Efficiency of Conventional energy generation in detail Figure 6.9: C40 cities report big regional differences in how they heat homes Percent heating fuel sources for C40 cities. 100% Contribution to heating by fuel source

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Biomass

Electricity

Gas

Oil

Other

Other solid fuels

Based on responses from 53 cities.

The majority of heating sources reported are provided electrically, which comprises 42% of total reported action. Gas provides 36% of the reported heat supply for all C40 cities.

Cities in both Latin and North America use a much higher proportion of gas than all other regions, with Latin American cities using gas for 57% of their heating. Cities in Southeast Asia & Oceania, however, report that electricity fuels 100% of residential heating.


114

Figure 6.10: European cities report the highest penetration of district heating

% of city buildings connected to DHN

For cities with district heating networks, % of city buildings connected. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Based on responses from 37 cities.

Over half of C40 cities (56%) have district heating networks, but these cities are located in only three regions: East Asia, Europe and North America, and most of the connectivity is in Europe.

European cities report district heating networks connected to nearly 50% of buildings. East Asia cities report only 10% of buildings are connected to district heating while only 2% of cities are connected in North America.


115

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Figure 6.11: Number and scale of city actions on conventional generation, including the levers used to deliver those actions

19%

25%

6%

50%

Fuel switching

0%

6%

6%

88%

Increase capture of waste heat

13%

13%

13%

63%

Heat generation asset replacement

17%

17%

17%

50%

Optimising existing turbines

9%

18%

0%

73%

Provision/encouragement for new power project sites

10%

30%

0%

60%

Re-powering/power station replacement

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 26 cities.

Optimising heat generation

Transformative (citywide)

a1

Number of actions a1 = Optimising existing/new power stations

CITY FOCUS Sydney In Sydney, the implementation of the city’s trigeneration system could save Sydney taxpayers AU $1.5 billion for new coal power plants and upgrades to the electricity grid. Although trigeneration is already in use in other parts of the world, Sydney’s trigeneration system is one of the first precinct networks in Australia. The City is also investigating renewable energy sources and technologies, including waste-to-energy.

Fuel switching is the most common means for cities to improve existing plant performance followed by the capture of waste heat. These actions also appear to have the greatest potential for scalability across the C40 network for conventional energy generation, as they have reported the greatest number of proposed and pilot projects.

Cities are reporting 22% more actions related to building new power stations than re-powering (retrofitting) old stations.


116

6.5 Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers Table 6.2: A lack of strong power in distributed energy has not stopped cities from forging ahead with low-carbon energy generation

  1 Solar electricity (photovoltaics,32 concentrating solar)   2 Solar heat (solar thermal)

26

  3 Anaerobic digestion

25

  4 Biofuels

22

  5 Community renewable energy projects

20

  6 Renewable fuel Combined18 Heat and Power or Trigen   7 Advanced thermal  18 treatment/Waste to energy   8 Fuel switching

16

  9 Increase capture of waste heat 10 Biomass gasification/pyrolosis

16 15

Most common actions in Energy Supply

Distributed power generation (within the city) Distributed power generation (within the city) Waste to energy facilities Waste to energy facilities Distributed power generation (within the city) Distributed power generation (within the city) Waste to energy facilities No one particular power needed Distributed power generation (within the city) Waste to energy facilities Number of cities that have power over these actions

Levers used to deliver these actions

Based on responses from 57 cities.

CITY FOCUS Chicago In Chicago, the city has a goal to upgrade or repower 21 Illinois power plants, reducing 2.5MMTCO2e. Implementation of a cap and trade system also helps to achieve this goal.

Most energy supply actions are delivered by cities with only partial power. In fact, for the two most common actions, which are solar energy related, cities with strong power are in the minority. Projects and programmes are the most common deliver lever for solar energy, suggesting cities are using alternative means to deliver action and complete their own projects without strong power.

Increasing the capture of waste heat is the ninth most commonly reported energy action, and in 88% of cases, tends to be delivered via projects and programmes – despite only 12 cities having strong power in the area.

Projects and programmes are the most common way cities deliver actions in the Energy Supply sector. Cities have particularly high levels of authority over waste-to-energy facilities, especially by way of project and programmes.

Procurement

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Project/Programme

Limited power

Partial power

Strong power

Relevant asset/ Function

Number of cities taking action

Action

The strength of power and levers used to deliver the ten most commonly reported actions in energy supply.


117

6.6 Future climate actions Figure 6.12: A third of future actions will generate energy from waste Most common actions for future expansion in energy supply. Solar electricity (photovoltaics, concentrating solar) Anaerobic digestion Solar heat (solar thermal) Community renewable energy projects Biofuels Increase capture of waste heat Renewable fuel Combined Heat and Power or Trigen Advanced thermal treatment/Waste to energy Fossil fuel Combined Heat and Power or Trigen Offshore wind

Number of cities planning to expand action Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 44 cities.

The three most common actions for further expansion in the Energy Supply sector – solar electricity, solar heat and anaerobic digestion – are the same as the most common low-carbon and renewable energy generation actions cities are already taking. This suggests that existing trends in Energy Supply actions will continue for the foreseeable future.

The future actions also reflect areas where more C40 cities have control and influence, especially in decentralised power generation and wasteto-energy.


119

SECTION 7

Adaptation & Water

7.1

Key Results

120

7.3

Mayoral Powers

122

Overview

124

7.2 7.4

7.4.1

7.4.2 7.4.3 7.5

7.6

Introduction 121

Climate Actions

Climate Adaptation in Detail

Water Management in Detail

Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers

Future Climate Actions

123 127

136

142

144


120

7.1 KEY RESULTS

293 98% 98% of C40 cities report that the current and/ or anticipated effects of climate change present significant risks to their city.

83% of cities have allocated staff resources to addressing climate change adaptation.

47% C40 cities are taking 1,024 adaptation actions, 47% of which are transformative.

80% of cities have allocated funds for climate change adaptation actions. 56% of cities have secured external funding towards climate change adaptation actions.

48% C40 cities are implementing 545 water management actions 48% of which are transformative.

40 40 cities have conducted 203 assessments spanning diverse areas of vulnerability and risk assessments.

Cities generally have strong power over the assets/functions that are essential to adaptation and water management.

67% C40 cities intend to enhance or expand 67% of the adaptation actions they have already begun.


121

7.2 INTRODUCTION C40 cities are responding to the climate change risks most widely threatening urban areas: flooding, heat and water stress. These risk areas have substantial implications for the future health and well-being of urban populations, including the water supply of cities. By taking action in climate adaptation and water management, cities will improve their resilience to climate change, and be able to overcome periods of sudden or long-term climate stress. For the purposes of this report, the Adaptation & Water section has been split into two main categories, Climate Adaptation and Water Management.

1. Climate Adaptation

Planning and preparation: Actions identifying and planning for climate risk to handle crises and reduce impact on urban populations. Flood risk reduction: Actions minimising the potential for and impact of flooding. Heat & water stress management: Reducing vulnerability to heat and water stress.

2. Water Management

Clean water supply: Actions that ensure a resilient water supply by identifying and diversifying water sources, ensuring access to water. Demand management: Actions promoting water conservation and addressing water leakage in infrastructure. Stormwater & wastewater: Actions that capture, channel and treat stormwater and wastewater.


122

7.3 Mayoral Powers Climate adaptation and water management action requires coordination across many systems operating within a city. For this reason, mayoral powers on Adaptation & Water Management incorporate a range of sectors, including Transport, Buildings and Sustainable Communities.

Figure 7.1: Cities have strong power over a range of assets/functions that are critical to climate adaptation Number of cities (out of 57 responding) with strong or partial powers over Adaptation & Water assets/functions, by levers of control. Assets/functions

Types of power

Water

Stormwater management Wastewater treatment Water supply and distribution

City roads New municipal buildings Existing municipal offices Local parks and open space Land use planning Stormwater management Wastewater treatment Water supply and distribution Existing municipally-owned housing Buses Adaptation

Existing public education buildings Waterways Underground & other intra-city rail On-street railway system Regional parks and nature reserves Foreshore/beaches New residential buildings (private)

N/A

Existing commercial/industrial buildings (private)

N/A

New non-residential buildings (private)

N/A

Existing Residential (private)

N/A

Private housing

N/A

Intercity-rail & freight systems Own/operate Strong power

Set/enforce policy Partial power

Control budget

Set vision


123

Cities have strong power over the assets/functions that are essential to climate adaptation and water management action, including planning, roads, parks and open space, and municipal buildings.

In land use planning, 68% of reporting cities have operational control of actions and 67% of cities have strong powers to set/enforce policy. The high degree of power that mayors exert over this function enables cities to take measures to promote climate adaptation planning, preparation and implementation at significant scales.

7.4 Climate Actions This section presents the data collected from C40 cities on their climate actions in the Adaptation & Water sectors. Key areas of analysis include: scale of actions, regional and economic trends, mayoral powers over key assets and functions, and the levers used to implement action. The C40 survey posed a total of 39 questions relating to adaptation and 23 relating to water; more information on the survey is provided in the Appendix.


124

7.4.1 OVERVIEW Figure 7.2: C40 cities plan for Climate Adaptation and Water Management Number and scale of actions, by key action areas.

Adaptation

Climate adaptation planning and preparation Reducing vulnerability to heat stress & water stress Reducing flood risk Water and wastewater treatment and management

Water

Water use and supply Water sources

Number of actions

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 47 cities.

53 53 cities are taking 1,024 actions in Climate Adaptation, out of 2,262 total available actions.

49 49 cities are taking 590 actions in Water Management, out of a possible 1,334 total available actions.

Across water and adaptation 45% of actions are reported as transformative. In fact, 47% of all adaptation actions are transformative. This is the second highest proportion of transformative action of any sector within the report.

This is also the area with the most proposed action, reflecting a strong pipeline of future actions and potential for innovation.

C40 cities are not only investing in climate adaptation actions as a matter of priority, but have shown their ability to scale these actions rapidly within the last two years when comparing to the results found in CAM 1.0.

C40 cities report a total of 289 actions to reduce flood risk with the most adaptation actions in the pilot stage. C40 cities report a total of 220 actions (40% of all water management actions) related to stormwater and wastewater treatment & management, the largest focus of action in water management.

42% of all reported water actions are transformative while 40% of actions are proposed or in pilot stage. Not only does this demonstrate strong prospects for future city action on water management going forward, but also a tremendous opportunity to share knowledge on water management across the C40 network.


125

Figure 7.3: Cities are preparing for climate risks Top five adaptation actions. Early warning systems Crisis management strategies Tree planting Flood mapping (and associated mapping) at neighbourhood or district level Storm drains, swales and flood storage

Based on responses from 47 cities.

Number of cities taking action

89% of reporting C40 cities taking action on climate adaptation have put in place early warning systems and crisis management strategies. In fact, three of the top five reported actions involve disaster preparedness activities.

Tree planting and stormwater management are strategies cities are using to address vulnerability to flooding and heat stress.

Figure 7.4: 41 C40 cities are taking action to reduce potable water leakage Top five most water actions. Reduce leakages in water supply Permeable paving Storm water retention in new developments Water efficient appliances Increasing capacity of existing stormwater drains/systems

Based on responses from 41 cities.

Number of cities taking action

Reducing leakages in water supply is the most common action in the Water sector. This is underway in over 88% of reporting C40 cities


126

Table 7.1: Africa has the strongest power over water and adaptation

Southeast Asia & Oceania

South & West Asia

North America

Latin America

Europe

Assets/Functions

East Asia

Africa

Average mayoral powers by region.

City roads New municipal buildings Existing municipal offices Local parks and open space Land use planning Stormwater management Wastewater treatment Water supply and distribution Existing municipally-owned housing Buses Existing public education buildings Waterways Underground & other intra-city rail systems On-street railway system Regional parks and nature reserves Foreshore/beaches New residential buildings (private) Existing Commercial/industrial buildings (private) New non-residential buildings (private) Existing Residential (private) Private housing Intercity-rail & freight systems

Strong power

Partial power

Limited power

No data or N/A

Based on responses from 57 cities.

Cities in Africa and East Asia have, on average, the strongest power over climate adaptation assets and functions, whereas cities in South & West Asia and Southeast Asia & Oceania have more limited power.

Across Africa, East Asia, North America, and South & West Asia, C40 cities have, on average, strong power over water management assets/functions.

Cities in Latin America and Europe have partial power, while cities in Southeast Asia and Oceania have more limited power to control water supply and wastewater treatment.


127

7.4.2 Climate Adaptation IN DETAIL Figure 7.5: Transformative adaptation action is greatest in Europe % of actions by scale, shown by region. 100% 90%

% of actions by scale

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 53 cities.

Europe has the most widely implemented adaptation actions with 80% of actions being transformative.

South & West Asian cities did not report any actions as being implemented at a transformative scale. However, 69% of actions in this region are proposed, making it the region with the most emergent focus in the Adaptation sector.


128

Figure 7.6: Projects or programmes are the preferred approach for adaptation action across most regions

% of actions by lever

% of actions by lever, shown by region.

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 53 cities.

Over half of all adaptation actions across the C40 cities are delivered through projects/programmes.

Cities in Africa, Europe and North America report a similar balance of projects/programmes and policy/regulation to deliver adaptation action.

Cities in East Asia, however, largely use policy/regulation to deliver adaptation actions.1

7.4.2.1 Planning and Preparation C40 cities have conducted 203 assessments spanning diverse areas of vulnerability and risk assessment. Actions to identify and plan for climate risks are key to the development and implementation of effective climate adaptation strategies.

1

For more analysis on how lever use in particular regions relates to mayoral powers, please see Section 5.


129

Figure 7.7: 92% of C40 cities have assessed flood risk Number of cities conducting climate vulnerability and risk assessments, by type of risk. Flood risk Extreme weather Water stress Heat stress

Agriculture/habitat changes Other

Number of cities Based on responses from 52 cities.

•

75% of reporting cities have conducted assessments of the risk of flooding, extreme weather events and water stress.

•

Less than half of C40 cities are currently reviewing the impact of climate change on agriculture and biodiversity.


130

Adaptation risk focus

Figure 7.8: Current and short term risks are the priority for cities today The ten most frequently reported climate risks in cities: perception of risk over time scales.2 Current and short term climate risks

Note: Width of bars indicates number of cities reporting a risk. All data is taken from the CDP questionnaire as explained in the Methodology Chapter.

1. More intense rainfall

Medium and long term climate risks 26

14

16

2. More hot days 3. More frequent heatwaves

8

15

7

13

4. Hotter summers 5. Increased urban heat island effect

6

12

6

9

6. More intense heatwaves

5

7. Sea level rise

8

5

8. Increased frequency of large storms

8

5

9. Increased risk of storm surges

8

10. More frequent rainfall

4

7

4

Change in seasonality of rainfall Drop out of top 10

Reduced average annual rainfall

Enter top 10

The figure above presents C40 cities’ perception of acute and present risks versus emergent, longer term risks. The ten most frequently cited extremely serious or serious risks are both present today and expected to remain in the longer term. The fact that the perceived severity of these risks drops over time may indicate that the short term risks appear more acute to cities.

91% of C40 cities are considering potential economic opportunities from forecasted climate change to develop new green industries and infrastructure, and raise public awareness about environmental concerns.

In the present and short term, the risk of more intense rainfall is the most frequently-reported climate risk. However, sea level rise is of greater concern in the longer term. Heat related risks are prominent both now and in the future, making up the majority of the list.

2 3 4

98% of C40 cities report that the current and/or anticipated effects of climate change present significant risks.3

81% of C40 cities are considering the social risks4 posed by climate change, including increased risk to vulnerable populations, increased resource demand, increases in conflict and crime, and greater risk of disease.

77% of C40 cities are considering impacts of climate change on the ability of businesses to operate successfully.

Source: CDP Cities 2013. Source: CDP Cities 2013. Source: CDP Cities 2013.


131

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of actions, taken by cities on adaptation planning, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

Policy/Regulation

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 7.9: The majority of action to improve climate resilience is transformative

0%

22%

2%

76%

Early warning systems

0%

34%

5%

61%

Crisis management strategies

0%

36%

5%

59%

Flood mapping (and associated mapping) at neighbourhood or district level

0%

43%

0%

57%

Evacuation systems

4%

63%

4%

30%

Monitoring and planning to maintain biodiversity

0%

35%

8%

58%

Heat mapping/thermal imaging (and associated planning) at neighbourhood or district level

0%

57%

14%

29%

Landslide risk mapping

5%

40%

0%

55%

Diversifying fuel sources

0%

20%

10%

70%

Sea level rise modelling and planning

0%

50%

0%

50%

Economic diversification

0%

38%

0%

63%

Air quality initiatives

0%

27%

8%

65%

Disease prevention measures

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 53 cities.

