Overview Application Form Guidance...

EUROPEAN GREEN

CAPITAL

APPLICANT WORKSHOP

Overview Application Form

&

Guidance Note

DG Environment, Brussels, 5th September 2014

•1

ARE YOU ELIGIBLE?

At present, the eligibility criteria are as follows:

� The European Green Capital Award is open to EU Member States and

Candidate Countries (FYROM, Iceland, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey);

Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

� All cities from the countries listed above which have more than 100,000

inhabitants can apply for the award (in countries where there is no city

with more than 100,000 inhabitants, the largest city is eligible to apply).

� In this context, a “city” is understood to be an urban area, excluding

metropolitan areas, larger urban zones and conurbations, and is

understood as an administrative unit governed by a city council or another

form of democratically elected body.

� Past winners may not apply for a period of ten years after they held the

European Green Capital title.

•2

ONLINE APPLICATION PROCESS

The Online Application Portal is split into 6 simple steps:

1. Municipality Details

2. Mayoral Declaration

3. Application Form

4. Upload Documents

5. Request for translation

6. Confirm Submission

Step 1 - Municipality DetailsMust be completed in full to submit application

Step 2 – Mayoral DeclarationMust be signed by the Mayor of the municipality to submit application

By signing the mayoral declaration the applicant city accepts the terms and conditions of the European Green Capital Award.

•3

STEP 3 - APPLICATION FORM – EGCA 2017

•4

STEP 3 - APPLICATION FORM

2017 Application Process

City Introduction & Context

� Provide overview of city

� Highlight environmental constraints

� Discuss positives and negatives

� Contentious projects and public acceptance issues

� Non compliances should be highlighted

� All application authors should ideally contribute / review this section

•5


2017 Application Process

City Background Check

� Independent background check by Secretariat and the Commission covering:

� Legislation and governance infringements

� Legal procedures against city

� Progress towards compliance will be noted

� Provided to Experts and Jury as additional information

•6


The Application form is split into 12 indicator areas:

1. Climate change: mitigation and adaptation

2. Local transport

3. Green Urban areas Incorporating Sustainable land use

4. Nature and biodiversity

5. Ambient Air Quality

6. Quality of the Acoustic Environment

7. Waste Production and management

8. Water management

9. Waste water management

10. Eco-innovation and sustainable employment

11. Energy performance

12. Integrated environmental management

•7

12 INDICATOR AREAS

� Similar to 2016 application form layout

� No title changes in any of the indicators

� Addition of a ‘Good Practice’ section in each of

the indicators

� 3,150 Words & 17 graphics/tables allowed in each

indicator

� Split across 5 sections

•8


Each Indicator is split into 5 Sections:

A. Present Situation

B. Past performance

C. Future Plans

D. References

E. Good Practices

A. Present Situation: focus on data, numerical information, figures, graphics etc

B. Past Performance: focus on measures implemented

C. Future Plans: focus on realistic and achievable plans

Note

Sections A, B & C are considered on an equal basis as part of the

technical assessment and rankings are based on the information

provided in these sections.

•9


D. References

� The 4th section is provided for supporting documentation

� List where the information referenced in the application can be located, add links where possible.

� The experts are not obliged to read this information.

� Further detail may be requested during the clarification phase.

E. Good Practices

� Provide details of at least one exemplary practice which your

city has implemented in this indicator area.

Note

Incomplete application forms will NOT be accepted.

Complete all sections or indicate why information is not available.

•10


Word Limit:

Each section has a strict word limit.

� Answers over the limit will be terminated at the word limit

� Figure Titles, Table & Graphic Contents will not count towards the

limit, within reason (i.e. no additional paragraphs – text to describe

labels or numeric figures)

Layout:

� Answers to follow 2017 Application Form Layout

� All information to be contained within answer i.e. no appendices

containing additional text will be accepted

� Graphics, photographs, tables etc. to be contained within the body of

text.

� ALL Graphics, photographs, tables etc must be individually

labelled and referenced

•11

Guidance Note

� The Guidance note provides explanatory information for each

of the 12 indicators.

