The European Green City Index and Oslo

1. The European Green City Index and Oslo Dr Paul Kielstra Contributing Editor Economist Intelligence Unit

2. Description of the Index • Broad Findings • Oslo The European Green City Index

3. Compares environmental performance and policies of 30 major European cities—giving a specific score to each. • As well as overall score, rates cities across eight categories—C02 emissions, energy, buildings, transport, water, waste and land use, air, and environmental governance. • Allows key stakeholders to compare how their city performs in comparison with their peers. Provides potential to track progress over time. The European Green City Index

4. The cities

5. Covers all main official or business capitals, rather than only on an opt-in basis • Independently researched by Economist Intelligence Unit. • Provides a complete set of 30 comparable indicators for all cities, with aggregated scores for each • Based on transparent methodology A unique index

6. Designing and constructing the index CONSTRUCTION • Individual indicators placed on a scale of 0-10, based on objective scoring process • Quantitative indicators set, often against specific targets, such as 20% target for “Share of renewable energy”. • Qualitative indicators scored against a “check list” of policies or actions deemed important. • Indicators then aggregated into eight evenly-weighted categories. Total index then rebased on scale of 0-100 DESIGN • Methodology developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit in cooperation with Siemens • Design draws upon research into policies and initiatives on urban sustainability (e.g. the criteria for the European Green Capital Award, the Urban Ecosystem, EU directives and policies, C40 agreements, etc) • The Economist Intelligence Unit convened and moderated a full-day workshop with 8 urban sustainability experts on the selection of categories and indicators and their importance for the index

7. Europe’s cities: by no means average • Nearly all cities have lower CO2 emissions per head than the overall EU27 average of 8.46 tonnes. The 30-city average is also well below the average, at 5.21 tonnes. • Nearly all cities have signed up to participate in the Covenant of Mayors. • More than half of all citizens in these cities (62.5%) either walk, cycle or take public transport to commute to work. Two thirds of all cities actively promote public awareness around green modes of transport. • The average municipal waste per head generated each year across these cities is 511 kg, slightly better than the EU average of 522 kg. By contrast, the US average is 760 kg and Australia is 690 kg. • 24 cities have implemented measures to reduce the amount of waste they produce. 

8. But still work to be done • The average proportion of renewable energy consumed is just 7.3%, a long way short of the EU’s stated goal of increasing the share of renewable energy usage to 20% by 2020. • Just 14 of the 30 citiesactively promote green energy usage through low or no taxes, subsidies or regulations. • Nearly one in four litresof water consumed by cities is lost through leakage. • Less than one fifth of overall waste is currently recycled.

9. Findings • The link between wealth and environmental performance • Overcoming history: Eastern Europe’s top performers • Size matters – at first • The importance of citizen engagement • And the winner is…

10. Index shows a strong correlation between wealth and environmental performance • Nine of the top 10 cities are “wealthy” (ie, have GDP per head above €31,000) • There are some worthy exceptions though: middle-income Berlin still manages to come joint first in the buildings category Wealth matters

11. All east European cities have incomes of less than €21,000 per head, putting them at the bottom half of the index • Vilnius punches above its weight – East Europe’s top performer in 13th and followed by Riga in 15th place • East European cities face challenges of historical legacy, from poorly insulated mass housing to highly polluting heavy industry • Citizens, understandably, also have significant pent-up aspirations—especially for new motor vehicles History matters: East

12. History Matters: West • West European cities dominate the top half of the index, due in part to their longer history of environmental awareness • Western cities also have the advantage in terms of the financial resources they can devote to green efforts • Citizens are by and large kept fairly well-informed about environmental matters, and are very involved on a civic level

13. Size matters – at first • Little correlation between city size and environmental performance • Leading cities do tend to be smaller, given advantages of size • But larger cities do gain some economies of scale, with more skills and experience—and larger budgets

14. People matter • Cities with an active civil society perform well in the index • Not in the scope of our study, but a comparison with other studies shows a strong correlation between voluntary civil participation and environmental performance • Prior studies have confirmed this point (eg, installing insulation in old homes in London)

15. Implications of findings for Oslo • Wealthiest city per capita in survey • Long history of environmental concern • 6th smallest city in survey • Active citizenry • Advantages of physical environment

16. Oslo vs the best and the average

17. A Bronze Medal Performance

18. : Oslo Sub-Index Scoring

19. Oslo in short Energy Buildings CO2 Transportation • No. 1 • Despite high energy consumption, Oslo is ranked high due to high share of renewals and an efficient energy policy • No. 1 • Top ranking due to renewable and alternative energy sources in buildings and public transport, and reduction in airport emissions • No. 3 • Sixth place on energy consumptions in houses, and forth place on energy consumption in buildings • First place on incentives for energy efficiency in new buildings • No. 5 • High score on promoting green transport and reduction on transport strain • Low score on size of non-car network and non-car transport

20. Oslo in short (cont) Water Environmental governance: Waste and land use Air quality: • No. 6 • Top score on policies on green land use and waste reduction • Held back by lower rankings for waste recycling and reuse and for municipal waste reduction. • No. 15 • Low ranking due to • poor performance on nitrogen dioxide, and pollution in the winter months resulting • from wood-burning stoves and temperature • inversions. • No. 5 • Oslo’s environmental planning is coordinated • by the city council, and in 2003 they approved it’s third plan for sustainable development • No. 20 • The relatively poor ranking reflects Oslo’s high water consumption, a fairly high leakage rate.

22. Oslo – the best performing city for energy and CO2 emissions • Oslo leads the CO2 emissions and Energy categories. The city emits just 2.19 tonnes of CO2 per inhabitant (less than half the average is 5.21 tonnes) and consumes just 0.87 MJ of energy per euro of GDP (average is 5.25 MJ). • Nearly two-thirds of city’s energy consumption sourced from hydroelectric power-derived electricity. The city still aims to reduce emissions by 50% from 1990 levels by 2030 (or 37.5% down from today’s levels). • Between 2000 and 2006, use of district heating rose by 36.2%. By 2015, this network will be doubled, based on renewable sources of energy. • The city’s energy efficiency fund has helped reduce the use of electricity by 1 million mw over past 20 years

23. Thank you