Number of actions

55% of actions in the climate adaptation planning action area are transformative.

95% of climate adaptation planning actions are delivered through policy/ regulation and project/programme levers.

90% of reported actions relating to evacuation systems are occurring at transformative or significant scales.

Monitoring and planning to maintain biodiversity and mapping landslide risk are the two actions with the greatest focus on future work, with 33% and 36% of actions at the proposed stage, respectively.


132

51

7.4.2.2 Flood risk reduction Figure 7.10: Most C40 cities are near a significant water body

51 cities are coastal and/or near to a significant water body. 4%

CITY FOCUS Mexico City

Close to a water body Both coastal and near a water body

In 1986 Mexico City’s air quality seriously affected the health and quality of life of its population. In order to understand and verify the magnitude of the situation, an Automatic Ambient Air Monitoring Network was installed to generate quantitative information about the air quality. In October, 2011 air quality monitoring reached 25 years of uninterrupted operation and, together with the city´s air quality policy, is now one of the most successful and long-lasting health protection programmes in Mexico. In 2012, Mexico City´s Secretary for the Environment launched an ambitious expansion and reinforcement programme that will be the basis for new policies to further reduce persistent pollutants. In fact, Mexico City won the C40 & Siemens City Climate Leadership Award for its anti-air pollution programme ProAire.6

Coastal 43%

53%

Based on responses from 53 cities.

Being coastal and/or near to a significant water body is a characteristic common to many of the C40 cities. Consequently, these cities share the common risk of flooding, either from rivers/lakes or rising sea levels.

The degree of flood risk varies according to geography and the severity of current and future climate change. Flood risk is further complicated by the impact of climate change on rainfall patterns, which may cause increased pluvial flooding.

The severity of flood impacts is a function of a city’s ability to mitigate the effect of flooding on infrastructure and services through management strategies and action.

6

Source: CDP Cities 2013.


133

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of actions, taken by cities on reducing flood risk, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

Policy/Regulation

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 7.11: Drainage is key to managing flood risk

0%

40%

6%

54%

Storm drains, swales and flood storage

0%

32%

3%

65%

Site restoration and greening

0%

42%

3%

55%

Sustainable urban drainage

7%

64%

0%

29%

Protect land from development

4%

32%

11%

54%

Permeable paving

0%

30%

11%

59%

Flood defences – development and operation

4%

48%

0%

48%

Restrict development in flood risk areas

0%

39%

4%

57%

Building resilience and resistance

0%

24%

14%

62%

Flood storage – creation and operation

10%

55%

0%

35%

Soil retention strategies

6%

35%

6%

53%

Relocate vulnerable populations to low risk areas

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 49 cities.

CITY FOCUS London The Drain London project has mapped flood risk from river, tidal and surface water flooding across all of London’s 33 boroughs and undertaken more detailed mapping of local and strategically important flood “hotspots”. At the same time, London’s Thames Estuary 2100 programme has assessed the flood risk management options to protect London from a range of sea level rise scenarios up to +4 meters.

Number of actions

63% of actions on flood risk are occurring at transformative or significant scales.

Site restoration and greening, as well as flood storage, are the actions currently underway at the largest scale.


134

CITY FOCUS Chicago Chicago has achieved a 20% increase in permeable area in 265 development projects and installed 120 green alleys, resulting in the creation of 32,000 square feet of permeable surfaces.

7.4.2.3 Heat & water stress management Figure 7.12: Every responding C40 city is experiencing more hot days7 Number of cities that expect to be at extremely serious or serious risk of heat and water stress risks now or in the future. More hot days Increased urban heat island effect

CITY FOCUS Philadelphia By 2029, the Philadelphia Water Department plans to replace at least one third of the city’s impervious surfaces with soil and plant systems that intercept stormwater and allow infiltration or evaporation.

Hotter summers More frequent heatwaves More intense heatwaves Reduced average annual rainfall More frequent droughts More intense droughts

CITY FOCUS Sydney Sydney provides ‘Living Colour displays’ during spring and summer months; vegetation cover over large areas in public squares to provide cooling in hot weather. Temperatures may become more extreme and hot weather more frequent as a result of climate change; solutions such as these provide an ecological way to adapt.

Based on responses from 31 cities.

Number of cities that perceive risk

Heat risks – more hot days, increased urban heat island effect, hotter summers and more frequent heatwaves – are considered to be extremely serious or serious risk by majority of reporting cities. In the case of more hot days 81% of reporting cities classified it as an extremely serious or serious risk.

Drought risks are anticipated by 23% of cities. More cities perceive risks related to increased rainfall than reduced rainfall.

7

Source: CDP Cities 2013.


135

22%

9%

4%

65%

Tree planting

5%

24%

5%

67%

Green space provision and expansion

5%

38%

0%

57%

Green roofs

18%

24%

6%

53%

Retrofit of existing buildings

6%

75%

0%

19%

Shading in public spaces, markets

13%

50%

6%

31%

Green walls

8%

46%

8%

38%

White roofs

3%

31%

5%

62%

Other cool pavement measures

0%

42%

6%

52%

Cooling systems for critical infrastructure

26%

26%

3%

45%

Low flow taps

8%

24%

0%

68%

Additional reservoirs and wells

0%

44%

6%

50%

Strategic use of urban green space for urban agriculture

14%

36%

0%

50%

Water butts

0%

23%

8%

69%

Xeriscapes – low water landscaping design

15%

38%

0%

46%

Water supply restrictions

0%

44%

11%

44%

River abstraction protection

Policy/Regulation

Project/Programme

Number and scale of actions, taken by cities on addressing, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

Procurement

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 7.13: Cities “go green” to reduce climate risk

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 58 cities.

Number of actions

44% of actions to reduce heat and water stress are transformative.

Strategic use of urban green space for agriculture has the highest proportion of pilot scale actions, suggesting that cities will take more actions in this area.

Use of low flow taps has the highest proportion of transformative action in the future.


136

7.4.3 Water Management in detail Figure 7.14: Water action is very well-established in European cities % of actions by scale, shown by region. 100%

% of actions by scale

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 41 cities.

•

An average of 50% of all actions are transformative in cities across all regions, except Africa, where the greater proportion of actions are at proposed or pilot scale.

•

63% of actions in European cities are transformative suggesting that the actions relating to water are well established in this region.

Figure 7.15: Projects and Programmes are the most common delivery method for water management actions Levers used to deliver water actions, by region. 100%

% of actions by lever

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 46 cities.


137

Cities in South & West Asia use projects/programmes almost exclusively for delivering water actions.

Procurement is the least common lever across cities in all regions, except for East Asia where it accounts for about 30% of actions. Cities in East Asia also make the greatest use of policy/regulatory levers.

Incentives/disincentives are not common levers with respect to water actions in South & West Asian or African cities.

Incentives/disincentives are not reported to be employed levers in South & West Asian or African cities.

7.4.3.1 Clean Water Supply

98% 98% of residents in C40 cities have ready access to clean water.

Figure 7.16: C40 cities rely heavily on surface water to meet water demand C40 city water sources, % split.

92%

0.7%

0.1%

19.6% Surface water

92% of residents in C40 cities have ready access to adequate sanitation.

Ground water Re-cycling Desalination Based on responses from 42 cities. 79.7%

Ground water aquifers supply 20% of water to C40 cities.

Desalination and recycled water account for less than 1% of water supplied to C40 cities.


138

Figure 7.17: Access to clean water is not universal8 Percentage of city population with access to safe drinking water, regional average. East Asia North America Europe Latin America Southeast Asia & Oceania South & West Asia Africa

Based on responses from 58 cities.

•

Access to clean water in C40 cities is least common in Africa, where only 76% of residents have access.

•

Only cities in Europe, North America and East Asia have 100% access to clean water.

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of actions, taken by cities on water sourcing, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

Policy/Regulation

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 7.18: Stopping leaks is the first step to a sustainable water supply

0%

45%

0%

55%

Reduce leakages in water supply

0%

36%

0%

64%

Rainwater harvesting

10%

70%

0%

20%

Water recycling or reclamation

6%

17%

6%

72%

Optimising delivery mode of water consumption

12%

35%

8%

46%

Connection fees for new buildings

19%

22%

4%

56%

Optimising delivery fuel mix of water supply

3%

26%

3%

68%

Mandatory connection for reclaimed water

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 39 cities.

Number of actions


139

CITY FOCUS Washington DC In Washington DC the municipal water authority has launched a system of detecting peaks in water use on customer bills to identify potential leaks. The Sustainable DC Plan aims to install leak detectors throughout the district.

Reducing leakages in water supply is the most transformative and common action related to water management across C40 cities.

Water recycling and rainwater harvesting are the most common emerging actions, with the highest frequency in proposal or pilot stage.

C40 cities are increasingly introducing water connection fees for new buildings.

7.4.3.2 Demand management CITY FOCUS Mexico City

Figure 7.19: Half of all water demand in C40 cities comes from residential users

In Mexico City, 795 km of damaged or old water pipes were rehabilitated between 2007 and 2012 as part of an on-going programme to reduce leakage losses. These actions also help to optimise the management of flows and pressures in the primary network. The programme is in effect citywide, governed by city policy.

C40 water consumers, by percent of total volume consumed.

7%

5%

Domestic Commercial

7%

Other Municipal

8% 54% 19%

The largest proportion of water use for agriculture occurs in Southeast Asia & Oceania.

Industrial Agriculture Based on responses from 29 cities.

Residential water use represents more than half of water use across responding C40 cities.

Commercial water use makes up the second largest proportion of total water use.

Two African cities (of a total of three in the region) responded to this question and so this data should not be considered representative of African cities generally.

8


140

Figure 7.20: Water metering is mandatory in eight out of ten C40 cities % of cities with mandatory water metering. Is metering mandatory for industrial and commercial users? Is metering mandatory for residential users

61% 61% of C40 cities have indicated that the revenue from water tariffs generally covers all operating costs water utilities.

% of total city responses Based on responses from 42 cities.

•

Yes

No

Water metering is mandatory for residential users in 83% of C40 cities, and for industrial and commercial users in 87% of cities.


141

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of actions, taken by cities on water demand management, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

Policy/Regulation

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 7.21: Cities introduce water-use standards to manage demand

11%

50%

0%

39%

Incentives to introduce water efficiency measures

5%

65%

0%

30%

Water efficient appliances

0%

41%

0%

59%

Water use audits

17%

71%

0%

13%

Standards for water use in new buildings

15%

30%

0%

56%

Smart metering

13%

23%

3%

60%

Bans/restrictions on irrigation/hosepipes

43%

20%

0%

37%

Standards for connection to recycle water network

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 29 cities.

CITY FOCUS Tokyo To optimise delivery models for water consumption, Tokyo has procured and implemented a data management monitoring system to monitor flow and pressure of water supply at a citywide scale.

Number of actions

Efficient water use is a key goal of C40 cities. Within water demand management, incentives for water use efficiency are the most common and transformative actions, followed by implementation of water efficient appliances.

Water use audits appear to be gaining ground; a high proportion of cities are currently piloting this action or have already implemented this action at a significant scale.

Standards for water use in buildings are in place for 83% of responding cities.


142

7.4.3.3 Stormwater & Wastewater

22%

0%

0%

78%

Permeable paving

4%

30%

4%

61%

Increasing capacity of existing stormwater drains/systems

0%

26%

0%

74%

Storm water retention/detention in new developments

11%

21%

4%

64%

Green roofs

7%

21%

7%

64%

Wastewater to energy initiatives

25%

25%

0%

50%

Streetscapes with retention/ detention mechanisms

16%

56%

0%

28%

Methane recovery for reuse

3%

20%

10%

67%

Relief canals/new grey pathways for stormwater distribution

13%

19%

13%

56%

Incentives for rain gardens and/or cisterns

Policy/Regulation

Project/Programme

Number and scale of actions, taken by cities on stormwater & wastewater management, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

Procurement

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 7.22: Stormwater retention is the established means of managing stormwater

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 28 cities.

Number of actions

Stormwater management strategies are very common among cities, and comprise a range of actions including permeable paving, stormwater retention, rain gardens and green roofs.

Cities’ interest in green roofs and permeable paving is increasing; many are already implementing pilot initiatives in the area.

Permeable paving is currently the most common stormwater management action, and is underway to some extent in all reporting cities.

7.5 Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers C40 cities generally have strong powers over climate adaptation and water management assets and functions, and where they do not, cities are harnessing all types of power to deliver strategic actions. In a compelling example, 91% of responding cities are located in coastal areas and/or near to a significant water body, yet less than half have over waterways and beaches – a key asset. With 63% of actions on flood risk reported at a transformative or significant scales, cities are using their full range of powers and levers to take action on flood risk. Further key findings linking climate actions to mayoral powers:


143

Table 7.2: The majority of cities have strong power to deliver the most common actions in Adaptation & Water

1 Early warning systems 

41

2 Crisis management strategies 41 3 Tree planting 

39

4 Flood mapping (and associated mapping) at neighbourhood 39 or district level

33

Land Use Planning

33

Stormwater management

32

Pavements/ sidewalks

6 Reduce leakages in water supply 7 Sustainable urban drainage 8 Green space provision and expansion

34

Procurement

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Project/Programme

Limited power

Partial power

Strong power

No one particular power needed

34

35

Most common actions in Water and Adaptation

No one particular power needed No one particular power needed Pavements/ sidewalks

Stormwater management Water supply and distribution Stormwater management

5 Storm drains, swales and flood storage

9 Sustainable urban drainage 10 Storm water retention/ detention in new  developments

Relevant asset/ Function

Number of cities taking action

Action

The strength of power and levers used to deliver the top ten actions in Adaptation & Water.

Number of cities that have power over these actions

Levers used to deliver these actions

Projects and programmes are most frequently used to deliver the most common actions, after which, policy/regulation is used second most often. Nearly a third of the most common Adaptation & Water actions do not rely on the city having more power over one asset or function than another.

When all different actions on green roofs are considered together, they account for 59 actions. Cities report an even mix of power in their ability to deliver green roofs, the majority of which they deliver through projects/ programmes.

13% of cities use incentives/disincentives to deliver action on stormwater retention/detention in new developments. Apart from tree planting and reducing leakages in water supply (both at 3%), no other actions are delivered through this lever.


144

7.6 FUTURE CLIMATE ACTIONS Figure 7.23: Tree-planting will continue to be fundamental

85% 85% of C40 cities reported an intention to further expand the adaptation actions they have begun.

Ten most common adaptation actions planned for future development. Tree planting Flood mapping (and associated mapping) at neighbourhood or district level Crisis management strategies Site restoration and greening

67% C40 cities reported future plans to enhance or expand 67% of their current reported adaptation actions and 21% of water management actions.

Sustainable urban drainage Storm drains, swales and flood storage Early warning systems Green space provision and expansion Green roofs Permeable paving

Number of cities planning to expand action Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 45 cities.

48% of adaptation actions that are planned for future introduction or expansion are already in place at a transformative scale.

Cities report the greatest number of pilot and potential green roofs and permeable paving actions – representing key areas for future action.


145

Table 7.24: Fixing leaks will continue to feature strongly Most common water actions proposed for future expansion development. Reduce leakages in water supply Permeable paving Green roofs Increasing capacity of existing stormwater drains/systems Water efficient appliances

Number of cities planning to expand action Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 28 cities.

•

Three of the top five actions support improved stormwater management in cities.

•

Reducing leakages in water supply is the most common current and future action among C40 cities.


147

SECTION 8

Waste Management 8.1

8.2 8.3

8.4

8.4.1

Key Results

148

Mayoral Powers

150

Overview

151

Introduction

Climate Actions

149 151

8.4.2

Waste Reduction in Detail

155

8.4.4

Waste Treatment in Detail

163

8.4.3

8.5

8.6

Waste Collection in Detail

Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers Future Climate Actions

161

169

170


148

8.1 KEY RESULTS

86% 86% of C40 cities intend to expand the waste management actions that are not already transformative, with a particular focus on waste source separation policies.

56% Cities report that 56% of actions being taken in waste management are transformative.

Source separation is the most common Waste Management action among C40 cities.

5 of the top 10 actions reported by cities for future development are waste reduction actions.

1,039 53 cities are taking 1,039 actions in the Waste Management sector.

50% 50% of all waste actions are related to waste treatment, 40% to waste reduction and 10% to waste collection.