� Prepared by the Experts & EU Policy Officers to ensure cities

understand what information is being required and in the

correct format.

� It must be consulted to successfully complete the Application

form

� Information includes:

� Additional explanation of terms

� Specifics details to be included in answers

� Units for data

•12

STEP 4 - UPLOAD DOCUMENTS

� Must upload 12 separate files – one for each indicator

� Each must be properly labelled with city name and indicator

number e.g. Indicator 1_Hamburg, Indicator 2_Hamburg

etc

� Must submit in Word Document format .doc

� Upload Mayoral Declaration to complete the application process

� Indicates that the City has read and accepts the competition terms and

conditions

•13

•14

STEP 4 – UPLOAD DOCUMENTS

TERMS & CONDITIONS

•15

STEP 5 : REQUEST FOR TRANSLATION

� Must be completed if your application form

requires translation.

� Ensures that you are involved in the translation

process & happy with the translated document

that the experts will evaluate

•16

STEP 6 - CONFIRM APPLICATION SUBMISSION

� Only select when completely finished

� Confirmation emails will be sent after verification of the application

Following verification:

� Applications not submitted in English will be translated

� Applications will be separated into 12 indicators and issued to the Expert

Panel for technical assessment

� Cities may be contacted during the Clarification Stage for further

information

•17

•18

STEP 6 : CONFIRM SUBMISSION

FINAL RESULTS & REPORTING� Synopsis Technical Assessment Report will be made public

� Contains ranking for each city per indicator

� Contains comments for shortlisted cities only

� Each city will receive individual report including 5 comments per

indicator

� Comments for non-shortlisted cities will not be made public

� Good Practice and Benchmarking Report will include all cities

� Experts choose 2 exemplary initiatives for each indicator

� Text and images from application form may be used

� Cities may also be contacted for more info

� Jury report provides feedback from the Jury.

� Application Form of Winning city will be made public via website

•19

How to complete a successful

application

EUROPEAN GREEN

CAPITAL

APPLICANT WORKSHOP


•20

HOW APPLICATION FORMS ARE

EVALUATED – EVALUATION PANEL

� Reviewed by a primary and secondary expert (peer-review)

� Primary expert will evaluate each application based on its own

merit

� Each section of the Indicator Area is given equal consideration

� Applications are not given a score but benchmarked and ranked

against all applications

� Expert Panel members have the opportunity to clarify information

– only based on information already provided in the application

form

� Secondary expert undertakes an additional review to ensure quality

and consistency of the initial review process

� Final combined ranking is achieved only when agreed by primary

and secondary expert•21

HOW APPLICATION FORMS ARE

EVALUATED – JURY

� Jury reviews the Evaluation Panel’s complete Technical Assessment

Report

� Confirm the cities to be shortlisted as per Expert Panels

recommendation or otherwise!

� Shortlisted Cities present to the Jury under the following indicator

areas:

� The city’s overall commitment, vision and enthusiasm, as assessed

by the expert panel and conveyed through the presentation.

� The city’s capacity to act as a role model to inspire other cities,

promote best practices and spread the EGC model further.

� The city’s communication actions, citizen engagement, local

partnering and communication strategy •22

HOW TO COMPLETE A HIGH QUALITY

APPLICATION?

Each Indicator area has five parts:

A. Describe the present situation

B. Describe the measures implemented over the last five to ten years.

C. Describe the short and long term future objectives and proposed approach to achieve these.

D. List how the above information can be documented.

E. Provide a brief description of an exemplary practice in the indicator

Parts A, B & C will carry equal consideration by the expert.

Introduction, Section D & Section E is for additional information only

Section E will be used to produce the Good Practice and

Benchmarking Report

Introduction – provides experts & jury with valuable insight in to the history/background of city & challenges faced.

•23

HOW TO COMPLETE A HIGH-QUALITY

APPLICATION?

A. Describe the present situation

� Provide details of current statistics, policies, projects etc.

� Always describe any disadvantages or constraints resulting from

historic and/or geographical factors which may have affected

performance in an indicator area

� Showing recent trends (5 to 10 years) is useful for setting the

context

NB: Always provide all the information asked for or provide reason

why not available

•24


APPLICATION?

