The Evaluation of the Implementation of SEAPs and SECAPs highlights some results of a survey among European municipalities to analyse the impediments and drivers for implementing SEAPs, SECAPs and their measures.

1. 3
Evaluation of the implementation of
SEAPs and SECAPs
D2.3c: Findings from the Survey in C4S Countries
Deliverable number Compete4SECAP D2.3b
Author Ralf Schüle (Wuppertal Institute)
Jan Kaselofsky (Wuppertal Institute)
Calvin Lai Ming Tsun (Wuppertal Institute)
Dissemination Level Public
Date 02/16 2019
Review
Status Final

2. A survey among European cities
This short summary highlights some results of a survey being conducted among local authorities
involved in the COMPETE4SECAP (C4S) project and additional municipalities.
C4S is a Horizon 2020 project funded by the European Union with three specific goals:
1. Helping the local authorities involved in the project to upgrade their Sustainable Action Plan
(SEAP) to a Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan (SECAP)
2. Introducing an Energy Management System for the local authorities
3. Conducting energy saving competitions within the local authorities
The survey analyses impediments and drivers for implementation of SEAP and also SECAPs
(where available) measures in European municipalities. It was conducted by the Wuppertal Institute
in collaboration with all other project partners in summer/fall 2018. The survey was implemented as
an online-survey in two phases: Phase I addressed the partner cities in the project, Phase II additional
European municipalities to which a shortened version of the survey link was sent. The present
deliverable shows the compiled results of the second phase in which 61 European municipalities
from eight European countries participated.
Regarding the assessment of the state of implementation of SEAPs/SECAPs, the following topics
were addressed in the survey:
• CO2 emission reduction targets set
• Availability of data for the implementation of SEAP/SECAP (GHG inventory, potential
analysis for CO2 reductions, scenario analyses
• Management and administration of implementation (funding of climate- or adaptation
related activities, cross-departmental collaboration, political support etc.)
• Monitoring of strategies an measures
• Experiences with EnMS or energy-related competitions
As the survey could only be answered by the representatives of municipalities and local
authorities who are responsible for coordinating and implementing SEAP and SECAP, the result
provides a (non-representative) but relevant insight to state, challenges and obstacles of SEAP/SECAP
implementation.

3. The results: An overview
As a result, large differences can be found with respect to all the topics of the survey although all
municipalities being members of the Covenant of Mayors:
• Emission reduction targets vary with regards to base year, target year and ambition. This is to
be expected given that the municipalities themselves each have their individual
characteristics and challenges. Few municipalities have adopted targets for a reduction in
energy consumption or sector-specific goals. All in all, the survey reiterates the difficulty in
assessing and evaluating the ambition of targets without detailed knowledge of local
circumstances.
• A CO2 and/or GHG inventory is made mandatory by the Covenant of Mayors. The reason for
this is obvious: An inventory is needed to assess the attainment of targets. Yet how helpful
the inventory is in designing and implementing policies is assessed very differently by the
participants of the survey. Some consider it very important, other absolutely unimportant.
• Data on energy consumption are an important input for GHG inventories and can at the
same give indication of possibilities to reduce energy demand and emissions. In this sense it
is very favourable that most of the participating municipalities collect both data on energy
consumption and costs at the level of individual municipal buildings. For other important end
uses of energy and electricity the municipality can influence, like street lighting, good data
seems to be widely available as well. This picture is not as good for the non-public sectors,
where many municipalities cannot work with local data but have to make decisions based on
estimates or even no data at all.
• The number of employees responsible for SEAP/SECAP implementation differs substantively
between the participating municipalities. A similar thing can be said for the budget dedicated
to SEAP/SECAP implementation and the amount of third party funds available.
• While it seems likely that having a distinct team and earmarked budget for SEAP/SECAP
implementation helps in attaining its goals, mainstreaming SEAP/SECAP implementation by
integrating energy and climate policy into the daily work of every municipal department
might also be a promising strategy.
• The experience with energy management systems and energy competitions in the sample is
limited but not nonexistent.
The survey has aimed to assess the base the Compete4SECAP project will build on, and provides
a first impression of the ways and means the municipalities participating in the project try to further
the CoM’s goals and the challenges they face in doing this.
The results of this survey will be supplemented by the results of a second survey among
municipalities not taking part in C4S.