A Close Look at Fugitive Methane Emissions from Natural Gas: Submitted by Michael Obeiter and James Bradbury on April 2 2013, http://insights.wri.org/ Waste-to-energy actions are considered in the Energy Supply chapter. 3 Anaerobic digestion actions are considered in the Energy Supply chapter. 4 Please refer to the Water chapter for information about wastewater treatment. 5 Landfill gas energy generation is considered in the Energy Supply chapter. 1

2


149

8.2 INTRODUCTION The high volume of waste currently generated by cities and disposed of in urban landfills is a major driver of global GHG emissions. Fugitive methane emissions released during waste decomposition are more than 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide1 as a greenhouse gas. City-led actions to reduce waste generation and reuse or recycle materials are key to curbing waste-related global greenhouse gas emissions. The data presented in this chapter reflects a comprehensive survey of city activity – spanning 65 possible actions across six categories (residential, commercial, industrial, construction and demolition, agricultural, and municipal).

1. Waste Reduction

Waste prevention and minimisation: Actions that reduce or eliminate the generation of waste at the source, including bins, collection fees and reducing packaging.

2. Waste Collection

Waste segregation: Actions that focus on the source separation of waste. Waste transport: Actions that optimise waste collection transport, addressing both local and long-haul journeys as well as the carbon efficiency of transport vehicles.

3. Waste Treatment

Waste recycling and reuse2: Actions that drive the reuse of materials by diverting and converting waste materials into new products. Organic waste management and composting3: Actions that convert organic waste from residential, commercial and agricultural sources into fertilizer or energy. Wastewater management4: Actions that increase the amount of energy generated from wastewater, including sewage treatment. Landfill disposal5: Actions that utilise price mechanisms to discourage disposal into landfills and apply technologies to mitigate the long-term human health and climate impacts of landfill waste disposal.


150

8.3 MAYORAL POWERS Figure 8.1 – C40 cities exercise strong power over waste reduction and collection Number of cities (out of 57 responding) with strong or partial powers over waste management assets/functions, by types of power. Assets/functions

Types of power

Waste processing facilities Waste Treatment

Recycling facilities/centres Waste to energy facilities Landfill sites Incineration plant

Street sweeping/cleaning Waste Reduction and Collection

Municipal-owned building collection Residential building collection Food waste collection Construction and demolition waste collection Commercial building collection Industrial building collection Agricultural waste collection Own/operate Strong power

Set/enforce policy

Control budget

Set vision

Partial power

A large number of C40 cities exercise strong powers over all three waste management areas; mayors exert more power over waste management than any other sector surveyed in this report.

Waste treatment assets/functions comprise three of the top five areas in which mayors have the strongest powers across all sectors.

At least 70% of cities in the C40 own or operate street sweeping, municipal and residential waste collection, and over 52% of cities set policies for collection of municipal, residential, and commercial waste, including food waste. These cities also report a strong ability to exert power through policy enforcement and budgetary control over collection.

Cities have more policy-making than operational control over construction and demolition, commercial and industrial waste sources.

Across waste collection, cities have more control over operations than budget, most likely due to the outsourcing of collection services.


151

8.4 Climate Actions This section presents the data collected from C40 cities on their climate actions in the Waste Management sector. Key areas of analysis include: scale of actions, regional and economic trends, mayoral powers over key assets and functions, and the levers used to implement action. The C40 survey posed a total of 65 questions relating to the Waste Management sector; more information on the survey is provided in the Appendix.

8.4.1 OVERVIEW Figure 8.2: Cities are innovating in waste treatment action Number and scale of action for Waste Management, by action area. Waste reduction Waste collection Waste treatment

Number of actions

CITY FOCUS Rio de Janeiro In Rio de Janeiro a pilot project is underway to generate between 15,000m³ and 18,000m³ of fertiliser (FERTILURB) per year by separating and composting organic matter in an old medical facility. The compost is used in Rio’s City’s Reforestation Project. This pilot is intended for expansion, if it proves as successful.

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 54 cities.

Out of the three action areas (reduction, collection and treatment), the greatest quantity of climate action is focused on waste treatment. This is aligned with the assets where mayors have the greatest level of power (see Fig. 8.1).

Cities are focusing their efforts on generating less waste as well as identifying alternative means to treat waste.

56% of actions on waste are reported by cities as being transformative; 19% of actions are at a significant scale; 15% of actions are being piloted; and 10% of actions are proposed. Overall, a high proportion of transformative action indicates that waste is a well-established sector.

Looking forward, there are more proposed actions in the pipeline for waste treatment than for reduction and collection.


152

Figure 8.3: Cities are innovating in source separation and recycling Top five waste actions. Source separation policies Electronic waste recycling Waste collection fees Re-use schemes Outreach/informative programmes Number of actions Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 53 cities.

Recycling and reuse actions account for nearly 36% of the reported top five waste actions across the C40.

Figure 8.4: East Asian cities lead in transformative waste action Scale of waste actions undertaken by cities in each region. 100%

% of actions by scale

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 54 cities.

A high proportion of waste actions are transformative in three regions: 70% of reported waste actions in East Asia, 51% in North America, and 56% in Europe.

In Africa, Latin America, and South East Asia & Oceania roughly half of the actions are proposed or at the pilot stage, suggesting strong innovation and potential growth in this sector.


153

Figure 8.5: City-led programmes are the main delivery lever in African and South & West Asian cities Levers used to deliver action on waste in C40 cities, by region. 100% 90% 80% % of actions by lever

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 51 cities.

Policy and regulation is the most commonly reported lever for delivering waste actions across all regions.

Cities in East Asia reported the use of policy/regulation almost exclusively to deliver waste action, whereas cities in Africa and South and West Asia report stronger reliance on projects/programmes.

Cities in Europe and North America report a largely balanced mix of project/ programme and policy/regulation levers for waste action.

Street sweeping/cleaning Municipal-owned building collection Residential building collection Food waste collection Construction and demolition waste collection Commercial building collection Industrial building collection Agricultural waste collection

Strong power Based on responses from 57 cities.

Partial power

Limited power

Southeast Asia & Oceania

South & West Asia

North America

Latin America

Europe

Assets/Functions

East Asia

Africa

Table 8.1 – Cities in Africa have strong power across waste reduction and collection


154

Across all regions, the assets/functions over which cities exert the most power are street sweeping, municipal and residential collection.

Cities in Africa, Latin America and South & West Asia have power over more assets/functions within waste minimisation and collection than cities in other regions.

Cities in all regions have power over most assets/functions within waste reduction and collection, with a few exceptions in commercial and industrial building collection and agricultural waste collection.

The results suggest cities across all regions are well positioned to implement actions within minimisation and collection.

Southeast Asia & Oceania

South & West Asia

North America

Latin America

Europe

East Asia

Assets/Functions

Africa

Table 8.2 – Cities in Africa and East Asia have the strongest power over waste treatment

Waste processing facilities Recycling facilities/centres Waste to energy facilities Landfill sites Incineration plant

Strong power

Partial power

Limited power

Powers across waste treatment vary by region; cities in Africa & East Asia have more power over more assets/functions than cities in other regions.

On average, cities across all regions report stronger powers over waste processing, waste to energy and landfill sites.


155

8.4.2 WASTE REDUCTION IN DETAIL Understanding the waste profile in a city is critical to developing an overall waste minimisation strategy. Understanding the sources of waste allows cities to target their actions specifically.

Figure 8.6: One-third of municipal waste in C40 cities is organic Municipal waste breakdown by type, average across C40 cities.

3% 4% 11%

5%

Fines (soil, dust etc.) 5%

Glass

4%

Metals Organics Other Paper and cardboard Plastics

19%

33%

16%

Textiles Wood Based on responses from 47 cities.

Organic waste (e.g. food and garden plant debris) constitutes the highest proportion of total municipal waste for C40 cities by a large margin.

The breakdown of municipal waste by type is largely consistent across regions, regardless of city GDP per capita.


156

Figure 8.7: North American cities generate the highest per capita waste volumes6

Average waste generation (kg/person/day)

Average daily waste generated per person, by region and waste source.

Commercial/Industrial waste

Construction & demolition Waste

Hazardous waste

Municipal waste

Based on responses from 38 cities.7

•

North American cities generate the highest overall waste per person, and have the highest volumes within each waste source except hazardous waste.

•

Fast-growing East Asian cities appear to generate the largest volumes of construction & demolition waste across the C40.

Figure 8.8: Wealthier cities generate more waste8

Average waste generation (kg/person/day)

Average daily waste generated per person, by city GDP per capita.

Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Commercial/Industrial waste

Construction & Demolition Waste

Hazardous Waste

Municipal Waste

Based on responses from 38 cities.


157

While wealthier cities do generate more waste, there appears to be an acceleration in waste generated from very wealthy cities. Most of the waste generated per person appears to come from significant increases in municipal as well as construction & demolition waste. Cities with very high GDP per capita report generating twice as many kilograms per person as high GDP per capita cities. This difference becomes three times more kilograms per person in construction & demolition waste.

While there appears to be no significant differences in the proportion of waste generated across wealth levels in C40 cities, future action should identify opportunities to lower waste generated in municipal as well as construction & demolition sectors to make an impact on the total waste levels.

Number and scale of all waste reduction actions across C40 cities. See Fig 8.9 on the following page.

CITY FOCUS Vancouver Vancouver is currently developing a deconstruction hub where materials can be deposited and sold for reuse by builders and residents.

65% of actions aimed at reducing waste generation are transformative, and are being delivered citywide.

Despite its relatively small contribution to overall waste levels, construction & demolition waste is the most frequently targeted waste source for reduction actions.

Cities report waste collection fees as the most commonly utilised waste reduction tool. More specifically, 46% of cities taking action on industrial fees, 39% on commercial fees, and 36% on residential fees

Looking forward, construction waste recycling/reuse and reducing dumping of construction & demolition waste are the two areas with the highest number of actions being piloted or proposed.

Action on agricultural waste is the least common action area due to the low number of cities with jurisdiction over significant agricultural production.

Cities did not report residential and agricultural waste sources. Only one African city responded to this question, reporting that only municipal waste sources are known. African waste generation patterns are therefore difficult to ascertain. 8 Cities did not report residential and agricultural waste sources. 6

7


158

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Figure 8.9: Two-thirds of actions to reduce waste are being implemented citywide9 Number and scale of city actions on waste reduction, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

10%

71%

0%

19%

Construction waste recycling/reuse

0%

85%

0%

15%

Waste management plans on construction sites

8%

54%

0%

38%

Promoting C&D waste re-use

0%

52%

4%

43%

Reduce dumping of waste

5%

79%

0%

16%

Construction waste permitting

26%

48%

0%

26%

Waste collection fees

11%

37%

0%

53%

Outreach/informative programmes

23%

54%

0%

23%

Disincentives or bans on certain waste (e.g. plastic bags)

8%

4%

0%

88%

Reducing packaging

16%

56%

4%

24%

Pay as you throw

11%

53%

0%

37%

Waste collection fees

0%

46%

0%

54%

Disincentives or bans on certain waste (e.g. plastic bags)

25%

50%

0%

25%

Outreach/informative programmes

11%

16%

0%

74%

Pay as you throw

18%

41%

0%

41%

Reducing packaging

25%

50%

0%

25%

Waste collection fees

8%

67%

0%

25%

Outreach/informative programmes

8%

25%

0%

67%

Pay as you throw

0%

60%

0%

40%

Waste bans (e.g. plastic bags)

0%

73%

0%

27%

Reducing packaging

13%

25%

0%

63%

Industrial symbiosis/industrial ecology programmes

0%

0%

0%

100%

Promoting agricultural waste re-use

Cities did not report actions on reducing waste from municipal waste operations.

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Residential waste prevention/minimisation

Commercial waste prevention/minimisation

Industrial waste prevention/minimisation

Construction and demolition waste prevention/minimisation

Transformative (citywide)

a1

Number of cities taking action

9

Based on responses from 54 cities.

a1 = Agricultural waste prevention/minimisation


159

Figure 8.10: Cities use both carrots and sticks to reduce waste generation

CITY FOCUS C40 Cities

Most common waste reduction actions in C40 cities. Waste collection fees Outreach/informative programmes Disincentives or bans on certain waste (e.g. plastic bags) Reducing packaging Pay as you throw Construction waste recycling/reuse Waste management plans on construction sites Promoting C&D waste re-use Reduce dumping of waste Construction waste permitting

Number of actions Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 26 cities.

Waste collection fees, regardless of sector, are the most commonly adopted waste management action, closely followed by outreach and informative programmes.

Looking at the levers used by cities, four of the top five actions on waste reduction are usually delivered via policy/programmes.

Figure 8.11: Wealthier cities generate more waste, but they are also taking more action to reduce it Frequency of waste minimisation actions compared with daily waste generation per person, by city GDP per capita.

Waste action Waste generation volume

Based on responses from 34 cities.

Average waste generation (kg/person/day)

GDP per capita typology Average waste minimisation actions per day

Sixteen C40 cities are implementing waste collection fees for residential buildings, including Lagos, Barcelona, Hanoi and Sydney where the city offers tiered collection fees based on the size of the bin to discourage high volumes of mixed waste disposal and encourage source separation of waste.


160

Number of actions

Figure 8.12: Number and scale of construction & demolition waste actions in C40 cities

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 39 cities.

CITY FOCUS Buenos Aires A pilot project in Buenos Aires began in March 2013, when the City opened its first construction waste treatment plant with the aim of reducing the amount of waste disposed to landfill. The plant currently processes 1,500 tonnes of construction waste per day.

CITY FOCUS Washington DC Washington DC is currently considering a project which would amend the city’s Green Building Codes to require that construction sites recycle 50% of demolition debris.

Since construction & demolition waste is the most common waste type for targeted action (see figure 8.9), this graph explores the area in more detail.

In total, cities report taking 111 actions to reduce construction & demolition waste. In general, cities identify their actions as being well established, with 61% of all construction & demolition actions being implemented at a transformative scale.

Only 14% of all reported construction & demolition actions are proposed and awaiting final authorisation, indicating a diminished pipeline of future action. Future research in this space should focus on understanding whether or not future implementation has diminished marginal impacts or if cities have completely exhausted the list of actions in this space.


161

8.4.3 WASTE COLLECTION in detail Figure 8.13: 83% of C40 cities collect recyclables, but only half collect organic waste

79%

C40 cities that currently provide segregated waste collection.

79% of total waste generated in cities is collected by municipal authorities.

100%

Recycling waste collection

18

82

Organic waste collection

No

Yes

Recycling and waste collection, based on responses from 34 cities.

100% of cities report that they have some formal waste collection services in place.

66%

Organic waste collection, based on responses from 32 cities.

54% of cities report municipal collection of organic waste. This is considerably less than recycling waste, which is collected by 80% of cities.

In cities with municipal recycling and organic waste collection, this service is provided to both households and commercial entities.

The rate of collection of recyclable materials is independent of city GDP per capita, with cities across all economic groupings reporting similar levels of waste collection.

66% of cities report an informal waste collection occurring in their jurisdictions.

8.4.3.1 WASTE SEGREGATION ACTION Figure 8.14: C40 cities report the majority of waste segregation as being implemented at a transformative scale Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on waste segregation, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

8%

44%

8%

40%

Collection for dry recyclables (glass, plastic, paper)

12%

29%

0%

59%

Collection for organic compostable waste

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Number of cities taking action 26.

Number of cities taking action

Cities report a total of 41 actions for waste segregation, 66% of which are being implemented at a transformative scale. This is the highest percentage of transformative action being reported across all sectors in the report.


162

8.4.3.2 Waste collection and Transportation Action Figure 8.15: 19 cities have introduced low-carbon waste collection vehicles

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on waste collection and transportation, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

0%

58%

0%

42%

Sectoral consolidated waste collection

11%

56%

0%

33%

Single waste stream collection

0%

25%

0%

75%

Automated (vacuum) waste collection

0%

50%

0%

50%

Geographical franchising (if private)

22%

17%

44%

44%

Introduce low-carbon collection vehicles

0%

33%

33%

33%

Towards a mode with better ton-mile/gallon

0%

0%

33%

67%

Closer disposal points for waste vehicles

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 10 cities (n=19).

Waste collection and transport: Optimising waste collection logistics

Transformative (citywide)

Reducing the CO2e intensity of long-haul transport

a1

Number of cities taking action a1 = Efficiency of waste collection vehicles

CITY FOCUS C40 Cities City administrations in Athens, Copenhagen, Seoul, Tokyo, and Mexico have introduced a programme of single waste stream collection.

CITY FOCUS Milan The city of Milan requires 19 residential garbage and recycling haulers to use at least 20% biodiesel in their diesel collection trucks, resulting in a switch from diesel to lower-carbon biodiesel (B100) equivalent to over 400,000 gallons per year.