B. Describe the measures implemented over the last five to

ten years.

� Applicants should describe measures implemented over the last 5

to 10 years

� The resources allocated should be discussed

� Applicants should indicate whether the measure was successful or

not and if possible provide reasons

NB: Always provide all the information asked for or provide reason

why not available•25


APPLICATION?

C. Describe the short and long term objectives for the future and proposed approach to achieve these.

� Applicants should list realistic objectives and proposed approaches.

� Short and longer term plans should be included

� Include where appropriate timescales and allocated / confirmed budgets

� Plans or policies in place can be referenced here and links detailed in section D.

•26


APPLICATION?

D. List how the above information can be documented, add links where possible.

� Answers should not solely refer to the supporting documentation

e.g. we have excellent Biodiversity, please see the biodiversity plan in Section D – NOT ACCEPTABLE!

� Documents listed are for evidence and verification of the information provided

� During evaluation clarification stage the Evaluation Panel may wish to query certain listed documents in order to verify figures/statistics etc.

•27

� Case Studies from 4 Indicator Areas (2016 Applications):

� Case Study 1 – Integrated Environmental Management

� Case Study 2 – Local Transport

� Case Study 3 – Waste Management & Consumption

� Case Study 4 – Nature & Biodiversity

� Discuss high quality and weakness of applications

� Information obtained from the Synopsis Technical

Assessment Report – available for download on website


APPLICATION?

•28

CASE STUDY 1 – INTEGRATED

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Ljubljana were ranked 1st in Indicator 12•29

LJUBLJANA RANKED 1ST

EXTRACTED COMMENTS: –

� Ljubljana has an overall vision (Vision of Ljubljana 2025:

sustainable city) approved by the City Council and

supported with several sectorial strategies.

� All activities have been financially secured and progress is

reported regularly to the City Council. The mayor is the

key driver regarding sustainable development.

� Sustainability Impact Assessments are obligatory for

important decisions.

� Many departments and services of the administration have

a certified environmental management system. The City

has implemented green procurement for 70% of all the

purchases, and is steering the national regulations.

•30

� Ljubljana is the leading city in the region and is leading in the

Regional Development Agency for Ljubljana Region (RRA LUR)

promoting sustainable development in 26 municipalities.

� In several areas Ljubljana is driving national regulations and

models. 3D Urban Planning is an internet tool, which is used to

inform the public and to cooperate with professionals.

� The progress of the policies is measured with reports and also

with public opinion surveys.

� There is a clear overview of indicators for environmental

themes.

•31

What made this a good application:

� Establishing context i.e. overall vision - approved by the City

Council

� Shows certainty i.e. financially secured activities

� Includes relevant info i.e. a certified environmental

management system, driving national regulations and models

� Show commitment i.e. progress measured with reports and

also with public opinion surveys.

CASE STUDY 1

– Ljubljana 2016 APPLICATION

Integrated Environmental Management

•32

CASE STUDY 2 – LOCAL

TRANSPORT

A comparison of 2016 Shortlisted Cities: Essen,

Ljubljana, Nijmegen, Oslo & Umea

•33

� Essen has an extensive and diverse public transport system

including regional rail, S-bahn, Metro, trams, and buses, with

low emissions due to electrification and use of low emission

buses.

� Essen provides good data for nearly all requested local

transport indicators reflecting a good basis for urban transport

planning, although current performance is not above average,

apart from the impressive provision of a clean public transport

service.

� The regional plan adopted in 2009 includes principles for

reducing demand for car transport and for shifting transport to

other modes. Specific target levels for the individual modes are

set for 2035.

CASE STUDY 2 – COMPARISON OF LOCAL TRANSPORT

EXTRACTED COMMENTS: ESSEN – RANKED 6TH

•34

� Targets of 25% for each transport mode are set. The targets

appear ambitious as a number of mostly ‘soft’ measures are

mentioned in the application and also considering the

current figures provided for bicycle share (approximately

5%) and car share (approximately 54%) in the city.

