European Green City index

Like this? Share it with your network


European Green City index



The European Green City Index measures the current environmental performance of major European cities, as well as their commitment to reducing their future environmental impact by way of ongoing ...

The European Green City Index measures the current environmental performance of major European cities, as well as their commitment to reducing their future environmental impact by way of ongoing initiatives and objectives. The methodology was developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit in cooperation with Siemens. An independent panel of urban sustainability experts provided important insights and feedback on the methodology. The Index scores cities across eight categories — CO2 emissions, energy, buildings, transport, water, waste and land use, air quality and environmental governance — and 30 individual indicators. Sixteen of the index’s 30 indicators are derived from quantitative data and aim to measure how a city is currently performing — for example, its level of CO2 emissions, the amount of energy it consumes, how much waste it produces or levels of air pollution. The remaining 14 indicators are qualitative assessments of cities’ aspirations or ambitions — for example, their commitment to consuming more renewable energy, to improving the energy efficiency of buildings, to reducing congestion or to recycling and reusing waste.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

European Green City index Document Transcript

  • 1. European Green City IndexAssessing the environmental impact of Europe’s major citiesA research project conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by Siemens
  • 2. European Green City Index | Contents Contents 06 Executive summary City portraits 40 Amsterdam, Netherlands 70 London, United Kingdom 10 The results 42 Athens, Greece 72 Madrid, Spain 44 Belgrade, Serbia 74 Oslo, Norway 12 Analysis of city trends Wealth matters 46 Berlin, Germany 76 Paris, France History matters: infrastructure and attitudes 48 Bratislava, Slovakia 78 Prague, Czech Republic People matter Size matters — at first 50 Brussels, Belgium 80 Riga, Latvia Europe matters: money and culture 52 Bucharest, Romania 82 Rome, Italy Location matters Looking ahead: implementing sustainable cities 54 Budapest, Hungary 84 Sofia, Bulgaria 22 Lessons from the leaders 56 Copenhagen, Denmark 86 Stockholm, Sweden CO2 emissions 58 Dublin, Ireland 88 Tallinn, Estonia Buildings Transport 60 Helsinki, Finland 90 Vienna, Austria Waste 62 Istanbul, Turkey 92 Vilnius, Lithuania Water An interview with Ritt Bjerregaard, Lord Mayor of Copenhagen 64 Kiev, Ukraine 94 Warsaw, Poland An interview with Vilius Navickas, Mayor of Vilnius 66 Lisbon, Portugal 96 Zagreb, Croatia 36 Methodology 68 Ljubljana, Slovenia 98 Zurich, Switzerland2 3
  • 3. European Green City Index | The cities The cities Helsinki, Finland Oslo, Norway Stockholm, Sweden Tallinn, Estonia Riga, Latvia Copenhagen, Denmark Vilnius, Lithuania Dublin, IrelandThe European Green City Index measuresand rates the environmental performanceof 30 leading European cities from Amsterdam, Netherlands Berlin, Germany Warsaw, Poland London, United Kingdom30 European countries. It takes into account Kiev, Ukraine30 individual indicators per city, touching Brussels, Belgiumon a wide range of environmental areas, Prague, Czech Republicfrom environmental governance and water Paris, France Bratislava, Slovakiaconsumption to waste management and Vienna, Austria Budapest, Hungarygreenhouse gas emissions. Zurich, Switzerland Ljubljana, Slovenia Zagreb, Croatia Bucharest, Romania Belgrade, Serbia Sofia, Bulgaria Rome, Italy Madrid, Spain Istanbul, Turkey Lisbon, Portugal Athens, Greece4 5
  • 4. European Green City Index | Executive summary Executive summary Why cities matter: More than one-half of the ways, from increased use of public transport due stability, with only the Balkan wars breaking the ernment to modify their actions or policies. In back on the methodology. This study is not the world’s population now lives in urban areas, but to greater population density to smaller city general peace of recent decades. Moreover, citi- particular, increased costs or taxes are usually first comparison of the environmental impact of they are blamed for producing as much as 80% dwellings that require less heating and lighting. zen awareness of the importance of protecting met with scepticism, if not hostility. In the cur- European cities, nor does it seek to supplant of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions. Fur- Many European cities have demonstrated their the environment and of green objectives has rent financial situation, this difficulty may well other worthwhile initiatives, such as the Euro- thermore, increasing urbanisation can negative- commitment to reducing their environmental markedly increased in recent years. This is boost- grow. Although many green technologies help pean Urban Ecosystem Survey or the European ly impact everything from the availability of impact by joining the Covenant of Mayors, a ed in part by a growing body of environmentally to reduce costs in the long run, immediate finan- Green Capital Award. Instead, its value lies in the arable land and vital green spaces to potable European Commission initiative launched in focussed EU legislation. cial concerns may impede the greater upfront breadth of information provided and in the form water and sanitary waste disposal facilities. Liv- January 2008 that asks mayors to commit to cut- But even in environmentally conscious investment which they also frequently require. in which it is presented. The index takes into ing in such close proximity tends to intensify ting carbon emissions by at least 20% by 2020. Europe, problems abound. Across the cities account 30 individual indicators per city that thedemands that urban settlements impose on This is encouraging the creation — often for the profiled in this report, an average of one in How the study was conducted: To aid efforts touch on a wide range of environmental areas their surrounding environments. very first time — of a formal plan for how cities three residents drive to work, contributing to and understanding in this field, the European — from environmental governance and water It is clear, then, that cities must be part of the can go about reducing their carbon impact, increased CO2 emissions and general air pollu- Green City Index seeks to measure and rate the consumption to waste management and green- solution if an urbanising world is to grapple suc- which bodes well for the future. tion. The average proportion of renewable ener- environmental performance of 30 leading Euro- house gas emissions — and ranks cities using a cessfully with ecological challenges such as cli- Of course, environmental performance gy consumed is just 7.3%, a long way short of pean cities both overall and across a range of transparent, consistent and replicable scoring mate change. In concentrated urban areas, it is inevitably varies from city to city, but some the EU’s stated goal of increasing the share of specific areas. In so doing, it offers a tool to process. The relative scores assigned to individ- possible for environmental economies of scale encouraging trends are emerging. Of the 30 renewable energy usage to 20% by 2020. Nearly enhance the understanding and decision-mak- ual cities (for performance in specific categories, to reduce the impact of human beings on the diverse European cities covered by this study, one in four litres of water consumed by cities is ing abilities of all those interested in environ- as well as overall) is also unique to the index and earth. This has already started to happen in nearly all had lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emis- lost through leakage. And less than one fifth of mental performance, from individual citizens allows for direct comparison between cities. Europe. According to the UN Population Divi- sions per head than the overall EU27 average of overall waste is currently recycled. Moreover, through to leading urban policymakers. The Of course, numbers alone only give part of sion, 72% of the continent’s population is urban 8.46 tonnes1. Part of this success comes from encouraging environmentally helpful behav- methodology was developed by the Economist the picture. To complement the core data within but the European Environment Agency (EEA) several advantages which European urban areas ioural change is not a straightforward matter: Intelligence Unit in co-operation with Siemens. the index, this study also seeks to provide con- says that its cities and towns account for just share. Compared to other regions of the world, cities often have little leverage to induce citi- An independent panel of urban sustainability text, with in-depth city portraits that not only 69% of energy use. This is achieved in a range of the continent has enjoyed remarkable political zens, companies, or even other levels of gov- experts provided important insights and feed- explain the challenges, strengths and weakness-6 1) Based on the most recently available data, the majority of which was for 2006-07. 7
  • 5. European Green City Index | Executive summary Key findingses of each city, but also highlight emerging best also face the legacy of history, dealing with scale, such as district heating or large public trans- Copenhagen, Stockholm and Amsterdam fea-practice and innovative ideas that others might decades of environmental neglect during the port networks, come into their own. According- tured in the top places in both lists, whereaswish to emulate. communist period. This is most visible in the ly, the index’s larger cities, with populations of 3 Bucharest and Sofia fared poorly in both. The index also differs from other studies in poorly insulated concrete-slab mass housing that million or more, perform relatively well, general-the fact that it is independently researched, was widely used, as well as the remains of highly ly occupying the top half of the rankings. Berlin The complete results from the index, includ-rather than being reliant on voluntary submis- polluting heavy industry. Although many have does best overall (8th), followed closely by Paris ing both overall rankings and individual rank-sions from city governments. This has enabled Highlights of the 2009 European Green unsurprising: wealthier cities can invest more innovative ideas regarding specific environmen- (10th), London (11th) and Madrid (12th). This ings within the eight sub-categories, followsus to cover 30 main cities — either political or City Index include the following: heavily in energy-efficient infrastructure and tal initiatives, such as a “lottery” in Ljubljana that isn’t universal, though: Athens (22nd) and Istan- next. For insights into what some of the leadingbusiness capitals — from 30 European countries. afford specialist environmental managers, for promotes the sorting of waste for recycling, bul (25th) both perform relatively poorly. cities have done to top the rankings within indi- The goal of the index is to allow key stake-   Nordic cities dominate the index top tier. example. Wealth isn’t everything, however: some these cities must also balance with other press- vidual categories, specific case studies are avail-holder groups — such as city administrators, Copenhagen leads the index overall, coming individual cities punch above their weight within ing issues, ranging from unemployment and   Cities with an active civil society perform well able from page 22. Finally, detailed insights intopolicymakers, infrastructure providers, environ- marginally ahead of Stockholm, while third- individual sub-categories: low-income Vilnius, for economic growth to informal settlements. in the index. Although it was beyond the scope the individual performances of all 30 citiesmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs), place Oslo rounds out a trio of Scandinavian example, leads the air quality category; while of this study to measure specific citizen engage- included in the European Green City Index areurban sustainability experts, and citizens — to cities on the medal podium. Fellow Nordic capi- Berlin, with a relatively low GDP per head, tops   The index shows little overall correlation ment in environmental issues, a strong correla- available within the city portraits section of thiscompare their city’s performance against others tal Helsinki follows in seventh place. Vienna, the buildings category and is ranked eighth overall. between city size and performance. However, tion exists between high-performing cities in report, starting on page 40. These explore bothoverall, and within each category. The index also Amsterdam and Zurich occupy fourth, fifth and the leading cities in both the East and the West this index and other independent studies that the current status within each city on all eightallows for comparisons across cities clustered by sixth places, respectively.   Among east European cities (which also rep- do tend to be smaller, with populations of less than explore the strength of civil society in European categories, while also highlighting past, currenta certain criteria, such as geographic region or resent the low-income cities of the index, with 1 million. To some degree, this makes sense: physi- countries. The rank of a country in the voluntary and planned future initiatives to improve theirincome group. In short, this tool is provided in   There is a strong correlation between wealth GDP per head below €21,000), Vilnius performs cally smaller cities make it easier for people to participation of citizens in organisations—from relative performance. The wealth and diversitythe hope that it will help European cities move and a high overall ranking on the index. Nine of best of all, ranked in 13th place. It is followed cycle or walk to work, for example. However, religious groups to professional and charitable of initiatives detailed here provide encouragingtowards being a bigger part of the solution to cli- the top 10 cities in the index have a GDP per most closely by Riga, in 15th place. The rest of wealth, and more importantly experience, can bodies — was a strong predictor of the perfor- insights into the current directions that Europe’smate change and other environmental chal- head (measured at purchasing power parity, the east European cities rank at the bottom of overcome the difficulties of size as policies that mance of that country’s main city in the Euro- main cities are taking and their varying pathslenges. PPP) of more than €31,000. In many ways, this is the index. The wealth divide aside, these cities take advantage of environmental economies of pean Green City Index. Of the applicable cities, towards a more sustainable future.8 More detailed city portraits can be found at 9
  • 6. European Green City Index | The results The results Overall CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and Air quality Environmental land use governance City Score City Score City Score City Score City Score City Score City Score City Score City Score 1 Copenhagen 87,31 1 Oslo 9,58 1 Oslo 8,71 =1 Berlin 9,44 1 Stockholm 8,81 1 Amsterdam 9,21 1 Amsterdam 8,98 1 Vilnius 9,37 =1 Brussels 10,00 2 Stockholm 86,65 2 Stockholm 8,99 2 Copenhagen 8,69 =1 Stockholm 9,44 2 Amsterdam 8,44 2 Vienna 9,13 2 Zurich 8,82 2 Stockholm 9,35 =1 Copenhagen 10,00 3 Oslo 83,98 3 Zurich 8,48 3 Vienna 7,76 3 Oslo 9,22 3 Copenhagen 8,29 3 Berlin 9,12 3 Helsinki 8,69 3 Helsinki 8,84 =1 Helsinki 10,00 4 Vienna 83,34 4 Copenhagen 8,35 4 Stockholm 7,61 4 Copenhagen 9,17 4 Vienna 8,00 4 Brussels 9,05 4 Berlin 8,63 4 Dublin 8,62 =1 Stockholm 10,00 5 Amsterdam 83,03 5 Brussels 8,32 5 Amsterdam 7,08 5 Helsinki 9,11 5 Oslo 7,92 =5 Copenhagen 8,88 5 Vienna 8,60 5 Copenhagen 8,43 =5 Oslo 9,67 6 Zurich 82,31 6 Paris 7,81 6 Zurich 6,92 6 Amsterdam 9,01 6 Zurich 7,83 =5 Zurich 8,88 6 Oslo 8,23 6 Tallinn 8,30 =5 Warsaw 9,67The complete 7 Helsinki 79,29 7 Rome 7,57 7 Rome 6,40 7 Paris 8,96 7 Brussels 7,49 7 Madrid 8,59 7 Copenhagen 8,05 7 Riga 8,28 =7 Paris 9,44 8 Berlin 79,01 8 Vienna 7,53 8 Brussels 6,19 8 Vienna 8,62 8 Bratislava 7,16 8 London 8,58 8 Stockholm 7,99 8 Berlin 7,86 =7 Vienna 9,44results from the 9 Brussels 78,01 9 Madrid 7,51 9 Lisbon 5,77 9 Zurich 8,43 9 Helsinki 7,08 9 Paris 8,55 9 Vilnius 7,31 9 Zurich 7,70 9 Berlin 9,33 10 Paris 73,21 10 London 7,34 10 London 5,64 10 London 7,96 =10 Budapest 6,64 10 Prague 8,39 10 Brussels 7,26 10 Vienna 7,59 10 Amsterdam 9,11index, including 11 London 71,56 11 Helsinki 7,30 11 Istanbul 5,55 11 Lisbon 7,34 =10 Tallinn 6,64 11 Helsinki 7,92 11 London 7,16 11 Amsterdam 7,48 11 Zurich 8,78 12 Madrid 67,08 12 Amsterdam 7,10 12 Madrid 5,52 12 Brussels 7,14 12 Berlin 6,60 12 Tallinn 7,90 12 Paris 6,72 12 London 7,34 12 Lisbon 8,22the overall result 13 Vilnius 62,77 13 Berlin 6,75 13 Berlin 5,48 13 Vilnius 6,91 13 Ljubljana 6,17 13 Vilnius 7,71 13 Dublin 6,38 13 Paris 7,14 =13 Budapest 8,00 14 Rome 62,58 14 Ljubljana 6,67 14 Warsaw 5,29 14 Sofia 6,25 14 Riga 6,16 14 Bratislava 7,65 14 Prague 6,30 14 Ljubljana 7,03 =13 Madrid 8,00of each city as 15 Riga 59,57 15 Riga 5,55 15 Athens 4,94 15 Rome 6,16 15 Madrid 6,01 15 Athens 7,26 15 Budapest 6,27 15 Oslo 7,00 =15 Ljubljana 7,67 16 Warsaw 59,04 16 Istanbul 4,86 16 Paris 4,66 16 Warsaw 5,99 16 London 5,55 =16 Dublin 7,14 16 Tallinn 6,15 16 Brussels 6,95 =15 London 7,67well as the indi- 17 Budapest 57,55 =17 Athens 4,85 17 Belgrade 4,65 17 Madrid 5,68 17 Athens 5,48 =16 Stockholm 7,14 17 Rome 5,96 17 Rome 6,56 17 Vilnius 7,33 18 Lisbon 57,25 =17 Budapest 4,85 18 Dublin 4,55 18 Riga 5,43 18 Rome 5,31 18 Budapest 6,97 18 Ljubljana 5,95 18 Madrid 6,52 18 Tallinn 7,22vidual rankings 19 Ljubljana 56,39 19 Dublin 4,77 19 Helsinki 4,49 19 Ljubljana 5,20 =19 Kiev 5,29 19 Rome 6,88 19 Madrid 5,85 19 Warsaw 6,45 19 Riga 6,56 20 Bratislava 56,09 20 Warsaw 4,65 20 Zagreb 4,34 20 Budapest 5,01 =19 Paris 5,29 20 Oslo 6,85 20 Riga 5,72 20 Prague 6,37 20 Bratislava 6,22within the eight 21 Dublin 53,98 21 Bratislava 4,54 21 Bratislava 4,19 21 Bucharest 4,79 =19 Vilnius 5,29 21 Riga 6,43 21 Bratislava 5,60 21 Bratislava 5,96 =21 Athens 5,44 22 Athens 53,09 22 Lisbon 4,05 22 Riga 3,53 22 Athens 4,36 =19 Zagreb 5,29 22 Kiev 5,96 22 Lisbon 5,34 22 Budapest 5,85 =21 Dublin 5,44categories. 23 Tallinn 52,98 23 Vilnius 3,91 23 Bucharest 3,42 23 Bratislava 3,54 23 Istanbul 5,12 23 Istanbul 5,59 23 Athens 5,33 23 Istanbul 5,56 =23 Kiev 5,22 24 Prague 49,78 24 Bucharest 3,65 24 Prague 3,26 24 Dublin 3,39 24 Warsaw 5,11 24 Lisbon 5,42 24 Warsaw 5,17 24 Lisbon 4,93 =23 Rome 5,22 25 Istanbul 45,20 25 Prague 3,44 25 Budapest 2,43 25 Zagreb 3,29 25 Lisbon 4,73 25 Warsaw 4,90 25 Istanbul 4,86 25 Athens 4,82 25 Belgrade 4,67 26 Zagreb 42,36 26 Tallinn 3,40 26 Vilnius 2,39 26 Prague 3,14 26 Prague 4,71 26 Zagreb 4,43 26 Belgrade 4,30 26 Zagreb 4,74 26 Zagreb 4,56 27 Belgrade 40,03 27 Zagreb 3,20 27 Ljubljana 2,23 27 Belgrade 2,89 27 Sofia 4,62 27 Ljubljana 4,19 27 Zagreb 4,04 27 Bucharest 4,54 27 Prague 4,22 28 Bucharest 39,14 28 Belgrade 3,15 28 Sofia 2,16 28 Istanbul 1,51 28 Bucharest 4,55 28 Bucharest 4,07 28 Bucharest 3,62 28 Belgrade 4,48 28 Sofia 3,89 29 Sofia 36,85 29 Sofia 2,95 29 Tallinn 1,70 29 Tallinn 1,06 29 Belgrade 3,98 29 Belgrade 3,90 29 Sofia 3,32 29 Sofia 4,45 29 Istanbul 3,11 30 Kiev 32,33 30 Kiev 2,49 30 Kiev 1,50 30 Kiev 0,00 30 Dublin 2,89 30 Sofia 1,83 30 Kiev 1,43 30 Kiev 3,97 30 Bucharest 2,6710 11
  • 7. European Green City Index | Analysis of city trends Analysis of city trendsT he European Green City Index makes an effort to quantify and compare environmen- urban Europe where most economic growth is oriented towards services-led industries. Here, their less wealthy peers. To give but one exam- ple, two of the three cities that lack even a basic Helsinki’s Air Protection Group, “but it is possible to do quite a lot without having to pay more.” The link between wealthtal performance. Analysing the results more an increase in average output per person of environmental plan are also two of the three She notes that energy efficiency, for example, and environmental performancedeeply reveals relationships and factors which €1,000 seems to yield a gain of two-thirds of a poorest. can save money and cut emissions. Similarly,help to explain why some cities are more suc- point in a city’s overall index score — a relation- “Money is extremely important,” says Pedro Guttorm Grundt, Environment Coordinator incessful in a range of environmental areas than ship that on its own explains up to two-thirds of Ballesteros Torres, principal administrator at the Oslo’s Department of Transport, Environment 100 European Green City Index Scoreothers. In particular, the data strongly suggest the variance between cities. European Commission’s Directorate-General for and Business, agrees that Oslo’s relative wealththe following key correlations: At an infrastructure level, the link is obvious. Energy and Transport and in charge of the helps, but notes that measures such as eco-certi- 90 actual fitted Copenhagen High-quality green infrastructure typically Covenant of Mayors. “Normally, the most fication are not expensive, and that the city’s Vienna Stockholm Oslo AmsterdamWealth matters:   The European Green City involves up-front costs that wealthier govern- advanced cities in environmental terms in own efforts to lead by example in increasing the 80 Berlin Zurich Helsinki BrusselsIndex shows a close correlation between wealth ments can better afford. Conversely, poorer Europe are also the richest. When you have a efficiency of buildings and vehicles “is saving us Paris Londonand overall performance. cities must simultaneously grapple with a wider good infrastructure, it is easier to implement money, together with reducing consumption 70 Madrid  This link is not only evident in infrastructure, range of development issues, from unemploy- things.” and waste.” Mr Grundt adds that the link may be Vilnius Riga Romebut also in policy: richer cities appear more ment levels to growing informal settlements, It need not be this way. As the city portraits indirect. A relatively wealthy place like Oslo does 60 Budapest Warsaw Lisbon Bratislavaambitious with their goals. which can easily distract from a green agenda. later in this report show, Berlin, with only a mid- not have certain policy concerns – there are no Tallinn Ljubljana Athens Dublin One of the closest correlations in the data But a further finding is that the link between level GDP per capita, has a score that benefits slums for example – which poorer cities need to 50 Prague Istanbulcollected for the index is that between the GDP GDP and the policy indicators within the index from advanced policy in various areas, and War- address, drawing on time and resources which Belgrade Zagreb 40per head of cities and their overall score — an (which track environmental action plans and saw, while in the bottom half of the wealth richer peers might use elsewhere. Bucharest Sofiaaggregate figure between 0 and 100 reflecting public participation in green policy, among table, is ranked in joint-fifth place in the environ- The tie between money and environmental Kiev 30performance across all the environmental indi- other things) is statistically even stronger. In mental governance category. Moreover, while performance, however, looks set to grow GDP per personcators measured. Although greater pollution is other words, wealthier cities are not only able to costs may constrain certain policy options, they stronger as a result of the current economic (Euros) 20often associated with economic development, afford more sustainable infrastructure, they are do not do so in general. “Money is in some ways downturn. Ms Väkevä notes that even relatively 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000at least in early stages, the reverse holds true in also setting more ambitious policy goals than very difficult,” admits Outi Väkevä, part of well-off Helsinki has little money to devote to12 13
  • 8. European Green City Index | Analysis of city trendsthe expansion of current environmental efforts. ronmental effect from the former divide that is the mirror image of the east. As the city in the index’s building category — has had tively on the environment choices. For example, citizen engagement and environmental perfor-The city portraits for this report note specifically between East and West. Thirteen of the top 15 portraits note, Copenhagen has been taking tremendous success in retrofitting housing many eastern urban areas — including the top mance.that cities as far apart as Dublin, Budapest and index performers are in western Europe; 11 of environmental issues and sustainable energy stock, including nearly halving the energy use of five performers in this metric — score highly in Good environmental results generally do notBelgrade are likely to scale back because of cur- the bottom 15 were part of the old eastern bloc. seriously since the oil shock of the 1970s; Stock- 273,000 concrete-slab buildings in the eastern the index on the number of people taking public happen by chance. European governments, forrent economic troubles, and others will doubt- Aside from the wealth divide, this also has to holm also has a long tradition, and is now on its part of the city. Looking forward, Oslo’s efforts transport to work while Copenhagen, Stock- example, have had to regulate private carbonless be doing so as well. It remains to be seen do with legacy. As the city portraits show, sixth consecutive environmental plan. to provide charging points for electric cars and holm and Oslo are amongst the lowest scorers. use through carbon trading because existinghow cities will balance maximising the benefits various eastern cities are still dealing with the As with wealth, history has a variety of Vienna’s to promote vehicles that run on natural This superior eastern performance, however, economic markets did not price the negativeof enhanced environmental performance while fallout from decades of environmental neglect impacts, some less obvious than others. Infra- gas are both creative ways to use existing infra- seems less a result of enlightened environmen- externalities of carbon emission. Even with suchminimising the financial costs in the near term. during the communist period: for example, even structure — whether building stock, transport structure — in this case roads — in a more envi- tal choice than a lack of alternatives, and there efforts, green choices sometimes still have a though polluting industries have mostly disap- facilities, or water pipes — develops over the ronmentally friendly way. are signs that the balance may be shifting. higher price tag than other options, especially inHistory matters: infrastructure and attitudes: peared in the face of market competition, poorly long term, and is hard to change quickly. More difficult to change than the physical Bratislava is a case in point. The city has the the short term. Moreover, city administrations,  Cities in eastern Europe have a tougher chal- insulated, concrete-slab, mass housing remains. Longevity of systems does not seem to matter so environment are the attitudes and aspirations of highest share of people taking public transport on their own, have relatively limited power. Thelenge to overcome, in terms of their relatively In Belgrade’s case, its relatively recent interna- much as upkeep. individual citizens. With so much of a city’s envi- to work but has also seen a surge in newly regis- sum of the individual decisions of their residentsaged and inefficient infrastructure. tional isolation — it was embargoed for years For example, Vienna’s and Ljubljana’s water ronmental performance reliant on how its resi- tered cars in the last decade. Tallinn, Zagreb, — from actions such as choosing to insulate  Historical attitudes and aspirations are also and eventually bombed in 1999 — only adds to systems both date back to the late 1800s, but dents act individually, in groups and as a whole, Ljubljana, and Prague all have similar news, and their homes, to opting to commute to work viadifficult to overcome. For example, the adop- the difficulty. Similarly, certain bureaucratic the former city comes in second in the water cat- winning hearts and minds is crucial (see next the Mayor of Vilnius cites this increased car public transport — have a deeper impact on thetion of consumer culture in the East has led, habits can also outlive the transition to democ- egory, and the latter 27th. Whatever the diffi- section). Accordingly, one area of concern is usage as his citys leading environmental chal- environment than an army of policies. Accord-understandably, to greater demand for vehicles. racy. “People (in the east) are ready to learn and culties — practical and financial — of upgrading how the legacy of suppressed demand in the lenge. ing to a 2008 report produced by Siemens in Twenty years ago, the Berlin wall fell and change things quickly, but the inertia is quite physical assets, however, infrastructure age is countries of eastern Europe, after decades of conjunction with McKinsey & Company and theEurope moved toward binding the wounds heavy,” argues Mr Ballesteros Torres. certainly not decisive. Copenhagen’s buildings, being economically less well off than their west- People matter:   The individual decisions of Economist Intelligence Unit2, about three-quar-inflicted from a turbulent century. While there On the other hand, if three Nordic cities are for example, are among the most energy-effi- ern neighbours, may play out. As these commu- cities’ inhabitants are, collectively, more power- ters of the existing technological changes thathas been much progress on the political and jostling each other for the overall leading posi- cient anywhere, even though only 7% were built nities get wealthier, some citizens may use new- ful than their governments’ ability to intervene. would help London to meet its long-term carboneconomic levels, there remains a marked envi- tion in the index, it is because they have a legacy in the last 20 years, and Berlin — the joint leader found wealth to make choices that impact nega-   Accordingly, there is a correlation between reduction targets depended on the decisions of14 2) Sustainable Urban Infrastructure: London Edition – a view to 2025, Siemens AG, 2008. 15
  • 9. European Green City Index | Analysis of city trendscitizens or companies, not of governments. As a meetings or contacting officials). Twenty-three poorer performance. Each additional 120,000 slightly more likely to have people walk or cycleresult, the engagement of individuals with soci- Comparison of rankings: EFILWC Voluntary of the countries in these indices contain cities inhabitants correlates, approximately, with a to work — the average distance obviously beingeties around them — or the strength of civil soci- Participation Index and European Green City Index that are included in the European Green City score that is one point lower less in a physically smaller place. Even here,ety in a city — has a strong link to environmental Index. A comparison between these indices Greater city size could be either a drawback however, the correlation is weak.performance. yields two interesting findings. The first is a rela- or an advantage in this index. All things being Looking at eastern and western cities sepa- This link is underscored by comparing the tively low correlation between the level of politi- equal, a given environment should be able to rately, however, it becomes clearer that smallresults of the European Green City Index with an Best Rank (European Green City Index) Copenhagen cal participation and a city’s environmental per- handle the emissions and activities of a million urban areas have some advantage. The highestindependent report from the European Founda- Vienna Stockholm formance. The second is a high correlation people more easily than those of ten million — scores in the survey overall, belong to smallertion for the Improvement of Living and Working actual Amsterdam between voluntary participation and a city’s the wind could blow the resultant air pollutants western cities (Copenhagen, Stockholm and fitted HelsinkiConditions (EFILWC)3. The Foundation’s 2006 Berlin environmental performance. In other words, away more quickly and waste would build up Oslo), and the top performers in the old east, Vil-study looked specifically at participation in civil Brussels while political engagement is not closely linked more slowly. On the other hand, larger cities can nius and Riga, are also on the small side for that Parissociety, based on a wide-ranging survey of Euro- London to environmental strength, an active civil society benefit from economies of scale, having greater grouping. All of these cities have populations of Madridpean citizens. As part of this study, the Founda- Vilnius is extremely important. City leaders hoping to collective resources to pursue policies or create less than one million people. For east Europeantion created two indices. One was of voluntary Rome improve their city’s overall performance would greener infrastructure. cities, there is an identifiable correlation between Rigaparticipation in organisations (based on the Warsaw do well to explore ways of engaging more close- At first glance, there seems to be little link higher population and poorer index perfor-average number of voluntary organisations, Budapest ly with their citizens. between the size and population of cities and mance. Onehundred and twenty thousand more Lisbonsuch as religious groups, trade unions and Ljubljana their index performance, with smaller ones scat- people leads to, roughly, one less point. In par-sports, professional or charitable bodies that cit- Athens Dublin Size matters — at first:   Although there is tered between Copenhagen at number one ticular, an increase in population has a notice-izens belonged to), which is a useful proxy for Tallinn little correlation between city size and perfor- (with a population of about half a million) and able negative effect on scores for measures of Praguethe strength of civil society. Bucharest Best Rank mance in the index overall, the leading cities do Zagreb at twenty-six (with a population of about air pollutants and carbon dioxide intensity. Sofia (Index of Voluntary The second was of political participation Participation) tend to be smaller in both the East and the West three-quarters of a million). Individual metrics Nature’s greater ability to cope with the environ-(based on the proportion of citizens engaging in   Among east European cities, however, there also demonstrate few links with size, except that mental demands of small cities than of largepolitical activities, such as voting, attending is a correlation between larger populations and those cities with lower populations may be ones remains relevant in these urban areas.16 3) First European Quality of Life Survey: Participation in civil society, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin, 2006. 17
  • 10. European Green City Index | Analysis of city trends In western cities the effect, if still present, is   EU funding is a crucial factor in enabling low- ing a huge portion of the continent. Broad Euro- urban governments large and small. The EU isresidual. The statistical significance of the link is The link between population and environmental income cities to improve their environmental pean goals, such as the EU’s 20-20-20 goal of now tapping into the same sentiment. In earlyvery low, and it takes nearly a million extra peo- performance in east European cities performance. cutting carbon emissions, increasing renew- 2008 it launched the Covenant of Mayors, whichple before a city’s score goes down a point. The This study highlights ways in which Europe ables and cutting energy consumption are also focuses specifically on matters of climateexplanation for the strong correlation in east — both through its institutions and more amor- driving change. The requirements of accession change and sustainable energy. The covenantEuropean cities is likely — again — to be histori- phously as a community — is having an impor- have led to the adoption of much more too has over 600 signatories and, as several of 65 European Green City Index Scorecal. Eastern cities have less experience with envi- Vilnius tant impact on urban environmental performance. advanced environmental legislation and policy the city portraits later in this report show, theronmental policy. 60 Riga actual The first, very practical contribution of European in all of the newest eastern members of the very fact of membership is committing a num- Ljubljana Warsaw The disadvantages of greater size, while pre- fitted institutions is cash. As noted above, there is an Union in recent years, as they did for south Euro- ber of cities to put forward sustainable energy Bratislava Budapestsent initially, may be possible to overcome as 55 important link between money, at the very least pean entrants before them. It is having a similar plans for the first time. Tallinnlarger cities gain more experience in environ- for investment, and environmental success. As effect on candidate countries and it may be no Ultimately, although money spent on physi- 50 Praguemental management. “Some smaller cities are the city portraits show, inter alia, the EU is pro- accident that the one eastern city whose coun- cal infrastructure is important, it is this increas-doing very well because at one moment or 45 viding funding for water plants in Budapest and try is not yet an EU accession candidate scores ingly pervasive notion that responsible andanother there were leaders who decided policy Zagreb Vilnius, as well as for Prague’s ring road; the worst in the survey. effective environmental governance ought to be Belgradeand there was a consensus among the popula- 40 Bucharest European Investment Bank (EIB) is helping with In addition to the force of law, voluntary insti- the norm for all European countries that couldtion in order to make things exemplary,” says Mr Sofia Tallinn’s water supply and sewage systems; and tutions have been developing that seek to har- provide the long-term political foundation 35Ballesteros Torres. “In absolute and statistical Kiev the European Bank for Reconstruction and ness and increase a growing sense that environ- which green efforts need for success.terms, large cities have more resources, and 30 Development is providing finance for the reha- mental stewardship is part of what is expectedsome are doing particularly well.” bilitation of Zagreb’s largest landfill site. As the from a modern European city. The European Location matters:   Environmental sustain- 25 downturn hits city budgets more deeply, such Sustainable Cities and Towns campaign, for ability depends as much on the resources avail-Europe matters: public funding and cul- Population (in millions) assistance will be more important. example, dates back to 1994, and its 2004 Aal- able as how they are used. 20ture:   Accession to the EU has had a huge posi- 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 The expansion of the EU is also having an borg Commitments on a series of sustainability A problem of any comparative environmen-tive impact in energising environmental policy. impact, with EU environmental law now cover- issues have been signed by over 600 European tal index is that the natural resources available,18 19