58% of waste transportation actions are transformative.

The most commonly reported action area is improving waste collection logistics, with C40 cities reporting a total of 27 actions.

Actions to improve the efficiency of long-haul waste transportation logistics are significantly less common than those taken to improve the efficiency of waste collection vehicles.


163

8.4.4 WASTE TREATMENT IN DETAIL This section considers action that is underway to improve the way waste is treated and safely disposed of.

Figure 8.16: Landfill disposal remains the dominant form of waste treatment in all but the wealthiest cities Current waste treatment methods compared with municipal waste generation in C40 cities, by city GDP per capita.

Municipal waste generation (kg/person/day)

100%

% waste treatment method

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Landfill

Other

Recycling/composting

Re-use

Waste to energy

Waste generation (kg/person/day)

Number of cities taking action 44.

Landfill disposal is the single largest form of waste treatment in all city GDP groups except those with very high income levels. Wealthier cities appear to be taking more action to reduce waste. While the proportion of treated waste going to landfill is lower in the wealthiest cities, the total quantity of waste going to landfill is still twice that of cities in the lowest city GDP per capita group.

Despite strong levels of mayoral power, cities with lower GDP per capita tend to operate only small-scale recycling programmes and register very low uptake of waste-to-energy technologies. This may be due to the high levels of capital required to invest in these technologies. These cities also report high levels of adoption of landfill solutions.

Recycling, which can require more complex waste management infrastructure, is most prevalent in higher GDP per capita cities.

Increased levels of reuse and recycling coincide with greater volumes of waste generation, which offsets the additional waste that would otherwise go to landfill.


164

Figure 8.17: C40 cities are implementing 241 actions to improve waste treatment Number of waste treatment actions, by scale. Source separation policies Electronic waste recycling Re-use schemes Municipal recycling points or centres for business Incentives for recycling Municipal recycling points or centre for residents Composting in house Increase quantity of sewage treated Composting agricultural waste Number of actions

CITY FOCUS Buenos Aires

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 50 cities. Buenos Aires has installed waste containers throughout the city, as an alternative to residents placing waste bags on city streets for collection. All street corners have dry waste containers, and 82% of street corners also have organic waste containers, making collection more efficient and allowing for the segregation of these two waste streams at source.

CITY FOCUS Portland The city of Portland partnered with Multnomah County’s Aging and Disability Services to offer a series of presentations in low-income communities, focusing on reuse. These efforts resulted in the city having conversations with more than 5,000 residents about fixing and maintaining, sharing, repairing and purchasing durable equipment.

Source separation is the most common action across all waste treatment action categories.

Cities report the highest number of proposed actions in electronic waste recycling, which is also the area with the second highest number of transformative actions reported.

Reuse schemes are the third most common waste treatment action, with 59 actions underway across cities.

Four of the six most common C40 waste treatment actions relate to recycling, indicating that recycling is a strong priority for C40 cities.


165

8.4.4.1 Waste Recycling and Reuse

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on waste recycling and reuse, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

Policy/Regulation

5%

54%

0%

41%

Source separation policies

6%

42%

3%

50%

Electronic waste recycling

4%

32%

11%

54%

Municipal recycling points or centres for residents

16%

21%

5%

58%

Composting in house

15%

20%

0%

65%

Re-use schemes

42%

16%

0%

42%

Incentives for recycling

0%

35%

12%

53%

Electronic waste recycling

12%

24%

0%

65%

Incentives for recycling

0%

71%

0%

29%

Source separation policies

1

6%

25%

6%

63%

Municipal recycling points or centres for businesses

1

7%

50%

0%

43%

Re-use schemes

0%

42%

0%

58%

Electronic waste recycling

9%

64%

0%

27%

Source separation policies

43%

14%

0%

43%

Incentives for recycling

20%

20%

0%

60%

Re-use schemes

0%

29%

0%

71%

Municipal recycling points or centres for businesses

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Number of cities taking action 26.

1

1 1 1

Number of cities taking action

•

Source separation is the action receiving the most new attention, with 19 actions being piloted or proposed.

•

Provision of municipal recycling points for residents and businesses is the most well-established action.

Commercial waste recycling and reutilisation

Residential recycling and reutilisation

Transformative (citywide)

Industrial waste recycling and reutilisation

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 8.18: Residential recycling registers the highest number of actions across all waste treatment categories


166

CITY FOCUS Chicago

Waste can be used to generate energy via a range of technologies, such as incineration or gasification. See Energy Supply sector for details of action being taken in these areas.

8.4.4.2 Organic Waste Management & Composting Figure 8.19: Source separation policies are the most common form of organic waste collection

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on organic waste management and composting, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

Policy/Regulation

21%

71%

0%

7%

Source separation policies

0%

29%

0%

71%

Municipal recycling points or centres for businesses

0%

27%

0%

73%

Re-use schemes

50%

13%

0%

38%

Incentives for organics treatment

0%

64%

0%

36%

Source separation policies

10%

40%

0%

50%

Re-use schemes

75%

13%

0%

13%

Incentives for organics treatment

11%

22%

0%

67%

Municipal recycling points or centres for businesses

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Number of cities taking action 28.

• •

Residential organic waste management/composting

Transformative (citywide)

Commercial organic waste management/composting

Incentive/Disincentive

The city of Chicago has partnered with Recyclebank to trial a unique incentive programme for recycling. Selected blue carts have been retrofitted with an IDÂ chip that reads the weight of the recycled materials collected by that household. Points are earned for every pound of recyclables diverted from the waste stream. Points can be redeemed for discounts at local and national businesses.

Cross Sector Actions: Waste-to-Energy Generation, Waste Management & Energy Supply Sectors

Number of cities taking action

30% of all cities taking action related to organics management are focusing on source separation policies


167

CITY FOCUS Houston

Cross Sector Analysis: Anaerobic Digestion, Waste Management & Energy Supply Sectors

In Houston, residents are required to place yard trimmings in cityapproved compostable bags for separate collection. In addition, the city provides a bimonthly collection service for tree waste, which is then composted and mulched by a private contractor.

Organic waste can be used to generate energy, in the form of electricity or heat, via anaerobic digestion. See Energy Supply chapter for details of action being taken in these areas.

8.4.4.3 LANDFILL Disposal Figure 8.20: Energy from landfill gas is generated in approximately 60% of cities Do the landfills have LFG management? Is the City generating energy from LFG?

*LFG: Land Fill Gas

% of cities answering Yes

No

Generating energy from LFG, based on responses from 40 cities. Landfill management, based on responses from 36 cities.

Landfill management plans are maintained by around 75% of cities.


168

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on landfill management, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

Policy/Regulation

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 8.21: Twenty-Four C40 cities are generating energy from their landfill gas

42%

33%

17%

8%

Landfill gas management/landfill gas to energy

40%

47%

7%

7%

Leachate management

27%

36%

9%

27%

Re-use of sites

50%

30%

10%

10%

Landfill planning/engineering/construction

63%

0%

13%

25%

Landfill planning/engineering/construction

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Number of cities taking action 26.

Number of cities taking action

92% of cities taking action on landfill management are implementing landfill gas management/gas to energy.

Landfill levies are the least common landfill action with only 8 cities using this action to manage waste disposal.

Cross Sector Actions: Landfill Gas Energy Generation, Waste Management & Energy Supply Sectors Fugitive methane gas from landfill sites can be captured to generate electricity or heat. See Energy Supply sector for details of action being taken in this area.


169

8.5 Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers C40 cities generally have strong powers in the Waste Management sector. These levels of power across many waste assets indicate significant opportunity to drive climate action.

Table 8.3 – Cities control residential waste collection and therefore focus on residential waste minimisation and collection

1 Residential recycling and reutilisation:  Source separation policies 2 Residential recycling and reutilisation:  Electronic waste recycling

38

Residential building collection

36

Residential building collection

3 Construction waste  recycling/reuse

31

Construction and demolition waste collection

4 Municipal recycling points  or centres for residents

29

Recycling facilities/ centres

5 Waste management plans  on construction sites

27

Construction and demolition waste collection

6 Increase quantity of  26 sewage treated 7 Residential waste  25 collection fees 8 Collection for dry recyclables  25 (glass, plastic, paper) 9 Landfill gas management/  24 Landfill gas to energy 10 Residential outreach/  23 informative programmes Most common actions in Waste

Procurement

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Project/Programme

Limited power

Partial power

Strong power

Relevant asset/ Function

Number of cities taking action

Action

The strength of power and levers used to deliver the ten most commonly reported actions in Waste.

Wastewater treatment Residential building collection Residential building collection Landfill sites Residential building collection Number of cities that have power over these actions

Levers used to deliver these actions

The majority of C40 cities have strong power to deliver the common waste actions. Most cities control residential waste collection, which is the route the majority use to deliver waste action. This also explains why actions on residential waste reduction and collection dominate the list of most common waste actions.

There are two construction & demolition waste actions in the top ten, both show a more balanced mix of power. In many cities, business waste collection is delivered privately rather than by the city, which may be why fewer cities have strong power to deliver it. These actions are delivered primarily through policy/regulation, illustrating both the limit of cities’ authority in this area as well as their strong desire to take action.

An even mix of policy/regulation and project/programme is relied upon to deliver the most common waste actions.


170

8.6 Future Climate Actions Figure 8.22: C40 cities are building on current best practice in waste Top ten most common waste actions planned for future development. Source separation policies Re-use schemes Waste collection fees Electronic waste recycling Outreach/informative programmes Incentives for recycling Municipal recycling points or centres for business Disincentives or bans on certain waste (eg. plastic bags) Reducing packaging Pay as you throw

Number of cities planning to expand action Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 58 cities10.

•

Four of the five most common waste treatment actions in C40 cities are also reported as those most frequently considered for future adoption.

•

Five of the top ten actions reported by cities for future development are related to waste reduction actions, while none relate to waste collection, which includes segregation and transportation.

Note actions are reported more times than there are cities in the survey because individual actions may be present in multiple action areas.

10 


171


Return to Contents page


173

SECTION 9

Finance & Economic Development 9.1

Key Results

9.3

Mayoral Powers

9.2 9.4

9.4.1

9.4.2 9.5

9.6

Introduction

174

175

176

Climate Actions

177

Finance & Economic Development in Detail

179

Overview

Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers

Future Climate Actions

177

185 187

Return to Contents page


174

9.1 KEY RESULTS

50% 167

C40 cities are pursuing 167 actions in the Finance & Economic Development sector.

Over 50% of future climate actions in economic development will be in the pilot stage, suggesting strong innovation and scaling potential.

Green manufacturing, together with support for clean technology clusters, are the most commonly reported actions.

47% 25%

47% of cities have established their own funds to invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy or carbon reduction projects.

25% of cities indicated they have their own municipal bank, providing them with the ability to make investment decisions that align with their climate strategies.

Cities report strong powers to set policy for property or municipal taxes; as well as to tax local businesses to create revenue for sustainable infrastructure investments.


175

9.2 INTRODUCTION Climate action requires investment and access to capital. By understanding the financial instruments and approaches cities are employing across the global C40 network, individual cities can identify appropriate financial tools and adapt them to achieve local investment in emissions and risk reduction activities. While there are financial costs associated with taking climate change action, there are often also significant economy-wide benefits. This chapter investigates how cities are identifying, advancing, and supporting innovative financing solutions for sustainable urban infrastructure investments, while driving local economic development through the promotion of green industries and clean technology clusters. For the purposes of this report, the Finance & Economic Development section has been split into two main categories, outlined in the summary below.

1. Finance

Low-carbon infrastructure: Actions that provide a range of financial instruments to fund emissions and risk reductions in cities.

2. Economic Development

Green industries: Actions that encourage the development of private enterprises with production methods and products/services that are lowcarbon and resource efficient. Clean technology clusters: Actions that increase the size of urban green economies through city support, research and private-sector-partnering due to the co-location of clean technology companies.


176

9.3 MAYORAL POWERS Figure 9.1: Cities have strong power over property and municipal taxes Number of cities (out of 57 responding) with strong or partial powers over Finance & Economic Development assets/functions, by levers of control. Assets/functions Property or municipal tax

Types of power N/A

Economic development Business tax

N/A

Sales or VAT tax

N/A

Issue municipal bonds

N/A

N/A

Municipal credit agency or bank Borrow from regional/national government

N/A N/A Own/operate Strong power

Set/enforce policy

Control budget

Set vision

Partial power

Based on responses from 57 cities.

The top three areas of mayoral power in this sector are: property or municipal tax; economic development; and business taxes.

75% of cities have budgetary control over property/municipal taxes, which includes 27 cities (48%) that are able to retain property/municipal taxes for local investment and 15 (27%) that receive an allocation of these taxes in order to invest in municipal projects and programmes.

39% of cities have mayoral power over the departments responsible for economic development, while another 43% of mayors can directly influence these types of activities.

In terms of raising financing for local investment, 38% cities have the ability to issue their own bonds, while another 18% can do this with approval. One-third of cities indicate they have the ability to borrow funds from regional/ national governments; while 23% can do this with authorisation.

25% of C40 cities indicate they have their own municipal bank, providing those cities with an opportunity to either finance climate change projects or make investment decisions that align with their climate strategies.


177

9.4 Climate Actions This section presents the data collected from C40 cities on their climate actions in the Finance & Economic Development sector. Key areas of analysis include: scale of actions, regional and economic trends, mayoral powers over key assets and functions, and the levers used to implement action. The C40 survey posed a total of 15 questions relating the Finance & Economic Development sector; more information on the survey is provided in the Appendix.

9.4.1 overview Figure 9.2: Cities are testing new ways to grow green economies

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of city actions on finance and economic development, including the levers used to deliver those actions.

Incentive/Disincentive

Cities report 167 climate actions being taken in finance, out of 870 finance actions available across all cities.

17%

21%

13%

50%

Supporting clean tech clusters

19%

14%

5%

62%

Promoting green industry clusters

24%

18%

6%

53%

Green manufacturing

13%

38%

0%

50%

Loans

0%

0%

8%

92%

ESCo financing

64%

18%

9%

9%

Fiscal incentives

10%

50%

10%

30%

Multilateral/Bilateral climate funds

11%

67%

0%

22%

Adaptation infrastructure finance

0%

22%

0%

78%

Revolving funds

17%

33%

17%

33%

CDM/JI

17%

17%

17%

50%

Bonds

20%

20%

0%

60%

Guarantees

0%

50%

0%

50%

City carbon trading scheme

33%

67%

0%

0%

VC/angel funds

0%

0%

0%

100%

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation) a1

a2

Low-carbon infrastructure finance

167

Green mortgages Number of actions a1 = Supporting clean tech cluster

Based on responses from 38 cities.

a2 = Promotion of clean industries


178

Actions to support and promote green industry and clean tech clusters are more commonly reported than individual action in low-carbon infrastructure finance, accounting for 25% and 15% of total Finance & Economic Development actions in the figure above.

Fiscal incentives are the sixth most common action across the Finance & Economic Development sector, but register the highest number of transformative and significant actions.

Support for clean tech clusters and promoting green industry are the first and second most popular actions, with 22 and 20 cities taking action respectively.

Table 10.1 – Regional Powers – Finance and Table 9.1: Cities in North Economic America haveDevelopment the strongest power over

S outh & Wes t As ia

Southeast Asia & Oceania

North America

South & West Asia

Latin America

North America

E urope

Latin America

E as t As ia

Europe

Africa

East Asia

Assets/Functions As sets/Functions

Africa

assets/functions in Finance & Economic Development

S outheast As ia & Oceania

Property or municipal tax

Property or municipal tax

Economic development

Economic development Business tax

Business tax

Sales or VAT tax

Sales or VAT tax

Issue municipal bonds

Issue municipal bonds

Municipal credit agency or

Municipal credit agency bank or bank

Borrow from regional/national

Borrow from regional/ government national government

Strong

power Strong power

Limited

Partial power power Partial Limited power power

No data or

No N/A data or N/A

Powers to affect finance and economic development greatly vary across regions with cities in North America having the strongest powers, followed by Africa.

Across all regions, cities tend to have strong powers to enact property or municipal taxes and issue municipal bonds.

Across all regions, cities tend to have the most limited powers to establish 3 a municipal credit agency or bank, enact sales or VAT tax and to borrow from regional or national government.

47% of responding cities have established their own funds to invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy or carbon reduction projects; and have sought funding from multi-lateral funding agencies.