� Interesting new initiatives include a plan to ensure a

varied supply of retail in the city centre and a study to

explore 'new mobility concepts', although little detail

about expected outcomes is provided of these and several

other measures.

•35


EXTRACTED COMMENTS: ESSEN – RANKED 6TH


EXTRACTED COMMENTS: LJUBLJANA – RANKED 2ND

� Ljubljana has become dominated by cars due to rapid

motorization in Slovenia and previous lack of

investments in public transport. These trends are being

reversed as part of overarching visions and specific

plans for a more sustainable city.

� Accomplishments include the creation of a city centre

zone closed for car traffic; and a remarkable experiment to

close a major artery (Slovenska road) for all other traffic

than buses and bicycles. The latter measure has resulted

in a faster and more reliable bus service, and an overall

reliability for public transport of 96% has been achieved

through a wide set of measures.

•36

� The city uses some innovative measures such as a

successful bicycle sharing system (BicikeLJ), signal

prioritization and real time information for buses, and a

city card that integrates payment for public transport use,

Park and Ride, car parking, the bike share, and even public

library services.

� The city has a strong focus on converting its own vehicle

fleet to alternative fuels, and it keeps detailed records of

the use of this fleet.

� Green city logistics are not mentioned in detail within

the application.

•37



� A comprehensive and ambitious sustainable urban mobility

plan has been adopted in 2012, with a goal to obtain a

share of 33% public transport, 33% non-motorised traffic

and 33% private vehicles by 2020.

� A significant budget of approximately €25 Million for

2014 is mentioned, but the full allocation is not

described.

� Ljubljana takes part in many European projects,

schemes, networks and initiatives for more clean/safe

urban transport, including CIVITAS.

•38



� Nijmegen performs very well for local transport

indicators such as infrastructure for cyclists, low share of

car use for short trips, and especially clean public transport

vehicles.

� Nijmegen is the only city (amongst the 2016 applicants)

that can demonstrate that the entire bus fleet fulfils more

stringent emissions limits than required by current

EURO V, by using Compressed Natural Gas.

� The strategy over the last 10 years has been to

encourage cycling and public transport and limit car use,

with some success demonstrated in modal split data; the

city is introducing a High Quality Public Transport (HQPT)

network and so far 40km of ‘Fast Cycle Routes’, where

priority is given to bicycles.

•39


EXTRACTED COMMENTS: NIJMEGEN – RANKED 4TH

� The city has the ‘Green Hub’ project which includes the

'Binnenstadt’ model to consolidate and distribute goods to

the inner city with low emission vehicles, but no details

are provided about of how much of city or the freight

volume that is covered by this system.

� A broad range of initiatives have been taken to improve

transport and reduce impacts, some seem advanced for the

city this size, such as a traffic management centre with

camera surveillance of traffic and info to travellers on

congestion.

•40

CASE STUDY 2 – COMPARISON OF LOCAL TRANSPORTEXTRACTED COMMENTS: NIJMEGEN – RANKED 4TH

� There is a ‘Sustainable Access Nijmegen’ Memorandum

which defines three phases up to 2020, including a range of

specific transport projects, although committed spending is

not mentioned. The aims of this memorandum are not

fully explained and it is not clear how the measures

will contribute to fulfil environmental goals.

� Opening a second bridge across the River Waal will add

capacity and spread traffic, while measures to disallow a

consequential increase in the general traffic loads in the

city are not directly presented.

•41


EXTRACTED COMMENTS: NIJMEGEN – RANKED 4TH

� Oslo generally presents the most comprehensive and

ambitious efforts to provide for greener urban transport of

all the candidate cities, addressing nearly all elements

suggested in the application form and demonstrating

impressive results as well as plans for the future.

� Especially significant measures include the use of a toll

ring to collect revenue which is increasingly used to provide

funding for public transport and bicycle investments;

significant extensions to the public transport system

including the opening of new tram line and not least the

pioneering efforts to promote the use of alternatives to

petrol and diesel cars.