4. Selected results (1): Citywide emission targets
To evaluate the level of ambition with respect to adopted targets, the survey asked participating
cities for the CO2 emission reduction target. From the survey it can be seen that except for two
Croatian cities, one Hungarian city, and one Latvian city which doesn’t respond with the details of the
target, all participating cities have committed to a citywide CO2 emission reduction target. However,
less than half of the cities have adopted a target focusing on the reduction of final energy
consumption. While participating cities in Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Latvia have
predominantly committed to a final energy consumption reduction target, Spanish and Cyprian cities
have not specified any target in this category. Only a minority of cities has adopted a target focusing
on the reduction of primary energy consumption. Those cities are from France, Hungary, Italy and
Latvia.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows the CO2 emission reduction targets of the participating
municipalities. The numbers above each bar specify the respective base year and the colors of the
bars represent the different target years. Despite the fact that almost all municipalities have adopted
an ambitious reduction target according to the conditions of the Covenant of Mayors membership, a
high level of heterogeneity and multiplicity of targets can be seen in the figure. The targets vary with
regards to base year, target year and ambition noticeably.
Figure 1: Please specify your city’s emission reduction target (1)
20.8% 20% 22.4% 31.6% 21% 20% 22% 28% 24.6% 22% 20% 20% 33% 21% 20% 20% 20% 20% 40% 25% 40% 50% 30% 95% 50% 50% 68% 10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 City 5 City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 City 5 City 6 City 7 City 8 City 9 City 10 City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 City 5 City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 City 5 City 6 City 7 City 8
Croa4a Cyprus France Germany
Please specify your city's emission reduc?on target (1)
2010 2015 2010 2008 2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2020 1990 2010 1990 1990 2015 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 2011 2010

5. Figure 2: Please specify your city’s emission reduction target
1
(2)
Selected results (2): Knowledge about technical potentials for
energy savings
Figure 3 shows the sectors being identified as having the highest technical potentials in the
participating cities, namely the sectors of municipal buildings, equipment/facilities and residential
buildings.
Figure 3: Which is the sector identified to have the highest technical potential?
1
As one Spanish city aims to reduce its emissions by 20% compared to 1990 by 2020, it is very likely that the emission
reduction goal for 2030 entered by that city is a typo.
21% 30% 40% 20% 20% 40% 5% 50% 39.8% 33.75% 20.8% 20% 20.2% 40% 20% 20% 40% 20% 20% 20% 50% 20% 30% 40% 20% 20% 20% 40% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 City 5 City 6 City 7 City 8 City 9 City 10 City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4 City 5 City 6 City 7 City 8 City 9 City 10 City 11 City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4
Hungary Italy Latvia Spain
Please specify your city's emission reduc?on target (2)
2009 2010 2015 2013 2006 2013 2016 2009 2008 2011 2003 2008 2010 2006 2010 2016 2010 2007 2006 1990 2010 2008 2012 2008 2000 2008 2008 2008 2007
3
8
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Croa0a Cyprus France Germany Hungary Italy Latvia Spain
Which is the sector iden-fied to have the highest technical poten-al?
Private and commercial transport
Public transport
Municipal fleet
Industry
Public ligh0ng
Residen0al buildings
Ter0ary (non municipal) buildings, equipment/facili0es
Municipal buildings, equipment/facili0es