  • 11. European Green City Index | Analysis of city trendsand the robustness of the local ecology, can dif- cern in Stockholm where fresh water is plentiful ing problem. But when we get better integrated their environmental impact. This encompasses Of course, not all technologies are cost-effec- This engagement isn’t necessarily a one-wayfer markedly from place to place. Sustainability and therefore even the high levels of current use into the European grid, it becomes important.” areas where a city administration can lead the tive. The study referenced above showed that in process: citizens often lead the way, encourag-involves, to quote the Brundtland Report4, a are sustainable. way, as well as measures which the residents of the context of London hybrid cars and photo- ing city leaders and others to embrace from the UN’s World Commission on Envi- In the related fields of carbon emissions and Looking ahead: implementing sustainable a city will have to implement themselves. The voltaic panels on houses are expensive relative In Oslo, for example, early adopters of electricronment and Development on sustainable energy use, location might seem less important cities: Cities have an array of options or levers at aforementioned Sustainable Urban Infrastruc- to the impact they make on carbon reductions, cars banded together and lobbied the citydevelopment, meeting “the needs of the present because released CO2 contributes to the global their disposal when it comes to the task of ture: London Edition study highlighted that sim- for example. Also, the economics of some tech- government to waive tolls and parking feeswithout compromising the ability of future gen- problem of climate change. However, some improving their overall environmental perfor- ply by improving building insulation, using ener- nologies are often dependent on the policies that and allow access to the city’s dedicated publicerations to meet their own needs.” Behaviour issues remain. Oslo, for example, is ranked joint mance. First, policy and good environmental gy-efficient lighting and appliances, and installing accompany them, such as the subsidies required transport lanes. Whatever form it takes, thisthat might exhaust resources rapidly in one place, 24th in the index for the amount of energy used governance clearly play an important role. These more advanced environmental controls in struc- to support the generation of solar energy in engagement is critical. Ritt Bjerregaard, Lordthen, may be perfectly sustainable in another, — one of several sub-indicators that go into help ensure that new buildings and infrastruc- tures, London could move over one-quarter of many countries. Mayor of Copenhagen, the top ranked city inmaking comparative scores harder to interpret. scoring the energy category, where the city ture are developed (or retrofitted) with certain the way towards its overall aspiration of reduc- Third, as shown above, engaging and moti- the index, points out that for the city to reach Two examples from high performers in the comes first overall. On the other hand, the over- minimum efficiency standards in mind, for ing carbon emissions by 60% by 2025. Over a vating communities within cities is also critical its climate change goals, citizens themselvesindex illustrate the point. Stockholm, with the whelming majority of this power, including all example. They also encourage (either through 20-year lifecycle, the upfront investments required to delivering increased sustainability. Education have to change their habits. “Campaigns tosecond-highest overall score, is ranked a surpris- the electricity and much of the district heating, incentives, or through penalties) citizens to change for these technologies would more than pay and public awareness are important here, giving motivate lifestyle change are an importanting 16th place when it comes to water. The comes from renewable sources, in particular their behaviour, such as the establishment of a back in the form of reduced energy bills. people the necessary information to help them tool. We are also working hard to involve theproblem is not sewage, which it treats and even hydroelectricity and waste. The city does have congestion charge to reduce traffic or a sub- More advanced capabilities can go even fur- make greener choices. This can come in many citizens in developing solutions to the prob-uses as a source of energy, nor leakages, which an energy efficiency fund, which seeks to sidised bicycle scheme to promote affordable ther: Amsterdam’s state of the art waste-to- forms and go well beyond the basics of publish- lems.”are below average. Instead, residents simply use reduce power usage, but the question does arise alternative means of commuting. At a different energy plant achieves high levels of energy effi- ing advice. For example, a number of cities in The next section of this report, Lessons froma lot of water, and the city makes little effort to of just how important it is to cut consumption of level, by ensuring that green spaces and other ciency that allow it to power more than the index have rolled out water meters and the leaders, highlights the work that Copen-discourage them. While this behaviour might be entirely green energy rather than focussing on areas are off limits to further development, city three-quarters of the city’s households. It can smart electricity meters, thus giving consumers hagen and other leading cities in the index areproblematic in hot, dry cities, such as Madrid, or other areas. Mr Grundt agrees: “As long as Nor- leaders can ensure that the natural environment even profitably extract gold and other metals a means of quantifying their own consumption doing across a range of key categories toeven in London, which receives less rainfall per way cannot export much of its abundant hydro- remains preserved within the city’s boundaries. from the resultant ash, while sending just 1% of and choosing to be more careful about how improve their relative environmental perfor-head than Addis Ababa, it poses less of a con- electricity, and we have enough, it is not a press- Second, technology can help cities to reduce the original waste to landfill. much they use. mance.20 4) Brundtland Commission, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, 1987. 21
  • 12. European Green City Index | Lessons from the leaders CO2 emissions Ideas from other cities Berlin’s renewable energy focus is on solar power. Among the city’s many initiatives is Europe’s largest photovoltaic system on a res- I t would be easy to be complacent about greenhouse gas emissions in Oslo. The city’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per head, at 2.2 cess. To begin with, Oslo has set itself one of the most ambitious carbon reduction targets in the index: aiming to reduce emissions by 50% from monopoly to a district heating company, which it largely owned, to provide all heat to any new or thoroughly renovated buildings by refusing another emission-reduction strategy is the switching of fuels. The city is encouraging the use of electric and hybrid cars through various idential building, which produces 25,000 kwh annually. Helsinki now has the world’s largest heat tonnes, are less than one-half of the 30-city 1990 levels by 2030, or a further 37.5% from permits to any construction plan that had other inducements, including the waiving of city tolls pump, under centrally located Katri Vala Park. average of about 5 tonnes — itself lower than today. Guttorm Grundt, the environmental sources of supply. At the same time, it required and parking charges, as well as the establish- It uses heat from wastewater and seawater to the overall EU27 average of 8.46 tonnes. The affairs co-ordinator in Oslo’s Department of municipal buildings to convert to district heating ment of electric charging points. “It started with provide district heating and cooling. city benefits from its local natural resources: Transport, Environment and Business, remarks and exerted strong moral pressure on other pub- the enthusiasts,” notes Mr Grundt. “They formed In January 2008, Madrid approved a €14 high levels of rainfall, along with a mountainous that such long-term goals are very helpful in lic institutions such as hospitals and universities. an association and put pressure on the politi- million Ecobarrio project to revitalise several countryside, provide significant opportunity for keeping progress on track. Mr Grundt says that others are now seeking the cians to change the rules.” One key step was run-down neighbourhoods. These will in- clean hydroelectric power. This is a boon in The city administration has also tried to put service for commercial reasons. “More and more allowing commuters with electric or hybrid vehi- clude a thermoelectric plant using biogas Oslo’s efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. As a its own house in order. “To be credible we have private owners and developers are joining,” he cles to drive in the citys dedicated public trans- from urban waste treatment and buildings result, Oslo’s emissions per unit of GDP, at 20.2 to act as a good example: 60 % of the city’s own notes. “The prices are not much cheaper, but dis- port lanes. As a result, the Oslo region now has that capture solar power. tonnes per million euros, are paltry compared car fleet, for example, has no or very low (green- trict heating involves a lot less maintenance.” about 1,700 electric-only vehicles, excluding In Paris, Aéroports de Paris has launched an with the average across the study of around 356 house gas) emissions,” says Mr Grundt. The city The city has also taken an active role in reduc- hybrid cars. intra-company car-sharing network. If just 5% tonnes or the broader European figure of more is even planning to use of biofuels derived from ing transport-related CO2 emissions. Here, the Other strategies have also made judicious of airport employees use the network regu- than 339 tonnes. Simply put, if Europe as a human waste in its buses in 2012. stick — in the form of Oslo’s congestion charge use of taxes and inducements. The city’s €100 larly, it will save around 4,000 tonnes of CO2 whole were to perform as well as Oslo, it would To spur residents to reduce their CO2 emis- — has had some effect, cutting existing traffic million Climate and Energy Fund, for example, emissions. surpass its overall carbon reduction targets. sions, Oslo provides both penalties and incen- by between 4% and 7% since its introduction. was funded by a tax on local electricity. Among Copenhagen has set an ambitious goal of Nevertheless, Oslo is at the top of the CO2 tives. It has promoted district heating, use of Moreover, the charge has stopped private vehi- other things, it now provides a 50% grant for the becoming carbon neutral by 2025, building emissions category because it has not been sat- which expanded by 36% between 2000 and cle travel from increasing in line with the city’s conversion of oil heaters to ones powered by on its existing climate plan which targets 50 isfied with its natural advantages, but has 2006, and which relies largely on biofuels and fast growing population. biofuels. With similar national grants in place, specific initiatives in energy production, instead drawn on leadership initiatives and a the city’s carbon-free electricity. Progress was For those residents who wish to continue dri- Mr Grundt argues that there is “no excuse left transport, buildings and consumption. range of sticks and carrots to increase its suc- initially the result of regulatory fiat: Oslo gave a ving, despite Oslo’s good public transport, not to change.”22 23
  • 13. European Green City Index | Lessons from the leaders Buildings This highlights one of the key difficulties in private companies improving the energy effi- city has found that the optimal, cost-effective Energy Efficiency Network for Building Stock reducing the environmental impact of buildings. ciency of public buildings with both the contrac- measures for saving heat energy are insulation (BEEN), Berlin shared its knowledge with cities Ideas from Take Berlin, the category co-leader: since 1990, tors and the city benefiting from the cost sav- of the outer walls and top floor ceiling; new air- in Poland and the Baltic states and worked with other cities the reunified city has had to find ways to shift ings. So far, the scheme has led to €60 million in tight windows; and renovation of the building’s them on understanding how best to finance the carbon requirements of a host of building private investment, saved the city €2.4 million in heating system. These three measures reduce such renovation. Now the EU is funding the Urb types towards a more sustainable level. One costs, and brought carbon emissions down by annual carbon emissions by between 1 and 1.4 Energy project to take things further, looking not From April 2010, London will start a trial obvious place to start is not with the buildings 600,000 tonnes. tonnes per flat. just at individual buildings but at urban infra- scheme for retrofitting homes to save energy, themselves, but with the kind of energy power- An even bigger effect has come from the However, Mr Wollschläger points out that structure and holistic rehabilitation of whole providing some energy-efficiency equipment ing them. city’s efforts to improve what local experts call even over the long term the energy savings do residential areas. for free, such as low-energy light bulbs and The city’s heating modernisation pro- the once “ramshackle” flats built of prefabricated not pay the entire cost of the refurbishment of By contrast, Stockholm, the other joint leader standby switches, while charging for more gramme, for example, encouraged a substantial concrete under the previous East German these flats. The benefits extend beyond energy in the buildings category, has been at the fore- advanced measures. shift in fuel source through grants, advice and regime. Of the 273,000 apartments, the city has savings, however, such as lower maintenance front of energy-efficient building standards for Residents of Prague can benefit from a na- tighter regulation on new buildings. In 1990, fully refurbished about two-thirds of them, and costs for these flats given that the improve- some time. The city benefits from its extensive tional Czech programme for retrofitting over 400,000 apartments still had coal furnaces; partially upgraded the other 35%, at an average ments reduce mould and mildew, as well as use of heat pumps, which make more efficient buildings with a €1 billion budget, which is fi-W hen it comes to buildings, no city can start from scratch: each has to work with thelegacy of generations. An unattributed quote, by 2005, the number had dropped to just 60,000. Most of the shift was towards cleaner, although still carbon releasing, natural gas. cost of €20,000. Not all of this goes to better energy efficien- cy. It is a broad-ranging programme to increase keeping temperatures more even. Quite simply, they are nicer places to live. The lessons which the city has learned could use of electricity for heating. Insulation stan- dards are also high. All this pays off: Sweden has years of experience building homes with a total nanced from a sale of CO2 emission permits to Japan. In 2001, Vienna began permitting the con-meant for humorous effect, captures the prob- While improving the energy mix, Berlin has the attractiveness of these properties: about 5% have a substantial impact worldwide. Across annual energy consumption of well below struction of multi-storey buildings made pri-lem neatly: “Our problem is that the buildings also attempted to address the deficiencies of of spending, for example, goes on the surround- central and eastern Europe, the city estimates 2,000 kwh, despite its cold climate. By contrast, marily of timber. This has helped to bringfrom 100 years ago were built to last 100 years; some of its buildings. It has not been so much a ings. Energy efficiency is, however, an impor- that there are nearly 50 million flats of similar new houses built in the UK that comply with the about the development of a new kind of en-the buildings of 50 years ago were built to last case of making do with existing infrastructure, tant consideration. construction, and in China there are about 200 country’s latest energy-related building stan- vironmentally friendly passive housing.50 years; and the buildings of 20 years ago were but rather improving to make it greener. An According to Peter Wollschläger of the Berlin million. dards will consume an average of about 3,600built to last 20 years.” “Energy Saving Partnership”, for example, has Senate Department of Urban Development, the Between 2005 and 2007, through the Baltic kwh.24 25
  • 14. European Green City Index | Lessons from the leaders TransportC ity transport is one of the key areas where cities have a direct ability to influence thechoices that residents make in how they com- size, allows an astonishing 68% of people to cycle or walk to work, even though it has the sec- ond-lowest average temperature of any city in gestion tax on vehicles driving in the central part of the city in August 2007, with the support of residents there but over the objections of those cial cycling zones where cars are banned, the city also tries to make cycling easier. This includes everything from giving cyclists information on buses running on renewable fuel by 2011, and all of them by 2025. Meanwhile, the city’s Trafik Stockholm system constantly gathers data from Ideas from other citiesmute. This is most obviously done through the the index. Nor does a relatively small public living in outer areas. It has certainly had an traffic flows to free, secure parking to prevent a wide range of sources about the state of traf-make-up and extensiveness of public transport, transport network unduly restrict use: intelli- effect on car use, reducing the number of cars bicycle theft — a serious problem in the city. fic. It then not only provides the analysed infor-but consumers can also be directly encouraged gent city planning has created a network which entering or leaving the zone by about 20%. mation to drivers to help them choose their Budapest held a “Clever Commuting Race”to do more walking and cycling (the greenest takes one-quarter of people to work each day, According to Mr Wallin, the tax also raised the Technology: Other cities are using congestion routes, it also adjusts traffic lights or uses vari- where local VIPs demonstrated the efficiencypossible options) through the provision of dedi- leaving only about 7% using private vehicles. number of daily travellers on SL by approximate- charges, and Mr Wallin notes that many of Stock- able road signs to reduce congestion. Advanced of travelling via public transport, by “racing”cated cycle paths, pedestrianised areas and bicy- This is even more marked at peak times: Stock- ly 5%. Income from the tax is used to reduce holm’s strategies to make travel easier, while technology can be expensive. Mr Wallin notes that from a suburban district to the city centre.cle subsidies. In Stockholm, the index’s leader in holm Public Transport (SL), the county council- congestion and improve the environment in the important, “are probably not very original.” pioneering is particularly costly. “You have to Brussels supports “Voiture avec Passagers”, aenvironmentally friendly transport, three impor- owned transport company, reports that over city. Equally important, the city does not just for- What sets the city apart is its experimentation pay the prices for problems you could not fore- formalised hitch-hiking scheme.tant building blocks come together: the ability of three-quarters of rush hour journeys into Stock- bid driving, there is universal political support for with new technology. One of SL’s environmental see when you start up.” Over time, the relative Dublin’s “Bike to Work” scheme allows em-residents to easily access public or private alter- holm’s centre use its services. Looking forward, providing a green public alternative so that peo- principles is to “actively participate in, initiate cost premium of green technology has been ployers to divert up to €1,000 in wages onnatives that are green, safe and convenient; the €1.7 billion Citybanan project will double rail ple have a genuine choice. “Almost regardless of and push on the development of an eco-adapted coming down and will continue to do so as it behalf of employees for the purchase of a bi-government policy that encourages use of such capacity. At the same time, Stefan Wallin, SL’s political colour,” Mr Wallin says, “politicians are transport system.” It is no accident that SL has matures, he adds, but in Stockholm’s case it has cycle. This money is subsequently not taxed,alternatives; and the application of green tech- environmental manager, explains that it is try- quite keen to put their mark on sustainable devel- one of the largest fleets of ethanol buses in the still not completely disappeared. Even with 20 leading to up to a 47% savings on the price ofnology solutions to vehicles and infrastructure. ing to make travel easier for customers with opment. We are continuously pushed by politi- world: it has been using the technology since years experience, for example, it remains more a bicycle for the employee. efforts to provide real-time information on wait- cal pressure to come up with new solutions.” 1989. Mr Wallin explains: “I have a picture on my expensive to run ethanol than standard diesel Tallinn is fitting buses with electronic equip-Opportunity: To begin with, in the promotion ing times for buses and trains and a commit- Amsterdam, which came second in the trans- office wall which shows ten different bus types buses. Being a public company, however, gives ment to alert traffic lights to their approachof walking and cycling, Stockholm excels. For ment to make all of SL’s vehicles accessible for port category, also has a mix of restrictions and we have tested — battery buses, flywheel buses, SL the opportunity to pursue green solutions and give them speedier passage through in-every square kilometre, it has over four kilome- the handicapped by next year. encouragements. There, geography and policy fuel cell buses, old versions of ethanol buses. SL because such spending is a political choice, and, tersections.tres of cycle lanes, a figure second only to combine to make cycling one of the leading has been almost an engineer’s playground.” Its says Mr Wallin “so far the political view is that weHelsinki. This, combined with Stockholm’s small Policy: Stockholm made permanent a trial con- ways to get around. In addition to creating spe- current targets include having one-half of its are ready to pay that premium.”26 27
  • 15. European Green City Index | Lessons from the leaders Waste Since the early 1990s residents have had to use explains: “We always say ‘garbage is gold.’ Waste with some 30 process innovations developed in- good, profitable return using its technology and specially purchased “Zueri-sacks” to dispose of is not a problem but a valuable raw material.” house, has the world’s highest energy efficiency approach (despite high upfront investment Ideas from all rubbish or face substantial fines. The sacks This begins with recycling: the city recycles 43% for a waste-powered facility, at 30%. The compa- costs), yet it is not allowed to compete for pro- other cities are sold in local stores, with costs varying on the of all its waste, second only to Helsinki, and Ms ny produces enough energy to power more than cessing waste generated in Germany, for exam- size of the sack, giving a significant incentive to Gehrels notes that for household waste the three-quarters of Amsterdam’s households, and ple, while German companies can take Dutch throw out as little as possible and to use one of overall Dutch and Amsterdam figure is 64%. She provide 300,000 gigajoules of district heat, waste. Everyone needs to play by the same rules The recently established London Waste and the many free collection points across the city sees three reasons for success here. One is the reducing CO2 production in the city by 470 kilo- to have an “honest chance that your investment Recycling Board has created a “dating for recyclable materials. Within three years, city’s ongoing efforts to raise public awareness. tonnes. The resultant ash is richer in minerals will have the right return.” agency” to attract companies interested in waste production in the city dropped by 24%. A second is tradition: given how long it takes to than most mine ore, and AEB is able to profitably Amsterdam and Zurich are not polar oppo- using different kinds of waste for either fuel Now Zurich creates only 406 kg of garbage per reform people’s habits, Ms Gehrels believes the recover various metals, including iron and gold, sites: the former is increasing its use of waste- or recycling. resident, well below the index average of 511 kg fact that the Dutch have been separating their and sell most of the rest as raw material for powered district heating, and the latter still sees Ljubljana introduced a lottery in late 2008 and putting the city in fourth place among those garbage already for decades is important for buildings. Only 1% of the 1.4 million tonnes of waste prevention as the most environmentally to encourage recycling. A household or officeA msterdam and Zurich come in first and sec- ond respectively in the waste category ofthe index (which also encompasses land use). in the index. At the same time, it recycles 34% of waste, the fourth best figure in that category. Despite various public information cam- achieving consistently high levels of participa- tion. A third is ensuring that sorting and recy- cling is very easy, with collection points on near- waste entering the system goes to landfill. The city eventually hopes to go further, and move from a waste management approach to sustain- friendly approach to the issue. Nevertheless, the different emphasis by each may be no accident. Ms Gehrels notes that scale is important in get- recycling bin is randomly selected to win money—if it contains the correct type of waste.The reasons for their success in waste manage- paigns, Amsterdam does only modestly well at ly every street corner. able material and energy cycles. Ms Gehrels says ting energy from waste, although she adds that Vienna has created the Vienna Repair Net-ment, however, differ greatly and show how com- waste reduction: its actual levels of waste pro- Other cities have similar, if less successful, that it is important for AEB to be at the cutting smaller municipalities can work with others work, a group of over 50 repair shops whichmunities can take various paths to the same end. duction per resident, at 487 kg, is below aver- recycling efforts. But what really sets Amster- edge of technology to give it a competitive within the same region. It is likely to be easier for people are encouraged to visit rather than Zurich’s strength in recent decades has been age, but it still ranks 17th out of the 30 cities in dam apart is its use of non-recyclable waste. The advantage. However, she argues that what is smaller cities to make an impact by focusing on throwing away broken goods. “Frequent user”waste reduction. As early as 1985, the city decid- the index. Instead, the city’s strength is in what it city has been incinerating waste for over 90 really needed now to allow such development to reduction. Nevertheless, the two examples do cards give customers a discount on everyed that it could not continue to incinerate all the does with the garbage. As Carolien Gehrels, an years, and Amsterdam’s Waste and Energy Com- flourish is a level playing field in Europe, with an show that treating waste as a problem and as a fourth item repaired.garbage that it was producing. It chose to place Amsterdam City Council Alderwoman whose areas pany (AEB) has become a leader in waste-to- open market and a common European standard resource both have their place in urban environ-the cost of dealing with waste on producers. of responsibility include waste management, energy technology. Its newly built power plant, for energy from waste. AEB, she notes, makes a mental management.28 29
  • 16. European Green City Index | Lessons from the leaders Water water lost to seepage, tiny compared with the one-half of households in Amsterdam are Prices are kept low for what is a human overall index average of nearly 23%. Jan van der metered, a process that started in 1998. Com- necessity and, he says, making the link to sus- Ideas from Hoek, executive officer at Waternet, Amster- pleting the job will take much longer, as the easy tainable development in the popular mind is dif- other cities dam’s water company, explains that this low rate locations have been hooked up and the more ficult as there is no mental tie between waste or has been achieved through the use of good difficult ones, such as rooms within houses, over-consumption and the consumer’s carbon materials, and intensive maintenance, as well as remain. It is worth the effort, however. The price footprint, even though water transport and By 2013, waste water will be used to clean all the city’s beneficial geography, which allows for itself may not make water use prohibitive, but wastewater treatment do cause a carbon of Lisbon’s streets and water all of its green relatively low pressure in its pipes thanks to the awareness of the extent of consumption in itself impact. spaces. limited height variation. Berlin, the third-placed has a positive effect and nobody wishes to pay Even so, Amsterdam is not resting on its lau- Sofia is carrying out an integrated water im- city in the water category, shows the impor- for wasted water. Mr van der Hoek explains that rels. During 2009, it is instituting differential provement plan addressing a range of issues, tance of leak management. Its overall leakage is the very fact of installing a meter leads to an pricing, based on the time of day, to encourage including purification, leakage and treat- not far behind Amsterdam’s at 5.2%. This is a average reduction in household water use of more evenly distributed water use. Waternet is ment. result of significant efforts to address the prob- 10-15%. He adds that people are happy with also looking to water’s contribution to broader Tallinn’s water company is “biomanipulat- lems which surfaced in the eastern part of the metering: “They see that they pay for what they sustainability issues, reducing the emissions ing” Lake Ulemiste — the city’s water sourceW ater management has been central to Amsterdam’s existence for centuries. At anelevation of just two metres and with some sur- obvious strengths is its low water consumption. It uses just 53.5 cubic metres per person, the second-lowest figure among cities in the index city before unification and in the years immedi- ately afterwards. Burst pipes there tripled between 1965 and 1995, but since that year use.” In fact, Amsterdam’s position illustrates how water consumption is an area where city govern- associated with pumping water around the city and processing waste water. “One of the main challenges is to make the — to improve the quality of drinking water. This long-term project involves increasing na- tive fish diversity, and re-establishing arounding countryside below sea level, the area and half the overall per head average of 105 have dropped by nearly one-half. This helps to ments and companies can do relatively little whole water system climate neutral,” adds Mr healthier ecological balance in the lake.has been shaped for centuries by its association cubic metres. explain how total supply requirements have beyond public education and the use of charges van der Hoek. Warsaw’s new sewage works will be able towith the sea and, more recently, the Ijsselmeer, a There is, however, no single easy answer as gone from about 292 million cubic metres in to give an incentive to reduce consumption. Mr To achieve this goal, Waternet is seeking to provide not only biogas for heat, but also fer-lake. As a result, the city’s relationship with to why this figure is so low. An obvious start is 1991 to about 196 million in 2007. van der Hoek explains that his organisation does use renewable sources of energy, while also tiliser for sale to farmers.water is deeply ingrained, and is reflected in its simply keeping control of leaks. Here the Dutch Another strategy in both cities is metering not have many instruments to affect consumer generating energy from the sludge from sewageoverall first place ranking in the index. One of its city comes first in the survey with only 3.5% of water usage. Mr van der Hoek says that over behaviour. treatment.30 31
  • 17. European Green City Index | Lessons from the leaders Interview with Ritt Bjerregaard, Lord Mayor of CopenhagenRitt Bjerregaard, a former Danish cabinet minister and What are the biggest factors contributing have in Stockholm, but the national govern- tool. We are also working hard to involve the Back then the cities did not play a role; we did to your city’s broad success in so many ment hasn’t allowed it yet. citizens in developing solutions to the prob- not even consider it. One of the reasons for thisEuropean commissioner for the environment, is now areas of environmental performance? lems. might be that cities did not then stand together We are quite unique when it comes to bicycles Copenhagen has been addressing with one strong voice. This has changed.Lord Mayor of the city at the top of the European Green and district heating. Today, nearly 40% of environmental issues and sustainability Similarly, how important are integrated Today, I am very proud that Copenhagen has Copenhageners ride their bikes when they go to since at least the 1970s. How helpful is plans, and especially city targets — such as become an exemplary C40 city (a group of theCity Index Copenhagen. We talked to her about the work or school, and more than 97% of all having a long tradition in this area? carbon emissions reduction targets — in world’s largest cities committed to tackling Copenhageners have district heating. We are Yes, that is very important. In Copenhagen, the trying to bring about environmental climate change) in its work to fight climatecity’s environmental successes and challenges. very proud of that. water in the harbour is so clean that you can improvements? change. even swim in it. We have only achieved this by Plans and targets help you to set an ambitious I am even more proud of the fact that Copen - Conversely, what are the biggest years of hard work. goal but, of course, a target is not enough. It hagen and the C40 are gathering 100 mayors environmental challenges your city is Also, if you take our high number of bicycles, I must be followed by action. from the world’s largest cities for the “Copen - currently facing, and how do you hope to am quite sure we have reached this by investing hagen Climate Summit for Mayors” in parallel to address them? in better infrastructure and bike lanes over the What role do international environmental the UN Climate Change Conference this Traffic is the biggest challenge. The number of years. commitments which cities make through December. private cars is growing, and this means higher the various environmental city organisa- CO2 emissions and more air pollution. Today, How important is getting citizens on tions play? What are Copenhagen’s big environmental traffic is responsible for 20% of the city’s carbon board? It is very important that cities stand together goals in the coming years? emissions. A large proportion of the city’s carbon emissions and that we learn from each other. More than We want to be the first capital city in the world We will reduce private use of cars by offering is generated by Copenhageners themselves. So 75% of the world’s CO2 emissions are produced to be completely carbon neutral, by 2025. people good opportunities to walk, cycle or use if we want to reach our goal, then Copenhagen- by the world’s cities. As former European Already by 2015 we want a 20% reduction in public transport. I have also worked hard to ers must change their daily habits. Campaigns commissioner for the environment, I took part emissions. This means hard work but I am sure introduce a congestion charge such as they to motivate lifestyle change are an important in the negotiations in Kyoto in 1997. we will reach our goal.32 33