179

9.4.2 FINANCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN DETAIL Figure 9.3: Business and financial services dominate in C40 city economies Proportion of city’s GDP by economic activity, by city GDP per capita.2 100% 90%

% of GDP by economic activity

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Agriculture

Education

Health

Heavy industry

Light industry/Manufacturing

Public sector

Service – Business

Service – Creative industries and film

Service – Finance

Tourism

Based on responses from 46 cities.

The public sector occupies a much larger proportion of the economy in very low and low city GDP per capita cities, compared with the higher GDP per capita cities. In very low GDP per capita cities, the public sector represents 28% of the economy, the largest proportion of GDP per capita across all economic groupings.

The service sector is much larger in cities with medium to very high city GDP per capita, comprising almost one-third of the economy. Additionally, the size of the business services industry as a proportion of the overall economy increases as city GDP increases, ranging from approximately 20% of the economy in poorer cities to 30% of the economy in wealthier ones. Higher levels of financial activity in these cities may, in some cases, mean there is more opportunity for climate action in the finance sector.

2

Green industries and clean technology companies are cross-cutting the traditional sectors in the above graph.


180

Figure 9.4: Wealthier cities can raise finance for investment with the aid of their own credit rating Proportion of cities that have their own credit rating, by city GDP per capita. 100% % of cities with a credit rating

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita No

Yes

Based on responses from 39 cities.

64% of cities reported that they have a credit rating for the city, indicating they may be able to raise capital on their own through financial markets.

C40 city responses indicate that credit ratings are correlated with wealth. The majority of cities with a credit rating sit within the top three city GDP per capita groups according to the methodology of this report.3

3

See Methodology Chapter.


181

Figure 9.5: Latin America leads on number of actions in green industry Finance & Economic Development by action area in cities, by region. 100%

% uptake of initiatives by cities

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Low-carbon infrastructure finance

Promotion of green industry clusters

Supporting clean tech clusters Based on responses from 45 cities.

The relative distribution of reported action across the three major areas within Finance & Economic Development – green tech clusters, green industries, and financial instruments – are similar across cities all regions, except for Latin America.

Cities in Latin America reported that 40% of their Finance & Economic Development actions pertain to promoting green industries and supporting clean tech clusters. This is in comparison to an average of 21% for all other regions across the C40, indicating that Latin American cities are seriously considering how tackling climate change can benefit their economies.


182

Figure 9.6: Wealthier cities show more established finance action Scale of actions, by city GDP per capita. 100% 90% 80%

% of actions by scale

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

GDP per capita Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 38 cities.

Cities in the very low and medium city GDP per capita groups have a large proportion of actions currently at the pilot or proposal stage.

Cities with high or very high city GDP per capita are the most likely to be implementing actions at a transformative scale.

More than two-thirds of actions in cities with medium GDP per capita are currently at a proposed stage in the implementation lifecycle.


183

Figure 9.7: Cities are taking action at different scales around the world Scale of city by regional average. 100% 90%

% of actions by scale

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 39 cities.

There is a large degree of regional variation in the scale of actions in the Finance & Economic Development sector.

94% of actions underway in Africa are currently at the pilot or proposed stage.

Cities in East Asia have reported all actions at transformative or significant scale.


184

Figure 9.8: Procurement practices are not widely used by cities to deliver finance action Levers used to deliver action, by city GDP per capita. 100% 90% 80%

% of actions by lever

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Very low

Low

Medium

High

Very high

GDP per capita Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 40 cities.

Regardless of GDP, projects/programmes are the most common lever used to deliver actions, with policies and regulations the second most common approach. The exception is cities with medium GDP per capita, where policy and regulation is the most common lever.

Procurement is the least commonly used lever across all GDP groups, and the least common within all groups except for those with medium city GDP per capita.


185

Figure 9.9: Actions in the Finance & Economic Development sector are delivered using different levers around the world % of actions by lever and region. 100% 90% 80% % of actions by lever

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 40 cities.

Projects/Programmes is the most commonly used lever for actions across all regions except East Asia, and South and West Asia, where the use of policy and regulation is more common.

Cities in Africa and South & West Asia deliver actions exclusively through projects and programmes as well as policies and regulations.

9.5 Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers C40 cities have mixed powers in the Finance & Economic Development sector, with a high number exerting strong power over property or municipal taxes as well as business taxes and economic development. The top three actions (clean tech clusters, green industry and green manufacturing) suggest that cities are using their powers to promote a low-carbon economy. Further key findings linking climate actions to mayoral powers:


186

Table 9.2: Ten most commonly reported actions, by degree of mayoral power and type of lever

1 Supporting clean tech  clusters 2 Promoting green industry  clusters

24 21

3 Green manufacturing 

17

4 Loans

16

5 ESCo financing

12

6 Fiscal Incentives

11

7 Multilateral/bilateral climate funds

10

8 Revolving funds

9

9 Adaptation infrastructure finance

9

10 CDM/JI

6

Most common actions in Finance

Procurement

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Project/Programme

Limited power

Partial power

Strong power

Asset/function

Number of cities taking action

Action

Cities are using their powers to promote a low-carbon economy.

Economic development Economic development Economic development Borrow from regional/ national government no one particular power needed Property or municipal tax Borrow from regional/ national government no one particular power needed no one particular power needed no one particular power needed Number of cities that have power over these actions

Levers used to deliver these actions

Based on responses from 57 cities.

•

Cities report an even mix of power (from limited to strong) over the ability to borrow from national governments through multilateral/bilateral climate funds.

•

Cities have access to a variety of financing mechanisms, including property or municipal taxes, business taxes, bonds, capital borrowing, and financing through municipal banks. It is unclear, however, the extent to which certain financial mechanisms are associated with specific climate change action. This is an area of future study for the C40.

•

A high number of cities have set up their own investment funds, suggesting cities are seeking to establish stable, on-going funding sources to support climate change action.


187

128 In the future cities plan to expand on 128 current actions.

9.6 Future Climate Actions Figure 9.10: Green economic development remains a top priority Top ten actions. Supporting clean tech clusters

20 20 of these actions are to support clean tech clusters.

Promoting green industry clusters Green manufacturing ESCo financing Loans Fiscal incentives Multilateral/Bilateral climate funds Adaptation infrastructure finance CDM/JI Revolving funds

Number of actions Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 39 cities.

•

Cities are placing a strong emphasis on green businesses (e.g. clean tech clusters and green industry) to encourage future economic growth: over half of the total actions currently associated with economic development are in the pilot stage.

•

When pilot totals are combined with reported actions in the proposal stage, C40 cities report that 58% of all actions still have considerable room to scale. This indicates that C40 cities plan to continue prioritising support for clean tech clusters, green industry and green manufacturing.

•

ESCo financing, loans and fiscal incentives were reported as the most commonly used form of financing for future and planned low-carbon infrastructure actions in cities.


189

SECTION 10

Sustainable Communities 10.1

Key Results

190

Mayoral Powers

192

10.2

Introduction

10.4

Climate Actions

193

10.4.2

Community-Scale Development in Detail

202

10.4.4

Food and Agriculture in Detail

215

10.3

10.4.1

10.4.3

10.5

10.6

Overview

Information Communication Technology (ICT) in Detail Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers

193 210

217

Future Climate Actions

219

Information Communication Technology (ICT)

220

10.6.1

Sustainable Community Development

10.6.3

Food and Agriculture

10.6.2

191

219

221


190

10.1 KEY RESULTS

1,024 Cities report pursuing a total of 1,024 community-scale development actions, including a total of 176 actions to reduce emissions from the food and agriculture sector and 348 information communication technology actions, averaging almost 9 actions per reporting city.

78% 78% of cities intend to expand community-scale development actions already in progress.

41% 41% of cities state that smart public transport will be an area for future development.

26% 26% of cities own/ operate their wireless communication infrastructure; and 71% of cities employ a dedicated individual responsible for ICT across the city.


191

10.2 INTRODUCTION As cities continue to grow and evolve, they must balance economic vitality, liveability, and resource constraints, while facing the impacts of climate change – an ever-increasing challenge. Insights into integrated urban planning, enhancements in information technology, and progress in establishing stronger local food sources are key factors in making communities more sustainable, healthier, and more successful. For the purposes of this report, the Sustainable Communities section has been split into three main categories, outlined in the summary below.

1. Community-Scale Development

Sustainable community development: Actions that encourage ‘compact city’ and eco district development strategies; promote low-carbon industries, support brownfield redevelopment, and foster transit oriented development.

Land use & the environment:

Actions facilitating urban agriculture, increasing green space, protecting green and open spaces from development, and preserving and improving biodiversity and natural assets.

Standards for the built environment:

Actions that establish building codes and/or standards for new commercial and industrial buildings and new houses.

2. Information Communications Technology (ICT)

‘Smart’ interventions: Actions that employ information technology to increase efficiency and effectiveness of public transport, energy supply and use, as well as emergency response systems. Internet connectivity: Actions that are related to the improvement of and increased use of real-time information and wide access to the internet.

3. Food & Agriculture

Sustainable Agriculture: Actions that encourage sustainable agriculture, and using city spaces for agricultural purposes.


192

10.3 MAYORAL POWERS Figure 10.1: C40 cities have strong power over parks and land use planning1. Number of cities with strong and partial powers over community-scale development assets/functions, by types of power. Types of power Food & Agriculture

Assets/functions Community allotments/gardens Farmers’ markets Commercial urban food production

Wireless internet communication infrastructure ICT

Internet communications infrastructure Mobile telecommunication network

Community-scale Development

Local parks and open space Land use planning Redevelopment/regeneration Environmental impact assessment Air quality management Regional parks and nature reserves Own/operate Strong power

Set/enforce policies

Control budget

Set vision

Partial power

A high number of C40 cities exert power over local parks and open space, land use planning and redevelopment/regeneration, three key assets and functions that are essential to driving long term change in the urban environment of cities.

Just under one-half of C40 cities exert strong and partial powers over environmental impact assessments, air quality management and regional parks.

Given the high degree of city control and influence, Community-scale Development is a sector where C40 cities are positioned to make a real impact.

Few cities exert direct control over ICT; this is primarily due to that fact the most ICT infrastructure is privately managed and regulated at the national level.

1

In this chapter, Own/Operate denotes having responsibility for carrying out the function.


193

Cities report the highest level of power to establish community allotments and gardens (about three-quarters of C40 cities own or operate and/or set or enforce).

Few cities are directly engaged in commercial urban food production.

10.4 Climate Actions

1,562 Cities report 1,562 actions in Sustainable Communities.

This section presents the data collected from C40 cities on their climate actions in the Sustainable Communities, ICT, and Food & Agriculture sectors. Key areas of analysis include: scale of actions, regional and economic trends, mayoral powers over key assets and functions, and the levers used to implement action The C40 survey posed a total of 44 questions in Sustainable Communities, 17 in ICT, and 8 in Food & Agriculture; more information on the survey is provided in the Appendix.

10.4.1 OVERVIEW 10.4.1.1 Community-scale Development overview Figure 10.2: Planning for the future: C40 cities are implementing over 350 actions on Sustainable Community Development2. Number and scale of community-scale development actions, by action area. Sustainable community development Land use & the environment Standards for the built environment

Number of actions Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 54 cities.

The scale of actions is similar across the three action areas, with a trend towards more significant or transformative actions rather than pilot or proposed actions. This suggests that cities have reached a maturation point with many wellestablished actions and practices that can be shared among the C40 network.

Transformative actions are most frequently related to land use and the environment.

Standards for the built environment are the least common actions at both transformative and pilot scales.

The introduction refers to the most common single actions, this section encompasses all the actions associated with the Sustainable Community Development action area as a whole.

2


194

Figure 10.3: Top five most frequently reported community-scale development actions HVAC efficiency standards Environmental impact assessment Tree planting Lighting efficiency standards Energy performance rating for new buildings

Number of actions Based on responses from 54 cities.

Implementing HVAC efficiency standards is the most common action in this area.

Three of the top five most frequent actions are focused on improving energy consumption in buildings.

Figure 10.4: Cities are implementing community-scale development strategies citywide Scale of community-scale development actions, by region. 100% 90%

% of actions by scale

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

South & West Asia

Southeast Asia & Oceania

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 47 cities.

66% of all reported community-scale development actions are significant or transformative, making it one of the most established sectors in this report.

Cities in Africa, East Asia, and North America report that between 59-69% of their actions are transformative or significant.


195

Figure 10.5: The power of building codes in Sustainable Communities Levers used by cities to deliver action in the Community-Scale Development sector, by region. 100% 90%

% of actions by scale

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

South & West Asia

Based on responses from 52 cities.

Half of all community scale development actions are delivered using regulatory levers.

Policy/regulation is the most frequently used lever across C40 cities. Except for in South & West Asia, cities in all regions of the world rely on this approach to achieve around half of the actions they deliver.

Southeast Asia & Oceania


196

Southeast Asia & Oceania

North America

Latin America

Europe

Assets/Functions

East Asia

Africa

Average Mayoral Powers, by Region.

South & West Asia

Table 10.1: Cities in Africa and East Asia have the strongest power over Community-Scale Development

Local parks and open space Land use planning Redevelopment/regeneration Environmental impact assessment Air quality management Regional parks and nature reserves

Strong power

Partial power

Limited power

No data or N/A

Based on responses from 57 cities.

Across all regions, mayors in C40 cities have strong power over local parks and open space, land use planning and redevelopment/regeneration.

Cities in East Asia and Africa tend to have stronger levels of direct control as compared to their counterparts in other regions.

On average, cities tend to have less power to directly control environmental impact assessments, air quality management and regional parks.


197

10.4.1.2 ict overview Figure 10.6: Smart technologies are taking the lead in the ICT space Number and scale of action on ICT, by action area. ICT connectivity

SMART interventions

Number of actions Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 35 cities.

More C40 cities report piloting SMART interventions over enhancing ICT connectivity. This reveals cities’ strong and growing interest in utilising real-time data to manage city operations.

There are currently as many smart actions proposed or in the pilot phase in C40 cities as there are at transformative scale, revealing a great opportunity to share experiences across the entire network and to build consensus around the best practices and standards.

The number of actions adopted by cities varies by region; from an average of three actions per city in African and Southeast Asia & Oceania cities, to an average of eight actions per city in Europe.

Figure 10.7: Top five most frequently reported ICT actions Increasing wireless hotspots Increasing access to internet connection Increasing public access to computers Smart card ticketing Real-time information on routes and availability

Number of cities taking action Based on responses from 31 cities.

Increasing C40 citizens’ access to internet is the most common action, both through increasing the number of hotspots in cities as well as providing public access to computers.

Modernising public transport ticketing and travel information is also some of the most frequently cited actions amongst C40 cities, with 84% of reporting cities taking action on smart ticketing.


198

Figure 10.8: Smart city action is expanding fastest at the extremes – in the wealthiest and poorest cities Scale of actions in the ICT sector, by city GDP per capita. 100% 90%

% of actions by scale

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 32 cities.

•

Cities with very low and very high GDP per capita, have the most emerging actions, currently being piloted or proposed.


199

Figure 10.9: City ICT programmes are prevalent in every region except East Asia Levers used to deliver actions on ICT, by region. 100% 90%

% of actions by lever

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

South & Southeast West Asia Asia & Oceania

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 38 cities.

Incentives are rarely used to promote ICT, regardless of region.

Cities in East Asia are most likely to approach ICT through policy and regulation.

80% of actions in Southeast Asia & Oceania and South & West Asia are implemented through projects and programmes.

Table 10.2: Across all regions, cities have only partial or limited power over ICT

Southeast Asia & Oceania

South & West Asia

North America

Latin America

Europe

Assets/Functions

East Asia

Africa

Average Mayoral Powers, by Region.

Wireless internet communication infrastructure Internet communications infrastructure Mobile telecommunication network

Strong power

Partial power

Limited power

No data or N/A

Based on responses from 57 cities.

There is little difference in powers held over the three assets/functions within the ICT sector; on average, no region is exerting strong power in this sector.


200

10.4.1.3 food & agriculture overview Figure 10.10: Digging for victory: 32 C40 cities have programmes to support community gardens or allotments

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of actions, taken by cities on sustainable agriculture, including levers used to deliver those actions.

9%

18%

6%

68%

Community gardens or allotments

11%

4%

4%

81%

Farmers’ markets

4%

8%

12%

77%

Promote organic/sustainable farming

15%

5%

0%

80%

Commercial urban food production

15%

35%

10%

40%

Promote reduction in application of pesticides and chemical fertilizers

22%

6%

6%

67%

Local farmer cooperatives

8%

17%

0%

75%

Rooftop gardening

14%

29%

14%

43%

Vertical farming

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Number of cities taking action Based on responses from 32 cities.