6. Selected results (3): Data availability for public buildings
Municipal buildings in general include administration buildings, public service buildings and
school buildings. Figure 4 to Figure 7 show the results responded concerning administration
buildings. Besides one municipality from Croatia and two municipalities from Latvia, most of the
participating municipalities have collected data in this sector, mostly at building level. Only a few
municipalities generate data by aggregated data collection, estimations or other ways of data
collection.
Figure 4: At what level is data collected for municipal buildings? (Administration buildings)
The results to the question how energy data is collected for municipal buildings show that digital
transmission of data by now only plays a subordinate role. Cities usually either apply direct meter
readings or other ways (see Figure 5).
Figure 5: How is energy data collected for municipal buildings? (Administration buildings)
5
10
4
8
9
3
7
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Croa0a Cyprus France Germany Hungary Italy Latvia Spain
At what level is data collected for municipal buildings?
(Administra9on buildings)
No data collec0on
Other ways of data collec0on
Assessed / es0mated / modelled data(e.g. by na0onal
surveys)
Aggregated data collec0on(e.g. aggrega0on of several
buildings)
Collec0on of data for each individual building
3
4
5
2
6
2
1
2
4
1
3
3
10
3
5
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Croa0a Cyprus France Germany Hungary Italy Latvia Spain
How is energy data collected for municipal buildings?
(Administra9on buildings)
Other ways of data collec0on
Digital transmission of data
Direct meter readings

7. Predominantly, the survey’s participants collect data in a monthly frequency. Three German
municipalities collect data constantly/hourly. Only a Croatian municipality collects data weekly and a
few municipalities from France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia and Spain collect data in an annual
rhythm.
Figure 6: How often is energy data collected for municipal buildings?
(Administration buildings)
Conclusions
The golden thread of this report is that despite almost all municipalities being members of the
Covenant of Mayors large differences can be found with respect to all the topics of the survey.
Emission reduction targets vary with regards to base year, target year and ambition. This is to be
expected given that the municipalities themselves each have their individual characteristics and
challenges, e.g. increasing or decreasing population, little or great importance of the manufacturing
sector etc. Few municipalities have adopted targets for a reduction in energy consumption or sector-
specific goals. All in all, the survey reiterates the difficulty in assessing and evaluating the ambition of
targets without detailed knowledge of local circumstances.
A CO2 and/or GHG inventory is made mandatory by the Covenant of Mayors. The reason for this
is obvious: An inventory is needed to assess the attainment of targets. Yet how helpful the inventory
is in designing and implementing policies is assessed very differently by the participants of the
survey. Some consider it very important, other absolutely unimportant.
Data on energy consumption are an important input for GHG inventories and can at the same
give indication of possibilities to reduce energy demand and emissions. In this sense it is very
favourable that most of the participating municipalities collect both data on energy consumption and
costs at the level of individual municipal buildings. This cannot necessarily be considered a given and
is a good base to build on. For other important end uses of energy and electricity the municipality
can influence, like street lighting, good data seems to be widely available as well. This picture is not
as good for the non-public sectors, where many municipalities cannot work with local data but have
to make decisions based on estimates or no data at all.
3
1
6
10
4
3
8
2
9
3
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Croa0a Cyprus France Germany Hungary Italy Latvia Spain
How o%en is energy data collected for municipal buildings?
(Administra:on buildings)
Annually
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Constantly / hourly

8. The number of employees responsible for SEAP/SECAP implementation differs substantively
between the participating municipalities. A similar thing can be said for the budget dedicated to
SEAP/SECAP implementation and the amount of third party funds available. What to make of this is
hard to say. While it seems likely that having a distinct team and earmarked budget for SEAP/SECAP
implementation helps in attaining its goals, mainstreaming SEAP/SECAP implementation by
integrating energy and climate policy into the daily work of every municipal department might also
be a promising strategy. For most municipalities in our sample cooperating and coordinating with
other departments and agencies functions quite well. Furthermore, the majority of municipal
employees answering our survey assessed the political support as above average. Yet, when asked
which additional support would increase the respondent’s capability to act, stronger political support
and guidance by other levels (of the political multi-level system) and more personnel as well as a
higher budget have been named repeatedly.
The experience with energy management systems and energy competitions in the sample is
limited but not nonexistent.
The survey has aimed to assess the base the Compete4SECAP project will build on. While not
representative in a formal scientific perspective, the survey gives a first impression of the ways and
means the municipalities participating in the project try to further the CoM’s goals and the
challenges they face in doing this.
Ralf Schüle, Jan Kaselofsky (Wuppertal Institute)