  • 18. European Green City Index | Lessons from the leaders Interview with Vilius Navickas, Mayor of VilniusVilnius is ranked in 13th position overall in the Vilnius has done very well among east and are among our biggest environmental management infrastructure has been created: businesspeople that they should sponsor European cities, but as a group these cities issues today. We have to find ways to old landfills have been closed; a new regional certain spaces. Both sides benefit. The city getsEuropean Green City Index, but is first from eastern seem to lag behind in terms of environ- encourage the use of public transport and landfill, in line with the EU requirements, has a well-managed environment and the companyEurope. We talked to the Mayor, Vilius Navickas, mental performance. What are the bicycles. been set up; a construction waste management can give its name to the site. particular environmental challenges in enterprise has been established; and organican engineer by training, about some of the environ- your region? What are the biggest environmental waste is sorted and processed separately. What are the big environmental goals youmental challenges facing the city and its goals. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, when challenges your city is currently facing, would like to see Vilnius try to achieve in east Europeans moved towards democracy and and how do you hope to address them? To what extent is cost a barrier to better the coming years? the free market, the region experienced many We are using EU structural funds to widen environmental performance for your city, In 2008, a new action plan for the reduction of significant changes, including the loss of East- streets, install modern traffic systems and build and how are you addressing it? air pollution was adopted. We also hope to ern markets. It is a paradox that the resulting bypasses. We will introduce a payment system It goes without saying that the city must allo- develop a system of rapid public transport, and economic downturn played a positive environ- for cars going through the Old Town of Vilnius cate huge funds for environmental protection: more city buses will run on natural gas and mental role. In Lithuania, for example, a — UNESCO Protected Site — as it cannot although infrastructure is expensive, it is biofuel. In addition to the bicycle measures number of heavy industrial companies shut tolerate intensive traffic. The municipality also necessary. The question of funding is particular- mentioned earlier, the central part of the city down, as a result of which there was less plans to turn Vilnius into a bicycle capital like ly relevant now, at a time of economic reces- will have a broadened network of pedestrian pollution and the water quality in Lithuanian Amsterdam or Copenhagen. We are investing in sion. In carrying out environmental and zones that will be made accessible for all, rivers and lakes improved. bicycle routes and parking facilities, and in 2010 ecological projects, we therefore look for the including the disabled. The rapid economic growth of the last decade, a bicycle rental system will become operational most effective ways of funding. The EU offers Also, although visitors to Vilnius always say that on the other hand, has posed new challenges along the lines used in a number of west Euro- favourable conditions for the funding of our city is green — surrounded by many forests for urban areas. Because the transport infra- pean towns. These should all to help reduce environmental projects and therefore we use it. and parks — we have the objective to make it structure in Vilnius has not been designed for its traffic jams and air pollution. The municipality also looks for other sources of even greener. Today we have 20 square metres increasing number of cars, for example, traffic Another important challenge for Vilnius is waste funding. For instance, seeking to renovate of green space for every resident, and our goal jams have become one of its biggest problems, management. A comprehensive waste Sereikiskes Park we have proposed to is to increase this to 24 square metres.34 35
  • 19. European Green City Index | Methodology Methodology The Index scores cities across eight cate- tistical offices, local city authorities, and city and ed CO2 emissions. For those cities with missing gories — CO2 emissions, energy, buildings, national environmental bureaux. In most cases data, the Economist Intelligence Unit took Clusters transport, water, waste and land use, air quality data are for the year 2007, which is the latest national per-head averages of other types of and environmental governance — and 30 indi- year available for most indicators, given the time energy consumption, and used the city’s popula- vidual indicators. Sixteen of the index’s 30 indi- needed to collect, record and publish official data. tion data to create an estimate for overall energy cators are derived from quantitative data and Where gaps in the data existed, the Econo- consumption. To calculate associated CO2 emis- In order to conduct deeper analysis of the city aim to measure how a city is currently perform- mist Intelligence Unit produced estimates from sions for the city, the project team adopted a trends, the 30 cities in the index were clus- ing — for example, its level of CO2 emissions, national averages. The CO2 and energy cate- widely accepted (albeit crude) technique of tered into a series of groups, calculated on in- the amount of energy it consumes, how much gories deserve special mention here. Owing to a using national CO2 emissions factors associated come, temperature and size. These included: waste it produces or levels of air pollution. The lack of statistical resources, around one-third of with the combustion of each energy source.   Income: “low income”, with GDP per head remaining 14 indicators are qualitative assess- the 30 cities do not measure the full amount of of less than €21,000; “middle income” of ments of cities’ aspirations or ambitions — for energy consumed in their city, or the associated Indicators: In order to be able to compare data €21,000 to €31,000; and “high income” of example, their commitment to consuming more CO2 emissions. In most cases, the cities calculate points across countries, as well as to construct more than €31,000;   Temperature: “cold”, with an average tem- T he European Green City Index measures the current environmental performance of major European cities, as well as their commitment to renewable energy, to improving the energy effi- ciency of buildings, to reducing congestion or to recycling and reusing waste. only how much energy is consumed from elec- tricity, gas and district heating (if applicable), since such data are fairly easily attainable from aggregate scores for each city, the project team had first to make the gathered data comparable. To do so, the quantitative indicators were perate of 4-8 degree Celsius; “temperate”, with an average temperature of 9-12 degrees reducing their future environmental impact by distribution companies. But on average, such “normalised” on a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 Celsius; and “hot”, with an average tempera- way of ongoing initiatives and objectives. The Data sources: A team of in-house and external data miss around 30% of energy consumed, par- points were assigned to cities that met or ture of more than 13 degrees Celsius; methodology was developed by the Economist contributors from the Economist Intelligence ticularly from liquid fuels consumed in the trans- exceeded certain criteria on environmental per-   Size: “small”, with a population of less than Intelligence Unit in cooperation with Siemens. Unit collected data for the index over the period port sector. However, as part of their Kyoto com- formance. Cities were scored either against an 1 million; “middle-sized”, with a population of An independent panel of urban sustainability February to August 2009. Wherever possible, mitments, all countries included within the upper benchmark or lower benchmark. Bench- between 1 million and 3 million; and “large”, experts provided important insights and feed- publicly available data from official sources have study must report national data on energy con- mark targets were chosen from international or with a population of more than 3 million. back on the methodology. been used. Primary sources included national sta- sumption across all sources, as well as associat- European directives. For example, an upper36 37
  • 20. European Green City Index | Methodology List of categories, indicators and their weightings Category Indicator Type Weighting Description Normalisation technique CO2 CO2 emissions Quantitative 33% Total CO2 emissions, in tonnes per head. Min-max. CO2 intensity Quantitative 33% Total CO2 emissions, in grams per unit of real GDP Min-max; lower benchmark of 1,000 grams (2000 base year). inserted to prevent outliers. CO2 reduction Qualitative 33% An assessment of the ambitiousness Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts strategy of CO2 emissions reduction strategy. on a scale of 0 to 10. Energy Energy consumption Quantitative 25% Total final energy consumption, in gigajoules per head. Min-max. Energy intensity Quantitative 25% Total final energy consumption, in megajoules per unit Min-max; lower benchmark of 8MJ/€GDP of real GDP (in euros, base year 2000). inserted to prevent outliers. Renewable energy Quantitative 25% The percentage of total energy derived from renewable Scored against an upper benchmark of 20% (EU target). consumption sources, as a share of the citys total energy consumption, in terajoules. Clean and efficient Qualitative 25% An assessment of the extensiveness of policies promoting Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts energy policies the use of clean and efficient energy. on a scale of 0 to 10. Buildings Energy consumption Quantitative 33% Total final energy consumption in the residential sector, Min-max. of residential buildings per square metre of residential floor space. Energy-efficient Qualitative 33% An assessment the extensiveness of cities’ energy efficiency Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts buildings standards standards for buildings. on a scale of 0 to 10. Energy-efficient Qualitative 33% An assessment of the extensiveness of efforts to promote Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts buildings initiatives energy efficiency of buildings. on a scale of 0 to 10. Trans- Use of non-car Quantitative 29% The total percentage of the working population travelling Converted to a scale of 0 to 10. port transport to work on public transport, by bicycle and by foot. Size of non-car Quantitative 14% Length of cycling lanes and the public transport network, Min-max. Upper benchmarks of 4 km/km2 and transport network in km per square metre of city area. 5 km/km2 inserted to prevent outliers. Green transport Qualitative 29% An assessment of the extensiveness of efforts to increase Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts promotion the use of cleaner transport. on a scale of 0 to 10. Congestion Qualitative 29% An assessment of efforts to reduce vehicle traffic Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts reduction policies within the city. on a scale of 0 to 10. Water Water consumption Quantitative 25% Total annual water consumption, in cubic metres per head. Min-max. Water system leakages Quantitative 25% Percentage of water lost in the water distribution system. Scored against an upper target of 5%. Wastewater Quantitative 25% Percentage of dwellings connected to the sewage system. Scored against an upper benchmark of 100% treatment and a lower benchmark of 80%. Water efficiency Qualitative 25% An assessment of the comprehensiveness of measures Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts and treatment to improve the efficiency of water usage and the treatment on a scale of 0 to 10. policies of wastewater.benchmark of 50% was set for the amount of indicators assigned to the other cities. Qualita- overall, based on the composite of the underly-waste cities should aim to recycle, which is in tive indicators were scored by Economist Intelli- ing category scores. To create the category Waste Municipal waste Quantitative 25% Total annual municipal waste collected, in kg per head. Scored against an upper benchmark of 300 kg (EU target). and production A lower benchmark of 1,000 kg inserted to prevent outliers.line with the EU’s 2020 target for recycling gence Unit analysts with expertise in the city in scores, each underlying indicator was aggregat- land use Waste recycling Quantitative 25% Percentage of municipal waste recycled. Scored against an upper benchmark of 50% (EU target).waste. Cities that met or exceeded this bench- question, based on objective scoring criteria ed according to an assigned weighting. In gen-mark scored 10 points, and the rest received a that considered concrete actions, strategies and eral, most indicators receive the same weighting Waste reduction Qualitative 25% An assessment of the extensiveness of measures Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analystsscore between 0 and 10, based on their distance targets being taken and set by cities. The qualita- — or importance — in the index. The category and policies to reduce the overall production of waste, on a scale of 0 to 10. and to recycle and reuse waste.away from the target. For other indicators, lower tive indicators were again scored on a scale of 0 scores were then rebased onto a scale of 0 to 10.benchmarks were set, such as for the maximum to 10, with 10 points assigned to cities that met To build the overall index scores, the Economist Green land use Qualitative 25% An assessment of the comprehensiveness of policies to contain Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts policies the urban sprawl and promote the availability of green spaces. on a scale of 0 to 10.amount of pollutants cities should emit on an or exceeded the check-list of criteria. In the case Intelligence Unit assigned even weightings onaverage daily basis (for example, 40 ug/m2 in the of the “CO2 reduction strategy” indicator, for each category score — that is, no category is Air Nitrogen dioxide Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of NO2 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 40 ug/m3 (EU target).case of nitrogen dioxide). In such cases, any city example, cities were assessed according to lent greater importance than another, and the quality Ozone Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of O3 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 120 ug/m3 (EU target).scoring the same or higher than the benchmark whether they actively and regularly monitor CO2 index is essentially the sum of all category Particulate matter Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of PM10 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 50 ug/m3 (EU target).received a score of 0, while the city furthest Sulphur dioxide Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of SO2 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 40 ug/m3 (EU target). emissions, what targets have been set and how scores, rebased out of 100. This equal weightingbelow the benchmark scored 10. Remaining ambitious they are, given the time period within reflects feedback from the expert panel, as well Clean air policies Qualitative 20% An assessment of the extensiveness of policies Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts to improve air quality. on a scale of 0 to 10.cities received a score according to their dis- which they are supposed to be met. The inde- as wider research on measuring environmentaltance away from the best-performing city. pendent expert panel provided input into the sustainability, which indicated that all cate- Environ- Green action plan Qualitative 33% An assessment of the ambitiousness and Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts Where no targets existed, the cities were criteria assigned to each indicator. gories in this index merit equal weighting. mental comprehensiveness of strategies to improve and on a scale of 0 to 10. gover- monitor environmental performance.scored instead using a min-max calculation,where the score is the standard deviation from Index construction: The index is composed of nance Green management Qualitative 33% An assessment of the management of environmental issues Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analyststhe mean, with the best city scoring 10 points aggregate scores of all of the underlying indica- and commitment to achieving international environmental on a scale of 0 to 10. standards.and the worst scoring 0 points. In some cases, tors. The index is first aggregated by category —reasonable benchmarks were inserted to pre- creating a score for each area of infrastructure Public participation Qualitative 33% An assessment of the extent to which citizens may Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts in green policy participate in environmental decision-making. on a scale of 0 to 10.vent outliers from skewing the distribution of and policy (for example, energy) — and finally,38 39
  • 21. European Green City Index | City Portrait tives for renovation to a higher level of energy Waste and land use: Amsterdam ranks first for Smart City Amsterdam_Netherlands efficiency. There are also energy-efficiency re- waste and land use. The city recycles around quirements for new constructions. In terms of 43% of its waste, second only to Helsinki, and is Amsterdam the energy consumption of residential build- only a moderate producer of waste. In terms of ings, Amsterdam ranks 12th, with a consump- land use, Amsterdam is a compact city. The tion of 720 megajoules per square metre (below Netherlands is densely populated and green the average of 909 megajoules), a level that the spaces are highly protected; in Amsterdam this In mid-2009 Amsterdam launched Smart City city is working to reduce. is covered by the Main Green Structure urban Amsterdam, a collaborative project with its Initiatives: Amsterdam runs an alliance in co- plan. A ”wedge structure“ provides green spaces inhabitants and businesses. It will launch a operation with local housing corporations. The- that reach deep into the city from the surround- series of environmental pilot schemes over a se are required to employ energy-saving and ing green belt. The waterways around the city two year period, which if successful could be energy-efficient measures across their housing are another type of green space. translated to national and European level. portfolios, and especially in new-build housing. Initiatives: Much of the city bus network uses The schemes are intended to reduce energy fuel from the Waste and Energy Company that is consumption and reduce CO2 emissions. The Transport: Amsterdam ranks second for trans- produced from waste. initial schemes include: port. As the city is criss-crossed by canals, there   for businesses, the establishment of a ”cli- is little heavy road traffic and a large number of Air: Amsterdam performs relatively poorly in this mate street“ in the city centre, which will pedestrian zones and cycle paths. Public trans- category for a city so committed to clean air, rank- combine smart meters, an energy feedback port is provided by bus, tram, canal boat and ing 11th. The main pollutants are fine dust and display, energy scans and smart plugs to en- local trains. Amsterdam boasts 3.2 km of public nitrogen oxides. Amsterdam suffers particularly courage lower energy use; and transport network per square km and 2.8 km of from its proximity to heavy industry in the Nether-   shore power units that allow cargo vessels cycle lanes per square km. Walking or cycling is lands, Germany and Belgium, as well as from and river cruisers to connect to the electricity used for 38% of journeys and public transport traffic congestion in the wider Randstad area. grid when in port, rather than using on-board for 24%. Initiatives: The 2009 action plan on air quality diesel generators. aims to reduce transport bottlenecks, extend Water: The city is ranked number one for water. park-and-ride facilities and encourage electricSelect city data overall in the European Green City Index, with a Energy: Amsterdam ranks fifth in energy. The score of 83.03 out of 100. It ranks highest out Netherlands’ primary energy sources are naturalPopulation: 743,000 of all cities for water and also for waste and land gas, coal and oil, although the country also hasGDP per head, PPP: € 41,443 use. Even in its weaker categories its perfor- significant installed wind capacity. Amsterdam’sCO2 emissions per head: 6.66 tonnes mance is still strong. Like many of the index’s energy consumption per head per year (at 74.5Energy consumption per head: 74.51 gigajoules best performers, Amsterdam has a fairly small gigajoules) is slightly below the average of 81Percentage of renewable energy population, allowing it to address environmen- gigajoules. The city performs better in terms of CO2consumed by the city: 5.8 % tal concerns with a tighter focus. energy consumption per unit of GDP, at 1.7 me- Amsterdam is served by numerous canals and is vehicles, among other targets, to enable Ams- 10Total percentage of citizens walking, gajoules per euro (compared with an average of protected from the sea only by a system of pold- terdam to meet legal standards for particulatecycling or taking public transport to work: 62 % 8 CO2 emissions: Amsterdam’s worst perfor- 5.2 megajoules), and it is among the top scorers ers (dams). But despite an abundance of water, matter by 2010 and those for nitrogen dioxideAnnual water consumption per head: 53.47 m3 Environmental governance Energy mance is in the category carbon dioxide (CO2) for policies promoting clean and efficient energy consumption per head is low, at about 53 cubic by 2015. 6Share of waste recycled: 43 % emissions, at 12th out of 30. The city’s main use. Nearly 6% of the energy that the city con- metres per inhabitant per year, one-half of the 4 weak spot is CO2 emissions per head, which at sumes is sourced from renewables, just below average consumption level of 105 cubic metres. Environmental governance: Amsterdam ranks 6.7 tonnes per inhabitant per year is among the the average of 7.3%. In terms of leakages Amsterdam is the best-per- tenth in green environmentalgovernance, but is 2 highest levels measured and well above the Initiatives: Amsterdam has one of the most forming city, losing just 3.5% of water, com- within reach of the best performers. The city is 0 Air Quality Buildings average of 5 tonnes. Most emissions are caused energy-efficient district heating networks in pared with an average of 22.6%. strongly committed to improving its environ-A msterdam is the Netherlands’ largest city, with just 750,000 inhabitants. The city isthe business and financial centre of the coun- by transport, with industry and building heating also contributing. Initiatives: The city is targeting an aggressive Europe. Most of the heat is produced by the Waste and Energy Company, by converting bio- mass and biogas derived from waste and Initiatives: The city is working to fit every home with water meters, in order to make water use more efficient and equitable. The goal is to fit mental performance, despite already leading the way in some fields. Amsterdam has a highly developed environmental action programmetry, with a wide range of business services. reduction of 40% in its emissions by 2025 (com- sewage into heat and electricity. 300,000 homes by 2010, leaving 100,000 with measurable environmental goals and regu- Waste and Land Use TransportThere is little manufacturing in Amsterdam pared with 1990 levels), equivalent to a reduc- homes that are unsuitable for water meters lar reviews. It suffers slightly on the level of pub-itself, but there is considerable industry beyond tion of 34% by 2020, far beyond the EU target of Buildings: Amsterdam ranks sixth for buildings. — for these, alternative solutions are being lic participation in developing and adopting Amsterdam Water Bestthe city borders. Amsterdam is ranked fifth a 20% reduction by 2020. The city’s stock is old, but it is providing incen- sought. these goals. Average40 41
  • 22. European Green City Index | City Portrait sumption per head — nearly 89 gigajoules per 2nd among cities with hot climates. The city Fluid education Athens_Greece inhabitant in 2006, compared with a 30-city consumes nearly 105 cubic metres per person average of about 81 gigajoules. Less than 4% of per year, almost identical to the 30-city average. Athens’s energy is derived from renewable It ranks slightly worse than average for water sources, compared with the 30-city average of system leakages, with an estimated leakage rate about 7%. of 25% (the average is about 23%). Initiatives: To boost the availability of renew- The water utility, EYDAP, has hosted an educa- able energy, around 270 wind turbines have Waste and land use: Athens ranks 23rd for tional programme called “The Water Cycle“ been established around Athens, with a total waste and land use, in large part because of its since 2002. This programme is targeted at lo- capacity of around 160,000 kw. poor green land-use policies. It does score well cal students who visit the EYDAP headquar- (12th) for its municipal waste production, with ters, and aims to increase awareness about ra- Buildings: Athens ranks 22nd overall for build- around 465 kg of waste produced per inhabitant tional water-resource management and ings, in large part because of the city’s lack of per year, below the 30-city average of 511 kg. wastewater treatment. The educational pro- energy-efficient building standards or incen- The city has some strong initiatives under way to gramme includes a detailed overview of water tives. With residential buildings consuming an promote recycling activities. It also has a policy supply and sewerage facilities in the city from estimated 695 megajoules per square metre per to contain sprawl in the city centre, but this does ancient times to today, including information year, Athens ranks behind other cities with high not apply to the suburbs. As a result, there is a on the transfer of water from reservoirs to wa- average temperatures. significant degree of suburban sprawl. ter treatment plants and the treatment of wa- The city is also held back by an absence of Initiatives: Athens has highlighted recycling as ter to make it potable. The Water Cycle pro- energy-efficiency regulations for new buildings the core of its environmental agenda. Separate gramme has helped to raise awareness among and incentives to construct efficient new build- bins have been provided for glass, metals and younger generations about the significance of ings (or retrofit old ones). batteries since 2005. water throughout Athens’s history and about Initiatives: Although not yet implemented, how to reduce the wastage of water. EYDAP there is a bill under discussion at national level to Air quality: Athens ranks 25th overall for air aims to use knowledge about water to stimu- introduce energy performance certificates. quality. There is a daily public report on air pollu- late interest among the city’s youth in environ- tion levels in Attica (Athens and its surrounding mental areas. Transport: Athens ranks 17th overall for trans- areas), measuring a range of emissions such as CO2 10 8 A lthough Greece’s capital, Athens, accounts for just under one-third of its total popula- tion, it contributed approximately one-half of Environmental governance 6 Energy 4 the country’s GDP in 2007. As has occurred in other developed cities, there has been a shift 2 from industrial production to business-related Air Quality 0 Buildings services, such as shipping and tourism, over the past decade. In 2001 industry accounted for 16.7% of total gross value added in Athens. By 2006 this figure had fallen to 13.2%. Athens ranked 22nd out of 30 countries in Waste and Land Use Transport the European Green Cities Index with a score of 53.09 out of 100. The city’s overall score was Athens Best Water constrained by its air quality, its performance on Average waste and land use, and the green credentials of its buildings. However, its score was bolstered by its environmental policies on water and trans- Budapest. It emits approximately 6 tonnes of port. The city has an extensive network of buses, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and particu- Environmental governance: Athens ranksSelect city data port. Athens’ environmental programme is divided CO2 per inhabitant per year, slightly higher than many of which are fuelled by compressed natur- late matter. However, the government has not 21st, along with Dublin, in environmental gov- between the city and various ministries at the the 30-city average of 5 tonnes. At the national al gas (CNG), as well as yellow trolleys (electric stipulated specific targets for air quality. While ernance. The city’s environmental programme isPopulation: 3.4 million national level. With several overlapping jurisdic- level, the government aims to ensure that CO2 trams). However, there is currently no network Athens has high nitrogen dioxide and particu- divided between the city authorities and variousGDP per head, PPP: € 29,641 tions, the city must often receive approval from emissions are no more than 25% higher in 2012 of cycle lanes or fast lanes for car-pooling. An late matter emissions, it has low levels of ozone ministries in the national government, creatingCO2 emissions per head: 5.92 tonnes* a designated ministry in order to move ahead than they were in 1990. estimated 56% of people take public transport emissions. some confusion with respect to the boundariesEnergy consumption per head: 88.77 gigajoules* with an initiative, which can delay the planning Initiatives: Athens has been extending its sub- to work, while a high degree of personal vehicle Initiatives: Athens has attempted to improve of jurisdictions. While there is a dedicated envi-Percentage of renewable energy and implementation of programmes. way train network since before the Olympic use persists, resulting in severe congestion. air quality by limiting traffic within the city. This ronmental authority in Athens, many issuesconsumed by the city: 2.66 % Games were held in the city in 2004, in order to Initiatives: Athens has converted about 20% of has been achieved in part by allowing vehicles relating to the environment are dealt with by theTotal percentage of citizens walking, CO2 emissions: Precise data on carbon dioxide reduce transport-related emissions. its fleet of some 2,000 buses to run on CNG, with odd-numbered licence plates into certain Athens division at the Ministry of the Environ-cycling or taking public transport to work: 65.5 % (CO2) emissions are not available for Athens, but which reduces overall emissions. zones in the city on odd-numbered dates vehi- ment or by the Ministry of Transport. Conse-Annual water consumption per head: 106.88 m3 based on estimates made from fuel combustion Energy: Athens ranks 15th overall in energy, cles with even-numbered plates on even-num- quently, the city’s environmental programme isShare of waste recycled: 10 % in the city, it ranks joint 17th overall, with largely because of its high levels of energy con- Water: Athens ranks 15th overall for water and bered dates. piecemeal and provides few actual targets.* Estimate42 43
  • 23. European Green City Index | City Portrait Initiatives: Belgrade’s district-heating compa- Initiatives: The city plans to direct about 17% Hot air? Belgrade_Serbia ny is beginning to close down the city’s boiler of its environmental expenditure, as part of its stations, connecting the district heating system National Environment Strategy, into the con- instead to gas-fired plants that have a less detri- struction, operation and maintenance of new mental environmental impact (see highlight water assets. project “Hot air?”). Waste and land use: Belgrade ranks 26th in One important green initiative by the city ad- Buildings: Belgrade ranks 27th in the buildings the waste and land use category. The city pro- ministration — aimed at improving energy effi- category. Poor insulation of buildings is a major duces an estimated 496 kg of waste per inhabi- ciency and the quality of the air in the city — is cause of heat loss: energy savings of 30-40% tant, slightly below the average of 511 kg. How- the renewal and gasification of Belgrade’s dis- could be achieved by meeting the requirements ever, recycling levels are negligible, with most trict-heating system. Small individual solid-fuel- laid down in the existing national standards. Bel- municipal waste ending up in landfill. operated boiler houses are being closed down grade’s ranking is also brought down by its rela- Initiatives: The International Finance Corpora- and the system is being reconnected to central tively high estimated energy consumption per tion (IFC), an arm of the World Bank, is assisting gas-fired plants. The timeframe for the replace- square metre by residential buildings. the Belgrade municipality in improving solid- ment of the 70 boilers will depend on the avail- Initiatives: The reconstruction of the USCE waste services and rehabilitating the Vinca land- ability of financial support. Gas-fired district- tower, Belgrade’s tallest building, was complet- fill to conform to EU environmental and waste- heating plants have a lesser detrimental ed in 2005 and features a range of energy-effi- management standards. environmental impact than plants using other cient technologies, such as solar thermal, fossil fuels. The replacement of some parts of intended in part to promote energy efficiency in Air quality: Belgrade is ranked 28th for air qual- the gas-fired district-heating plants by gas-fired the city. ity. Levels of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, cogeneration plants, which produce both elec- ozone and particulate matter are not especially tricity and heat, is also under discussion; such a Transport: Belgrade is ranked 29th overall in high. system would be far more fuel-efficient. Co- the transport category, despite performing well However, Belgrade’s score is relatively low generation plants also allow the use of the heat (at fifth in the rankings) for its use of non-car because of its failure to pursue clean air policies that they generate for cooling purposes in sum- transport. The city’s good result for use of non- more systematically. mer, and would therefore decrease electricity car transport is thanks to its extensive public Initiatives: Reconstruction of ash landfills, consumption for airconditioning. transport system, although much of the net- which lead to uncontrolled secondary emis-Select city dataPopulation: 1.7 million B elgrade, the capital of Serbia and its largest city, has been rebuilt and developed into a major industrial centre in the post-war period. egory for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Mea- sured in terms of units of GDP, Belgrade’s CO2 emissions are nearly triple the 30-city average,GDP per head, PPP: € 12,780 Belgrade is the most economically developed and as a result, although Serbia has a nationalCO2 emissions per head: 3.85 tonnes* part of Serbia and its largest industrial centre, target for reducing CO2 emissions, Belgrade’sEnergy consumption per head: 41.07 gigajoules generating more than 30% of the country’s GDP ranking is low. CO2Percentage of renewable energy and accounting for 31% of national employ- Initiatives: Under the Kyoto Protocol, Serbia work is in need of modernisation and expansion. sions, has been identified as a priority task forconsumed by the city: 8 %* 10 ment. Manufacturing accounts for about 25% of aims to reduce emissions of harmful gases by Belgrade’s overall score in the transport catego- 2009-12.Total percentage of citizens walking, Belgrade’s GDP. As Serbia is a potential candi- 20% by 2020. Belgrade will be required to match ry would be higher if it were to make more effort 8cycling or taking public transport to work: 75 % Environmental governance Energy date country for EU accession, Belgrade has or better this performance. to promote green transport policies and greater Environmental governance: Consistent with 6Annual water consumption per head: 147.17 m3 added reason to increase its environmental progress in reducing traffic congestion. its performance in other categories, BelgradeShare of waste recycled: 0* improvement efforts. Energy: By far its strongest area of perfor- Initiatives: Congestion is expected to be allevi- ranks 25th for environmental governance, but 4* Estimate Belgrade ranks 27th in the European Green mance, Belgrade ranks 17th overall in the ener- ated by the construction of a bypass around Bel- could improve its score significantly were the 2 City Index, with a score of 40.03 out of 100. The gy category, and thus is ranked second in this grade, connecting two major highways, the E70 city authorities to adopt an environmental Air Quality 0 Buildings city’s best performance is in the energy cat- category among east European cities. and the E75. action plan. egory, in which it is ranked 17th. Despite the ab- This is because of the city’s below-average Initiatives: Under the provisions of the law on sence of heavy industry in the city, decades of energy consumption per head and its relatively Water: Belgrade ranks 29th in the water cate- local self-government, all cities and towns in underinvestment — especially during the war high use of renewable energy. The outdated gory, partly because its water consumption per Serbia are supposed to have their own develop- years of the 1990s — have had a detrimental technologies used for energy production and head is higher than the average. High levels of ment strategies. Belgrade has yet to adopt such Waste and Land Use Transport impact on Belgrade’s environment. the partial lack of emissions abatement technol- untreated wastewater run-off and the ineffi- a strategy, but is expected to do so in the near ogy are the main causes of negative environ- ciency of the distribution system further under- future. The strategy is likely to have a major Belgrade Water Best CO2 emissions: Belgrade ranks 28th in the cat- mental impacts. mine Belgrade’s overall score. focus on environmental protection. Average44 45