•42


EXTRACTED COMMENTS: OSLO – RANKED 1ST

� This is currently making Oslo the city with the highest

share of electric vehicles in the world, due to a

combination of national and local initiatives such as

support to install chargers, free electricity at municipal

parking places, and free passage through toll rings and use

of bus lanes.

� Other important measures include a significant

densification in the city centre to counteract sprawl, and

the application of Universal Design principle to make the

city more physically accessible to all.

•43



� A set of goals for transport has been defined, some

quantitative, verifiable, and relatively ambitious CO2 (50%

reduction between 1991 and 2030), others more qualitative,

and less verifiable (e.g. ‘make it easy to live without a car’).

A new long term plan for concentrated urban development

around public transport nodes is to be adopted at regional

level in 2014, but limited details are provided of this.

� Investments to increase public transport capacity by a

further 30% have been committed.

•44



� Umeå has an extensive cycle network with some 265km

designated lanes along roads, partly separated from car

traffic, and in addition some recreational trails; the supply

of public transport is not as extensive and the share of car

use is relatively high. The time series for modal shares in

1998 and 2006 shows a decline for green modes while the

car share increased but the city expects this trend to

have been significantly reversed in the upcoming

2014 survey.

� The city has several current plans related to transport

including for urban development, traffic safety, public

transport, cycling, parking and NOx control. A key element

in the urban development plan is to concentrate growth

within 5 km of city centre and along the public transport

corridors.

•45


EXTRACTED COMMENTS: UMEA – RANKED 3RD

� The city involves itself in a range of transport innovation

projects including a superfast charging system for buses,

measures to allow cycling in cold weather and green

parking purchase experiment.

� There are extensive efforts to involve citizens in rethinking

mobility and transport planning. One such campaign

invites citizens to report on their “most ridiculous car

drive”. Umeå is a member of CIVITAS, the Biofuel Region,

and several other green networks related to transport.

� Future plans emphasize a goal to reduce car dependence;

the city’s Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) is

“woven into the comprehensive plan”; and contains a mix of

technical innovations and actions, and measures

addressing mobility behaviour.

•46



� An extensive list of goals, measures and strategies for

urban development, public transport, cycling, parking and

traffic safety is presented.

� Some goals are clear as well as ambitious such as

doubling the market share of public transport by 2020 and

to achieve zero traffic casualties; others are more

directional or qualitative.

� For a few of the planned measures there is information

about actual commitments and budgets, although not

for most. A monitoring system including measurable

targets and performance measures is illustrated but

not explained.

•47



CASE STUDY 3 – WASTE

PRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT

A discussion of Oslo’s 2016 Application

Oslo were ranked 1st in Indicator 7

•48

� Waste management in Oslo is considered in a wider context

with respect to climate, ecology and the environment

generally and whilst there is a Waste Strategy and a

Waste Plan in place they also link to wider strategy

documents.

� Oslo works to advance in the waste hierarchy and waste

prevention is embedded in waste policies.

� The city has a good recycling level and whilst it is slightly

surprising that it is not higher with the extensive

collections systems in place, a higher target has been

set for 2018. Reuse is quantified at 1.42% in 2012 which is

very positive.

CASE STUDY 3

Oslo 2016 Application

Indicator 7: Waste Production & Management

•49

� Extensive waste prevention programmes are outlined and

these are often carried out in collaboration with external

stakeholders including with other cities. These programmes

include reuse initiatives, general awareness raising and

waste stream specific initiatives (e.g. food waste). The

effectiveness of the campaigns has been measured and

tracked and have been demonstrated to be effective.

� There has been extensive investment (€400m) in

infrastructure including an optical sorting plant (world’s

largest), biogas plant, new large recycling station (currently

under construction) and upgrade of incineration capacity and

efficiency. Biogas produced at the biogas plant is used as fuel

for buses.

CASE STUDY 3



•50

CASE STUDY 3



There appears to be constant reinvention and refreshment of

the overall waste management system through additional

investment in infrastructure and also extensive awareness

campaigns and targets are set going forward for reuse,

material recycling, customer satisfaction etc.

The municipality is leading by example with each agency

being environmentally certified and continually improving

their own waste management.