The development of community gardens or allotments is occurring at a transformative or significant scale in 56% of reporting cities.

Support for local farmer cooperatives is a growing area for action, with 12 cities currently in the pilot or proposal stage.

A total of 24 cities are taking action on promoting organic/sustainable farming, with 54% reporting action in the pilot or proposed phases.

Agricultural initiatives, such as vertical farming and rooftop gardening, are emerging, but are not yet scaled significantly in the majority of cities.


201

Figure 10.11: Urban agriculture is an emerging opportunity in East Asia, but it is highly developed in African and European C40 cities Scale of actions to encourage sustainable agriculture, by region. 100% 90%

% actions by scale

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

South & West Asia

Southeast Asia & Oceania

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 37 cities.

Cities in Africa have introduced few actions to encourage sustainable agriculture, however, 80% of these are currently at a significant scale, with the remainder occurring at a transformative (citywide) scale.

78% of actions in East Asian cities are in the pilot phase. No actions have yet been scaled up to the citywide level.

Figure 10.12: Projects/Programmes are the most common lever used to deliver actions in the Food and Agriculture sector Levers used to deliver actions to encourage sustainable agriculture.

Incentive/Disincentive Policy/Regulation Procurement Project/Programme Based on responses from 34 cities.

Cities most commonly deliver actions through projects/programmes.

Incentives/disincentives are most frequently used to promote the creation of local farmer cooperatives.


202

Southeast Asia & Oceania

South & West Asia

North America

Latin America

Europe

Assets/Functions

East Asia

Africa

Table 10.3: Africa is the only region with strong power over Food and Agriculture

Community allotments/gardens Farmers’ markets Commercial urban food production

Strong power

Partial power

Limited power

No data or N/A

Based on responses from 57 cities.

•

The only region reporting strong power over the food and agriculture sector is Africa.

10.4.2 Community-scale Development in detail The Community-Scale Development sector includes three distinct but closely related action areas: sustainable community development; land use and the environment; and standards for the built environment.


203

10.4.2.1 Sustainable community development

Procurement

Project/Programme

Type, number and scale of actions, taken by cities on sustainable community actions, including levers used to deliver those actions.

Policy/Regulation

12%

50%

6%

32%

Expand transit to support current development

12%

41%

0%

47%

Using current transportation infrastructure projects as potential for new development

12%

45%

6%

36%

Encourage new development to be in transit strong areas

10%

62%

0%

28%

Restricting parking spaces in new development

7%

45%

0%

48%

Reducing private vehicle transit

4%

70%

0%

26%

Developing underused areas

9%

57%

4%

30%

New buildings developed within compact city framework

0%

26%

0%

74%

Support eco districts

0%

83%

0%

17%

Minimum density requirements

6%

29%

6%

59%

Strategic adaptation of current unused buildings for new purposes

14%

71%

0%

14%

Density bonus for new developments

0%

67%

0%

33%

Smaller, more efficient offices (office planning)

11%

28%

0%

61%

District heating/cooling

11%

39%

6%

44%

District electricity generation

6%

31%

0%

63%

Supporting sustainable infrastructure parks

0%

63%

0%

38%

Zoning land to encourage low-carbon industries

0%

35%

4%

61%

Support brownfield redevelopment

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 51 cities.

Delivering an Eco district development strategy

Delivering a ‘compact city’ strategy

Transit oriented development

Transformative (citywide)

Encouraging low-carbon industries

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 10.13: C40 cities plan for improved urban mobility based on mass transit

a1

Number of cities taking action a1 = Supporting Brownfield redevelopment

Over half of responding cities (27 of 51) have measures in place to site new development in zones with strong mass transit connections.


204

30 cities are expanding existing mass transit to serve the needs of new development.

Only 13 cities currently reward developers for increasing density levels in new developments.

Figure 10.14: Cities in every C40 region are using development to address climate change Average number of community-scale actions, by GDP per capita and scale.

Average number of actions per city

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 41 cities.

High GDP per capita cities have the greatest number and proportion of actions that are transformative, accounting for 55% of their total actions.


205

10.4.2.2 Land use & the environment Figure 10.15: 80% of C40 cities have identified major regeneration sites in their city Average area of green space available in cities, per capita.   0 – 1 m2 greenspace/capita   1 – 5 m2 greenspace/capita   5 – 15 m2 greenspace/capita 15 – 25 m2 greenspace/capita 25 m2+ greenspace/capita Based on responses from 52 cities.

Almost two-thirds of C40 cities have an average of 5 – 15 m2 of green space per capita.

Nearly a quarter of cities have less than 1 m2 of green space per capita.

BIODIVERSITY AND TREE PLANTING FOCUS Jakarta has a target to plant 50,000 trees every year. Changwon has a target to plant 10 million trees by 2020; over 3 million had already been planted by 2011. More than 1 million trees were planted in São Paulo within the last 4 years. Seoul has released 6,000 fireflies and 130,904 amphibians and reptiles into the city to improve biodiversity. The greenbelt around Toronto is a permanently protected area of green space, farmland, forests, wetlands, and watersheds, created by legislation passed by the Government of Ontario. The greenbelt is over 1.8 million acres and is protected strongly by legislation. In 2006, the Mayor of Los Angeles launched the Million Trees LA (MTLA) initiative. The MTLA initiative is a partnership between community groups, businesses, and citizens. As of 2013 it had resulted in the planting of more than 400,000 new trees throughout the city, without relying on direct funding from the city’s general fund. Austin has an Urban Forest Plan to protect and develop the city’s tree cover. Through cost-benefit analysis the city has calculated that the urban forest provides millions of dollars annually in social, economic and environmental benefits to the community, and enhances the quality of life for Austin residents.


206

Procurement

Project/Program

Number and scale of actions, taken by cities on land use & environment, including levers used to deliver those actions. Policy/Regulation

0%

32%

2%

66%

Tree planting

3%

40%

3%

54%

Conservation efforts for natural areas

6%

35%

6%

52%

Ecological corridor support

3%

23%

3%

70%

Reforestation

0%

75%

4%

21%

Environmental Impact Assessment of new development

0%

19%

4%

77%

Stewardship of existing current open spaces

0%

51%

10%

39%

Large scale green and open space within city

3%

48%

7%

41%

Greenbelts

9%

35%

4%

52%

Home gardens/garden plots

10%

37%

11%

53%

Convert former landfills into parkland

8%

25%

8%

58%

Opening schoolyards for public use

25%

38%

0%

38%

Fees to access city green space/parks

13%

19%

6%

63%

Rooftop and vertical gardens

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 51 cities.

Protecting green and open spaces from development

Preservation and improvement of biodiversity and natural assets

Transformative (citywide)

Increasing green space

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 10.16: Urban green: 84% of reporting cities have tree planting programmes and 80% are delivering large-scale open space

a1

Number of cities taking action a1 = Facilitating urban agriculture

Stewardship of existing open spaces is occurring at a transformative or significant level in 71% of reporting cities taking this action.


207

URBAN GREEN SPACE FOCUS The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends a minimum of 9 m2 of green space per capita3. The area of green space in a city also influences the urban heat island effect and the risk of high urban temperatures4. However 77% of C40 cities currently report green space per capita ratios below the WHO minimum recommendation.

18% of reporting C40 cities report that the green space in their city has grown in the last 2 years.

72%

72% of C40 cities report that the green space in their city has stayed the same in the last 2 years.

10%

10% of C40 cities report that the green space in their city has reduced in the last 2 years.

‘How much green space does your city have?’, Sustainable Cities Network, July 13 2011, (http://blog.sustainablecities. net/2011/07/13/how-many-metres-of-green-space-does-your-city-have/) Urban heat risk is discussed in Climate Adaptation in detail section of the Apdaptation & Water chapter p173.

3

4

18%


208

10.4.2.3 Standards for the built environment

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of actions, taken by cities on standards for the build environment, including levers used to deliver those actions.

Policy/Regulation

13%

65%

0%

23%

Energy performance rating for new buildings

26%

59%

0%

15%

Lighting efficiency standards

9%

70%

4%

17%

Environmental impact assessment

23%

59%

0%

18%

HVAC efficiency standards

18%

47%

6%

29%

Appliance efficiency standards

13%

33%

0%

53%

Green community rating system EEDND,GreenStar, Enterprise Communities, etc.

0%

77%

11%

11%

Require connection to district heating/cooling

10%

69%

0%

21%

Energy performance rating for new buildings

9%

70%

0%

22%

Lighting efficiency standards

5%

80%

0%

15%

Environmental impact assessment

16%

68%

0%

16%

HVAC efficiency standards

15%

62%

0%

23%

Appliance efficiency standards

30%

10%

0%

60%

Green community rating system EEDND,GreenStar, Enterprise Communities, etc.

11%

67%

11%

11%

Require connection to district heating/cooling

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 51 cities.

Building codes and/or standards for new residential buildings

Transformative (citywide)

Building codes and/or standards for new commercial and industrial buildings

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 10.17: Raising the bar: cities are increasingly setting tougher standards for new buildings

Number of cities taking action

•

More than half of C40 cities reports using building codes to raise standards, but most of these efforts are still in the pilot or planning stage.

•

For both commercial/industrial and residential buildings, the most common actions are related to building energy performance rating, with both the highest number of existing transformative actions and emerging actions currently at the pilot stage.


209

Figure 10.18: Cities in Asia lead the way in number of built environment actions Average number and scale of built environment actions in cities, by region.

Average number of actions per city

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 Africa

East Asia

Europe

Latin America

North America

South & West Asia

Southeast Asia & Oceania

Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 46 cities.

South & West Asian cities are implementing significantly more action in the built environment than the average city across all regions. Most of these actions are at a significant scale.

Although Latin American cities reported the fewest transformative or significant actions, they did report the greatest proportion of proposed actions; 62% of actions in the built environment are proposed and awaiting approval, which indicates this is an area of focus within the region.


210

10.4.3 Information Communication Technology (ICT) in detail Figure 10.19: Wealthiest and poorest cities are implementing action using similar tools Levers used to deliver ICT actions in C40 cities, by GDP per capita. 100% 90% 80%

% actions by lever

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 33 cities.

Projects and programmes are the most common approach to ICT actions, accounting for more than 60% of total ICT actions.

As GDP per capita increases, the uptake of projects and programmes also increases, while policy and regulatory levers decrease in frequency. This trend is countered where cities reach a very high level of GDP per capita, when the use of policy and regulatory measures sharply increase and projects/programmes decrease.


211

10.4.3.1 Smart Interventions

Procurement

Project/Programme

Number and scale of actions, taken by cities on smart actions, including levers used to deliver those actions.

Policy/Regulation

4%

31%

4%

62%

Smart card ticketing

0%

28%

8%

64%

Real-time information on routes and availability

5%

21%

0%

74%

Matching systems for carpooling

6%

24%

12%

59%

Bike scheme systems that track availability of bikes and locations for drop off

0%

0%

7%

93%

Apps for real time bike and pedestrian routes

7%

21%

0%

71%

Charging station mapping and availability

0%

55%

0%

45%

Tel-commuting/flexible work schedules

38%

13%

0%

50%

Road pricing that’s responsive to real time information

0%

22%

17%

61%

Smart street lighting

10%

24%

19%

48%

Smart meters/controls

5%

19%

19%

57%

Smart Grids

6%

31%

6%

56%

Smart street lighting

0%

31%

6%

63%

Smart meters/controls

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 26 cities.

SMART energy

SMART public transport

Transformative (citywide)

SMART Emergency Response

Incentive/Disincentive

Figure 10.20: 44% of C40 cities have smart card mass transit ticketing

Number of cities taking action

Cities report using real-time data most frequently to support smart public transport, including smart card ticketing, which is also the most frequently reported transformative smart action.

The prevalence of smart energy initiatives is increasing in C40 cities, with a high number of initiatives currently in the pilot or proposal stage.


212

Figure 10.21: C40 Mayors are largely delivering smart city projects where they have direct control of assets Levers used to deliver smart actions in C40 cities. Smart public transport

Smart Energy

Smart Emergency Response

Number of actions Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 32 cities.

The distribution of levers used, as a percentage of actions reported, is very similar across public transport, energy, and emergency response, with a significant majority of smart actions implemented via projects/programmes.

The only outlier to overall distribution appears in Smart Energy, where there is greater focus on delivering action through procurement rather than projects. Approximately, 18% of actions are delivered through procurement versus 9% for public transport and 3% for emergency response. This may be due to the fact that many cities do not have direct ownership of energy supplies and cannot deliver direct projects and programmes.


213

Figure 10.22: Will the southern hemisphere deliver the first truly smart city?

10

100%

9

90%

8

80%

7

70%

6

60%

5

50%

4

40%

3

30%

2

20%

1

10%

0

0% Very Low

Low

Medium

High

% of citizens with access to the internet

Average number of actions

Average number of actions, compared with level of access to internet, by GDP per capita.

Very High

GDP per capita Improving ICT connectivity

SMART Emergency Response

SMART Energy

SMART public transport

Internet access Based on responses from 33 cities.

Rather than the wealthiest cities in North America and Europe, it is the medium GDP cities that lead the pack in delivering smart city actions.

In the medium, high and very high GDP groups, smart public transport is the most common action area across the ICT sector. In very low and low GDP groups, there is greater focus on improving ICT connectivity.

There is a correlation between the existing level of internet connectivity in cities, and the total number of actions being taken across the ICT sector. This is true for the all GDP groups except for cities with medium city GDP per capita.


214

10.4.3.2 Internet Connectivity Figure 10.23: Cities focus on enabling public internet access Actions and levers used to improve ICT connectivity. Increasing wireless hotspots Increasing public access to computers Increasing access to internet connection Increasing mobile phone coverage

Number of cities taking action Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Procurement

Project/Programme

Based on responses from 25 cities.

The most commonly reported action is increasing the number of wireless hotspots in the city.

Increasing mobile phone coverage is the least common focus reported for city government action on ICT connectivity.


215

Figure 10.24: There is still massive potential to increase internet connectivity across the C40 Access to the internet from home or work in cities, by GDP per capita. 90%

Average % internet access

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita Based on responses from 34 cities.

•

Cities in the medium to high GDP range reported that at least 75% of their city has access to the internet from home or work.

•

Levels of internet access for lower GDP cities suggest that there is significant potential to improve connectivity.

10.4.4 food AND agriculture in detail Figure 10.25: C40 cities are beginning to focus on mitigating food risks Food related targets of C40 cities. Does the city have a target for reducing food miles, or encouraging local food production?

Does the city have a resilience or self-sufficiency target for food? 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% of cities responding Yes

No

Based on responses from 34 cities.

•

Nearly half of reporting cities focus on increasing the volume of food produced locally, or reducing the carbon emissions related to food transportation (food miles). Approximately 30% of C40 cities are setting targets to improve the resilience of their food supply chains, or to move towards food self-sufficiency. Both present opportunities for growth in the future within C40 cities.

100


216

Figure 10.26: Wealthier cities are less food self-sufficient

% of city land

% of food production compared to local food use in C40 cities. 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Very Low

Low

Medium

High

Very High

GDP per capita What % of the city land is devoted to food production? What proportion of food consumed within the city is grown within the administrative boundaries of the city? Based on responses from 22 cities.

Higher GDP per capita cities tend to devote very little land to agricultural production and so may be largely reliant on food imports.

An average of 9% of city land is devoted to food production, though the proportion is higher in cities in Southeast Asia and Oceania, where 29% of land is used for food production.

On average only 2% of food consumed within C40 cities is produced within the city boundaries. This ratio is higher in African cities, where 8% of food consumed may be sourced from within the city.


217

10.5 Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers Table 10.4 – Cities use their planning approval power to ensure new residential buildings are more efficient

  1 Tree planting  2L  arge scale green and  open space within city  3C  onservation efforts for natural areas

45

Pavements/sidewalks

41

Land use planning

36

 4C  ommunity gardens  or allotments

34

Regional parks and nature reserves No one particular power needed

  5 Using current transportation infrastructure projects as 34 potential for new development   6 Expand transit to support current development  7R  educe leakages in  water supply

Procurement

Incentive/Disincentive

Policy/Regulation

Project/Programme

Limited power

Partial power

Land use planning

34

Land use planning

34

Water supply and distribution

 8E  xpand transit to support  34 current development   9 Using current transportation infrastructure projects 34 as potential for new development 10 E  ncourage new development to be in transit strong areas

Strong power

Relevant asset/ Function

Number of cities taking action

Action

The strength of power and levers used to deliver the ten most commonly reported actions in Sustainable Communities5.

Land use planning Land use planning

33

Land use planning

Most common actions in Sustainable Communities

Number of cities that have power over these actions

Levers used to deliver these actions

Based on responses from 57 cities.