  • 24. European Green City Index | City Portrait from oil, waste and renewables. The city bene- federal government envisages that there will be Energising alliances Berlin_Germany fits in part from western Europe’s largest district- up to 1 million electric cars on German roads by heating network, but its ranking suffers from 2020. the fact that 43% of that heat was still generated from coal in 2006. Water: Berlin ranks third in the category for Initiatives: Under a 1997 agreement between water, largely because of the efficiency with the Berlin Senate and the Berlin business com- which it is managing its resources. Water leak- In 1996 the City of Berlin instituted the Berlin munity, 75% of all new buildings constructed in age from the supply system is low at 5.2%. The Energy Saving Partnership (Energiepartner- any given year must include solar thermal strate- provision of water meters and the promotion of schaft Berlin), a joint initiative by the city and gies in their design. low-consumption appliances are the norm, and the Berlin Energy Agency. The city receives a the latter, together with changes in lifestyle, are guaranteed 25% saving on its annual energy Buildings: Berlin ranks first in the buildings cat- furthering a highly sustainable trend. costs, while the partners provide financing egory, largely because of its progress in improv- and expertise to improve the energy efficien- ing the energy efficiency of its housing stock Waste and land use: Berlin ranks fourth in the cy of properties. Over 6% of these savings are over the past two decades. This is resulting in a water and land use category, thanks to its suc- delivered directly to the city budget, while reduction in energy consumption from 150 kwh cess in reducing waste and promoting recycling, the rest are used to finance the modernisa- to 80 kwh per year per square metre. and also because of its progressive approach to tion and optimisation of buildings. In return, The city’s energy consumption for residential treatment. About 35% of waste is recycled, well the partners receive any savings achieved buildings is far below the 30-city average, and above the 30-city average of 18%, in part thanks over and above the amount guaranteed to Berlin far outperforms other large cities in this to a relatively engrained culture among resi- the city, while the city retains ownership of category. dents of sorting waste. any newly installed equipment. Following the Initiatives: The Berlin Solar Campaign, laun- Initiatives: A federal strategy paper dating back end of the 12-year contract period, all energy ched in 2000 by the Berlin Senate’s department to 1999 envisages that all municipal solid waste savings achieved will directly benefit the city. of administration for urban development, offers should be completely recycled and recovered by The refurbishment of schools, day-care cen- grants for the installation of solar panels, 2020 at the latest. tres, universities, administrative buildings financed from over €2 million set aside by and public swimming pools has amounted to Investitionsbank Berlin (IBB), within the Senate’s Air quality: Berlin ranks in eighth place in the annual savings of €11 million in energy costs. modernisation and maintenance programme category for air quality. Quality has benefited This initiative has made Berlin a model city for housing construction support. from the shift away from industry, but also from for energy-saving programmes in public the lacklustre performance of the economy, buildings. Transport: Berlin ranks 12th in the transport which has reduced car use. CO2 10 B erlin is Germany’s capital and the country’s 8 Environmental governance Energy most populous city, with some 3.4 million 6 inhabitants within its city limits. The city’s econ- 4 omy is primarily based on services, encompass- ing various media and creative industries, 2 tourism, life sciences and pharmaceuticals, and Air Quality 0 Buildings conferences, among other activities. Neverthe- less, relative to other German cities unemploy- ment in Berlin is high, and more than 20% of the city’s tax revenue is allocated to servicing its high debt levels. Waste and Land Use Transport Berlin is ranked eighth overall in the Euro- pean Green City Index, with a score of 79.01 out Berlin Water BestSelect city data of 100, outperforming other large cities such as Average London and Paris. This is a creditable achieve-Population: 3.4 million ment in the light of the city’s difficult historyGDP per head, PPP: € 21,561 and the financial constraints under which it has Initiatives: The rebuilding of the Berlin-Mitte category, scoring highly for its efforts to pro- Initiatives: Berlin’s environmental zone, intro- mental issues are taken seriously throughoutCO2 emissions per head: 6.57 tonnes to operate. powerstation for €300 million has resulted in mote green transport but falling behind when it duced in 2008, aims to improve air quality by the German political system, and environmentalEnergy consumption per head: 77.7 gigajoules nearly 90% of its primary energy being convert- comes to the size and use of its non-car trans- substantially cutting nitrogen oxide emissions protection is an objective under the 1995 BerlinPercentage of renewable energy CO2 emissions: Berlin is ranked just 13th in the ed into electricity and district heating for more port network. The Berlin Land Use Plan envis- and particles attributable to traffic. constitution.consumed by the city: 1.84 % category for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but than 60,000 dwellings and 500 public buildings. ages that 80% of travel needs in the inner city Initiatives: In October 2008 the Berlin ClimateTotal percentage of citizens walking, has performed well. It has already reached its will be met by public transport. Environmental governance: Berlin ranks ninth Alliance, a joint initiative between the city andcycling or taking public transport to work: 54.8 % original target of a 25% reduction in emissions Energy: Berlin ranks 13th in the energy catego- Initiatives: Berlin started an electric vehicle in the category for environmental governance, local companies, was launched with the aim ofAnnual water consumption per head: 55.55 m3 by 2010, and has now set a new target of a 40% ry. As of 2006, 58% of Berlin’s electricity came trial this year, with 50 electric vehicles capable of reflecting the openness of its plans and strate- encouraging co-operation on climate changeShare of waste recycled: 35 % reduction compared with 1990 levels by 2020. from coal, 39% from natural gas and 1% each being charged via public energy dispensers. The gies, but also its underlying problems. Environ- projects.46 47
  • 25. European Green City Index | City Portrait va now has criteria for the reconstruction of its kg). The primary disposal method is via modern Reforming Bratis- Bratislava_Slovakia buildings, including energy-efficiency stan- waste incinerator incorporating waste-to-ener- dards, but there are few incentives and little sup- gy technology. Separate waste collection is lava’s infrastructure port. However, there is state-based financial available for recyclable materials. Consequently, and skills assistance to improve insulation. more than 7% of waste is recycled, although this is below the average of about 18%. Bratislava Transport: Bratislava ranks eighth for trans- does not yet have measures to inhibit waste cre- In December 2007 the European Commission port, its best result. The public transport net- ation, such as progressive taxation. In terms of approved a programme for Bratislava running work has more than 1,800 km of lines — just land use, the city has an estimated 110 square until 2013, with a total budget of €102 mil- over 6 km per square km, far above the average metres of inner-city green space per inhabitant; lion, that aims to develop the region’s compet- of 2.3 km. Bratislava has the largest share of however, its quality is often subject to criticism. itiveness while improving quality of life, with people taking public transport to work (at 70%, Initiatives: In June 2009 nearly 2,000 volun- specific initiatives aimed at stimulating renew- compared with an average of 42%). However, teers from 40 companies, in partnership with able energy use and energy efficiency. About there has been a significant rise in private car the municipal government of Bratislava, cleaned one-half of the funding will focus on infra- ownership in the past decade. parks, restored playgrounds and planted flowers structure, with the balance focusing on “knowl- Initiatives: To promote the use of public trans- in a third annual event. edge economy” initiatives and technical assist- port, the city has introduced a new bus fleet, ance. One aspect of the infrastructure ele- simplified ticket purchases via mobile phones Air quality: Bratislava is ranked 21st for air ment of the programme will focus on regener- and created an integrated system of regional quality. Monitored air pollution is not markedly ating urban areas and improving the energy tickets. A fast-tram project in a large residential high. However, while Slovakia has adopted com- performance of buildings. On the knowledge district should kick-start efforts to revamp public mitments and targets at national level, these are economy front, the project will focus on sup- transport. not replicated at municipal level. The city’s cur- porting innovation and technology transfers, rent strategy is to solve existing problems incre- such as on those aimed at reducing energy in- Water: Bratislava is ranked 14th for water, per- mentally, for example through engagement tensity and increasing renewable-energy use, forming well on key sub-indicators; it scores 7.5 with the main producers of emissions, as a first as well as reducing and preventing air pollution. out of 10 for its water efficiency and treatment step towards overall improvements in air quality. A s the capital and largest city of Slovakia, Bratislava is the country’s centre of econom- ic, financial, cultural, educational and political several years ago, but a surge in vehicle numbers has raised transport-related emissions. Bratislava does not have any specific emission targets. activity. Its commercial activity is mainly ser- Initiatives: To reduce traffic-related emissions, vices-oriented, but several important industrial Bratislava has proposed building a new city companies are still active in the city, in sectors transport bypass. including chemicals and automobile manufac- ture, making it the fourth most industrial city in Energy: Bratislava ranks 21st for energy. Slova- the index. Furthermore, the city is positioned at kia’s energy production is primarily nuclear- and an intersection of major transit roads, which coal-derived, with renewable energy — almost results in large amounts of through traffic. all consisting of hydroelectric power — account- Bratislava is ranked 20th in the European ing for less than 20%. Within Bratislava, howev- Green City Index, with a score of 56.09 out of er, energy is sourced entirely from non-renew- policies and 9.3 out of 10 for its wastewater treat- Environmental governance: Bratislava ranks CO2 100 — better than most of the east European able sources. On other metrics, the city performs ment. Water consumption stood at 88 cubic 20th for environmental governance. This partly 10 cities and other industrial cities tracked. Howev- reasonably well: energy consumption per head, metres per head in 2007 (compared with an aver- reflects a general lack of awareness among both 8 er, despite many environmental problems, the at nearly 83 gigajoules per year, is slightly above age of 105 cubic metres), with system leakages citizens and politicians regarding environmental Environmental governance Energy issues are generally still of only marginal interest the average of 81 gigajoules, while energy con- at about 25% (slightly above the average of 23%). issues. Despite often having only limited influ- 6Select city data to locals, partly because they received little sumption per unit of GDP is about one-half of Initiatives: The Water Research Institute Bratis- ence, the public has access to information on 4 attention under communist rule. the average. lava, with the Ministry of Environment, the Slo- the city’s environmental performance and poli-Population: 427,000 Initiatives: New gas-fired power facilities have vak Water Management Enterprise and private cies, and citizen participation has been greater 2GDP per head, PPP: € 22,243 CO2 emissions: Bratislava ranks 21st for carbon recently been built, which are far more efficient companies, has introduced an initiative to in terms of the decision-making process on larg- Air Quality 0 BuildingsCO2 emissions per head: 5.08 tonnes* dioxide (CO2) emissions. The city’s inhabitants are than existing sources; a new project is currently ensure that Slovakia meets certain water-related er projects, via public consultation.Energy consumption per head: 82.80 gigajoules each responsible for 5.1 tonnes of emissions being planned. EU commitments by 2015. Initiatives: The city administration is preparingPercentage of renewable energy annually, close to the average of 5 tonnes. The the Programme of Economic and Social Devel-consumed by the city: 0% main sources of emissions are the local chemicals Buildings: Bratislava ranks 23rd for buildings. It Waste and land use: Bratislava ranks 21st for opment, Slovak Capital City of Bratislava, whichTotal percentage of citizens walking, industry, energy supply and transport. The ongo- has a large stock of buildings built 60 or more waste and land use, scoring well on waste- aims to provide a definition of economic, social Waste and Land Use Transportcycling or taking public transport to work: 73.9 % ing closure of obsolete production facilities and years ago, and many buildings were constructed reduction policies and waste production (with and environmental development, as well as set-Annual water consumption per head: 88.09 m3 Bratislava the installation of more efficient technologies during the communist period, when limited about 465 kg of municipal waste produced per ting out Bratislava’s targets in order to assist with Water BestShare of waste recycled: 7.17 % mean that the city’s situation is better than it was attention was paid to energy efficiency. Bratisla- inhabitant per year, below the average of 511 obtaining EU funding. Average* Estimate48 49
  • 26. European Green City Index | City portrait incentives for measures to make buildings more Waste and land use: Brussels ranks tenth for ing. For example, a cash bonus is given for solar Brussels_Belgium energy-efficient. waste and land use. Since 1992 the Brussels- water heaters equal to 50% of their purchase Initiative: Brussels encourages companies to Capital Region has implemented a plan that and installation costs. qualify as “eco-dynamic enterprises”. To do this, aims to reduce waste production through recy- they must obtain a certificate with one, two or cling and other approaches. Brussels has 13 Environmental governance: Brussels ties for three stars, according to their level of energy nature reserves, which are protected owing to first place with Copenhagen, Helsinki and Stock- efficiency. Companies can advertise their status their unique biological qualities. The reuse of holm for environmental governance. The as an example of their commitment to sustain- brownfield sites is not specifically promoted, but region’s various environmental targets are most- able development. they are acknowledged by the regional authority ly delineated in an “Agenda Iris 21” plan. The as being habitats for flora and fauna. Brussels Energy Agency provides guidelines and Transport: Brussels ranks seventh for transport. Initiative: In 2008 Brussels participated in advice for citizens on how to reduce energy con- Its score is boosted by the availability of public the pilot edition of the European Waste Reduc- sumption, while the Brussels Institute for Man- transport links: it ranks fourth for length of pub- tion week, part of preparation for an official agement of the Environment (IBGE) provides lic transport network. However, while com- European Waste Reduction Week in November information on how citizens can reduce their muter links between the capital and surround- 2009. carbon footprint, use grants to make their hous- ing areas have improved recently, around es more energy efficient and embrace environ- 186,000 workers living outside Brussels com- Air quality: Brussels ranks 16th for air quality. mentally friendly transportation. mute by car. Only 2% of the population cycle or Transport accounts for 80% of carbon monoxide Initiative: To foster environmental aware- walk to work, significantly below the average of emissions and 77% of nitrogen oxide emissions. ness and action, IBGE launched the Quartier 21%. Brussels is relatively spread out, and its The heating of buildings accounts for 25% of sul- Durable (Sustainable Neighbourhood) project. public transport system, while adequate in the phur dioxide emissions. Residents are encouraged to form groups and centre, does not provide extensive coverage on Initiative: The regional authority and the 19 identify a sustainable project in their neigh- the outskirts. municipalities offer various subsidies for the bourhood, with the most promising projects Initiative: If citizens cancel their car licence retrofitting of buildings or for new constructions receiving subsidies, expert advice and technical plates, indicating that they will be getting rid of that incorporate environmentally friendly heat- support.B russels is the capital of Belgium, and also serves as the location for the EU’s headquar-ters. With just one-tenth of the country’s popula- governance is another strong area, with its envi- ronmental plan ranking joint first. The city’s overall score is held back by high levels of energy Energy: Brussels ranks eighth for energy, and is set back primarily by its relatively poor perfor- mance on energy consumption and use oftion, the Brussels-Capital region contributes consumption per head. renewables. Energy consumption in Brussels isaround 17% of Belgian GDP. As in many other mainly driven by the heating of buildings usingdeveloped cities, there has been a shift from CO2 emissions: Brussels ranks fifth for carbon fossil fuels: the Brussels-Capital region con- their car, the regional authority offers a subsidy CO2manufacturing towards business-related ser- dioxide (CO2) emissions. The city emits 3.9 ton- sumes about 87 gigajoules per head annually, for public transport or the purchase of a bicycle. 10 Green Tuesdaysvices. Brussels ranks ninth overall in the index, nes of CO2 per head, well below the average of higher than the average of 81 gigajoules. About 8with a score of 78.01 out of 100. The city scores 5.2 tonnes. Its CO2 emissions per unit of GDP are one-half of the city’s energy is derived from oil, Water: Brussels ranks fourth for water, largely Environmental governance Energyparticularly well for water, and environmental about one-quarter of the index average, putting and one-quarter comes from gas. Brussels ranks because of its low consumption per head, at 54 6 it third in this subcategory. In terms of its CO2 24th for the percentage of renewable energy litres per inhabitant per day, around one-half of 4Select city data reduction strategy, Brussels ranks joint eighth consumed, which at less than 1% is far below the average of 105 litres. Brussels also performs The alderman for the environment and the 2 with Helsinki and Vienna. the average of 7.3%. well on water system leakage, at just 6%, com- City of Brussels’s eco-advice unit organisePopulation: 1.05 million Initiative: Brussels aims to reduce its emissions pared with an average of 23%. The city’s water is monthly meetings, Environment Tuesdays, Air Quality 0 BuildingsGDP per head, PPP: € 49,554 by 15% between 1999 and 2010, through initia- Buildings: Brussels ranks 12th for buildings. Its tested for bacteria and concentrations of nitrates, which are held throughout Brussels and areCO2 emissions per head: 3.91 tonnes tives in the areas of transport, energy, enterpris- score is pulled down by the high energy con- pesticides and heavy metals. All wastewater is used to disseminate information to the publicEnergy consumption per head: 86.88 gigajoules es and private households, as laid out in the sumption of its residential buildings, at nearly sent to a plant before being discharged into the on specific environmental issues. Following aPercentage of renewable energy region’s Air Climate Plan. Several measures have 800 megajoules per square metre per year. sewer system that leads into the Zenne river. presentation by the eco-advice unit, an infor-consumed by the city: 0.58 % already been implemented, including promot- While this is better than the average of 909 Initiative: Brussels has a “Do not waste water!” Waste and Land Use Transport mal debate takes place. Recent topics haveTotal percentage of citizens walking, ing passive and low-energy building construc- megajoules, it is far worse than the 553 mega- video, which promotes the use of water meters, included urban noise, various green bonusescycling or taking public transport to work: 37 % Brussels tion, educating households on reducing their joules consumed in the leading high-income, low-flush toilets, and showers instead of baths. Water Best offered by the city, sustainable food con-Annual water consumption per head: 54.04 m3 energy use, promoting the use of public trans- mid-size city, Copenhagen. It also offers subsidies for the installation or Average sumption and renewable energy.Share of waste recycled: 23.68 % port and supporting renewable-energy initiatives. However, Brussels has developed a series of repair of rainwater tanks.50 51
  • 27. European Green City Index | City Portrait Initiative: In February 2009 Bucharest’s mayor important role in reducing noise and air pollu- Lakeview: Romania’s Bucharest_Romania signed a non-binding declaration of intent to tion. reduce CO2 emissions by at least 20% by 2020 first BREEAM building compared with 1990 levels. However, no con- Water: Bucharest ranks 28th in the water cate- rating crete action plan has been yet been drafted. gory. Its ranking is pulled down by a number of factors: household water consumption has con- Energy: Bucharest ranks 23rd in the energy cat- tinued to increase over the past decade, and In 2009 AIG/Lincoln’s Lakeview office build- egory. At national level, just over 30% of Roma- water loss in the distribution system is also ing in Bucharest was the first building in Ro- nia’s electricity is derived from hydropower sour- extremely high, at nearly one-half of all water mania to achieve a design and procurement ces. However, other renewable-energy sources distributed in the city. rating of “very good” from BREEAM, a widely make only a small contribution to national ener- Initiative: There are plans to rehabilitate the used international environmental assessment gy supply — and to the city’s supply directly. In wastewater treatment plant in Bucharest, with standard for buildings. Facilities for cyclists terms of policies on energy, Bucharest performs the aim of alleviating pollution levels in the are provided, such as changing rooms, show- best among east European cities. Danube river. This is widely regarded as the most ers and lockers, encouraging staff to cycle to Initiative: As Romania is now a member of the important environmental project in Romania. work. The building is situated on a former in- EU, the city will be obliged to conform with EU dustrial site, and a commitment has been directives on energy efficiency among end users Waste and land use: Bucharest ranks 28th for made to increase the ecological value of the and energy suppliers. waste and land use. At 479 kg per head in 2007, site once the development is complete. Un- municipal waste production is slightly below the der the “health and well-being” section of the Buildings: Bucharest ranks 21st for buildings. 30-city average of 511 kg. However, less than BREEAM assessment, the building was judged The existing Romanian Building Code sets low 2% of Bucharest’s waste is recycled, with the to have a pleasant internal environment, with standards for the quality of new buildings in remainder sent to landfill, severely constraining a good supply of natural daylight to more terms of energy efficiency and environmental the city’s score. than 80% of floor area. In the area of “land impact. However, in recent years there has been Initiative: Bucharest’s Municipal Waste Man- use and ecology”, credits were gained by a growing awareness of the need for energy- agement Plan for 2007-13 envisages the con- reusing land that had previously been devel- efficient buildings. struction of two waste-sorting plants, a oped and had been assessed as having low Initiative: Romania was the first country in mechanical biological plant and two compost- ecological value. south-east Europe to establish a Green Building ing plants.Select city dataPopulation: 1.9 million R omania’s capital, Bucharest, has nearly 2 million inhabitants and is the heart of the national economy, accounting for about 15% of ment — a feature common to other post-com- munist countries — has a detrimental impact on Bucharest’s environment and contributes Council (RoGBC), which was launched in Bucharest in 2008 and has since played an extremely active role in promoting green-build- Air quality: Bucharest ranks poorly on air quali- ty, at 27th, because of high levels of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone and particulate CO2 10GDP per head, PPP: € 19,800 8 GDP and 25% of industrial production. Bucha- greatly to its relatively low score. ing awareness and best-practice policies. matter. The major sources of pollution are Environmental governance EnergyCO2 emissions per head: 5.23 tonnes* rest’s main manufacturing industries include power plants, road transport and industry. 6Energy consumption per head: 72.13 gigajoules* food and beverage processing, electrical ma- CO2 emissions: Bucharest ranks 24th for car- Transport: Bucharest is ranked 28th in the Initiative: After years of deforestation around 4Percentage of renewable chinery, broadcasting, and the production of bon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The city’s CO2 transport category. In some respects, the city Bucharest, the city authorities are creating aenergy consumed by the city: 0.01 % 2 communications equipment and chemicals. The emissions are estimated at about 5.2 tonnes per performs well: it has a relatively extensive public green belt around the city to improve air quality.Total percentage of citizens walking, services sector has also grown in the past head per year, slightly above the average of transport network and an above-average share Air Quality 0 Buildingscycling or taking public transport to work: 76 % decade, and the city is now Romania’s largest about 5 tonnes. However, its relatively poor of users. However, Bucharest scores relatively Environmental governance: Bucharest ranksAnnual water consumption per head: 96.02 m3 centre for information and communication score is also partly explained by its high level of poorly on transport because of its chronic traffic 30th in the environmental guidelines category.Share of waste recycled: 1.8 % technology. energy intensity. This reflects low energy effi- congestion problems and a lack of focus on This is primarily because the city lacks a specific* Estimate Bucharest ranks 28th in the overall index, ciency in both production and consumption; the green transport policies. environmental action plan that addresses the main with a score of 39.14 out of 100. Its best ranking construction boom of the past decade; and the Initiative: RATB, a public transport operator, issues and sets targets. Bucharest’s score could be Waste and Land Use Transport is in the buildings category (21st rank). How- rapid increase in car ownership in the post-com- has done much to develop a clean public trans- higher if it improved the level of environmental Bucharest ever, the presence of heavy industry in the city, munist period and consequent traffic conges- port fleet, based on low emissions and quieter information available and communicated more Water Best Average together with years of neglect and underinvest- tion. vehicles, with new technologies playing an effectively with its citizens on environmental issues.52 53
  • 28. European Green City Index | City Portrait B udapest is Hungary’s capital and its main energy intensity. The majority of households in being 20% below the 30-city average, while Residential retrofitting Budapest_Hungary hub of economic, financial, political and cul- Budapest use gas for heating and hot water, water leakages are slightly above average. Virtu- tural activity. With about 17% of the country’s with district heating supplying about one-third ally all households are connected to the sewage cuts energy consump- population, Budapest contributed 34% of Hun- of all homes. system, but only 50% of wastewater is currently tion and emissions gary’s GDP in 2006. The city’s primary commer- Initiative: The government has moved to treated. cial activities are financial and business services, encourage households to use district heating, Initiative: The proportion of biologically puri- which account for close to 80% of gross value by reducing value-added tax on this form of fied wastewater will be increased to 95% follow- Budapest’s largest apartment building in the added. heating in August 2009. The municipal district- ing the completion of a central wastewater- Third District, built some 30 years ago and The capital traditionally had a stronger indus- heating company, Fotav, is equipping homes treatment plant on Budapest’s Csepel island, comprising 886 apartments, will be retrofitted trial focus, but many factories have closed since with metering devices to regulate usage in order scheduled for July 2010. by the end of 2009 at a cost of Ft1.2 billion the transition from communism in 1989, and to reduce costs. (€4.5 million). The building’s heating and hot this has had a beneficial effect on the city’s over- Waste and land use: Budapest ranks 15th in water was originally supplied by the district- all environmental impact. Buildings: Budapest ranks 20th in the buildings the waste and land use category, with a large heating company, Fotav. The project involves Budapest ranks 17th among the 30 cities in category, in part because of high household discrepancy between a favourable ranking (joint the use of renewable energy sources, as the the European Green City Index, with a score of energy consumption, which is well above the sixth) for waste production and a poor one building will be fitted with solar cells to pro- 57.55 out of 100. However, when compared 30-city average. Budapest performs well with (26th) for recycling and reuse. The city produced vide hot water. Fotav will continue to provide with other low-income cities it ranks third. This regard to energy-efficient building standards 441 kg of waste per head in 2007, below the 30- heating, but will do so through a modernised relatively good performance can be attributed in (being ranked joint 14th): for example, building city average of 511 kg per head. Major brown- heating centre in the building. The building part to the reduced importance of industry to certificates, while not mandatory, are becoming field areas have already been redeveloped into will receive a new insulation layer and win- the city’s economy. more widespread. high-profile office, retail and residential devel- dows will be replaced, while the apartments Initiative: The city, jointly with the national opments. have already been equipped with meters to CO2 emissions: Budapest ranks joint 17th in government, subsidises the retrofitting of build- Initiative: The city is continually increasing the regulate heating individually. The combined the category for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions ings to reduce heating-energy loss as a result of number of sites for selective waste collection effect of these improvements is expected to — a relatively good score compared with other inefficient insulation and old windows. (including plastic, glass, metal and paper, but be a 50% reduction in the building’s energy east European cities, behind only Ljubljana, Riga not organic waste). Charges are payable for consumption. The district municipality will and Istanbul. However Budapest’s CO2 emissions Transport: Budapest ranks joint tenth, along municipal waste collection depending on the cover 40% of the project’s costs (drawing in are higher than the average for the 30 cities sur- with Tallinn, in the transport category — its best number of rubbish bins, in order to encourage part on EU funds), with the central govern- veyed, both per unit of GDP and per head. ranking in the index. In eastern Europe, only recycling. Awareness campaigns are wide- ment budget providing another 33%. Initiative: The municipality targets a 10% Bratislava scores higher. The capital’s public spread. CO2 10 8 Environmental governance Energy 6 4 2 Air Quality 0 Buildings Waste and Land Use Transport Budapest Water Best AverageSelect city data reduction from 2005 levels in energy use by transport company calculates that around 60% Air quality: Budapest ranks 22nd in the air Environmental governance: Budapest ranksPopulation: 1.7 million public institutions as well as by households by of its passengers are transported using electric- quality category. Air quality is monitored by 11 a favourable joint 13th for environmental gover-GDP per head, PPP: € 23,814 2013, which will have a positive impact on the powered vehicles. stationary units across the city, and is mainly nance, behind only Warsaw among east Euro-CO2 emissions per head: 5.8 tonnes* city’s CO2 emissions. The reduction will be Initiative: Budapest won the EU’s 2008 Euro- affected by vehicle traffic, which is responsible pean cities. It has a detailed environmental pro-Energy consumption per head: 98.85 gigajoules* achieved by means of energy audits of public pean Mobility Week Award. It was judged to for 70-90% of emissions other than sulphur gramme that sets guidelines for environmentalPercentage of renewable energy buildings, and by retrofitting homes. have done most to raise public awareness of air dioxide. policy and targets in each area for 2013.consumed by the city: 0.44 % pollution from traffic and to promote cleaner Initiative: Budapest is gradually improving its Initiative: Budapest is a member of the Co-Total percentage of citizens walking, Energy: Budapest ranks 25th in the index for alternatives. public transport vehicle fleet in order to reduce venant of Mayors, whose signatories pledgecycling or taking public transport to work: 69 % energy, owing to high energy consumption per emissions by purchasing new buses or replacing to produce and follow a sustainable-energyAnnual water consumption per head: 84.59 m3 head, low renewable-energy use as a proportion Water: Budapest ranks 18th in the index for engines, as well as installing particle filters in action plan to go beyond EU energy policy objec-Share of waste recycled: 2.2 % of total energy consumed, and relatively high water. Consumption per head is moderate, diesel-fuelled buses. tives.* Estimate54 55