Overall the application presented a very impressive

performance in waste management and consumption

•51


� Clear objectives

� Context – good acknowledgement of waste hierarchy –

commitment to waste prevention embedded in waste policies

� Show integration i.e. Linked to wider themes – climate,

ecology, environment

� Include all relevant info i.e. programmes aimed at schools,

businesses and households - effectiveness of the campaigns

has been measured, tracked and proven to be successful

� Future ambitions i.e. higher target has been set for 2018.

CASE STUDY 3

– Oslo 2016 APPLICATION

WASTE PRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT

•52

CASE STUDY 4 – NATURE &

BIODIVERSITY

A discussion of Essen’s 2016 Application

Essen were ranked 1st in the Indicator 4

•53

CASE STUDY 3

– Essen 2016 APPLICATION

Indicator 4: Nature & Biodiversity

� Essen’s response on this indicator is wide-ranging and

fulfils the requirements of the guidance, demonstrating the

process of biodiversity protection and enhancement from

identification through to planning and monitoring.

� Within the introduction a useful account of the geology and

topographic location of the city is provided, providing

background to the biodiversity interest present in the city.

� The current challenges affecting wildlife conservation are

set out clearly (principally industrial change, history and

recreational use).

•54

� Essen demonstrates its commitments to its conservation

plans with an indication of budgets secured from various

sources.

� Several initiatives associated with restoration of waterways

and their biodiversity are indicated, (Buhmbach Delbach,

Oeffer Bach etc.) as well as the wider Emscher waters

system, encompassing near-natural land and water bodies.

� Essen is acting to identify and preserve the growth of

species which may be more tolerant of climate change.

Within the city the climate change adaptive value of street

trees is recognised.

� Measures are in place to re-green even dense urban areas

and these include a focus on green roofs but, additionally,

the biodiversity promotion in these spaces, e.g. for bees.

•55


� Clear objectives – clearly met the requirement asked for in the

application form

� Context – used the introduction wisely – giving context for the

city

� Include all relevant info i.e. demonstrates its commitments,

indication of budgets secured

CASE STUDY 3

Essen 2016 APPLICATION : Indicator 3 Nature & Biodiversity

•56

CLARIFICATIONS

� Can be asked to clarify or justify figures if they seem

unbelievable or incomparable to other applicants.

� If the expert suspects incorrect units have been used.

� If a statement is incorrect or unclear it will be queried.

� If it is unclear whether an initiative is implemented or not.

� Unknown/local/national terminology used – cities may be

asked to explain

� Clarity on whether data relates solely to the city as

opposed to the urban region/national data

� Budget data –need to back up with information about what

is committed, how it will be implemented etc

•57

WHAT THE EXPERTS LOOK FOR?

� Applications that are compiled and written by suitably qualified professionals in the indicator area.

� Highlight the integrated nature of indicators.

� Often experts know of initiatives in cities – if information is not provided can’t assess.

� Cities need to demonstrate ALL key projects.

� List what cities are responsible for e.g. Privatisation, public.

� If you can not provide data provide a good explanation as to why you can not.

� Photographs, figures etc. Beneficial

� Similarly excess of such is a major negative

� Always label clearly

•58

URBAN BENCHMARKING – A NEW APPROACH

� Carried out by Secretariat in tandem with expert

ranking.

� Discussed at expert meetings.

� If info is not provided in the application form

� Requested as a clarification

� Benchmarking results will be provided to Jury

along with Technical Assessment Report.

� Used in Good Practice & Benchmarking Report

2017

•59

1. Read the Application form & Guidance Note thoroughly

2. Read previous cycles Evaluation Panel Report to see what the Experts look for

3. View previous winning city applications online

4. Complete all sections of the indicator and review application form as a complete document

5. If in doubt - ASK!! Telephone: +353 1 4882988E-mail: [email protected]

TOP 5 TIPS

•60

EUROPEAN GREEN

CAPITAL

APPLICANT WORKSHOP

Overview Application Form &

Guidance Note


•61

Overview Application Form Guidance...

Documents

Transcript of Overview Application Form Guidance...