A high number of C40 cities exert power over local parks and open space, land use planning and redevelopment/regeneration, particularly the ability to carry these functions out, set policies and vision. Comparing actions to powers, some findings can be drawn:

As half of community-scale actions are delivered using regulatory levers – a higher proportion than in any other sector – it is clear that powers over policy setting and enforcement are the most relevant to driving change.

More than 40 cities have power over local parks and open space and more than 40 cities have tree planting programmes .

Cities are taking strong action in transit oriented development and compact city strategy, using their planning and regeneration powers.

5

Including actions from all sector within Sustainable Communities (Community-Scale Development, ICT and, Food and Agriculture.


218

For half of the most common actions, cities have a fairly even mix of strength of power. In the case of conservation efforts for natural areas, most cities only have limited power, and only 11 have strong power.

Tree planting is the action over which cities overwhelmingly have strong power. Two-thirds of cities deliver these actions directly through projects and programmes.

Cities have been very active in implementing projects or programmes around smart initiatives; this suggests cities are using either their influence over policy or vision or their power over other assets (such as buses) to drive action.

The majority of actions in ICT are related to transport actions, for example, smart car ticketing and real time information on routes and availability; mass transit is also an area where cities enjoy strong power.

The most common actions in food and agriculture relate to community allotments and gardens and farmers’ markets, two areas where many cities report having strong and partial powers.

Actions in food and agriculture tend to be delivered through projects and programmes, as opposed to policy or regulation, suggesting that cities may be directly involved in funding the development of allotments and farmers’ markets.

Cities with control over land use are better able to allocate land to food and agriculture functions. Although cities tend not to have targets for food self-sufficiency, they can use their power over land use to promote these kinds of initiatives.


219

10.6 Future Climate Actions

10.6.1 Sustainable Community Development Figure 10.27: Ratings and standards continue to be the greatest areas for future action Most common community-scale development actions proposed for future expansion or introduction in C40 cities, compared with existing scale of implementation. Energy performance rating for new buildings Lighting efficiency standards Tree planting HVAC efficiency standards Environmental impact assessment Expand transit to support current development Large scale green and open space within city Conservation efforts for natural areas Reforestation Environmental Impact Assessment of new development Using current transportation infrastructure projects as potential for new development Encourage new development to be in transit strong areas Ecological corridor support Reducing private vehicle transit Greenbelts

Number of cities planning to expand action Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 45 cities.

78% of C40 cities reported that they intend to further expand the communityscale development actions they have begun.

Building energy performance ratings have the greatest scale of existing implementation and the highest number of proposed actions.


220

10.6.2 Information Communication Technology (ICT) Figure 10.28: Public access to the internet continues to be a key priority for cities going forward Top ten most common ICT actions proposed for future expansion or introduction in C40 cities, compared with existing scale of implementation. Increasing public access to computers Real-time information on routes and availability Increasing wireless hotspots Smart card ticketing Increasing access to internet connection Smart Grids Smart street lighting Smart meters/controls Real-time information on flooding, heat, etc. Increasing mobile phone coverage

Number of cities planning to expand action Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 21 cities.

Increasing citizens’ access to computers and the internet is expected to gain significant momentum across C40 cities in the future, with the highest number of actions already in place or planned in these areas.

Improving smart public transport is expected to be a continuing trend going forward, particularly the roll out of real time traffic information and smart ticketing.

Smart grid systems are anticipated to gain increasing attention from C40 cities.


221

10.6.3 Food and Agriculture Figure 10.29: Supporting farmers is recognised as vital Most common food actions proposed for future expansion or introduction in C40 cities, compared with existing scale of implementation. Community gardens or allotments Farmers’ markets Promote organic/sustainable farming Local farmer cooperatives Rooftop gardening Promote reduction in application of pesticides and chemical fertilizers Commercial urban food production Vertical farming

Number of cities planning to expand action Transformative (citywide)

Significant (across most of the city)

Pilot (being tested)

Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

Based on responses from 28 cities.

Development of community gardens or allotments is the action most commonly cited for future expansion or introduction.

A large number of C40 cities plan to continue or expand farmers’ markets and promote sustainable farming practices.

Fewer than half of C40 cities envisage rooftop gardening or commercial urban food production becoming prevalent in the future.


223

SECTION 11

Methodology 11.1

11.2

Scope of Climate Action in Megacities 2.0

Data Collection

225

Data Collection Process

226

Report Structure

227

11.2.1

Climate Actions Survey Content

11.2.3

Links with the CDP Questionnaire

11.2.2

11.3

224 225

226

Data Aggregation & Analysis

228

11.4.2

Building on the Baseline

228

11.4.4

Statistical Analysis

11.4

11.4.1

11.4.3

11.5

Action Hierarchy

228

City Groupings

229

Powers Analysis

232

231


224

11.1 Scope of Climate Action in Megacities 2.0

This report analyses data collected through a survey of the 63 members of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. The survey asked cities about the climate change mitigation or adaptation actions and how they are either currently implementing or planning to implement and how the power, or landscape of control and influence a mayor has over key assets and functions under his or her jurisdiction. This report is an update to the Climate Action in Megacities (CAM) 1.0 report produced in 2011. The 2011 report analysed responses from 36 of the C40 megacities to produce a baseline of climate action either already underway or proposed in each city. Version 2.0 of the report surveyed all 63 C40 cities and represents updated actions and powers data from 59 participating cities. This updated report considers 12 sectors, which formed the basis of both data collection surveys sent to each city: Adaptation Buildings Community-scale Development Energy Supply Finance & Economic Development Food & Agriculture ICT Mass Transit Outdoor Lighting Private Transport Waste Water CAM 2.0 is the culmination of this data gathering and analysis. This report builds on the CAM 1.0 analysis, is broader in scope and seeks to comprehensively review the powers that the world’s leading cities have to effect or influence climate change actions across the 13 sectors highlighted above, and to identify the methods of implementation as well as other key trends across the C40 cities network.


225

11.2 Data Collection As in 2011, CAM 2.0 is based on a survey completed by cities. C40 collected data over a six-month period between January and June 2013.

11.2.1 Climate Actions Survey Content The survey was comprised of three main groups of questions, each broken down by sector: •  Overview – Descriptive questions about the city’s characteristics, for example volume and types of waste produced in the city. •  Action – Questions about the climate actions that are underway and planned within the city; for example, whether the city is taking action to reduce waste generation in domestic buildings. Five specific questions were asked for each action:

Are you taking this action?

• Yes/No

If yes, what is the current scale of the action?

• Transformative (citywide)

• Significant (across most of the city)

• Pilot (being tested)

• Proposed (awaiting final authorisation)

What lever are you using to deliver this action?

• Policy/Regulation

• Project/Programme

• Procurement • Incentive/Disincentive

Do you plan to expand this action in the future?

• Yes/No Please describe the action.

• Free text for additional explanation (optional).

•  Powers – Questions about the extent and type of power that the city mayor has over a range of assets and/or functions, again broken down by sector.

1

See Section 5 of this chapter for details pertaining to the Mayoral Powers survey.


226

11.2.2 Data Collection Process For both the Action and Overview questions, the stages of data collection were: 1. Cities responded to a dedicated C40 survey through the CDP Cities Online Response System2. For those cities that had responded to the 2011 report (36 megacities), the online questionnaire was pre-populated with their 2011 responses3. 2. Review of survey responses by C40 and Arup, followed by clarifying or updating city responses directly through a secondary offline survey. 3. Review of final data and, where necessary, supplementary data and primary document review through desktop research. 4. For powers, the process was similar. C40 contacted each city and provided a dedicated survey across 70 city assets/functions. Desktop research was conducted where there were gaps in the data. In total, C40 has collected 1.7 million unique data points.

11.2.3 Links with the CDP QUESTIONNAIRE This report includes C40 city data collected through the CDP Cities Core Questionnaire, which was made available through the same online portal as the C40 survey. C40 city data from the Core Questionnaire was utilised in both 2013 CDP Cities publications: CDP Cities 2013: Summary Report for 110 global cities as well as the Healthier, Wealthier Cities report. Appropriate references to C40 City Data reported through the CDP platform data have been included in cases where this data is used in CAM 2.0. Otherwise, only data collected through the C40 survey is represented.

2 3

http://www.cdpcities2013.net/ See section 4.2 in this chapter for details around the question rationalisation process.


227

11.3 Report Structure In recognition that overlaps and synergies do exist between different sectors, the 12 sectors from the CAM survey have been grouped as listed below. These serve as the thematic groups for both actions and powers. Chapter

Sectors

C40 Cities

All

Comparing 2011 – 2013

All

Transport

Mass Transit Private Transport

Energy Efficiency

Buildings Outdoor Lighting

Energy Supply

Energy Supply

Waste

Waste

Adaptation & Water

Climate Adaptation Water Management

Finance & Economic Development

Finance & Economic Development

Sustainable Communities

ICT Food & Agriculture Community-scale Development

Where cross-cutting themes arise between sectors, their analysis appears in the report according to their placement in the questionnaire. For example, Waste to Energy action questions were asked within the Energy Supply section of the survey, not Waste. Cross-sector connections are highlighted in call-out boxes in all relevant chapters. Each chapter has been arranged to include the following sections: 1.  Key results, summarising the conclusions and most interesting results from the chapter. 2.  Introduction, outlining the sectors and Interventions that are relevant to the chapter, and clarifying key terms. 3.  Mayoral Powers, reporting the power that C40 mayors have over assets/ functions within a sector. 4.  Climate Actions, presenting all results from the sector Overview and Actions questions, organised by Intervention Group. 5.  Linking Climate Actions to Mayoral Powers, assessing the links between city powers and city actions. 6.  Future Climate Actions, reviewing the interventions and actions that cities are proposing for future introduction or expansion.


228

11.4 Data Aggregation & Analysis

11.4.1 Action Hierarchy The following action hierarchy was used to categorise and aggregate actions within each sector.

Figure 11.1: Data Hierarchy Sector The functions of cities and city authorities at the highest level, for which cities may have specific managing departments or agencies. e.g. Waste.

Interventions Thematic groupings of actions or tasks where cities pursue climate action across a variety of possibilities. e.g. improving landfill management or introducing smart transport systems.

Actions Individual actions that cities implement on the ground.

602

11.4.2 Building on the Baseline

Number of action questions in 2011.

The number of questions asked has been streamlined in the 2013 survey, with a 36% reduction in the number of actions questions asked as compared to 2011. Questions that received low response rates in 2011 or ones that were poorly or inconsistently answered were removed or condensed into existing questions.

444

In order to draw comparisons between the data, surveys from 2011 have been mapped on to the 2013 survey, allowing for direct comparison of the two data sets. The comparisons have also been normalised for the number of questions per sector and number of cities answering, to ensure a like-for-like comparison.

Number of action questions in 2013.


229

11.4.3 city groupings In order to facilitate analysis and to identify overarching C40 trends, the cities in this report have been grouped into a series of categories based on key characteristics. Analysis relying on these groupings have been included in the report where the results are of strong interest, and so are not used consistently throughout each chapter. To develop these groupings, cities were consecutively ordered for each classification group and split into five separate twenty percentile groups. These have then been labelled very low, low, medium, high and very high. For instance the very high population density group is the densest 20% of cities (for which density data was available). The city groupings consist of the following: •  Region – All cities have been grouped into one of seven regions according to their geographical location. These regions are:

• • • • • • •

Africa East Asia Europe Latin America North America South & West Asia Southeast Asia & Oceania

Total Population – The total number of individuals within the city.

•  Area (km2) – Area is mainly important because when combined with population it allows for assessment of density, how closely citizens must live and work to one another. •  Average population density (population/km2) – The density of people living in cities is a key driver of many city characteristics. The closer people are to each other, the less infrastructure required to transport them around. There will, however, be less land available for new, improved housing. •

 nnual city GDP ($USD) – The overall wealth of a city is useful as a means A of calculating wealth per person. It serves as a proxy for the resources available to the city government.

City CO2 e emissions (tCO2 e/yr) – The reduction of CO2e emissions is the main driver for many climate actions.

From the data points presented above, three additional city groups have been calculated for each participating city. Data associated with these typologies were either collected through the survey mechanism or identified through desktop research. Citations are included where the data was not collected from cities •

Average annual GDP per capita ($USD/person/year) – one of the most important metrics for a city, indicating the wealth of its citizens and to some extent government. Wealth is considered to be enabler of climate action.

•  CO2 e per capita (tonnes CO2 e equivalent/person) – the most important environmental metric from the point of view of assessing the impact of climate action. • ‘Carbon efficiency’ – of the economy ($USD/tonnes CO2e/year) – a metric for indicating how effective cities are at producing wealth without damaging the environment.


230

3.2 In the very low population group are 11 cities with populations less than 3.2 million.

A number of other typologies were also considered in parts of the analysis, including GDP growth rate, population growth rate, Human Development Index and cooling and heating degree days. These typologies were not found to show any significant trends or results based on the data available. The following tables provide examples of the number of cities in some of the groups, and the maximum value for cities in that grouping. For example in the very low population group are 11 cities with populations less than 3.2 million, in the very high group there are ten cities with populations between 12.2 and 25.4 million people.

Table 11.1: City Groupings Population

Population density

(Million people)

(person per km2)

Number of cities in group

Cities of population less than:

Number of cities in group

Cities of population less than:

Very High

10

25.4

5

38,900

High

10

12.2

6

18,200

Medium

10

7.2

5

8,800

Low

10

5.3

6

5,400

Very Low

11

3.2

6

2,200

GDP per capita

CO2 e per capita

(USD/person/yr)

(tCO2e/person per yr)

Number of cities in group

Cities with GDP/capita less than:

Number of cities in group

Cities with GDP/capita less than:

Very High

 9

112,200

7

7.0

High

 9

55,300

7

4.0

Medium

10

41,100

8

2.9

Low

 9

20,900

7

1.6

Very Low

10

13,700

8

1.1

GDP/CO2 e (USD/CO2e) Number of cities in group

Cities with GDP/CO2e less than:

Very High

5

76,100

High

6

35,400

Medium

5

21,500

Low

6

14,200

Very Low

6

 5,800


231

City versus Metropolitan area There are a number of ways to classify the geographic limits, or boundary, of a city. When identifying the population, GDP, area or CO2e emissions for a city, the chosen boundary will naturally affect the result. City area – reflecting the area over which the mayor has jurisdiction – is often (but not always) smaller than the metropolitan area. Different organisations, surveys and studies have taken varying approaches to determine the area to be used when gathering data. Because different data sources classify the city boundary differently, it can be challenging to identify a consistent set of base data that can be used to compare all cities across all groupings. In light of this fact, all analysis on typologies in this report should be considered to reflect broad trends based on the group classifications, and not as a collection of absolute and individual data points for cities in the C40.

11.4.4 Statistical Analysis

The 63 C40 cities CAM 2.0 presents data on the 59 C40 cities associated with the survey; it does not include information on any other cities outside the C40 network. The results or statements in this report cannot therefore be taken as representative of all cities globally.

Findings in the CAM 2.0 report have been tested for the strength of their statistical significance wherever possible. The data considered in this study are continuous (e.g. carbon emissions per capita or GDP), in which case trends can be assessed for statistical significance by analysing the correlation coefficient.


232

11.5 POWERS Analysis Powers held by each city were collected through a separate survey. Cities were asked to identify the degree of control or influence mayors exert over assets (e.g buses, municipal housing, etc.) and functions (e.g. economic development) across all the sectors addressed by this report. Powers have been categorised into 4 types for each asset or function: • Own/operate – The degree to which the ownership or operation of the asset is under the mayor’s control •  Set/enforce policies – The degree to which the mayor is responsible for establishing or enforcing policy (such as a sector strategy, standards and regulations) governing specific assets or functions •  Control budget – The degree to which the mayor has the ability to control or establish the budget for this asset or function. •  Vision – The degree to which the mayor has the ability to establish the overall vision and goals for the asset or function Respondents were asked to select the power which best describes the range of statutory, formal or official powers that most closely matches those held by the mayor. These responses were based on a fixed set of answers, which generally followed the structure shown below. Each level of power was allocated a score between 0 and 3 or not applicable (for assets/functions that don’t exist in a city, such as ports in landlocked cities). For cities where mayors are required to obtain authorisation to implement decisions from a city-level body (e.g. a city council), respondents were instructed to consider the mayors as still holding full powers. In cases where the mayor is entitled to appoint leaders to organisations that hold power over assets/functions, respondents were instructed to consider this as influence.