  • 29. European Green City Index | City Portrait accounting for 17% of total energy consumption the best-scoring cities in this subcategory. How- been on brownfield sites, including the redevel- Copenhagen_Denmark in 2008 and for 27% of electricity consumption. ever, Copenhagen claimed joint top spot for opment of the harbour front. The municipality Initiative: The national government’s climate water system leakages, wastewater treatment actively seeks to use urban development as a change strategy aims to raise the share of and water efficiency. tool to minimise transport requirements and renewable energy to 30% of total consumption Initiative: The municipality has a target to energy consumption. by 2025. reduce household water consumption from 114 litres per person per day in 2007 to 100 litres per Air quality: Copenhagen is ranked fifth for air Buildings: Copenhagen is ranked fourth in the person in 2012. The city council spends around quality, with a score that is broadly similar to buildings category. Danish buildings are among Dkr2 million (€270,000) each year on water-sav- those of several other north European cities. The the most energy-efficient in the world, despite ing initiatives. great bulk of air pollutants measured in Copen- the ageing housing stock. The annual energy hagen come from traffic. consumption of residential buildings, at 554 Waste and land use: Copenhagen ranks sev- megajoules per square metre, is the lowest of enth for waste and land use. However, the city is Environmental governance: Copenhagen is the 30 cities in the survey, being marginally bet- placed joint first for its green land use policies, ranked joint first for environmental governance. ter than that of Berlin. Almost all buildings in the thanks to the ongoing redevelopment of brown- The municipality has recently taken steps to Danish capital are connected to the district heat- field sites and the widespread availability of ensure integrated environmental management ing system. green spaces (almost 80% of residents in the across all of its departments, appointing envi- Initiative: The Copenhagen municipality aims municipality of Copenhagen live within 300 ronmental co-ordinators for each administrative to achieve 10% of its CO2 reductions through metres of a park or recreation area). Some 55% unit, who meet regularly to exchange experi- construction and renovation projects. The of all waste is recycled, although the proportion ences. There is already a dedicated team within municipality intends to upgrade all municipal for household waste is lower, at 24%. the city council to which citizens can direct their buildings to ensure compliance with the highest Initiative: The vast majority (80%) of new complaints or concerns on environmental mat- energy-efficiency standards. developments during the current decade have ters. Carbon-neutral neighbourhoods In partnership with energy companies, archi- tects, construction firms and other interested parties, the municipality has launched two flagship urban development projects to create “carbon-neutral neighbourhoods”, charac- terised by low-energy buildings, sustainable energy networks and environmentally friend- ly transport. One such development is in the Amager Faelled district, south of centralSelect city dataPopulation: 504,000 T he City of Copenhagen is small by European standards, being home to just over 500,000 people, or around one-tenth of Denmark’s popu- fuel sources are coal, oil and natural gas. A drive to improve energy efficiency has contributed to a significant fall in emissions over the past Transport: Copenhagen is ranked third in the transport category. The city has an extensive public transport system — including a metro CO2 10 Copenhagen, where it is expected that some 300,000 square metres of residential and commercial buildings will be built. Before a fi- 8GDP per head, PPP: € 43,640 lation. Copenhagen is the country’s main busi- decade or so. The city now produces about 5.4 system, a suburban railway and bus networks — nal development plan for the area is adopted Environmental governance EnergyCO2 emissions per head: 5.38 tonnes ness and financial centre, and is also one of tonnes of CO2 emissions per head per year, with the result that virtually all residents live 6 in 2012, the city authorities will conduct anEnergy consumption per head: 80.63 gigajoules* western Europe’s leading locations for interna- slightly above the index average. within 350 metres of public transport services. analysis of the technologies required to en- 4Percentage of renewable energy tional company headquarters and distribution Initiative: The city’s 2009 climate change plan Copenhagen is also famous for the ease with sure that the district’s energy supply, build-consumed by the city: 18.76 % 2 centres. Copenhagen achieves the highest rank- includes a target to reduce CO2 emissions by which its residents can cycle in the city. ings, transport and waste management sys-Total percentage of citizens walking, ing in the European Green City Index, with a a further 20% by 2015 relative to their 2005 Initiative: Copenhagen has set itself the objec- Air Quality 0 Buildings tems can be operated on a carbon-neutralcycling or taking public transport to work: 68 % score of 87.31 out of 100. The city performs well levels. The plan also sets an ambitious long-term tive of becoming the “world’s best cycle city”, basis. Another major new urban developmentAnnual water consumption per head: 147 m3 in all eight categories of the index, and is ranked goal for the city to become carbon neutral by and aims to raise the share of the capital’s inhab- will take place at Nordhavn, a 200-hectareShare of waste recycled: 23.61 % joint first in the environmental governance sub- 2025, which, if achieved, would make it the first itants who regularly use a bicycle to get to their site situated at the northernmost part of the* Estimate category. Successive governments at both nation- large carbon-neutral city in Europe. place of work or education from 36% currently city’s docks. Following a public consultation, al and municipal level have strongly supported to 50% by 2015. Waste and Land Use Transport an international competition was launched in the promotion of sustainable development. Energy: Copenhagen is ranked in second place 2008 to elicit plans, with the winning propos- Copenhagen for energy. Denmark’s energy policy has sought Water: Ranked in joint fifth place in the water Water Best al developed into a comprehensive plan dur- Average CO2 emissions: Copenhagen is ranked fourth to reduce the country’s dependence on coal and category, along with Zurich, Copenhagen’s ing 2009-10. It is envisaged that a first phase for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, thanks to oil in favour of natural gas and renewable ener- score is dragged down by high levels of water of development will begin in 2011, with a good scores in the CO2 intensity and CO2 reduc- gy sources. Renewable energy sources play an consumption which, at 147 cubic metres per second phase scheduled for 2018. tion strategy subcategories. The city’s primary increasingly important role in the country, inhabitant per year, is almost three times that of56 57
  • 30. European Green City Index | City Portrait 1990, although this has yet to be confirmed for via salary sacrifice, for employees at a cost of up Transport21 Dublin_Ireland the city), as part of its membership of the to €1,000 tax-free. The scheme has attracted Covenant of Mayors. widespread participation. Energy : Dublin ranks 18th in the energy cate- Water: Dublin is ranked joint 16th in the water gory, largely because of its poor performance in category, along with Stockholm. The city’s resi- the energy consumption subcategory. The vast dents each consume about 128 cubic metres of Transport21, a flagship Irish transport pro- bulk of Irelands electricity comes from fossil water per year, substantially above the index ject, was launched in 2006 and involves pro- fuels, such as peat, coal, oil and gas, and each average of 105 cubic metres. The local river, the jected expenditure of €34 billion to upgrade inhabitant of Dublin consumes 156 gigajoules Liffey, and various tributaries are classified as roads, trains and buses across the country to per year, compared with a 30-city average of either “moderately” or “seriously” polluted by the 2015. The project should have a significant around 81 gigajoules. Irish Environmental Protection Agency. positive impact on Dublin’s transport infra- Initiative: The city council aims to reduce its Initiative: Dublin City Council engages in media structure. In Dublin the scheme proposes to own energy usage by 3% per year, resulting in a activities to encourage water conservation. Fur- expand the LUAS (the light rail system) and total reduction of 33% by 2020. It is also working ther information is made available through web- to create two new metro lines. The Metro to reduce energy consumption by the city’s sites such as North project, which would link Dublin Air- social housing through the promotion of solar port/Swords to the city centre, is under con- energy. Waste and land use: Dublin is ranked 13th for sideration by the Railway Procurement waste and land use, helped by a strong score in Agency (RPA). This is a public-private partner- Buildings: Dublin ranks 24th in the buildings the waste recycling and reuse subcategory. ship initiative, and the RPA will begin to con- category. Much of the older housing stock in About 28% of waste is recycled, above the 30- tribute funding only after the first passengers Dublin was not built with energy conservation city average of nearly 18%. However, Dublin is have been carried. Costs between €2.4 billion as an objective. Dublin’s housing action plan hindered by a poor score for municipal waste and €5 billion have been identified, and the notes that residential and commercials buildings production: it creates 656 kg of waste per inhab- expected completion date has been revised account for 55% of the city’s total greenhouse itant per year, well above the average of 511 kg to 2014, with the tender being awarded in gas emissions. (excluding industrial waste). 2010. In addition to these larger projects, the government has begun to encourage alterna- tive travel methods, such as cycling, and also aims to encourage the use of electric vehi- cles, with a goal of 10% of all vehicles on the market being electric by 2020. CO2 10 8 Environmental governance Energy 6 4 2 Air Quality 0 BuildingsSelect city dataPopulation: 1.2 million D ublin is the capital of the Republic of Ireland, and is home to around 1.2 million of the country’s 4.2 million citizens. The country’s the severe impact of the global economic slow- down. Initiative: The Greener Homes Scheme was launched in 2006. It provides €47 million between 2006 and 2011, and aims to give grant Initiative: The construction of a waste-to-ener- gy incinerator at Poolbeg was finally approved in 2008. When completed, it will burn 600,000GDP per head, PPP: € 39,560 largest city, is also its commercial capital. The CO2 emissions: Dublin ranks 19th for CO2 emis- assistance to homeowners intending to install tonnes of household waste per year, making itCO2 emissions per head: 9.72 tonnes Waste and Land Use Transport city’s primary activities are in the services sector, sions; the city produces 9.72 tonnes of CO2 per renewable-energy heating systems in either one of the largest such facilities in Europe.Energy consumption per head: 156.46 gigajoules including professional, administrative and head annually, nearly twice the 30-city average new or existing homes. Dublin Water BestPercentage of renewable energy financial services, as well as information tech- of 5.2 tonnes. Its score is bolstered by a strong Air quality: Dublin ranks fourth for air quality. Averageconsumed by the city: 5.11 % nology. performance on CO2 emissions per unit of GDP, Transport: Dublin is ranked last in the transport This is its best score in the index, and is achievedTotal percentage of citizens walking, Dublin is ranked 21st overall in the European which, at about 88 grams per euro, is far better category — its worst performance. Both the despite concerns on the part of Dublin city coun-cycling or taking public transport to work: 33 % Green City Index, with a score of 53.98 out of than the average of 356 grams. But Dublin’s length of its public transport network and the cil about certain emissions, such as particulate Environmental governance: Dublin is rankedAnnual water consumption per head: 127.95m3 100. Its results are strong in the air quality cate- result is further hindered by the absence of a for- extent of its cycle lanes are well below the index matter. Because of changes in national legisla- joint 21st for environmental governance, withShare of waste recycled: 28 % gory, where it ranks fourth overall, but poor mal CO2-reduction target, although a plan is cur- average. Accordingly, less than 20% of people tion in the late 1980s, including the elimination Athens. Dublin city council’s plans are outlined showings in other categories, including build- rently being formulated. take public transport to work, about one-half of of leaded petrol and a ban on coal, Dublins air in its Climate Change Strategy 2008-12, which ings and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, pull Initiative: Dublin’s climate change strategy the index average of 42%; nearly 61% use pri- quality has improved dramatically in the past sets out the city’s core objectives in terms of down its overall score. The city stands to benefit document outlines a plan to meet a targeted 20- vate cars. two decades. One concern is the backyard burn- combating rising CO2 emissions. The document from various nationally driven environmental 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by Initiative: The Bike to Work scheme started ing of household waste, which contributes 50% focuses on energy, planning, transport, waste proposals, but progress is likely to be impeded by 2020 (against a recommended base year of 2008. It allows employers to purchase a bicycle, of Irelands dioxin emissions. management and biodiversity.58 59
  • 31. European Green City Index | City Portrait Energy: Helsinki ranks 19th for energy, which is houses, the municipally owned Helsinki Water is Low2No Helsinki_Finland its weakest category in the index. At around 89 not particularly active in promoting water sav- gigajoules per year, energy consumption per ing. head is high (the 30-city average is 81 giga- Initiative: In order to improve the state of the joules), largely because of the city’s cold climate Gulf of Finland (one of the most polluted parts and its high standard of living. of the Baltic Sea) and the entire Baltic Sea, Initiative: Helsinki Energy, which is municipally Helsinki is actively participating in international In March 2009 Sitra, the Finnish Innovation owned, is to build two large offshore wind- co-operation projects such as wastewater treat- Fund, and the City of Helsinki launched an in- power parks with a generating capacity of 500- ment in St Petersburg, Russia. ternational competition for the construction 1,000 mw. of a sustainable and innovative block in the Waste and land use: Helsinki ranks third in the western harbour area of Helsinki. The Buildings: Helsinki does well in the buildings waste and land use category, in large part Low2No competition seeks comprehensive category, ranking fifth as a result of its energy- because of its high level of waste recycling and solutions to the problems of low- or zero-car- efficient building standards and incentives and reuse, and also thanks to its waste-reduction bon and energy-efficient building design. The the below-average energy consumption of its policies. New construction takes place on competition aims to show that national and residential buildings (at 683 megajoules per brownfield sites rather than green areas, so that international targets for reductions in CO2 square metre in 2007, compared with the 30- expansion into green areas is now minimal. emissions and improvements in energy effi- city average of 909 megajoules). Initiative: The construction of a gas engine ciency can be reached and surpassed, at the Initiative: Eko-Viikki is an ecological suburb power plant in the area of Ammassuo, which is same time producing an economically sus- located 8 km from the centre of Helsinki. Eko- intended to recover landfill gases and will pre- tainable and architecturally high-quality envi- Viikki was the first ecological neighbourhood to dominantly produce electricity, began in 2009. ronment. Some 74 entries were received, and be built in Finland, and in 2010 the area is The plant is due to open in 2010. five were selected for the final round, with a expected to support 6,000 jobs and to provide winner announced in September 2009. In the homes for 13,000 people. Air quality: Helsinki ranks third for air quality. long-term, Sitra and the City of Helsinki hope The city’s air quality has improved substantially that the competition process will help in the Transport: Helsinki ranks ninth in the transport in recent decades as a result of the introduction implementation of an innovative sustainable category. Its public transport network is the of district heating and, more recently (from urban development solution in Helsinki, in shortest in Europe. However, the city ranks first 1991), with the replacement of coal by natural developing a sustainable-development frame- with regard to the length of its cycling network, gas as a fuel for energy production. work applicable to other contexts, and in and is a leader in green transport promotion. Initiative: Helsinki Energy has invested in sev- spurring innovation in the field of energy effi- ciency and sustainable development. CO2 10 8 Environmental governance Energy 6 4Select city dataPopulation: 569,000 W ith a population of 570,000, the Finnish capital, Helsinki, has an economy domi- nated by the services sector, with a particularly 2 Air Quality 0 BuildingsGDP per head, PPP: € 52,832 high concentration of jobs in information tech-CO2 emissions per head: 6.01 tonnes nology and the public sector. The Helsinki Metro-Energy consumption per head: 88.62 gigajoules politan Area consists of four municipalities,Percentage of renewable energy Helsinki, Vantaa, Espoo and Kauniainen, theconsumed by the city: 3.51 % total population of which is around 1 million. Waste and Land Use TransportTotal percentage of citizens walking, This area accounts for one-third of Finland’s GDPcycling or taking public transport to work: 44.7 % and is accordingly wealthy: its inhabitants’ aver- Helsinki BestAnnual water consumption per head: 76.29 m3 Water age annual income is the second-highest AverageShare of waste recycled: 57.61 % among the cities reviewed in this study, after that of Oslo. Helsinki ranks in seventh place in the European Green City Index, with a score of emissions per head of 6 tonnes, well above the Initiative: An extension of the Helsinki metro eral wind-energy plants in Finland, in order to first capital city in Europe to complete a full- 79.29 out of 100. Helsinki is ranked fourth 30-city average of 5 tonnes. This results from the system to the city of Espoo received official raise its share of renewables and move away scale sustainable development action planning among the Nordic cities, largely because of its city’s high need for heating in buildings and its approval in September 2006 and will be com- from the use of fossil fuels, which adversely process. relatively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rising electricity consumption. pleted by 2013 at the earliest. affects the air quality of the city. Initiative: Since 1995 Helsinki has taken a col- and energy consumption, even though the city Initiative: Helsinki’s first, and the world’s laborative approach to planning the use and is a leader in energy efficiency. largest, heat pump plant, Katri Vala, was com- Water: Helsinki is ranked 11th in the water cate- Environmental governance: Helsinki is ranked development of municipally owned urban pleted in 2006. The plant uses heat pumps and gory, largely because of its limited water-effi- joint first (with three other cities) for environ- forests, allowing residents to help set goals for CO2 emissions: Helsinki ranks 11th in the index produces both district heat and cooling, signifi- ciency policies. Although the city encourages mental governance. Its Sustainability Strategy the use of green areas and minimising conflicts for CO2 emissions, as a result of its relatively high cantly reducing Helsinki’s CO2 emissions. the installation of water meters in individual and Action plan 2002-10 made Helsinki the over space.60 61
  • 32. European Green City Index | City Portrait Commission’s proposal to limit CO2 emissions by km; and the possible development of plans for a Public participation in environmental debates is Istanbul_Turkey passenger cars to 120 grams per kilometre by further 293 km under discussion. not encouraged, and there has been little effort the end of 2012. They have produced new to educate people or raise awareness of environ- engine models that can reduce CO2 emissions by Water: Although Istanbul ranks only 23rd for mental issues. up to 19%. water, it performs well with regard to water con- Initiative: The municipality of Istanbul is imple- sumption per head, coming seventh overall in menting a new regulation plan in the period to Energy: Istanbul performs well in the energy this subcategory and first among cities with 2010 that aims to institute a “preservation and category, ranking 11th overall and first in the high average temperatures. development” balance. The plan acknowledges energy consumption subcategory. Istanbul’s Initiative: The city’s municipal water company, the effect of metropolitan settlement on the energy consumption per head is estimated at 36 ISKI, plans the construction of seven new biolog- environment. gigajoules, less than one-half of the 30 city aver- ical treatment plants capable of processing age of 81 gigajoules. 70,000 cubic metres per day, to supply a storage Initiative: A new renewable-energy bill is expect- facility holding treated water for use in industry CO2 ed to be passed later in 2009, offering generous and horticulture. 10 electricity contract guarantees for new hydro, wind, geothermal and solar power projects. Waste and land use: Istanbul ranks 25th in the 8 Environmental governance Energy waste and land use category, largely because of 6 Buildings: Istanbul ranks poorly, in 28th place, the small amount of green space in the city — at 4 in the buildings category. The majority of Istan- only 6.4 square metres per person — and its bul’s buildings date from the 1960s onwards poor record on recycling and waste manage- 2 and have been poorly constructed, with little ment. Most recycling is still conducted on an Air Quality 0 Buildings thought given to energy efficiency. Some new informal basis by impoverished communities liv- buildings are being constructed with attempts at ing adjacent to landfill sites. energy efficiency, but there are no universal Initiative: In its 2007 strategic plan, Istanbul’s standards in place. municipality announced that it aimed to Initiative: Discussions have begun about the increase the percentage of packaging materials Waste and Land Use Transport possibility of issuing buildings with “energy recycled from 15% in 2006 to 61% by 2011. deeds” that would identify the efficiency of their Istanbul Water Best energy use. Air quality: Istanbul ranks 23rd for air quality, AverageSelect city data Landfill methane powerPopulation: 12.6 millionGDP per head, PPP: € 14,615CO2 emissions per head: 3.25 tonnes*Energy consumption per head: 36.15 gigajoules* Two of Istanbul’s landfill waste sites have beenPercentage of renewable energy adapted to allow methane produced fromconsumed by the city: 5.12 % buried waste to be used by commercial powerTotal percentage of citizens walking, plants. One site currently powers both a 7.5cycling or taking public transport to work: 54.02 %* mw and a 7 mw plant, which is already in theAnnual water consumption per head: 68.63 m3 process of being expanded to 14.3 mw. TwoShare of waste recycled: 3.12 % further plants with capacities of 4 mw and 1* Estimate mw are under construction, and others are ex- pected to be built in the future as new landfill I stanbul is Turkey’s biggest industrial centre, employing around one in five of the country’s industrial workforce. Local industry varies wide- the developing world than with the other Euro- pean cities considered in this study. The city scores best on energy, thanks to its low level of Transport: Istanbul ranks poorly, at 23rd, in the transport category, because of the explosive growth of private car ownership in the city since which, given its size and the nature of its growth, can be regarded as a relatively good per- formance. High-grade imported coal and fuel oil sites are developed with power production as part of the design criteria. These sites gener- ate methane-rich landfill gas as organic solid ly, from textiles and chemicals to vehicles and consumption per head. the 1980s and the failure of authorities to make are still used, which accounts for the city’s poor waste gradually breaks down. To prevent un- food and beverages. By population, Istanbul is sufficient investment in public transport to meet ranking on particulates. controlled venting of the gas, it is extracted the largest city in Europe. Population growth has CO2 emissions: Although Istanbul ranks only the population’s growing needs. Initiative: In its 2007 strategic plan, the munic- via a network of pipes, processed and fed into been far more rapid than elsewhere in Europe: 16th overall for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, Congestion remains the most pressing prob- ipality stated its intention to increase the num- engines to generate an alternative supply of the city’s population has risen by at least 400% it scores strongly on CO2 emissions per head, lem, and all transport initiatives aim to address ber of air quality monitoring stations from 10 to electricity. Altogether, these four sites will be since 1970. As of 2008 the population was offi- ranking second in this subcategory. However, this. 17 and to install public display systems indicat- able to produce enough energy to support the cially 12.6 million, largely as a result of migra- this is largely because of the city’s low level of car Initiative: Work is continuing on expanding the ing air quality. requirements of around 100,000 households tion from rural areas. Istanbul is ranked 25th in ownership per head and low per-head energy city’s metro and tram lines, with ongoing con- in Istanbul. As a result, the sites have attracted the European Green City Index, with a score of consumption. struction of 50 km of new line to be completed Environmental governance: Istanbul ranks attention as one of the largest waste-to-ener- 45.20 out of 100. Many of its problems have Initiative: Scientists in Istanbul have been con- by 2012; construction of a further 64 km await- 29th for environmental governance. This is part- gy projects in the world. greater similarities with those faced by cities in ducting research on how to meet the European ing tender; plans being finalised for another 30 ly because regulations are routinely ignored.62 63
  • 33. European Green City Index | City Portrait that is being implemented with financial sup- environmental project in the Kiev city adminis- CO2 Kiev_Ukraine port from the World Bank, which envisages tration’s environmental programme to 2011. 10 increasing the output of the Dnipro Hydropower 8 Cascade by around 500 gwh, the equivalent of Waste and land use: Kiev ranks 30th for waste Environmental governance Energy constructing a major new hydropower plant. and land use. It is estimated that Kiev produced 6 almost 600 kg of municipal waste per inhabitant 4 Buildings: Kiev is ranked 30th in the buildings in 2007, making it the 26th-largest producer of 2 category. At 1,838 megajoules per square waste on this measure. Chaotic construction metre, the energy consumption of Kiev’s resi- planning practices have in recent years led to the Air Quality 0 Buildings dential buildings is the highest of any city sur- disappearance of many of the city’s green areas. veyed and more than twice the 30-city average Initiative: In order to decrease the burden on of 909 megajoules. the main landfill site, the city administration Initiative: Plans are being made at national plans to create stations for processing plant level to improve the energy efficiency of build- waste in 2008-11. Waste and Land Use Transport ings, in co-operation with the EU and the EBRD. Kiev Air quality: Kiev is ranked 30th for air quality. Water Best Average Transport: Kiev is ranked joint 19th in the trans- The city’s industry is energy-intensive and insuf- port category — its best result, tying with Paris, ficiently equipped with emission-reduction Vilnius and Zagreb — chiefly because of its technology. While emissions from stationary Revitalising Kiev’s traffic management In October 2008 the EBRD announced the provision, under the Kiev City traffic-manage- ment project, of a €15 million loan to Kiev’s municipal traffic-management agency. The loan will be used to create an information technology-based integrated traffic-manage- ment system in line with international best practice, to “manage traffic more effectively, improve air quality through lower congestion levels, and improve road safety”. The EBRD has already committed substantial resources to improving Kiev’s transport infrastructure,Select city dataPopulation: 2.7 million K iev, the capital of Ukraine, is the country’s largest city and an important industrial cen- tre, with a population of some 2.7 million. Key actually scores better than the 30-city average in terms of CO2 emissions per head (at 4.1 tonnes, compared with the average of 5 tonnes), putting strong score for use of non-car transport. Kiev ranks joint 11th with Istanbul and Riga on its policies for congestion reduction, making these sources fell by 19% between 2000 and 2007, emissions from mobile sources grew by 48%, owing to rising car ownership. including a €100 million loan to the city’s two municipal transport companies to buy new buses, trolleybuses and metro trains in 2007.GDP per head, PPP: € 4,943* sectors include heavy industry, such as engineer- it in 11th place for this subcategory. However, the best-performing east European cities in this Initiative: The Kiev city administration’s envi- One aspect of the city’s transport plans hasCO2 emissions per head: 4.1 tonnes ing, chemicals and building materials, as well as this is outweighed by joint-lowest rankings for category. ronmental programme to 2011 provides for the attracted criticism, however: a non-govern-Energy consumption per head: 87.16 gigajoules consumer industries, such as food processing both CO2 intensity and policies for reducing Initiative: Kyiv Metropolitan, which runs the rehabilitation of a chlorine plant and for a reduc- mental organisation has argued that the con-Percentage of renewable energy and textiles. Growing economic prosperity in emissions. city’s metro, has announced plans to invest tion in emissions from a power-generation plant struction of a new road tunnel under theconsumed by the city: 0.47 % recent years has contributed to strong growth in Initiative: One of the key aims of the Kiev City US$3 billion over five years, as part of a major and coal boilers by switching to other fuels. Dnieper river is a “step towards private car-Total percentage of citizens walking, car ownership, with a related increase in conges- traffic-management project, backed by the expansion of its network in preparation for the In 2006-07 the Department of Environmen- oriented development of the city’s trans-cycling or taking public transport to work: 88.95 %* tion and emissions. Extremely low average tem- European Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- UEFA 2012 football tournament. tal Protection, together with the Department of portation”. The project was approved by theAnnual water consumption per head: 265.56 m3 peratures in the winter require high levels of ment (EBRD), is to reduce congestion on the Transport and Communications, equipped 468 city council in 2008, with funds expected toShare of waste recycled: 0 heating. city’s roads, which in turn will help to reduce CO2 Water: Kiev ranks 22nd in the water category — public transport units with technology to reduce be provided by private investors under a pub-* Estimate Kiev ranks 30th in the European Green City emissions. one of its best overall category rankings. Kiev is pollutants from exhaust fumes. lic-private partnership (PPP). As part of the Index, with a score of 32.33 out of 100. In addi- estimated to have consumed 266 cubic metres Kiev City traffic-management project, the tion to the legacy of the Soviet Union, which paid Energy: Kiev is ranked 30th in the energy cate- of water per head in 2007 — the highest ratio Environmental governance: Kiev ranks 23rd EBRD is providing €200,000 for PPP structur- scant attention to environmental issues, Kiev’s gory. Reflecting highly inefficient energy con- among the 30 cities surveyed, and well above for environmental governance, largely because ing and a pre-feasibility study of the tunnel low ranking also reflects its position as the poor- sumption, Kiev ranks joint 26th in terms of ener- the average of 105 cubic metres. This is the pri- of its high score for green management, where project. However, the financing of the pro- est of the cities covered in the index gy intensity, although it performs somewhat mary reason why its overall score in the water it ranks highly among east European cities in ject, which is estimated to cost up to US$1 better in terms of energy consumption per head. category is not better. general. In addition, Kiev scores reasonably well billion, is now looking even more difficult in CO2 emissions: Kiev is ranked 30th in the cate- Initiative: Kiev Hydroelectric Power Station is Initiative: Reconstruction of the city’s main in terms of the availability of information on its the light of the current economic crisis. gory for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The city part of the Hydropower Rehabilitation Project sewage plant has been designated a priority environmental performance and policies.64 65
  • 34. European Green City Index | City Portrait ciency standards for buildings, although it is let expected to be achieved by 2010. The leakage 12th for environmental governance, and is Lisbon_Portugal down by poor incentives to promote such poli- problem is tackled in the 2008 Strategy for Ener- placed third among middle-income cities. This cies. gy and the Environment, which has set a target is thanks to environmentally sustainable action Initiative: Legislation enacted in 2009 makes it of a 15.6% reduction in leakages by 2013. The plans, such as the 2008 Strategy for Energy compulsory for all new buildings, as well as document also targets a 7.8% reduction in water and the Environment, and to the city’s open- those subject to renovation and all buildings consumption. ness to public participation in the discussion of being let or sold, to have an energy efficiency plans. However, this strategy is not comprehen- certificate valid for ten years. Waste and land use: Lisbon ranks 22nd for sive, as it focuses only on water, energy and waste and land use, largely because of inade- waste. Transport: Lisbon ranks 25th for transport, quate policies regarding municipal waste pro- Initiative: In February 2009 Lisbon signed the mainly because about one in three people use duction and reduction, waste recycling and Covenant of Mayors, a commitment assumed by their own vehicles to commute, according to reuse, and land use. The city scores below the 400 cities globally to reduce CO2 emissions by 2003 data. Cycle lanes are almost non-existent west European average for the percentage of 20% by 2020. CO2 10 8 Environmental governance Energy 6 4 2 Air Quality 0 Buildings Waste and Land Use Transport Lisbon Water Best AverageSelect city dataPopulation: 2 million A s Portugal’s capital, Lisbon is home to 20% of the country’s population and almost one- third of economic activity. Almost 80% of the Initiative: While the city does not have a specif- ic CO2 emission-reduction target, its general energy-reduction targets will help to cut its because of the hilly topography of the city. Pub- lic transport (consisting of railways, the metro and buses) is used by 44% of the population, a dwellings connected to the sewage system. Lis- bon’s figure for municipal waste production per head is slightly above the average of 511 kg, at Electric vehiclesGDP per head, PPP: € 24,896 city’s workforce is employed in the services sec- emissions. figure that is slightly higher than average, but 538 kg, and only 7.1% of waste is recycled, farCO2 emissions per head: 7.47 tonnes tor. Lisbon hosts most of Portugal’s public electric trams constitute only a small part of the below the average of 18%.Energy consumption per head: 48.65 gigajoules administration services, as well as its financial Energy: Lisbon ranks ninth for energy. At about city’s public transport network and just 5% of the Initiative: The city’s Strategy for Energy and thePercentage of renewable energy and legal activities, telecommunications and 49 gigajoules per head per year, consumption is bus fleet runs on natural gas. Hybrid buses will Environment sets targets for a reduction of 10% As part of the national government’s policy ofconsumed by the city: 9.69 % consulting services. the third-lowest in the index and is well below be introduced by 2010-11. by 2013 in demand for non-recyclable materials developing electric mobility, a pilot pro-Total percentage of citizens walking, Lisbon ranks 18th in the index, with a score the average of 81 gigajoules. The percentage of Initiative: Initiatives under way focus on the and for an increase of 29% in selective waste col- gramme started in Lisbon in March 2008 to in-cycling or taking public transport to work: 66 % of 57.25 out of 100. It’s relatively strong results renewable energy consumed by the city was expansion of the metro system into suburban lection. stall electric vehicle charging points. The pro-Annual water consumption per head: 87.12 m3 for energy and buildings do not sufficiently com- almost 10% in 2006, the seventh-best score in areas, in an attempt to reduce the number of ject aims to reduce CO2 emissions and oilShare of waste recycled: 7.11% pensate for poor transport, air, water, land the index. cars entering the city. Car-pooling for public-sec- Air quality: Lisbon ranks 24th for air quality, consumption by encouraging the take-up of use and waste policies. Governance problems Initiative: In December 2008 Lisbon approved tor employees, organised by the municipality, is because of high levels of nitrogen dioxide and electric vehicles. The intention is to set up reduce the city’s capacity to implement its poli- a strategy that aims to achieve an overall reduc- currently a pilot project. particulate matter. Clean-air policies and reduc- some 1,300 charging stations nationally by cies. Moreover, Lisbon does not score well when tion in energy consumption of nearly 9% ing road traffic have not been priorities, and this 2011, many of them in Lisbon. The charging compared with other middle-income, hot-cli- between 2009 and 2013. Energy supply has Water: Lisbon ranks 24th for water, while other has contributed to the deterioration in air quali- stations already in place in Lisbon were previ- mate cities. However, Lisbon surpasses these been targeted by national policies, which middle-income cities with hot climates fare bet- ty. More positively, the city has relatively low sul- ously reserved for city services, but are now cities in its efforts to improve. encourage renewable sources, such as wind ter. Although the city is ranked 16th for water phur dioxide and ozone emissions, since there is available for use by all owners of electric vehi- power. consumption, at 87 cubic metres of water per little industrial production in the area. cles. The city plans to expand this network sig- CO2 Emissions: Lisbon ranks 22nd for carbon head each year (below the average of 105 Initiative: Policies to promote the use of renew- nificantly, with the aim of having 100 charg- dioxide (CO2) emissions. In 2007 it produced 7.5 Buildings: Lisbon ranks 11th for buildings. The litres), qualitative aspects of water management able sources of energy and reduce energy con- ing points in place by the end of 2009, 300 by tonnes of CO2 per inhabitant, well above the average age of its buildings is about 35 years, are not as positive. Lisbon performs especially sumption are expected to lead to an improve- the end of 2010 and 700 by the end of 2011. average of 5.2 tonnes. This is largely due to the and only recently have construction standards poorly on water system leakages, with a leakage ment in air quality in the city. The government has also granted significant high volume of vehicles entering Lisbon as a focused more heavily on energy efficiency. The rate of almost 46%. tax benefits to buyers of electric cars. result of inadequate public transport. city is now at the top of the table for energy effi- Initiative: Full treatment of wastewater is Environmental governance: Lisbon ranks66 67
  • 35. European Green City Index | City Portrait 1,653 megajoules per square metre per year, Waste and land use: Ljubljana is ranked 18th CO2 Ljubljana_Slovenia well above the index average of 909 mega- in the waste and land use category, bolstered by 10 joules. Ljubljana has no specific standards relat- a strong score for municipal waste production, 8 ing to the upgrading of older buildings, al- where it comes joint sixth overall. The city’s Environmental governance Energy though efficiency standards do exist for new inhabitants produce about 441 kg of waste per 6 buildings. year, well below the 30-city average of 511 kg. 4 Initiative: The city hopes to reduce the use of However, Ljubljana performs poorly on recy- 2 energy in public buildings by 15% by 2013 com- cling, which pulls down its overall score. A new pared with the level in 2004. It also plans to waste-management site, to help to raise the Air Quality 0 Buildings increase the availability of renewable energy share of recycled waste, is currently being built. sources in general. Initiative: Ljubljana introduced a lottery in late 2008 to encourage recycling. It involves a fort- Transport: Ljubljana ranks in 13th place in the nightly draw in which a household or office transport category. Although the city does rela- recycling bin is randomly selected, with a cash Waste and Land Use Transport tively well in transport when compared to other prize awarded if it contains the correct type of Ljubljana categories, it is still set back to some degree by the waste. Water Best Average T he city of Ljubljana is Slovenia’s capital and the hub of the country’s political, economic and financial activities. With 24.5% of Slovenia’s CO2-reduction policy, but has pledged to draw up such a strategy during 2009 as part of its membership of the Covenant of Mayors. This relatively low usage of non-car transport. Although the city has a vast bus network, buses move slowly because of the general lack of dedicated Air quality: Ljubljana ranks 14th for air quality. It performs particularly well on sulphur dioxide emissions, with lower levels than many larger, Cycle sightseeing population, in 2006 Ljubljana contributed strategy would aim to reduce CO2 emissions by bus lanes. wealthier cities. 36.1% of national GDP. at least 20% by 2020. As a consequence, the number of bus pas- So far Ljubljana has been unsuccessful in Ljubljana ranks 19th place in the European sengers has been decreasing steadily for the reducing traffic volumes in the city centre, and Green City Index, with a score of 56.39 out of Energy: Ljubljana is ranked just 27th for energy, past 15 years, and commuters tend to use their this contributes to high volumes of particulate From April to October, the main cycling sea- 100. Its score is adversely affected by poor per- mainly because of its high energy consumption own cars for reasons of speed and comfort. matter, although overall pollution levels are son in Ljubljana, there are 80 bicycles avail- formances in the water, energy and buildings and low use of renewable energy. At national Initiative: In 2007 Ljubljana closed a large part about average. able to the public for hire from eight loca- categories. These reflect Ljubljana’s antiquated level oil products account for 34% of energy con- of its city centre to traffic, and plans to introduce Initiative: The opening of the Sentvid tunnel in tions in the city centre. Charges are €1 for water and sewage network; its scant use of sumption, coal for 22%, nuclear power for 20%, further pedestrian areas during 2009. 2008 has made it possible for motorists driving two hours or €5 for a day, but hire is free of renewable sources of energy; and the poor qual- natural gas for 14% and renewable sources for from the seaside to the north of Slovenia to charge for anyone with a Ljubljana tourist ity of insulation of its buildings. 10%. Water: Ljubljana ranks 27th in the water cate- bypass Ljubljana, thus reducing traffic and relat- card. The scheme is targeted primarily atSelect city data Initiative: In early 2009 Ljubljana built its first gory. This is mainly owing to poor scores for ed air pollution. tourists rather than local residents. Accord- CO2 emissions: Ljubljana ranks 14th for CO2 solar power generating unit, which will provide water system leakages and the proportion of ingly, most of the bicycles are rented duringPopulation: 271,000 emissions, among its better results, and is the enough energy for 25 households. dwellings connected to the sewage system, as Environmental governance: Ljubljana ranks the peak tourist season from July to August.GDP per head, PPP: € 25,830 third-greenest city in terms of direct emissions There are plans to install additional solar pan- the city’s per-head water consumption level is joint 15th with London in the environmental As an indication of the popularity of theCO2 emissions per head: 3.41 tonnes per head (at 3.4 tonnes per year), being outper- els on the roofs of several buildings from 2010 below the average (at 84 cubic metres per year, governance category, mainly thanks to a high scheme, at one location bicycles were hiredEnergy consumption per head: 105.87 gigajoules formed only by Oslo and Istanbul. Although its onwards. compared with a 30-city average of 105 cubic score in the green management subcategory. out more than 400 times for two-hour peri-Percentage of renewable energy emissions are low compared with those of big- metres). Over the past decade Ljubljana has paid ever ods in July alone, and around one-half of thatconsumed by the city: 0.21 % ger cities, the amount of CO2 produced by the Buildings: Ljubljana ranks 19th in the buildings Initiative: The city authorities are planning a more attention to green policies, and has recent- number were used for full-day rental. The cityTotal percentage of citizens walking, city’s traffic increased by 73% in 1989-2004, category, as the energy consumption of most further increase in the number of wastewater ly suggested plans to design a sustainable ener- authorities are planning to increase the net-cycling or taking public transport to work: 36.4 % reflecting greatly increased use of private trans- buildings in the city is relatively high. The city connections in the next few years, along with gy action plan and to set a target for the reduc- work of locations and the number of bicyclesAnnual water consumption per head: 84.31 m3 port. scores particularly poorly for energy consump- repairs to the existing system in order to improve tion of CO2 emissions, as well as subscribing to in the scheme.Share of waste recycled: 4.05 % Initiative: Ljubljana does not have an official tion by residential buildings: it uses an estimated the water supply and reduce pollution. the Covenant of Mayors.68 69
  • 36. European Green City Index | City Portrait residential homes is slightly higher than average Initiative: Thames Water has a £6.5 billion tory of energy use and greenhouse gas emis- London_United Kingdom and well above that in a number of cities with investment programme planned for 2010-15, sions in 2004-05. colder climates, such as Berlin and Copenhagen. which plans to cut system leakages by nearly The fact that some authority is devolved to However, new building standards are higher, one-fifth. By 2010 it aims to have reduced leak- the city’s 33 boroughs and some is concentrated and significant efforts are being made to retrofit age rates to 690 megalitres per day, from 850 at national government level causes difficulties older buildings. megalitres in 2003. in terms of co-ordination on environmental gov- Initiative: New homes will have to meet Level 3 ernance. of the Code for Sustainable Homes by 2010 and Waste and land use: London ranks 11th in the Initiative: London’s 2012 Olympic Games have Level 6 by 2016. The code sets minimum stan- waste and land use category. It produces 558 kg been touted as the first sustainable Olympics. dards for energy and water usage levels, on a of municipal waste per inhabitant per year, com- Commitments include using at least 20% local scale of 1-6, helping to rate the sustainability of pared with a 30-city average of 511 kg. About renewable energy sources and operating a zero- new homes. one-half of this waste is currently managed landfill policy on waste during the games. CO2 10 8 Environmental governance Energy 6 4 2 Air Quality 0 Buildings Waste and Land Use Transport London Water Best AverageSelect city dataPopulation: 7.6 million L ondon is the UK’s largest city and its capital. It has also come to be recognised as a global centre for financial and professional services, as Adaptation Strategy, published in 2008, aims to reduce London’s emissions by 60% from their 1990 levels by 2025. Transport: London ranks 16th in the transport category, largely because of its poor scores on the relative length of its cycle lanes and public within London, and the city’s overall recycling rate is about 20%. Initiative: A London Waste and Recycling Board London’s Array of powerGDP per head, PPP: € 44,890 well as a major tourist destination. The city has a Initiative: In September 2009 ten boroughs transport network. was set up in July 2008, with a budget to 2011CO2 emissions per head: 5.84 tonnes population of 7.6 million and is the headquar- were chosen to be low-carbon zones, and will A ten-year-plus programme is under way of £84 million. In February 2009 it established aEnergy consumption per head: 77.96 gigajoules ters for more than one-half of the UK’s largest receive funding to help meet a targeted 20% to upgrade track, signalling, trains and stations “dating agency” to attract companies interestedPercentage of renewable energy companies, as well as being a hub for multina- reduction in emissions by 2012. on London’s underground rail system, with in utilising different kinds of waste for energy One of London’s key energy ambitions is theconsumed by the city: 1.20 %* tional companies establishing a foothold in the the aim of increasing capacity and reducing reuse or recycling. London Array, a planned 1,000 mw offshoreTotal percentage of citizens walking, European market. Energy: London is ranked tenth in the energy journey times. London was one of the first cities wind-turbine project in the Thames estuary.cycling or taking public transport to work: 63 % London is ranked 11th overall in the Euro- category, with annual energy consumption per to adopt a congestion-charging zone for road Air quality: London is ranked 12th for air quali- When completed, it will be the largest off-Annual water consumption per head: 57.59 m3 pean Green City Index, with a score of 71.56 out head almost equal to the 30-city average, at traffic; the zone covers the central area of the ty. The UK government has a national Air Quality shore wind farm in the world, occupying 233Share of waste recycled: 20 % of 100. The city has been actively promoting its about 78 gigajoules. At just 1.2%, the city’s use city. Strategy that sets out policies on local air quality. square km. The project will supply enough*Estimate efforts on climate change, with a range of initia- of renewable energy as a proportion of total Initiative: A cycle hire scheme is planned for Normally this is done in line with EU law, but power for 750,000 homes — about one-quar- tives and plans that target various aspects of the energy consumption is well below the average the summer of 2010, with around 400 cycle London is applying for extensions to certain EU- ter of the homes in the Greater London area environment. of about 7%. docking stations and some 6,000 cycles. reduction requirements. — and will save 1.9 million tonnes of CO2 Initiative: London aims to generate enough Initiative: In October 2009 a draft Air Quality emissions each year. The project will cost an CO2 emissions: London ranks tenth overall in energy from renewable sources to power the Water: London is ranked eighth in the water Strategy was published, which sets out a frame- estimated £2.2 billion, and aims to contribute the category for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. equivalent of 100,000 homes by 2010. category, one of its strongest areas. London’s work for delivering improvements to London’s as much as 10% to the UK’s renewable-energy Its inhabitants were each responsible for an drinking water is of high quality, given that one- air quality. targets, with London becoming a major con- average of 5.8 tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2006, Buildings: London is ranked tenth in the build- half of its water mains are over 100 years old, sumer of such energy. It is hoped that the ar- slightly above the 30-city average of 5.2 tonnes. ings category, a position that is boosted by its and its leaky Victorian-era pipes are in the Environmental governance: London ties in ray will start supplying electricity to the na- However, the city has significant reduction tar- strong performance on energy-efficient build- process of being replaced. 15th place with Ljubljana in the category for tional grid by 2012, although 2013 is a more gets in place, and is therefore ranked seventh for ing incentives, many of which originate at Annual water consumption per head is only environmental governance. Environmental likely date for completion of the first phase, the ambition and credibility of its CO2-reduction national level. 57.6 cubic metres, the fifth-lowest among the reporting by the city is not systematic, although following initial planning and financing delays. strategy. The draft London Climate Change Energy consumption per square metre in 30 cities. in December 2008 the city published an inven-70 71
  • 37. European Green City Index | City Portrait sumption, with energy consumed per head strong water-efficiency and water-treatment Environmental governance: In 13th place in Madrid_Spain marginally lower than the 30-city average of 81 policies. Residents consume an average of 71 the environmental governance category, Madrid gigajoules. Energy consumption is centred mainly cubic metres per head per year, below the 30- ties with Budapest. Sustainable development is on electric power, oil-based fuels and natural city average of 105 cubic metres. Water leakages relatively new to Madrid, but it has set itself an gas. Renewables account for less than 3% of are also substantially lower than average. ambitious range of targets. Its recent Sustain- total energy consumed; however, solar power Madrid, like most of Spain, is subject to uncer- able Use of Energy and Climate Change Preven- use in particular is expected to increase consid- tain water resources because of high tempera- tion Plan for the City of Madrid was approved by erably. The use of coal has fallen substantially. tures and low rainfall. Madrid’s government in June 2008. While citi- Initiative: Madrid’s Climate Change Prevention Initiative: Madrid’s water-treatment and water- zens are not usually involved in any initial city Plan includes a target of a 20% reduction in fossil reuse plan for 2005-10 involves the improve- planning, there is occasional participation later fuel use by 2020 compared with the 2004 level. ment of existing water-treatment systems and in the process. the reuse of purified effluents and sludge for Buildings: Madrid ranks 17th for buildings. Its agricultural purposes. CO2 average annual energy consumption in residen- 10 tial buildings, at 614 megajoules per square Waste and land use: Madrid ranks 19th for metre in 2007, is lower than the index average waste and land use. Just 10% of solid waste is 8 Environmental governance Energy of 909 megajoules. However, the city’s overall recycled, lower than the index average of 18%. 6 rank is not as strong as it could be, mainly Around 40% of waste is sent to landfill. Municipal 4 because of its lack of high-level energy efficien- waste per head, at 551 kg per day, is above the cy standards, although solar panels are now average of 511 kg. The waste sector has reduced 2 required in all new buildings. its emissions in the past decade by installing Air Quality 0 Buildings Initiative: The city has a target of issuing ener- degasification systems and recovering biogas gy certifications for 30% of new constructions from landfill. Madrid’s green surface area makes by 2012. Its long-term target is to make energy up 43% of the city’s total area, including the certification mandatory. city’s urban parks, gardens and forested areas, and there are measures in place to protect them. Waste and Land Use Transport Transport: Madrid ranks 15th for transport. However, a decade-long construction boom has The proportion of people walking or cycling to contributed to a significant amount of sprawl. Madrid Best Water work (14%) is under the 30-city average (21%), Initiative: The City of Madrid aims to recover all Average Regenerating the Manzanares riverSelect city dataPopulation: 6.1 million S pain’s capital, Madrid, covers 0.12% of the nation’s territory but is home to 7% of the total population. The city’s economy is dominat- The Manzanares River Project, Madrid’s main urban-regeneration project, is under way toGDP per head, PPP: € 25,012 ed by the services sector and is Spain’s financial, transform the banks of the capital’s river.CO2 emissions per head: 4.08 tonnes administrative and transport nerve-centre. Water flow in the river, which runs to theEnergy consumption per head: 80.28 gigajoules Madrid accounts for around one-tenth of Spain’s west and south of the city centre, will be im-Percentage of renewable energy GDP. In terms of average annual income, Madrid proved and more public spaces will be creat-consumed by the city: 2.78 % is at the lower end of the scale among west ed, helping to stabilise the river’s ecosystem.Total percentage of citizens walking, European cities but ranks above all east Euro- Nine new pedestrian walkways over the rivercycling or taking public transport to work: 54 % pean cities. will link some of Madrid’s poorer neighbour-Annual water consumption per head: 71.37 m3 Madrid ranks 12th overall in the European sions-reduction strategy. Emissions per head, at while the proportion of those taking public organic matter contained in urban waste gener- hoods and will give a boost to a run-downShare of waste recycled: 9.88 % Green City Index, with a score of 67.08 out of 4 tonnes per year (2004), are below the 30-city transport to work is about average, at 40%. Still, ated in the city by 2011, preventing it from area. The land reclamation along the river 100. Among larger cities Madrid occupies a mid- average of approximately 5 tonnes per year. Madrid is well connected, with an extensive and being sent to landfill. was made possible by the construction of a dle ranking, below Berlin, Paris and London but Road transport accounts for just under one-half growing metro system and a high-speed train new and controversial motorway, the M-30, above Rome, Athens and Istanbul. Its ranking is of all CO2 emissions, followed by residential network that is extending its reach. Madrid Air quality: Madrid ranks 18th for air quality. which has rerouted traffic. The area will be buoyed by good performances in carbon dioxide homes and then the commercial and industrial hopes to reduce motorised, and particularly pri- Particulate matter stood at 38 micrograms per planted with 25,000 trees, include 42 km of (CO2) emissions and water. While sustainable sectors. vate, transport use. It has a number of ambitious cubic metre in 2007, above the 30-city average pedestrian paths and 32 km of cycling tracks, development is newer to Madrid than to many Initiative: As part of the Sustainable Use of targets, such as increasing the use of biofuels to of 35 micrograms, mainly due to the high num- and will provide a riverside beach, new chil- of its west European neighbours, the city has set Energy and Climate Change Prevention Plan for 10% of the total by 2012 and lowering private ber of vehicles on the roads and heavy depen- dren’s playgrounds and quiet areas designed ambitious targets to catch up. the City of Madrid 2008, the city has a target of a transport use by 10% by 2012 and by 20% by dence on fossil fuels for heating. Madrid’s nitro- to attract elderly visitors. The project began 14% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2012, com- 2020. gen dioxide emissions and sulphur dioxide in 2008, and will cost an estimated €250 mil- CO2 emissions: Madrid does relatively well in pared with the level of emissions in 2004. emissions are also above average. lion. The first phase will be completed by this category, ranking ninth for CO2 emissions, Water: Madrid ranks seventh for water, its best Initiative: The city has a plan for low-emission 2011. in large part because of its ambitious CO2 emis- Energy: Madrid ranks 12th for energy con- performance in the index, mainly due to its zones.72 73
  • 38. European Green City Index | City Portrait 12,000 tonnes of CO2 a year, Oslo plans to har- city’s low rate of residential water metering. CO2 Oslo_Norway ness one-half of it and convert it into bio- Daily use of water per head fell from 208 litres in 10 methane to run 80 of the city’s public buses. 1997 to 172 litres in 2007; by contrast, Amster- 8 dam, the top-scoring city in this category, con- Environmental governance Energy Energy: Oslo is ranked first in the energy cate- sumes just 53 litres per person per day. 6 gory, despite ranking joint 24th with Zurich in Initiative: The new Oset water treatment plant 4 the energy consumption subcategory. This is uses coagulation and filtration as the first because the city receives full marks for its hygienic barrier in water treatment. The second 2 renewable-energy consumption and its clean hygienic treatment is UV disinfection with a Air Quality 0 Buildings and efficient energy policies, and also because trace residue of chlorination being retained. of its number-two ranking in the energy intensi- ty subcategory. Waste and land use: Oslo ranks sixth in the Initiative: Oslo has adopted an energy action waste and land use category, surpassing other plan to improve energy efficiency and replace high-income cities, such as Copenhagen and fossil fuels with renewable sources, and to Stockholm. The city’s position is bolstered by its Waste and Land Use Transport reduce greenhouse gas emissions from munici- policies on green land use and waste reduction, Oslo pal buildings by 95% by 2030. but is held back by lower rankings for waste Water Best Average Buildings: Oslo is ranked third overall in the recycling and reuse and for municipal waste buildings category. The city is ranked sixth in the reduction. Powered by leftovers subcategory for energy consumption of residen- Initiative: The Marka forested hill area to the tial buildings. Energy-efficient building stan- north and east of Oslo encircles part of the city. dards are also strong, with the city ranking in The part of Marka owned by the city has been joint fourth place in that subcategory. certified with a local “Living Forest” standard. Initiative: Following a city council ruling, ener- In 2009 the Waste to Energy Agency awarded gy efficiency assessments are being carried out Air quality: Oslo ranks only 15th in the index contracts to build a biogas facility at Klemet- on existing municipal buildings, with energy for overall air quality, primarily because of its srud that will transform food waste into bio- management of buildings being part of local poor performance on nitrogen dioxide. Its mid- gas and bio-fertiliser, producing about 6 mil- certifications. dling performance on particulate matter results lion cubic metres of biogas annually, whichSelect city dataPopulation: 549,000 N orway’s capital, Oslo, is a relatively small city, and with fewer than 550,000 inhabi- tants it is home to just 12% of the country’s pop- Oslo is ranked third overall in the European Green City Index, with a score of 83.98 out of 100. It is also the best-performing city in terms Transport: Oslo is ranked fifth overall in the transport category, behind several other high- from pollution in the winter months resulting from wood-burning stoves and temperature inversions. when upgraded to fuel is equivalent to about 4 million litres of diesel. The facility will be able to receive about 50,000 tonnes of foodGDP per head, PPP: € 59,467 ulation. The city contributes about 17% of Nor- of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, largely income, small cities. While the city does well on Initiative: Since 2005 the city council has waste a year, with the possibility of extendingCO2 emissions per head: 2.19 tonnes way’s GDP but one-quarter of its tax revenue. because of the use of hydroelectricity to power green transport promotion and congestion- implemented schemes including a charge on this to 80,000 tonnes. Together with biogasEnergy consumption per head: 94.78 gigajoules Accordingly, it is a wealthy place: as of 2008, its rail-based public transport. reduction policies, it performs relatively poorly studded tyres (which produce road dust and par- from the wastewater treatment plant, it willPercentage of renewable energy GDP per head was the highest in Europe. Busi- in terms of the size of its non-car networks and ticulate matter), grants to replace old wood- guarantee a steady stream of biogas for theconsumed by the city: 64.8 % ness services provided one-fifth of Oslo’s gross CO2 emissions: Oslo’s top ranking for CO2 use of non-car transport. burning stoves, an increase in the use of envi- operation of vehicles, including 230 busesTotal percentage of citizens walking, value added (GVA) in 2006. The wholesale and emissions is the result of its use of renewable Initiative: Buses running on fossil fuels will be ronmentally friendly public transport, and that are currently being adapted to use thiscycling or taking public transport to work: 57 % retail trade (which accounts for 14.5% of GVA) and alternative energy sources for public trans- replaced by vehicles using biofuels and bio-gas training for bus drivers in eco-friendly tech- fuel. Production of biogas from KlemetsrudAnnual water consumption per head: 172 m3 and the financial sector (nearly 11%) are also port and its reduction of landfill emissions. The — the latter consisting of methane generated niques. will begin once a system for the separation ofShare of waste recycled: 26.6 % strong. By contrast, the city’s manufacturing focus on transport has had a significant impact, from the city’s wet organic waste in a system household organic waste is under way by sector is small, accounting for less than 7% of as pollution from private and public transport that is to be introduced in 2011. Environmental governance: Oslo is rated 2011. The renewable-energy and wastewater GVA, and this is a boon to Oslo’s environment. combined accounts for one-half of the city’s CO2 joint fifth with Warsaw for environmental gover- project known as EGE 2010, of which However, the population is growing by some 2% emissions. Water: Oslo is ranked a relatively poor 20th in nance. Oslo’s environmental planning is co-ordi- Klemetsrud forms a part, has a budget of per year, faster than any of the other Nordic Initiative: From 2009, rather than allowing gas the water category, reflecting its high water nated by the city council, which is both the city Nkr2.3 billion (about €264 million). capitals. from its sewage plant to burn off and release its consumption, a fairly high leakage rate and the and the county authority for Oslo.74 75
  • 39. European Green City Index | City Portrait the city’s high density of inhabitants and activi- for use of non-car transport. The main reason for Air quality: Paris ranks 13th for air quality. Lev- Paris_France ties. Its CO2 emissions, estimated at 5 tonnes per its relatively poor performance is that although els of air pollution in the city, which is mainly inhabitant in 2006, are almost identical to the an extensive network of cycle lanes exists, the pro- caused by transport, heating and industry, still 30-city average but are better than those of portion of people walking or cycling to work stands exceed the limits set by some national and Euro- other big capitals, such as London and Berlin. at just 0.2%, far below the average of 20.9%. pean regulations. Initiative: Aéroports de Paris (ADP), which runs Initiative: In 2007 the city’s administration Initiative: The city’s administration is address- Paris’ airports, has launched an inter-company launched a bicycle-sharing programme, Vélib, ing the problem of air pollution through a num- car-sharing network, initially targeting the introducing 10,000 bicycles in 750 automated ber of measures, aimed mainly at reducing traf- 63,000 employees of ADP and the local Orly- rental stations at affordable rates (the first 30 fic intensity through the development of public Rungis centre. minutes of use are free). In less than two years transport in the suburbs and the promotion of these numbers have doubled, and the system is green transport, such as the use of electric cars, Energy: Paris ranks 16th in the energy catego- now the largest of its kind in the world. cycling and walking. ry. Nuclear-generated power now accounts for more than 40% of France’s total consumption, Water: Paris ranks ninth in the water category Environmental governance: Paris ranks in making the country one of the world’s biggest overall. However, it scores worse than other joint seventh place with Vienna in the environ- producers of nuclear energy. But Paris is ham- large cities in the index, such as London, partly mental governance category. This is the best pered by a low proportion of renewables in its because water prices are 25% lower than in Ger- score in this category among the group of large energy supply. many and 20% lower than in the UK, thereby cities. Initiative: A recently launched pilot project, encouraging overconsumption. A new project to define a vision for 2030 for ZAC Pajol, has as one of its aims the construction Initiative: The municipality’s environmental the city was presented in 2009 by the French of the largest urban solar power generation department has launched Ecogestes (Environ- government (see highlight project). structure in France by 2013. mental Gestures), an educational campaign Initiative: The city has developed the Local aimed at citizens that shows how to reduce Town Planning Plan and the Paris Transport Plan, Buildings: Paris ranks seventh overall in the water consumption by means of simple daily and has recently launched the city’s climate buildings category, one of its strongest perfor- measures via a series of videos. plan. CO2 Le Grand Paris 10 8 Environmental governance Energy 6 4 Proposed by the French authorities, Le Grand 2 Paris is an ambitious urbanisation scheme with the aim of developing the city of Paris Air Quality 0 Buildings and its surrounding suburbs. The scheme’s objective is to transform Paris through the pursuit of an innovative and environmentally friendly urbanisation strategy over the next two decades. Key to this strategy is the full Waste and Land Use Transport incorporation and integration of the Ile-de- Paris France suburban area into the metropolis Water Best Average through enhanced transport and infrastruc- ture links, to bring the city’s size into line with that of other major capitals. One no- table aspect would be an automatic metro system for Ile-de-France, linking new townsSelect city dataPopulation: 11.7 million P aris is an important crossroads between Ger- many, Belgium, Luxembourg and the UK, principally because of its location and a high- towards services, including finance and infor- mation technology, but Paris remains an impor- tant manufacturing zone. mances. The city’s residential buildings have a below-average annual level of energy consump- tion (at 739 megajoules per square metre, com- Waste and land use: Paris ranks 12th. It is penalised by a poor score for municipal waste production, but is ranked in joint first place in and airports, which is expected to cost some €20 billion. Currently ten separate projects, led by architects but conceived by teams in-GDP per head, PPP: € 34,941 speed train network. The Paris metropolitan Paris ranks tenth overall in the index, scoring pared with an average of 909 megajoules per the green land use subcategory. The city centre cluding engineers, sociologists and philoso-CO2 emissions per head: 5.04 tonnes* area and the greater Paris region (Ile-de-France) 73.21 out of 100, second only to Berlin within square metre). is dotted with green areas, including more than phers, have been submitted for examination.Energy consumption per head: 96.65 gigajoules together form the most densely populated part the group of large cities. Its environmental per- Initiative: A new set of thermal regulations is 400 parks and gardens, which are promoted and This undertaking adheres to an ethic of sus-Percentage of renewable energy of France, with nearly 12 million inhabitants. formance is particularly strong in the carbon expected to be introduced in 2010, and will improved by a dedicated municipal division. tainable development, with the aim of elimi-consumed by the city: 2.3 %* The underlying statistics and indicators used in dioxide (CO2) emissions, buildings, water and establish targets for major renovations of old Initiative: The Paris Rive Gauche initiative, nating social exclusion. Architectural pro-Total percentage of citizens walking, the index are based on this greater area except governance categories. housing and buildings. involving the refurbishment of three industrial jects undertaken in this context are alsocycling or taking public transport to work: 40.4 % where otherwise indicated1. It is the second- quarters in the 13th arrondissement, is a leading intended as a contribution to French culturalAnnual water consumption per head: 109.5 m3 largest city in the European Green City Index CO2 emissions: Paris is ranked sixth for CO2 Transport: Paris ranks 19th overall in the trans- example of the city’s promotion of the reuse and heritage.Share of waste recycled: 19 % after Istanbul. The economy is shifting steadily emissions, a strong performance considering port category, mostly because of its poor score development of brownfield sites.*Estimate76 1) Paris-only data is used for waste, cycle lanes and water use. 77