233

Own/Operate Score

Set/enforce policies and regulation

Score

Owns or operates asset/service

3

Sets AND enforces policies/ regulations

3

Partially owns or operates assets/service

2

Sets policies/ regulations, but does not enforce

2

Manages procurement of operator

2

Enforces, but can’t set policies/ regulation

2

Can influence operations

1

Can influence policies/ regulation or enforcement

Does not own or operate asset/service

0

Has no influence over policies/ regulation and enforcement

Not Applicable

N/A

Not Applicable

Control Budget

Score

Set Vision

Score

Controls budget for asset/function

3

Sets the vision

3

1

Has influence over budget for asset/ function

1

Can influence the vision

1

0

Has no influence over budget for asset/function

0

Has no influence over the vision

0

N/A

Not Applicable

N/A

Not Applicable

N/A

For each asset/function, an overall weighted score was also calculated. This score averaged power across the 4 types: own/operate, set/enforce policies, control budget and set vision. Weights were established for each asset/function and a thorough sensitivity analysis conducted to ensure stability in the overall power scores. The overall power scores were then segmented as follows: • Scores from 0 to less than 1 were considered to be limited power; • Scores greater than or equal to 1 and less than 2 were considered to be partial power; and • Scores greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to 3 was considered to be strong power. For all visualisations pertaining to power in this report, cities that scored a 2 or 3 over a particular asset/function are considered to have strong power. Cities that scored a 1 are considered to have limited power.


235

SECTION 12

Appendix


236

C40 Cities

East Asia

• Beijing • Changwon • Hong Kong* • Seoul*

• Shanghai • Tokyo* • Yokohama

Africa

• Addis Ababa • Cairoab

• Johannesburg* • Lagos

Europe

• Amsterdam • Athens • Barcelonab • Baselb • Berlin* • Copenhagen • Heidelbergab • Istanbul • London* • Madrid

• Milan • Moscow • Oslo • Paris • Romea • Rotterdam • Stockholm • Venice • Warsaw

Latin America

• Bogotá • Buenos Aires* • Caracas • Curitibab • Lima

• • • •

North America

• Austin • Chicago • Houston • Los Angeles • New Orleans • New York* • Philadelphia

• Portland • San Francisco • Seattle • Toronto • Vancouver • Washington, DC

Southeast Asia & Oceania

• Bangkok • Hanoi • Ho Chi Minh City • Jakarta* • Delhi NCT • Dhakaab

• Melbourne • Singapore • Sydney

South & West Asia

*Denotes C40 Steering Committee city a Denotes no data on actions b Denotes no data on powers

Mexico City Rio de Janeiro Santiago de Chile Sao Paulo

• Karachi • Mumbai


237

SurvEy

Total Number of Potential Actions

Sector

Question

Mass Transit

Improving bus infrastructure

2

Increasing the reach of bus services

2

Improving bus transit times

4

Improving bus fuel economy and reduce CO2e 6 Improving rail, metro and tram infrastructure

2

Increasing the reach of rail, metro and tram services 3 Improving rail, metro and tram transit times

1

Improving rail, metro and tram fuel economy and reduce CO2e 1

Private Transport

Improving ferries/river boat infrastructure

1

Increasing the reach of ferries/river boat services

3

Improving ferries/river boat transit times

1

Improving ferries/river boat fuel economy and Reducing their CO2e emissions

1

Promoting cycling

3

Developing cycle-friendly infrastructure

6

Promoting walking

3

Transportation demand management

8

Improving personal motor vehicle fuel economy and reduce CO2e 5 Improving the efficiency of truck freight

4

Improving truck fuel economy and reduce CO2e 4 Improving the operations of shipping ports

5

Improving the city authority fleet vehicle efficiency

1

Improving taxis/motorised rickshaw fuel economy and reduce CO2e 1

Energy Efficiency Buildings

Increasing sharing of taxis/motorised rickshaw

1

Reducing emissions from aviation

4

Energy efficiency/retrofit of public housing

8

Performance rating and reporting for public housing

6

Renewable/low-carbon on-site energy generation in public housing

8

Switching to lower-carbon fuels for public housing

5

Energy efficiency/retrofit of private housing

8

Performance rating and reporting for private housing

6

Renewable/low-carbon on-site energy generation for private housing

8

Switching to lower-carbon fuels in private housing

5

Energy efficiency/retrofit of municipal (non-housing) buildings

8

Performance rating and reporting of municipal (non-housing) buildings

6

Switching to lower-carbon fuels for municipal (non-housing) buildings

5

Energy efficiency/retrofit of commercial buildings

11


238

Sector Energy Efficiency Buildings (Cont)

Question

Total Number of Potential Actions

Performance rating and reporting of municipal (non-housing) buildings

6

Switching to lower-carbon fuels for municipal (non-housing) buildings

5

Energy efficiency/retrofit of commercial buildings

11

Performance rating and reporting for commercial buildings 6 Renewable/low-carbon on-site energy generation for commercial buildings

8

Switching to lower-carbon fuels in commercial buildings 5 Energy efficiency/retrofit of industrial buildings

11

Performance rating and reporting for industrial buildings 6

Adaptation

Energy Supply

Sustainable Communities

Internet Connectivity Technology (ICT)

Finance & Economic Development

Measures to reduce carbon emissions from industry

6

Switching to lower-carbon fuels in industry

5

Climate adaptation planning and preparation

10

Reducing flood risk

11

Reducing vulnerability to health externalities

2

Reducing vulnerability to heat stress

9

Reducing vulnerability to water stress

7

Increasing renewable/low-carbon energy generation

13

Incentives for low-carbon energy generation

5

Optimising heat generation

4

Optimising existing/new power stations

2

Delivering a ‘compact city’ strategy

7

Transit oriented development

5

Building codes and/or standards for new houses

7

Building codes and/or standards for new commercial and industrial buildings

7

Supporting brownfield redevelopment

1

Protecting green and open spaces from development

3

Increasing green space

3

Delivering an eco district development strategy

2

Encouraging low-carbon industries

2

Facilitating urban agriculture

1

Preservation and improvement of biodiversity and natural assets

6

SMART public transport

8

SMART Energy

3

SMART Emergency Response

2

Improving information communication technology connectivity 4 Low-carbon infrastructure finance

12

Supporting clean tech clusters

1

Promotion of green industries

2


239

Sector

Question

Reducing emissions from street lights

Total Number of Potential Actions 2

Outdoor Lighting

Introducing smart street lighting

4

Waste

Residential waste prevention/minimisation

5

Residential recycling and reutilisation

6

Residential organic waste management/composting

4

Commercial waste prevention/minimisation

5

Commercial waste recycling and reutilisation

5

Commercial organic waste management/composting

4

Industrial waste prevention/minimisation

6

Industrial waste recycling and reutilisation

5

Construction and demolition waste prevention/minimisation

5

Agricultural waste prevention/minimisation

1

Agricultural waste recycling and composting

1

Landfill management

5

Waste collection and transport: optimising waste collection logistics 4

Food & Agriculture Water

Waste collection and transport: segregating collection

2

Waste collection and transport: Improving the CO2e efficiency of waste collection vehicles

1

Waste collection and transport: reduce CO2e intensity of long-haul transport

4

Wastewater treatment: improving efficiency

2

Encouraging sustainable agriculture 8 Increasing sustainable water supply

7

Improving the efficiency of water consumption

7

Stormwater management

7

Energy from wastewater treatment

2


240

key terms •

Allotment An area of land that is divided into plots for cultivation by individuals from the surrounding neighbourhood.

Anaerobic digestion The use of organic waste to generate energy with the help of methane producing microbes, allowing heat and electricity to be produced and waste treated.

Benchmarking Undertaking comparisons between the amount of energy a building uses and what would be expected for a typical building of the same time. This process is used to identify and prioritise buildings for improvement.

Biogenic heating fuels Includes biomass and biogas heating fuels which can be replenished, unlike fossil fuels.

Brownfield Land that has been previously used.

Building energy generation Actions which generate energy locally within the building using technology such as solar panels.

Building energy demand reduction Actions to reduce the emissions associated with heating and powering the buildings, through actions such as insulation or more efficient lighting.

BUILDING Energy Management System (BEMS) A computer-based control system which controls and monitors the building’s mechanical and electrical equipment such as lighting, ventilation, power systems, fire systems, and security systems.

City carbon trading scheme A market-based method to reduce emissions by incentivising firms to maintain their volume of emissions within a set limit, which is regulated through tradable permits.

City community Collective term for the citizens, communities and organisations that reside within a city.

City function City functions enabling the city community to perform their daily activities and thrive. For example, the provision of energy.

City system City systems are the physical infrastructure and societal frameworks that support the delivery of the city functions. For example, low carbon energy generation system.

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, which allows a developed country with an emission reduction commitment to finance and implement an emission reduction project in developing countries.

Clean tech clusters Groups of technology providers, manufacturers and developers that co-locate for mutual benefit.


241

Climate change hazard A sudden event or gradual change, which can lead to impacts on a place or people, e.g. a severe storm or hurricane, increased or decreased precipitation, increased or decreased temperature and sea level rise.

Climate change risk The possible impact(s) that might occur as a result of exposure to hazards, e.g. flooding, which may lead to power failure.

Community energy projects Energy projects in which multiple stakeholders in the local community (residents, businesses, community groups, school etc.) are involved in delivery. Projects may include efforts such as installing new energy generation plants, setting up buyers’ schemes.

Community gardens An area of land that is set aside for collective cultivation by people from the surrounding neighbourhood.

Compact city An urban planning concept where the city community has close spatial proximity to the city functions it needs. Characteristics include high residential density with mixed land use and efficient public transport systems.

Conventional energy Energy generation using fossil fuels, “business-as-usual” technologies, systems like open cycle gas turbine power stations.

Desalinated water Water – such as sea water - that has been treated to drinking water quality by removing salt and other minerals.

District heating and cooling The supply of hot or cold water to multiple buildings via underground piping, for use in building heating or cooling.

District heating network The physical network of piping used to transport hot/cold water from the source to point of use. Systems can be a few hundred meters to many kilometres, connecting thousands of homes and businesses across a city.

Distributed power generation Power generation plants that are distributed throughout the city and closer to the point of use, rather than large utility scale power plants that connect to the national or regional power transmission network. Distributed power generation can include conventional energy generation, low-carbon generation, such as combined heat and power (CHP/trigeneration), as well as renewable energy.

Distillate fuel oil Fuels oils which burn cleaner than residual fuel oils when combusted. These are the primary output from a production process.

Domestic water use Water that is used for indoor and outdoor household purposes.

Eco district An urban planning concept integrating the principles of sustainable development to reduce the ecological footprint of a neighbourhood.

Electro-mobility The electrification of vehicles and transportation systems to reduce carbon intensity.


242

Energy Performance Certification (EPC) Statutory certificates which report the amount of energy used in the building. These can then be used when applying regulations or policies.

Energy Savings Company (ESCo) A business providing innovative financing methods to reduce the cost of energy saving investments. Building owners benefit from the energy savings and pay a fee to the ESCo in return.

Farmer cooperatives An association of farmers that collaborate in the production, transportation and/or supply of food. Cooperatives benefit from economies of scale and improved access to consumers.

Food miles The metric used to demonstrate how far food has travelled from the point of production to the point of consumption. The concept of food miles is used to describe the potential carbon impact of the food supply chain

Food processing The transformation of raw ingredients into food products, or food products into more complex products.

Fuel economy and reducing CO2 e – Ensuring that journeys are as low-carbon as possible, for instance by implementing technology and fuel improvements

Green manufacturing The process of implementing more sustainable manufacturing methods, such as improving energy efficiency or reducing waste and materials use.

Green industry clusters A group of businesses or organisations that are focused on the development of a green economy.

Ground water Water that is naturally stored underground in aquifers.

Heat stress Rise in average or extreme temperatures.

Improving transit times Reducing the time taken for every journey using public transport.

Increasing reach – Extending mass transit infrastructure in to areas not previously serviced. For instance by building new routes and stops.

Internet Connectivity Technology (ICT) Ability to access web services and internet-based communication channels.

Joint Implementation Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, which allows a developed country with an emission reduction commitment to earn emission reduction units from a project in another developed country. These units can be counted towards meeting emissions reduction targets.

Light emitting diodes (LEDs) An energy efficient lighting technology utilising semi-conductors. LEDs are rapidly becoming common for indoor and outdoor lighting.

Low-carbon industries Businesses and industries that focus on delivering climate action with minimal carbon emissions.


243

Multilateral/Bilateral climate funds Funds created through cooperation between two or more governments, for example in a partnership or through an established institution like a development bank.

Municipal water use Water that is used in public buildings and public realm spaces, such as streets, parks and gardens.

Non-Residential buildings All other buildings, aside from residential buildings. These include municipal buildings, commercial buildings and industrial buildings. – Municipal buildings Non-residential buildings that are managed by the city government or an appointed agency. This may include libraries, schools, administrative and public leisure facilities, among others. – Commercial buildings Buildings that are owned and occupied by private companies for the purposes of doing business. Buildings may be occupied by the owner or a property management company. – Industrial buildings Properties such as factories, laboratories and processing plants, among others.

Organic farming Farming practices that avoid the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, hormones, drugs or genetically-modified organisms, instead using only biological alternatives.

Permeable Describes a surface through which water can drain away. Where surfaces are impermeable, localised flooding is more likely.

Primary energy Energy contained in raw fuels, which is converted for use or distribution. Examples include gas, oil and coal Smart lighting Technologies that control the timing and brightness of lighting, using centralized controls (e.g. computerized lighting) or decentralized controls (e.g. timer or sensor-based lighting).

Private Transport Sector Modes and systems typically owned and used privately to transport individuals or goods. Examples include motor cars, motor bikes, trucks, lorries and planes, as well as walking and cycling.

Recycled water Water that has been previously used, and has been treated for reuse. Depending on the level of treatment, recycled water may or may not be potable.

Residential buildings All buildings in which people live, including individual houses and multi-residential blocks of apartments or flats. Residential buildings are comprised of public housing and private housing. – Public housing Housing that is owned and managed by the city government, or an agency appointed by the city. Tenants occupy public housing. – Private housing Housing that is owned by individuals or private companies. Private housing may be occupied by the owner or by a tenant.

Residual fuel oil Low cost fuel oils which are a by-product of a production process. These fuels release more CO2e than distillate fuel oils.


244

River Abstraction Protection Limiting the removal of river water for productive uses in order to ensure the health and sustainability of the river and catchments.

Rooftop gardening Cultivation of plants or crops on the roof of a building.

Smart Used to describe infrastructure that is technology-enabled or which incorporates digital components to collect, analyse and integrate data from different sources. This data can be used to optimise system performance and operations across sectors.

Smart grid The use of computer-based remote controls, automation and communication technologies in electricity networks, offering benefits in terms of improved system controls and energy efficiency.

smart Lighting Technologies that control the timing and brightness of lighting, using centralised controls (e.g. computerised lighting) or decentralised controls (e.g. timer or sensor-based lighting).

Smart meters A meter which records consumption of energy in short intervals, usually an hour or less and communicates that information back to the utility for monitoring and billing purposes. The consumer can use this detailed information to manage the reduction of their energy over time.

Supply chain The sequence of transactions that brings a product from the original producer to the consumer.

Sustainable infrastructure park Land set aside to be occupied by businesses and industries focused on the manufacturing of sustainable infrastructure components (e.g. solar photovoltaic panels).

Transport Mass Transit Sector Systems or modes used for transporting large numbers of citizens and for which the city authority may have some involvement in providing the service. Examples include: buses, rail, metros, trams and river boats.

Transit oriented development Urban development projects that prioritise access to mass transit.

Transit strong areas Areas where good transportation links exist, for example mass transit hubs across different transport modes.

Venture Capital (VC) or angel funds Investment funds for a project, deriving from an individual or organisation who will gain or lose money based on the outcome of the project.


Acknowledgements Authors C40 Amanda Eichel Brooke Russell Seth Schultz Mark Watts Kerem Yilmaz Arup Stuart Allison Tom Bailey Katie Cresswell-Maynard Andrea Fernandez Laura Frost Tom Hurst Paula Kirk Harriet O’Brien Natasha Schlichtkrull Sebastian Thalanany

Contributors Siemens CDP Cities

Design Harry Barlow Ltd. unreal-uk.com

Thank you C40 and Arup would like to thank all the cities that participated in the data gathering effort. This report would not be possible without the tireless commitment and support of city representatives to measure their progress in tackling climate change.


C40 Climate Action in Megacities  

A quantitative study of efforts to reduce GHG emissions and improve urban resilience to climate change in C40 Cities

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you