  • 40. European Green City Index | City Portrait gory, with a score similar to that of several other extension of the Green Line, and the construc- Initiative: New legislation is in the pipeline that Prague_Czech Republic post-communist capitals. Prague is powered by tion of a new Blue Line, scheduled for comple- would oblige all municipalities to provide citi- combined heat and power (CHP) stations fuelled tion by 2020. zens with the infrastructure required to recycle primarily by coal and gas, but is also supplied basic items such as paper, glass and plastics. with nuclear power and some hydroelectricity. Water: Prague ranks in tenth place in the water Fees for waste disposal are expected to be levied Initiative: Prague has gradually increased spen- category — its best rating in any category in the according to the volume of waste created, and ding to subsidise the replacement of fossil-fuel- index. The city consumes around 85 cubic met- fees for the dumping of waste are likely to based energy sources with cleaner and/or rene- res of water per person per year, a figure well increase in order to boost recycling. wable sources, with the help of EU funds. The pri- below the 30-city average of 105 cubic metres. mary focus is on shifting fuel use by residents away Initiative: A new sewage-treatment plant is Air quality: Prague ranks only 20th for air from coal and towards natural gas, or on connect- planned for the city, although construction has quality. However, emissions have fallen by more ing them to the city’s central heating system. been delayed because of flooding and issues than 70% during the past 20 years, thanks to the relating to the absorption of EU funds. concerted efforts that have been made to Buildings: Prague ranks 26th in the category reduce pollution in the country as the Czech for buildings, and has one of the highest resi- Waste and land use: Prague is ranked in 14th Republic’s economic transition has gathered dential energy consumption levels of any city in place in the waste and land use category; the momentum. the index (at 1,163 megajoules per square met- city produces 480 kg of waste per head each Initiative: The city set out air quality targets to re, compared with an average of 909 mega- year, below the average of 511 kg. Recycling has be attained by 2010 in a strategy document joules). New national standards aim to cut ener- improved significantly thanks to a system adopt- released in 2000. However, it seems unlikely gy consumption in newly constructed buildings, ed in 1998, involving widely distributed recy- that these will be met. but incentives for more efficient construction cling boxes and various campaigns supported by are currently limited. public funds. Environmental governance: Prague ranks 27th in the category for environmental gover- nance. Green policies remain secondary to other concerns for the city. The quality and breadth of environmental information provided varies wi- dely depending on the topic, and information is not always readily available. Boom time for ferries Favourable regulation and pricing policies have revived a traditional mode of public transport, in the form of the small passenger P rague, the capital of the Czech Republic, is also the centre of the country’s economic, political and cultural activity. It is home to one- ferries that cross the Vltava river in Prague. There are now 12 ferries serving the city, five of them launched during the past four years, tenth of the country’s population, and con- reflecting strong demand for this enjoyable tributed around 24% of the Czech Republic’s Initiative: In May 2009 the Czech government CO2 and flexible method of travel. In 2008 some GDP in 2007. Trade, tourism, transport and com- launched a nationwide programme to retrofit 10 350,000 passengers crossed the river this munications together made up one-third of buildings, with a €1 billion budget financed by way. People use the ferries as a regular route 8 Prague’s GDP in that year, while industry con- the sale of CO2 emission permits to Japan. Environmental governance Energy to work from areas that are poorly served by tributed only 13%, less than one-half of the CO2 emissions: Prague is ranked 25th for car- 6 conventional means of transport. The inter-Select city data national average share of 32.6%, in one of the bon dioxide (CO2) emissions, with around 8 Transport: Prague, which continues to pursue a 4 ests of the individual ferrymen have been EU’s most industrialised economies. During the tonnes of emissions per head per year (including car-friendly approach, is ranked 26th overall in promoted via municipal policy, as the ferriesPopulation: 1.2 million past 20 years of economic transition, Prague has other greenhouse gas emissions, as the city’s the transport category. Traffic levels have 2 are subsidised by the city and are treated asGDP per head, PPP: € 25,023 seen a structural shift away from production and CO2 data are not published separately) — above increased threefold during the country’s eco- part of the public transport network. Passen- Air Quality 0 BuildingsCO2 emissions per head: 8.05 tonnes towards business-related services, and a num- the index average of about 5.2 tonnes. Prague’s nomic transition since 1991, and the limited gers may buy tickets directly; use a transferEnergy consumption per head: 67.19 gigajoules ber of multinational firms have their European CO2 intensity is also well above average. efforts made to contain or reduce traffic are the ticket from trains, the subway system orPercentage of renewable energy headquarters in the city. Initiative: To cut transport-related CO2 emis- primary reason for Prague’s relatively poor score trams; use travel passes; or buy tickets viaconsumed by the city: 1.02 %* Prague is ranked 24th overall in the European sions in the city, Prague is investing heavily in this category. mobile phone. A frequent schedule has alsoTotal percentage of citizens walking, Green City Index, with a score of 49.78 out of in the construction of inner and outer ring Initiative: The subway rail system has been helped to establish ferries as a reliable way to Waste and Land Use Transportcycling or taking public transport to work: 67 % 100. The city performs best in the categories of roads. gradually extended, with the number of stations get around the city — some make as many asAnnual water consumption per head: 84.61 m3 Prague water and of waste and land use, ranking in the increasing from 33 to 58 in the past two de- Water Best 300 trips per day during busy periods.Share of waste recycled: 13.77 % top half of the index for these categories. Energy: Prague ranks 24th in the energy cate- cades. Two major upgrades are under way: the Average*Estimate78 79
  • 41. European Green City Index | City Portrait ry, behind only Ljubljana. At slightly less than 4 another 6% walk or cycle. The public transport for 2010-14, but this depends on sufficient Riga_Latvia tonnes per head, annual CO2 emissions are sig- system is fairly extensive, and electric-powered funds being made available. nificantly below the 30-city average of 5.2 trolleybuses and trams make up over one-half of tonnes. the public transport vehicle fleet. Environmental governance: Riga’s perfor- Initiative: The city is aiming to achieve the EU- Initiative: Two key initiatives are currently mance on environmental governance is mixed, mandated national target for CO2 emissions. under way to reduce car use. The first is to and the city therefore ranks 19th. Although Emissions are expected to be some 40% lower extend the network of cycle lanes, while the sec- environmental concerns have tended to feature than the 1990 level by 2010, although it is not ond is to establish a park-and-ride service on the in the city’s policies, commitment to high stan- yet clear how close to this target the city is. outskirts of the city once certain highways have dards of environmental governance throughout been extended to the ring road. the city administration has not been consistent. Energy: Riga ranks 22nd in the energy catego- ry. Gas accounted for the bulk of the city’s ener- Water: Riga is ranked 21st in the category for CO2 gy consumption in 2004, at over 62%, while oil water. Annual consumption per head of about 10 accounted for just under 30%, renewables made 90 cubic metres is below the 30-city average of up about 7% and the remainder, a tiny fraction, 105, while system leakages are about average. 8 Environmental governance Energy was accounted for by coal. Furthermore, the widespread use of water 6 Initiative: Over 6,500 automatic heat substa- meters helps to promote lower water usage. 4 tions have been installed in residential build- Initiative: Riga Water has been carrying out a ings, allowing the supply of heat to be regulated longer-term programme to improve the use of 2 and permitting a reduction of up to 30% in heat ground water, in order to bring the quality of the Air Quality 0 Buildings consumption. city’s drinking water up to EU standards. Buildings: Riga is ranked 18th in the buildings Waste and land use: Riga ranks 20th for waste category. The city’s building stock is relatively and land use. Recycling facilities are not exten- old and in many cases energy-inefficient, partic- sive, and no major public-awareness campaigns Waste and Land Use Transport ularly with regard to heat insulation. However, to encourage a reduction in waste creation have the city’s poor score is largely the result of limit- been undertaken. Moreover, land-use policies Riga Water Best ed policy initiatives in this area. are not particularly comprehensive. Average Powering on: renovating Riga’s power plants Two large Soviet-era combined heat and pow- er plants in Riga district have been renovated by the national power company, Latvenergo, with the backing of the city council. The first, TEC-1, opened in 2005, while the first unit of the second, TEC-2, opened in May 2009. There are plans to add another unit to TEC-2 by 2012, reducing Latvia’s electricity import requirement. The plants generate both heat and electricity — a more environmentally effi- cient approach than generating each sepa- rately. They account for around 30% ofSelect city dataPopulation: 717,000 R iga is home to some 717,000 people, around one-third of Latvia’s population, and accounts for over one-half of the country’s GDP. years, while tourist numbers have risen signifi- cantly since Latvia’s accession to the EU in 2004. Riga ranks in the middle of the European Green Initiative: Pilot projects have been developed for the construction of energy-efficient ("pas- sive") housing. Average heat loss from such Initiative: The city council has developed a household waste management plan for 2006- 12 that aims to increase waste sorting and raise Latvenergo’s total electricity generation and 70% of the heat supplied to Riga’s heating system. The renovation of the plants has ledGDP per head, PPP: € 18,538 The city has a significant industrial base, with City Index, in 15th place, with a score of 59.57 homes is 15 kwh per square metre per year, the proportion of waste that is recycled. to a considerable fall in harmful emissions.C02 emissions per head: 3.98 tonnes manufacturing accounting for around 8.5% of out of 100. However, its performance is better compared with the average for housing in Riga The reconstructed plants have switched fromEnergy consumption per head: 69.18 gigajoules the city’s GDP in 2006 and construction for a than that of most cities in the index with similar of 231 kwh. Technical plans for the homes have Air quality: Riga performs well on air quality, the use of oil to the more environmentally ef-Percentage of renewable energy similar proportion. The main subsectors are levels of prosperity, and it is one of the highest- been completed. ranking seventh, placing it second-highest ficient gas, and generate up to three timesconsumed by the city: 7.09 % food-processing, pharmaceuticals, timber and ranked east European cities, behind only Vilnius. among the low-income cities, after Vilnius. This more electricity per heating unit thanks toTotal percentage of citizens walking, furniture, textiles, communications equipment, Transport: Riga ranks in 14th place in the trans- reflects the absence of a heavy-industrial base greater efficiencies. Latvenergo is also under-cycling or taking public transport to work: 73.4 % and printing and publishing. Services account CO2 emissions: Riga ranks 15th for carbon port category. It scores well for use of non-car and the closure of Soviet-era facilities. taking upgrading work on TEC-2, with the aimAnnual water consumption per head: 90.11 m3 for the bulk of GDP, and financial services and dioxide (CO2) emissions. It has the second-best transport — around two-thirds of the popula- Initiative: In 2009 the city council hopes to of halving the plant’s CO2 emissions by 2011.Share of waste recycled: 8% real estate have played a growing role in recent score among east European cities in this catego- tion use public transport to get to work, while draw up a second air-improvement action plan80 81
  • 42. European Green City Index | City portrait estimated at 3.5 tonnes per inhabitant per year, city. So far there have been just 3,000 sub- approved in 2002, but it does not constitute a Rome_Italy compared with an average for the 30 cities of scribers. An integrated mobility plan has also comprehensive environmental strategy. A change about 5 tonnes. Rome’s CO2 intensity is also well gotten underway. in local government in 2008 may result in revi- below average. sions to current strategies, with higher priority Initiative: The Roma per Kyoto initiative, co- Water: Rome ranks 19th overall in the water given to environmental policies, such as an inte- founded by the European Community, sets category. This is partly because of water system grated mobility plan. guidelines for the reduction of Rome’s CO2 emis- leakages: about 40% of water is lost during dis- Initiative: The Roma Capitale plan, which has sions. tribution, a worse performance than the 30 city recently been finalised, enhances the autonomy average of about 23%. In terms of water con- of the city administration from the national Energy: Rome is ranked in seventh place in the sumption the city does better, with 87 cubic framework. energy category — the highest ranking of any metres consumed per head in 2007, below the large city in this category. Nearly 19% of Rome’s 30-city average of 105 cubic metres. energy is supplied from renewable sources, Initiative: National legislation implemented in CO2 mainly solar thermal and photovoltaic. This Rome has enforced the use of rainwater and 10 places the city fourth in the renewable energy grey-water systems for new buildings. 8 consumption subcategory. Environmental governance Energy Initiative: At national level, the government Waste and land use: Rome ranks 17th overall 6 has promoted the use of photovoltaic technolo- in the waste and land use category, hindered 4 gy since 2005. So far Rome has installed about mainly by a poor score for municipal waste pro- 2 5,090 kw of solar power generation capacity. duction. However, 19.5% of waste was recycled in 2008, a level similar to that in other large cap- Air Quality 0 Buildings Buildings: Rome ranks 15th in the buildings itals, such as London and Paris, and higher than category, in part because of its weak energy- that in many other middle-income cities. efficiency standards. Rome’s many ancient Initiative: The city has implemented a progres- Waste and Land Use Transport Rome Water Best Average Countdown 2010 In February 2008 Rome signed up to Count- down 2010, a network of more than 600 partners and cities committed to tackling cli- buildings, as well as those erected illegally in the sive taxation system that is calculated as a func- mate change and the loss of biodiversity. The suburbs since the 1950s, do not comply with tion of the amount of waste collected to reduce original commitment started in 2001 at an any energy-efficiency standards. the creation of waste since 2003. EU summit in Gothenburg, while in 2002 the Initiative: The city authorities have installed network agreed to work to reduce significant- about 900 square metres of solar panels on Air quality: Rome is ranked 17th for air quality. ly the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. In municipal buildings and schools. In addition, a Its overall performance is set back by high nitro- joining this initiative, Rome plans to invest in solar cooling system has been implemented in a gen dioxide concentrations, at almost 76 micro- the design of a pilot project focusing on sus- big commercial centre, reducing energy con- grams per cubic metre in 2007, which is above tainable buildings. The pilot buildings willSelect city dataPopulation: 4 million R ome, Italy’s capital, with its historic monu- ments and the Vatican City, is one of the most visited cities in Europe, attracting over 20 Rome ranks in the middle of the index, in 14th place overall, with a score of 62.58 out of 100. Despite the absence of heavy industry, sumption in the centre by 12.5%. Transport: Rome turns in a middling perfor- the limit set in EU directives on air quality and is more than double the 30-city average of 35 micrograms. aim to feature green roof coverings, solar thermal heating and high levels of both ener- gy and water efficiency. In turn, they are in-GDP per head, PPP: € 27,910 million travellers every year. Its population of Rome suffers from problems such as pollution mance in the transport category, lying in 18th Initiative: Cars without catalytic silencers to tended to act as educational and awareness-CO2 emissions per head: 3.5 tonnes* about 4 million makes it the fifth most populous and traffic congestion, which are largely the place. One of Rome’s major problems is its high reduce hydrocarbon emissions were banned raising centres within the city. The projectEnergy consumption per head: 84.57 gigajoules city in the European Green City Index. Tourism, result of the original structure of the city and of rate of car ownership: at 70 cars per 100 inhabi- from the city in 2000. Vehicles with satisfactory will be developed by the environmental poli-Percentage of renewable energy public administration, media, information and its climate, although they also stem from limited tants, the city had almost 3 million cars in 2008. controls on their exhaust fumes are now issued cies department of the Municipality of Romeconsumed by the city: 18.69 %* communications technology and banking are all environmental governance. Based on estimates from 2004, the proportion with a blue certificate. and the research centre of La Sapienza uni-Total percentage of citizens walking, important businesses in the city. Rome is also of people walking, cycling and using public versity. Along with this, the city also aims tocycling or taking public transport to work: 44 %* the headquarters of many of Italy’s biggest com- CO2 emissions: Rome ranks seventh for carbon transport is 44%. Environmental governance: Rome ranks joint plant 500,000 trees in order to establish eco-Annual water consumption per head: 87.03 m3 panies. In 2007 Rome contributed 6.5% of the dioxide (CO2) emissions. This good performance Initiative: A bicycle-sharing system has recent- 23rd in the environmental governance catego- logical corridors between its various parks.Share of waste recycled: 19.5 % country’s GDP. is thanks to its low CO2 emissions per capita, ly been launched in the historic centre of the ry. The city’s Environmental Action Plan was*Estimate82 83
  • 43. European Green City Index | City Portrait B ulgaria’s capital city, Sofia, is the political and gy mix includes only a small proportion of higher than the index average, while and the CO2 Sofia_Bulgaria economic centre of the country. With about renewable energy, at less than 1% of energy percentage of water leakage is three times the 10 1.2 million inhabitants, or around 16.5% of Bul- consumed. Furthermore, the city does not have average. Furthermore, the percentage of dwel- 8 garia’s population, Sofia contributed approxi- policies of its own to encourage the use of green lings connected to the sewage system, at 85%, is Environmental governance Energy mately 33% of the country’s GDP in 2007. The energy through low taxes or subsidies. significantly below the 30-city average of 95%. 6 population has risen noticeably since 2001, in Initiative: The company responsible for water Initiative: There is an ongoing integrated water 4 contrast to the national demographic trend, as management in Sofia, Sofiyska Voda, has been project being funded by the EU that will improve 2 the city has flourished during the transition peri- working on the installation of three CHP plants several aspects of Sofia’s water system, including od, attracting more than 60% of Bulgaria’s total to generate heat and electricity from the biogas treatment of drinking water and wastewater. Air Quality 0 Buildings foreign direct investment. Sofia’s economic produced during the decomposition of sewage growth has also led to overcrowding on public sludge at the Kubratovo wastewater-treatment Waste and land use: Sofia ranks 29th for transport and traffic congestion on the city’s works. The company will then sell the electricity waste and land use. Although estimated figures main roads. to the national electricity company. suggest that the amount of waste produced per Sofia ranks 29th in the European Green City head in the city is far below the 30-city average, Waste and Land Use Transport Index, with a score of 36.85 out of 100. As in Buildings: Sofia ranks 14th in the buildings cat- waste disposal is a massive and ongoing prob- Sofia the cities of other post-communist countries, egory — much better than the city’s perfor- lem. Sofia is close to green spaces in the sur- Water Best Average years of neglect and underinvestment have had mance in any other category, and below only Vil- rounding mountains, but rapid development in a detrimental impact on Sofia’s environment. nius among low-income cities. Its relatively recent years has encroached on green spaces The city is also located towards the bottom of good score stems chiefly from the city authori- within the city. the income scale in the index, a factor that ties’ decision to promote the retrofitting of hous- Initiative: A new regulation for the rehabilita- appears to be correlated significantly with envi- ing to improve energy efficiency. tion and development of Sofia’s urban green ronmental. Initiative: Homeowners in Sofia are eligible for spaces was approved in 2007. small loans to improve the energy efficiency of CO2 emissions: Sofia ranks 29th for carbon their homes, funded by the European Bank for Air quality: Sofia ranks 29th for air quality, Rehabilitating Sofia’s dioxide (CO2) emissions. Estimated annual emis- Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the mainly because of high levels of particulate mat- district heating sions, at 4.3 tonnes per head, are comfortably Kozloduy International Decommissioning Fund. ter and the city’s lack of clean-air policies. Above- In June 2003 the World Bank approved a pro- ject to renovate the Sofia District Heating Company. The three objectives were to min- imise heat losses, to rehabilitate the system to enable it to respond better to changing de- mand, and to gain environmental benefits through reductions in emissions and air pol- lution. Consultation with the public was car- ried out and an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) published before the work started in 2005; the project was finally completed in 2007. It involved extensive rehabilitation of the network of transmission pipes and the re- placement of substations in order to reduce heat losses. In addition, the project mandat- ed the installation of technology to allow for variable flow, meaning that consumers can automatically regulate their heat consump- tion. By 2007 the World Bank estimated thatSelect city data below the 30-city average of about 5.2 tonnes, Transport: Sofia is ranked 27th in the transport average sulphur dioxide emissions also con- heat losses had been reduced by 10% in Sofia but the city’s intensity of CO2 emissions (that is, category. Public transport is widely used: nearly tribute to its low score. compared with 2002, that heat consumptionPopulation: 1.2 million the level of emissions per unit of GDP) is estimat- two-thirds of the city’s population commute to by households had dropped by 30% and thatGDP per head, PPP: € 12,954 ed to be far above average. work on public transport, far ahead of the 30- Environmental governance: Sofia is ranked carbon emissions had been reduced signifi-CO2 emissions per head: 4.32 tonnes* Initiative: The city’s policy for controlling CO2 city average of 42%. 28th for environmental governance. Besides not cantly. The funding needs of the project, esti-Energy consumption per head: 80.71 gigajoules emissions centres on improving public transport Initiative: The city administration is beginning having a fully fledged environmental plan, mated at US$115 million, were met by loansPercentage of renewable energy by expanding the network and gradually replac- to upgrade the bus fleet, introducing newer, Sofia’s score in this category suffers as a result of from the World Bank (US$27.2 million) andconsumed by the city: 1.39 %* ing older, more polluting buses. fuel-efficient buses. More than 100 buses have deficiencies in the gathering and publication of the EBRD sa well as grants from the EU’sTotal percentage of citizens walking, been converted to dual-fuel operation, while a information at city level. PHARE programme and the Kozloduy Interna-cycling or taking public transport to work: 75.4 % Energy: In the energy category Sofia ranks 28th few buses operate on biofuel blends. Initiative: Sofia is a signatory to the Aalborg tional Decommissioning Fund, together withAnnual water consumption per head: 188.52 m3 overall. Sofia has a large combined heat and Commitments, and should be able to fulfil these a contribution from the Sofia District HeatingShare of waste recycled: 0.02 % power (CHP) plant and has made improvements Water: Sofia is ranked in last place in the water once the city’s environmental plan has been Company.*Estimate to its district heating system, but the city’s ener- category. Water consumption per head is far finalised.84 85
  • 44. European Green City Index | City Portrait from renewable sources. Around 80% of the Water: Stockholm ranks joint 16th in the water Stockholm’s Stockholm_Sweden population has access to district heating (com- category, on account of its high water consump- bined heat and power), 80% of which is provid- tion and poor water-efficiency policies. Stock- urban development ed by renewable energy sources. holm’s residents consume almost 186 cubic showcase Initiative: Stockholm’s long-term plan is to be metres of water per head per year, well above fossil fuel-free by 2050. This means that emis- the 30-city average of 105 cubic metres. sions from energy use related to the heating of Initiative: A strategic programme of water Hammarby Sjostad is Stockholm’s largest en- houses and commercial premises, vehicles and management was adopted by Stockholm city vironmental project to date, and represents electricity use in the city will be reduced to a council in June 2006, setting standards for a high-profile case study in sustainable urban level near to zero by 2050. cleaner water and outlining methods by which development. Started in 1990, the aim of the this could be achieved. project was to redevelop an old and rundown Buildings: Stockholm ranks joint first in the industrial area into a highly energy-efficient buildings category, with Berlin. Like its Nordic Waste and land use: Stockholm ranks eighth and environmentally conscious neighbour- neighbours, Sweden has been at the forefront of for waste and land use. The fact that it does not hood. When completed in 2016, over 10,000 energy-efficient building standards, with the do better in this category is attributable to its residential units will house some 25,000 result that Stockholm achieves the maximum sizeable municipal waste production, which is people. The project incorporates a wide score for both building standards and incentives. above the European average. Stockholm has for range of environmental goals and aspira- Initiative: Work has begun on the Stockholm many years protected its green spaces, and tions. Its buildings are around twice as ener- Royal Seaport, a new city district that is being around 85% of the population live less than 300 gy-efficient as others in Stockholm. The pro- built in Stockholm’s harbour area, which has metres from parks and green areas. ject makes good use of wind, solar and hydro three main environmental targets: by 2020 Initiative: The city’s Waste Management Plan power, as well as other efficient technolo- annual carbon emissions will be below 1.5 specifies that the collection and treatment of gies, including district heating and cooling. tonnes per person; by 2030 the seaport will be food waste should increase from the current level One of the project’s goals is to base its entire free of fossil fuels; and the seaport will be adapt- of around 4,500 tonnes per year to 18,000 heating-energy supply on either waste ener- able to future changes in climate. tonnes during the period from 2008 to 2012. gy or renewables. From a transport perspec- tive, the project aims for 80% of all journeys to be made using public transport or by walk- ing or cycling. The area also features clean and efficient water and sewage systems; its water consumption target is 100 litres per head per day. Waste is collected by a vacuum suction system, which carries refuse to a central collection station. The project reuses local combustible waste in a combined heat and power plant, while biogas from a local wastewater facility is used for transport fuel.Select city dataPopulation: 795,000 S tockholm, the capital of Sweden, has a popu- lation of around 800,000, representing near- ly one-tenth of the country’s total population. these include a plentiful supply of water, a lack of heavy industry and a long tradition of policies aimed at protecting the environment. Transport: Stockholm ranks first in the trans- port category. A large proportion of people walk or cycle to work, and the cycle network is well Air quality: Stockholm is ranked second for air quality. The city’s air quality has improved sub- stantially in the past decade, with particulate CO2 10GDP per head, PPP: € 39,415 8 The city’s economy is dominated by the services developed. matter standing at 16.7 micrograms per cubic Environmental governance EnergyCO2 emissions per head: 3.62 tonnes sector, with a particularly high concentration of CO2 emissions: Stockholm ranks second in the Stockholm has the highest percentage of metre in 2007, the lowest level in Europe. 6Energy consumption per head: 104.88 gigajoules jobs in information technology, the healthcare index for CO2 emissions, behind Oslo, which, clean vehicles in Europe, and 75% of the city’s Initiative: In 2008 construction started on the 4Percentage of renewable energy industry and research. Stockholm is almost like Stockholm, has a heavily services-centred public transport network runs on renewable Northern Link, which will be a section of theconsumed by the city: 20.08 % devoid of heavy industry, and this has helped to economy. Stockholm also benefits greatly from energy. peripheral route around the inner-city area and 2Total percentage of citizens walking, cycling make it one of the world’s cleanest cities. having practically no heavy industry. Initiative: To reduce emissions, the Clean Vehi- will form part of the E20 European highway. Air Quality 0 Buildingsor taking public transport to work: 93 % Stockholm is ranked second in the European Initiative: Stockholm plans to reduce its annual cles in Stockholm initiative, which promotesAnnual water consumption per head: 185.75 m3 Green City Index, with a score of 86.65 out of emissions to a maximum of 3 tonnes of CO2 per hybrid and biofuel-powered vehicles, has the Environmental governance: Stockholm ranksShare of waste recycled: 31 % 100. The city does particularly well in the areas head by the end of 2015. objective of reaching a market breakthrough joint first in the environmental governance cate- of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, buildings, level of 5% for clean vehicles. The initiative’s gory, along with Brussels, Copenhagen and transport, air quality and environmental gover- Energy: Stockholm ranks fourth in the energy goals are that by the end of 2010 all of the Helsinki. The city is currently implementing its Waste and Land Use Transport nance. It shares a number of characteristics with category. It has a strong green-energy profile: municipality’s own vehicles will be clean and sixth consecutive Stockholm Environment Pro- Stockholm its Nordic neighbours, Copenhagen, Oslo and Over 60% of electricity consumed by the city and that 35% of new-car sales will be of clean gramme (for 2008-11), which covers all the Water Best Average Helsinki (all of which rank highly in the index); 20% of its overall energy consumption come vehicles. main environmental issues.86 87
  • 45. European Green City Index | City Portrait port of Tallinn is the largest in the Baltic states in the 1980s. Owing to a lack of investment, most dling ranking in the category for waste and land CO2 Tallinn_Estonia terms of freight and passenger transit. The city’s of this housing is in dire need of maintenance use, at 16th overall. It scores successfully in 10 industrial sector encompasses light industry, and renovation. terms of waste recycling and reuse and waste- 8 food processing and textiles. Initiative: Estonia has a national government- reduction policies, but does poorly on produc- Environmental governance Energy Tallinn ranks 23rd in the European Green led initiative, KredEx, which provides loans for tion of municipal waste. 6 City Index, with a score of 52.98 out of 100. The renovation projects in apartment blocks that Initiative: Since 2003 the city administration 4 city performs best on air quality, water and will improve efficiency by at least 20%, rising to has been the main organiser of the periodic 2 transport. However, economic pressures have 30% on larger buildings. Tallinn Waste Conference, which aims to share made it difficult for the city to prioritise environ- experience and best practice in municipal waste Air Quality 0 Buildings mental concerns. Transport: Tallinn is ranked joint tenth with management. Budapest in the transport category — one of its CO2 emissions: Tallinn ranks 26th in the cate- highest rankings in the index. As of 2008, 61% Air quality: Tallinn ranks sixth in the category gory for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The of inhabitants walked, cycled or took public for air quality, supported by levels of pollutants city produces 6.8 tonnes of CO2 per head per transport to work. that are well below average: nitrogen dioxide Waste and Land Use Transport year, above the 5 tonne average. This reflects This puts the city more or less on par with levels are about one-third of the index average, Tallinn Estonia’s national pattern of energy use, with the overall average, but the distribution is while sulphur dioxide levels are about one-fifth Water Best Average most power being generated from oil shale weighted towards walking and cycling, which of the average and levels of particulate matter rather than greener alternatives. boosts its score. stand at about one-half of the average. Initiative: There are no sustained, targeted Initiative: Tallinn is a member of the Civitas Initiative: In conjunction with Civitas and EU campaigns under way to reduce emissions, Mimosa project (along with Bologna, Funchal, initiatives for cleaner transport in cities, Tallinn although the city does encourage sustainable Gdansk and Utrecht), which aims to promote is undertaking a study to improve the flow of transport. the use of clean transport. It frequently runs public transport, which should assist in bring- publicity campaigns to promote public trans- ing about a reduction in vehicle-related emis- Energy: Tallinn ranks 29th in the energy cate- port and discourage car use. sions. gory. This is partly because of the lack of a clear sustainable-energy policy, and also because of Water: Tallinn scores fairly highly in the water Environmental governance: Tallinn ranks the national structure of power generation, category, ranking 12th overall. However, the 18th in the environmental governance cate- Tallinn’s e-enabled transport Working with Civitas, Tallinn city council is undertaking a project to increase the use of public transport by improving traffic flow and reducing journey times. The key aspect of the project is the aim of establishing a priority network for municipal bus transport. In ac- cordance with Tallinn’s tradition of e-innova- tion, buses are being fitted with priority sig- nalling equipment that will inform traffic lights of their approach and facilitate a quick passage through junctions. Electronic dis- plays in public transport and pre-recorded au- tomatic stop-announcements are also beingSelect city dataPopulation: 398,000 E stonia’s capital, Tallinn, has a population of just under 400,000, making it the third- smallest of the 30 cities in the index, but it is by which is skewed towards coal- and oil shale- fired generation. Initiative: Energy policy tends to be deter- city’s ranking in this category is skewed by its good result in the water consumption subcate- gory, where it ranks first of the 30 cities in the gory. The city would perform better if its Devel- opment Plan 2009-27 (its main strategic policy document) addressed environmental concerns introduced, with a view to making the system more passenger-friendly and reducing the steep decline in public transport use in favourGDP per head, PPP: € 26,580 far the largest city in Estonia, accounting for mined at national level, but Eesti Energia, an index, with the lowest consumption per head. more directly. of private cars that has occurred in the pastCO2 emissions per head: 6.8 tonnes* 30% of the country’s population. Tallinn has energy company, has opened a number of rene- Initiative: An European Investment Bank co- Initiative: Tallinn is a signatory to the direc- decade. Initial reports, from 2008, suggestEnergy consumption per head: 89.56 gigajoules* 36% of Estonia’s manufacturing and utilities wable energy plants in recent years. funded project, to run until 2010, will provide a tives set out in the Aalborg Commitments and that the decline has been halted, but furtherPercentage of renewable energy companies but over 70% of its financial sector total of €82.5 million to add a further 142 km to the Covenant of Mayors. measures are planned to attempt to reverseconsumed by the city: 0.19% * companies and over 50% of the country’s ser- Buildings: Tallinn ranks 29th overall in the the water supply and sewage network, as well The city council collaborates with a number it. For example, sensors in buses will carryTotal percentage of citizens walking, vices sector. buildings category, ahead of only one other as to carry out pipeline rehabilitation to prevent of outside expert agencies, such as the Tallinn out automatic passenger counting to opti-cycling or taking public transport to work: 61 % The city accounts for around 16% of total city, Kiev. Although there was a housing con- a deterioration in leakage indicators. Technical University, to help with the collation mise timetables according to fluctuations inAnnual water consumption per head: 50.39 m3 employment in Estonia but for almost 37% of struction boom in 2005-07, most of Tallinn’s of data in a number of areas, including air passenger flow.Share of waste recycled: 31.4 % the country’s tertiary-sector employment. The housing stock was built between the 1960s and Waste and land use: Tallinn achieves a mid- quality.*Estimate88 89
  • 46. European Green City Index | City Portrait Climate Protection (KliP) programme, which have lower nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide joint seventh place with Paris in the environ- Vienna_Austria aims to reduce the city’s annual CO2 emissions emissions than diesel engines. mental governance category. by 2.6 million tonnes by 2010. Every two years the Department of Environ- Initiative: To reduce transport-related emis- Water: Vienna ranks second in the water cate- mental Protection produces the Vienna Environ- sions, which account for one-third of the city’s gory, in large part because of its water efficiency mental Report, highlighting important recent total CO2 emissions, Vienna has encouraged the and treatment policies. Water is collected from developments and delineating a number of use of public transport by introducing shorter mountain springs, and reaches the city without short-term goals. bus-service intervals, all-night bus services and the use of pumps by exploiting the difference in an extensive network of cycle routes. altitude between the mountains and the city. The gravitational energy produced in the pro- Energy: Vienna ranks third in the index for cess is used to generate electricity. Europe’s biggest energy, in large part because of its long-stand- Initiative: In 2005 Vienna extended its waste- biomass burner ing active use and development of renewable water treatment plant to purify water before it is energy sources. Renewable sources account for fed into the Danube channel. 13% of the energy used by the city, well above the 30-city average of 7%. Waste and land use: Vienna ranks fifth for In October 2006 Europe’s largest biomass- Initiative: The Urban Energy Efficiency Pro- waste and land use, a score that is largely under- fuelled power plant opened in Simmering, a gramme (SEP) outlines measures to enable the pinned by its green land use policies. The city district of Vienna. The construction and opera- city’s annual rate of energy consumption growth has also attempted to reduce the use of landfill tion of the plant has been the responsibility of to slow from 12% in 2003 to 7% by 2015 with- sites by thermally treating non-recyclable and the Österreichische Bundesforste (Austrian out any change in quality of life. bulky waste so that only inert materials need to Federal Forests), which manages and protects be sent to landfill. woodlands and forests in Austria, and Vienna’s Buildings: Vienna ranks eighth in the buildings Initiative: The Vienna Repair Network consists public energy company, Wien Energie. The category, in part because of high residential of over 50 repair shops in the city, which cus- biomass plant is wood-fired, burning wood energy consumption. Indeed, the largest single tomers are encouraged to visit rather than dis- and wood waste (chips and pellets) to gener- component of the city’s total energy consump- carding faulty goods. Customers are given fre- ate electricity. It processes around 200,000 tion is energy use by private households, ac- quent-user cards entitling them to a discount on tonnes of fresh wood and untreated waste counting for around one-third of all energy used. the fourth item that they have repaired. wood annually. Relying on these renewable resources, the plant generates enough power to supply around 48,000 homes with electrici- ty (involving consumption levels of around 23 mw) and 12,000 homes with heating (around 37 mw). The biomass power plant’s operation reduces CO2 emissions in Vienna by around 144,000 tonnes per year. In supporting the construction and running of the Simmering power plant, the city of Vienna has helped to promote an highly efficient method of energy generation based on renewable resources, which reduces the city’s overall greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 10 8Select city dataPopulation: 1.67 million V ienna, Austria’s capital, is an important eco- nomic and transport link between western and central Europe. With just one-fifth of the ery and vehicles, chemicals and plastics, and agricultural products. Financial services, insur- ance and tourism are also important industries Initiative: Since 2006 an energy efficiency cer- tificate has been obligatory for all new buildings. As of 2009, such a certificate is now also legally Air quality: Vienna is ranked tenth for air quali- ty, partly because the city is affected by toxic emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, Environmental governance 6 EnergyGDP per head, PPP: € 35,239 4 country’s population, in 2005 Vienna con- in Vienna. Vienna ranks fourth overall in the required for all purchases and rentals of houses, vehicle traffic, and emissions from commerceCO2 emissions per head: 5.19 tonnes tributed around 27% of Austrian GDP. The back- European Green City Index, with a score of apartments and offices. and industry. 2Energy consumption per head: 78.74 gigajoules bone of Vienna’s economy is formed by small 83.34 out of 100, behind Copenhagen, Stock- Initiative: The municipal Department of Envi- Air Quality 0 BuildingsPercentage of renewable energy and medium-sized enterprises, which account holm and Oslo. Vienna performs particularly well Transport: Vienna ranks fourth in the transport ronmental Protection launched the Urbane Luftconsumed by the city: 13.18 % for a staggering 98% of Vienna’s enterprises. in the water category, and also scores highly for category, below three other high-income cities, Initiative Wien (Vienna Urban Air Initiative) inTotal percentage of citizens walking, The city has seen a structural shift from manu- use and development of renewable energy. Stockholm, Amsterdam and Copenhagen. The 2005. This programme seeks to obtain thecycling or taking public transport to work: 68 % facturing to business-related services over the number of residents travelling by public trans- advice of experts on how to reduce toxic emis-Annual water consumption per head: 79.39 m3 past decade. CO2 emissions: Vienna is ranked eighth for car- port and bicycle and on foot rose to 68% of the sions in the city, and in particular those of fine Waste and Land Use TransportShare of waste recycled: 33.35 % Still, Vienna’s manufacturing industry account- bon dioxide (CO2) emissions. However, it comes total population in 2006. dust. ed for around 16% of the city’s gross value added first among medium-sized cities in this category. Initiative: All of Vienna’s buses operate using Vienna Water Best in 2007, with the primary exports being machin- In 1999 the City of Vienna launched the Vienna liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) engines, which Environmental governance: Vienna ranks in Average90 91
  • 47. European Green City Index | City Portrait emissions, ranking 23rd. Emissions per head, at consumed around 64 cubic metres of water in Initiative: The city adopted an Environment Vilnius_Lithuania 4.6 tonnes per inhabitant per year, are below 2007 — the sixth best result in the 30-city index Protection Policy in April 2004, and its Environ- the 30-city average of about 5.2 tonnes. Howev- (the average is 105 cubic metres). ment Protection Agency remains active in pro- er, emission intensity is above the index average. Initiative: The Vilnius Water Company is draw- moting more efficient waste management, sus- Initiative: The city regularly runs campaigns, ing on EU funds to improve its supply and treat- tainable transport policies and clean air working with the World Health Organisation’s ment network. Besides pipe rehabilitation and campaigns. Healthy Cities project, to promote the use of extension of the network, the company has cycling and public transport rather than cars. refurbished pumping stations and sewage treat- ment plants. CO2 Energy: Vilnius ranks 26th in the energy cate- 10 gory. This is a result of the city’s high energy con- Waste and land use: Vilnius ranks ninth in the 8 sumption per unit of GDP, owing to both the waste and land use category, far above the other Environmental governance Energy energy-inefficiency of local industry and the rel- low-income cities in the index, and positioned 6 atively poor quality of the housing stock, which just below Stockholm. City policies aim to 4 demands large amounts of energy for heating. increase the amount of urban green space and 2 Initiative: Vilnius hosts the largest biofuel-fired to limit urban sprawl, although they are not generating plant in Lithuania, which has been always effective. Only 5% of waste is recycled, Air Quality 0 Buildings operational since late 2006 and accounts for with most destined for local landfill sites. about 10% of the municipality’s district heating. Initiative: In 2005 the city municipality endorsed a new Waste Management Plan, which provides Buildings: Vilnius ranks 13th in the buildings for the construction of a new 360,000 square metre category — the best result among low-income landfill site with modern monitoring systems. Waste and Land Use Transport cities — thanks to the introduction of incentive Vilnius schemes to promote the renovation of the hous- Air quality: Vilnius ranks first for air quality, giv- Water Best Average ing stock to more energy-efficient standards. ing a significant boost to the city’s overall index Initiative: The city offers tax breaks, grants and ranking. The city has low levels of nitrogen diox- concessional loans to carry out housing renova- ide, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter. tion work to energy-efficient standards, as part of Despite high and rising traffic levels, the city is No sludge slouch a scheme that has also been rolled out nationally. helped by a lack of heavy industry, its small size and the presence of large areas of forest in the Transport: Vilnius is ranked joint 19th with immediate vicinity. Vilnius Water, the city’s municipal water and wastewater company, launched a project inSelect city data September 2008 to construct one of Europe’s most advanced sludge-treatment plants.Population: 554,000 The plant is intended to reduce sludge vol-GDP per head, PPP: € 16,148 umes and odours and to limit pollution of soilCO2 emissions per head: 4.55 tonnes* and groundwater. It will also reduce green-Energy consumption per head: 62.87 gigajoules* house gas emissions and use sludge-generat-Percentage of renewable energy ed biogas to produce electricity and thermalconsumed by the city: 1.53 % power. When completed, the facility willTotal percentage of citizens walking, bring sludge treatment in Vilnius into linecycling or taking public transport to work: 69.4 % with EU requirements. The scope of work in-Annual water consumption per head: 64.36 m3 cludes sludge thickening, digestion, dewater-Share of waste recycled: 5% ing and low-temperature drying, while using*Estimate the resulting biogas in a combined heat and power station. A thermal hydrolysis plant will T he city of Vilnius, Lithuania’s capital, is home to 16% of the country’s population and, with 554,000 citizens, it is one of the smaller cities in from other parts of Lithuania because of the employment opportunities that it offers. Vilnius ranks 13th in the overall index, with a Kiev, Paris and Zagreb in the transport category. Nearly 70% of the city’s inhabitants commute on foot, by bicycle or via public transport, above the Initiative: The city works with the Vilnius Envi- ronmental Protection Agency and the Vilnius Gediminas Technical University to monitor ensure an odourless final bio-solids product, while significantly increasing biogas produc- tion and cutting the volume of the final prod- the index. From an economic perspective, how- score of 62.77 out of 100, making it the best- average of about 63%. chemical and particulate emissions. uct. The total cost of the project is LTL175 ever, Vilnius contributed just under two-fifths of performing city in eastern Europe as well as Initiative: The organisation responsible for Vil- million (about €50 million), which is largely the country’s GDP in 2007 and accounts for around among the low-income cities in the index. Vil- nius’s bus fleet has altered one-half of its vehi- Environmental governance: Vilnius ranks 17th being financed by EU cohesion funds (provid- 19% of total employment in Lithuania. Although nius ranks around the middle of most categories cles to run on biodiesel made from domestically in the environmental governance category, again ing 62% of the total). Vilnius city council and Vilnius provides just 16% of national industrial in the index, but performs exceptionally well on grown rapeseed oil — a cheap form of biofuel. achieving the best performance among the low- Vilnius Water Company will contribute the output, it has attracted more than two-thirds of air quality, for which it is ranked in first place. income cities in the index. Its performance would balance of the funds for the project, at total foreign direct investment in Lithuania. As Water: Vilnius ranks 13th in the water category, be stronger if the Strategic Plan for 2002-11, the 20% and 18% of the total cost respectively. well as increasing numbers of tourists, Vilnius CO2 emissions: Vilnius performs relatively but comes top among the low-income cities city’s main strategic policy document, addressed Construction is expected to take three years. has been a key destination for many migrants poorly in the category for carbon dioxide (CO2) included in the index. In per-head terms, Vilnius environmental concerns more directly.92 93
  • 48. European Green City Index | City Portrait Initiative: A new, highly efficient 480 mw com- enlargement of one of its water purification CO2 Warsaw_Poland bined heat and power plant is being added to plants. 10 the existing Siekierki power plant in Warsaw, 8 with the aim of cutting nitrogen oxide emissions Waste and land use: Although Warsaw ranks Environmental governance Energy substantially. below average for waste and land use, in 24th 6 place, it has developed and continues to imple- 4 Buildings: Warsaw ranks 16th in the buildings ment a comprehensive waste-disposal manage- 2 category, and fourth of the middle-income cities ment plan. However, the city’s score is brought reviewed in the study. Many older buildings down by its green land use policies. Air Quality 0 Buildings have received or are receiving extra insulation, Initiative: The city’s Solid Communal Waste and green-building standards are therefore Utilisation Plant (ZUSOK) is a multi-purpose steadily improving. plant that sorts waste, recovers recyclable Initiative: The Polish government runs a ther- resources, thermally processes waste not suit- mo-modernisation fund, which supports the able for recycling and composts the organic part Waste and Land Use Transport upgrading of public-utility buildings to make them of the waste. It also produces electricity. Warsaw more energy-efficient. This has been implement- Water Best Average ed and marketed to relevant users in Warsaw. Air quality: Warsaw ranks 19th for air quality. The index shows mixed results for the city, with Transport: Warsaw ranks just 24th in the trans- good performances in the ozone and nitrogen port category, as its score is dragged down by dioxide subcategories (both of which are slightly Clean flush: modernising Warsaw’s sewage systems A major sewage system modernisation pro- gramme aims to reduce the pollution load originating from the left (west) bank of the Vistula river, while increasing existing treat- ment levels from the right (east) bank. The project supports Warsaw’s efforts to comply with the EU directive on urban wastewater treatment, reducing the amount of pollutants draining into the Baltic Sea and promoting bet- ter water quality. The overall goal is to treat all wastewater to EU standards by the end of 2010. The total investment of €595 million, withSelect city dataPopulation: 1.7 million A s the capital of Poland, Warsaw is also the country’s largest city, with a population of 1.7 million and an area of just over 500 square in the environmental governance category, where it is ranked in joint fifth place. the lack of municipal promotion of green trans- port and the absence of a clear congestion- reduction strategy. However, the city has a regu- better than the 30-city average), but a signifi- cantly lower ranking on sulphur dioxide in par- ticular. €358 million coming from the EU Cohesion Fund, will modernise Warsaw’s infrastructure and will also improve potable water supplies.GDP per head, PPP: € 30,984 km. It is a vital economic centre for Poland. There CO2 emissions: Warsaw ranks 20th in the cat- lar reliable public transport system, and the Initiative: Warsaw’s Environmental Protection One of the main areas of investment is in theCO2 emissions per head: 6.29 tonnes were 324,282 companies registered in Warsaw egory for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This is proportion of bus and tram passengers who use Plan addresses air quality and the need to take city’s wastewater treatment facilities. The leftEnergy consumption per head: 49.81 gigajoules* at the end of 2008, accounting for some 13.5% largely because 90% of the energy that it con- the system to commute to work is estimated to action, but it contains only a desired direction, (western) side of Warsaw has a purificationPercentage of renewable energy of GDP. The most important sector is services, sumes is produced from coal, a fuel that gener- be nearly 70%. rather than absolute targets — namely, the gen- plant, Poludnie, built in 2005, which treatsconsumed by the city: 7.12 %* including trade and repair, transport and storage, ates high CO2 emissions. Initiative: Warsaw has made efforts to inte- eral reduction of toxic substances. about 30% of wastewater from that side ofTotal percentage of citizens walking, accommodation and catering, financial services Initiative: Warsaw’s mayor joined the Covenant grate its transport-management systems and to the city. Expansion and modernisation of thecycling or taking public transport to work: 70 % and real estate activities, which collectively of Mayors earlier in 2009, thus committing the optimise transport infrastructure, thereby cut- Environmental governance: plant is under way, and a new sewage-pro-Annual water consumption per head: 180.84 m3 accounted for about 84% of the city’s economic city to cutting CO2 emissions by at least 20% by ting travel times in the city. Warsaw ranks highly in the environmental gov- cessing line is expected to be the first of itsShare of waste recycled: 19.33 % activity in 2006. By contrast, industrial produc- 2020. ernance category, in joint fifth place with Oslo. It kind in the country. Sewage will be dried in*Estimate tion and construction accounted for shares of Water: Warsaw ranks a relatively low 25th in has a dedicated Environmental Protection Com- the processing line and reused as either fer- just 11.7% and 4.1% respectively. Energy: Warsaw ranks 14th in the energy cat- the water category, largely because of its high mittee, which has developed a reasonably com- tiliser of fuel for power generation, while bio- Warsaw ranks 16th overall in the European egory. Nevertheless, energy consumption in usage of water per head and a past record of prehensive plan for environmental protection gas emitted during the process will be used Green City Index. Its score of 59.04 out of 100 is Warsaw is low, estimated at just 49.8 giga- poor water-efficiency and treatment policies. (although CO2 is not listed). for heating. The right (eastern) side of Warsaw supported by the city’s strong economic reliance joules per head, far below the index average of However, major investment is under way to Initiative: Warsaw has organised a publicity has a purification plant, Czajka, which opened on services. Warsaw outperforms most other about 81 gigajoules. This is why the city scores modernise and develop water infrastructure. campaign called Capital of Cleanliness, through in 1991. Poland is now investing heavily to de- medium-sized cities in categories such as energy, fourth in the energy consumption subcat- Initiative: Warsaw’s water-supply and waste- which it educates citizens about waste separa- velop the plant further. buildings and air quality. Its best performance is egory. water investment plan includes the further tion and how to save energy.94 95
  • 49. European Green City Index | City Portrait W ith 18% of Croatia’s population, Zagreb Zagreb’s main streets with new, energy-efficient helped to reduce water loss by 25%. The city Cutting water Zagreb_Croatia contributed just over one-third of the lamps, helping to cut energy use by 1 million authorities now want to expand the project country’s GDP in 2005, accounting for more kwh per year. throughout Zagreb’s distribution system. pollution than one-quarter of national employment. The city has attracted more than 75% of Croatia’s Buildings: Zagreb ranks 25th in the buildings Waste and land use: Zagreb ranks poorly, at total foreign direct investment, and nearly category, despite the fact that the estimated 27th, in the category for waste and land use. 25,000 companies, about one-third of the coun- energy consumption of its residential buildings The city produced 382,037 tonnes of waste in Construction of Zagreb’s wastewater treat- try’s total, operate there. per square metre is slightly below the index 2007, the smallest amount among the industrial ment plant was completed in September The main manufacturing industries in the average. cities in the survey. 2007. Previously, all sewage produced by the city include food and beverage processing, elec- There is a growing awareness of the need for Although this is below the 30-city aver- city’s inhabitants was discharged untreated trical machinery, broadcasting and communica- energy-efficient buildings — especially as this is age, the level of recycling is low, with most into the Sava river, polluting not just the local tions equipment, and chemicals. a topic in Croatia’s EU accession negotiations — municipal waste ending up in the Jakusevac environment but the wider Danube and Black Because of its employment opportunities, but until now it has not been emphasised landfill. Sea basin. The plant is one of the largest en- Zagreb has attracted many migrants from other through the widespread use of energy-efficien- Initiative: Gas produced as a result of the vironmentally sustainable projects in Europe, parts of Croatia, leading to overcrowded public cy standards or incentives. decomposition process at Jakusevac is used to and was built under a public-private partner- transport and traffic congestion on the city’s Initiative: A proposed new terminal building at generate electricity at a small thermal power ship model. The total cost of the project ex- main roads. Zagreb airport has been designed with walls plant at the site, reducing gas emissions and ceeded €350 million, and was financed by Zagreb ranks 26th in the European Green made of low-emissivity glass to allow natural producing energy. the German Reconstruction Loan Corporation City Index, with a score of 42.36 out of 100. light in, and a wave-form roof that would collect (KfW), the European Bank for Reconstruction Despite the absence of heavy industry in the rainwater for reuse as grey water. Air quality: Zagreb ranks 26th for air quality. and Development (EBRD) and a German con- city, years of neglect and underinvestment — a Although its nitrogen dioxide emissions are sortium. By involving the private sector in problem common to other post-communist Transport: Zagreb is ranked joint 19th with slightly below the 30-city average, emissions of this way, the EBRD and KfW hoped to ensure countries — have had a detrimental impact on Kiev, Paris and Vilnius in the transport category. ozone, particulate matter and sulphur dioxide the most effective management of the pro- Zagreb’s environment. When considered in comparison with other low- are higher than average. ject. The aim was gradually to bring the treat- income cities, it moves to joint second place. Initiative: A programme for the protection of ment of wastewater in Zagreb up to EU envi- CO2 emissions: Zagreb ranks 27th for carbon A precise breakdown of the city’s modal split air quality in Zagreb has recently been adopted. ronmental standards. An important aspect of dioxide (CO2) emissions, owing to the fact that is not available, but the most recent data sug- It has been received with approval by green the project was to monitor progress carefully emissions are significantly above the 30-city gest that some 37% of inhabitants commute via agencies, although timelines are rather vague. — including surface water quality (the river average (both per head and also per unit of public transport, slightly below the 30-city aver- Sava), groundwater quality, sludge manage- GDP), despite the city’s having agreed a target age. Environmental governance: Zagreb ranks ment and air emissions — to ensure that for reductions in CO2 emissions. Initiative: In 2007 Zagreb’s transport authority, just 26th in the environmental governance cat- these environmental standards were being Initiative: Zagreb’s mayor signed a covenant in ZET, began a four-year project to convert the egory. Environmental concerns were identified met. the European Parliament in February 2009, tar- city’s public transport to be powered by biofuels. as high priorities in the Vision of Zagreb in the CO2 10 8 Environmental governance Energy 6Select city data geting a 20% reduction in the city’s CO2 emis- The first phase has seen over 100 buses running 21st Century, presented by the mayor of Zagreb 4 sions by 2020. on biodiesel, reducing diesel usage by an esti- in 2005, but the city’s strategy does not containPopulation: 786,000 mate 10,000 tonnes per year. detailed reviews and targets for all environmen- 2GDP per head, PPP: € 19,101 Energy: Zagreb ranks 20th in the energy cate- tal categories. Air Quality 0 BuildingsCO2 emissions per head: 6.68 tonnes* gory. This is the city’s highest score in the index, Water: Zagreb is ranked 26th overall in the Initiative: Zagreb will need to create aEnergy consumption per head: 68.02 gigajoules and stems from its below-average energy con- water category. The city consumed 65.9m cubic sustainable energy action plan in early 2010Percentage of renewable energy sumption per head and its relatively high use of metres of water in 2007, which on a per-head as part of its Covenant of Mayors commit-consumed by the city: 10.13 % renewable energy, with more than one-half of basis is less than the average across the 30 cities ments. This requires a baseline review of theTotal percentage of citizens walking, electricity consumed being generated by reviewed. major categories of sustainability and thecycling or taking public transport to work: 62.9 % Waste and Land Use Transport hydropower. However, water loss is high, at around 43% of setting of targets, and it should therefore 3Annual water consumption per head: 83.84 m Initiative: The city authorities have carried out total water distributed in the city. help to improve environmental governance in Zagreb Water BestShare of waste recycled: 11 % a pilot project to replace public lighting on Initiative: A pilot project in the Knezija area has Zagreb. Average*Estimate96 97
  • 50. European Green City Index | City Portrait Buildings: Zurich ranks ninth for buildings. The city identifying the areas that are most suscepti- Watt’s the story Zurich_Switzerland city’s climate is cooler than most, meaning that ble to flooding and reinforcing protection there. buildings are required to have insulation to pre- vent energy losses. There are fiscal incentives to Waste and land use: Zurich ranks in second renovate old buildings to improve their energy place. Waste production per head is below aver- efficiency, and these are provided at city, can- age (at 406 kg per inhabitant, compared with an tonal and federal level. The energy consumption average of 511 kg), and recycling rates are well In November 2008 the city’s electorate voted of Zurich’s residential buildings, at 729 mega- above average (at 34%, compared with 18%). to embed the 2,000-Watt Society in city legis- joules per square metre, is better than the index The city scores full marks for waste-reduction lation, working towards energy use of 2,000 average of 909 megajoules. policies and green land use. watts per person per year, compared with the Initiative: The “Seven-mile steps for environ- Initiative: The city is investing heavily in dis- current 6,000 watts. This requires a long-term mentally friendly and energy-saving building” trict-heating technology, based in part on reorientation towards lower energy use, a sig- programme aims to renovate city administration waste-to-energy technology, with a number of nificant reduction of CO2 and other pollutant buildings in conformity with the low-energy- new furnaces having been built and connected emissions and a higher uptake of renewable consumption Minergie standard, which will to the network in 2007-08. The operators of energies. It sets the tone for current and up- result in buildings consuming only one-half of these facilities have formed an association to coming programmes related to the environ- the energy that other buildings in the country leverage buying power and synergies. They burn ment; for example, EnergieVision 2020 is a use. About 90% of new buildings now comply 870,000 tonnes of rubbish annually. stepping stone towards the ultimate goal of a with this standard. 2,000-watt society. This sub-project focuses Air quality: Zurich ranks ninth for air quality. It on the energy efficiency of buildings, renew- Transport: Zurich ranks sixth for transport. is held back in particular by its ozone, nitrogen able energies and electricity. There is a well-connected public transport net- dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions, althoughSelect city data mental performance is regulated and influenced Initiative: Zurich’s electricity company, EWZ, work, and Zurich boasts the best non-car trans- levels of particulate matter are low. Zurich suf- by the three levels of federal, cantonal and city builds, runs and finances the energy supply of port network of all 30 cities. But private car use is fers as a result of its location on the flat landPopulation: 377,000 regulations. Zurich ranks sixth overall in the third parties, as a form of “energy contracting”. nonetheless heavy, especially outside the city adjacent to the Alpine massif, where smog ceil-GDP per head, PPP: € 32,455 index, with a score of 82.31 out of 100. It scores In comparison with conventional installations, centre. The city is working to reduce the inci- ings can build up. Transport is one of the mainCO2 emissions per head: 3.70 tonnes* particularly well for carbon dioxide (CO2) emis- the newly built or renovated installations have dence and impact of this, but regulatory incen- local air polluters.Energy consumption per head: 94.75 gigajoules sions and waste and land use. Zurich’s main reduced CO2 emissions by 11,900 tonnes per tives are fairly light. The share of people taking Initiative: With regard to traffic-generated airPercentage of renewable energy business activities, being service-oriented, have year as of 2009. public transport to work stands at around 44%, pollution, Zurich’s administration is leading by CO2consumed by the city: 5.14 %* a relatively light environmental impact, putting with another 19% walking or cycling. example with its vehicle fleet. All new diesel- 10Total percentage of citizens walking, the city in an advantageous position from which Energy: Zurich ranks sixth for energy. The city Initiative: Zurich is seeking to take heavy traffic fuelled buses are required to have particle filters,cycling or taking public transport to work: 62 % 8 to tackle environmental issues. scores best of all 30 cities in the index for its out of the city, and the opening in 2009 of the with older vehicles being retrofitted with filters.Annual water consumption per head: 114.84 m3 Environmental governance Energy energy consumption per unit of GDP: at 0.7 western bypass motorway has been a significant Diesel-powered machines at building sites are 6Share of waste recycled: 34 % CO2 emissions: Zurich ranks in third place for megajoules per euro, this is far below the step. also required to have particle filters. 4*Estimate CO2 emissions, with its estimated annual emis- average of about 5 megajoules. However, Zurich sions per inhabitant standing at a comparatively has a high level of energy use per head, at Water: The city ranks in joint fifth place for Environmental governance: Zurich ranks 2 low 3.7 tonnes (the sixth-lowest level among all 95 gigajoules per inhabitant (the average is water, with Copenhagen. Zurich scores full 11th for environmental governance. The city is 0 Air Quality BuildingsZ urich is Switzerland’s most cosmopolitan city, with a population of nearly 400,000.The most important industry in the city is the cities), compared with a 30-city average of 5 tonnes. Its CO2 emissions per unit of GDP stand at 25.5 grams per euro of GDP. The city’s policy about 81 gigajoules). The city’s energy sources include oil products, nuclear and hydroelectric power. marks for water treatment and water effi- ciency, and has a level of water consumption per head of 115 cubic metres per year, only slightly publicly committed to an ambitious environ- mental programme, which is embodied by the Masterplan Environment strategy paper. Thefinancial services sector. Zurich also acts as a action on CO2 emissions reduction is relatively Initiative: Recognising the high energy con- above the average of 105 cubic metres. Leakage approval by popular referendum of a plan tohub for the Swiss-German media, advertising limited, as this aim is pursued at a national level, sumption of buildings, Zurich has introduced rates, at 12%, are well below the average of embed the 2,000-Watt Society programme into Waste and Land Use Transportand public-relations sector, while tourism and where the federal government has agreed to energy-coaching facilities, with the aim of pro- 23%. city legislation suggests that the city govern-business travel bring in visitors. As a result of reduce carbon emissions by 10% from the 1990 moting competent renovation and construction Initiative: To guard against the danger of flood- ment’s environmental drive is supported by the Zurich Water BestSwitzerland’s federal structure, Zurich’s environ- level. of buildings to reduce energy use. ing, city officials are drawing up a risk map of the population. Average98 99
  • 51. Publisher: Siemens AGCorporate Communications and Government AffairsWittelsbacherplatz 2, 80333 MünchenFor the publisher: Stefan Denigstefan.denig@siemens.comProject coordination: Karen Stelznerkaren.stelzner@siemens.comEditorial office: James Watson, Economist Intelligence Unit, LondonResearch: Katherine Shields, Harald Langer, Economist Intelligence Unit, LondonPicture editing: Judith Egelhof, Irene Kern, Publicis Publishing, MünchenLayout: Rigobert Ratschke, Seufferle Mediendesign GmbH, StuttgartGraphics: Jochen Haller, Seufferle Mediendesign GmbH, StuttgartPrinting: BechtleDruck&Service, Zeppelinstrasse 116, 73730 EsslingenPhotography: Boris Adolf (Zurich), Delmi Alvarez (Riga, Stockholm),Carsten Andersen (Copenhagen), Steve Bisgrove (Rome), Kaidoo Hagen (Tallinn),Joao Cupertino (Lisbon), Sannah de Zwart (Amsterdam), Fotodiena (Vilnius),Daniel Gebhart (Vienna), Kimmo Hakkinen (Helsinki), Martin Kabat (Prague),Jan Klodas (Warsaw), Bertold Litjes (London), Alexander Louvet (Brussels),Klaus Mellenthin (Paris), Jose Luis Pindado (Madrid), Scanpix (Oslo),Andreas Schölzel (Berlin), Paul Sharp (Dublin), Gergely Simenyi (Budapest),Volker Steger (Athens, Belgrade, Bucarest, Ljubljana, Sofia, Zagreb),Mano Strauch (Bratislava), Magnus Svensson (Stockholm),Jürgen Winzeck (Istanbul), Oleg Zharri (Kiev).The copyrights of this picture material are held by Siemens AG.Photo credits: City of Copenhagen (S.32l.), City of Vilnius (S.34l.)Sergio Filipe (S.66), Mikael Ullen / Vägverket (S. 87 l.), Damir Martinovic (S.97r.).Any exploitation and usage which is not explicitly allowed by copyright law, in particularreproduction, translation, storage in electronic database, on the internet and copying ontoCD-ROMs of this print work requires prior consent of the publisher.While every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained inthis document, neither the Economist Intelligence Unit nor Siemens AG nor its affiliates canaccept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this information.Copies: 35,000Munich, Germany, 2009© 2009 by Siemens AG. All rights reserved.Order no.: