Summary report on 110 global cities. Written by CDP +44 (0) In proud partnership with

Transcription

1 Summary report on 110 global cities Written by CDP (0) In proud partnership with Report analysis and information design for CDP by

2 Cities from Dallas to Hanoi to Ouagadougou have participated in the largest and most comprehensive survey of cities and climate change. Hanoi

3 Cities p04 Risks and adaptation p08 Economic opportunities p16 Emissions measurement and reduction p20 Water p26 Appendix p28 CDP, C40 and AECOM are proud to present our latest results from the third consecutive year of climate change reporting for cities. It was an impressive year. One hundred and ten cities reported on their climate change data to CDP this year (a 50% increase from 2012), making this document the largest and most comprehensive survey of cities and climate change published to date by CDP. City governments from Dallas to Hanoi to Ouagadougou participated, including over 80% of the membership of the C40 a group of the world s largest cities dedicated to climate change leadership. The data presented here conveys information about every aspect of climate change measurement and management in cities. Approximately two-thirds of reporting cities measure city-wide emissions. Together, these cities account for just over 1 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, putting them on par with Japan, the world s third largest economy and fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. Over 70% of cities now have a plan for adapting to the effects of climate change. And cities report over 1,000 individual actions designed to reduce emissions and adapt to a changing climate. CDP salutes the hard work and dedication of the world s city governments in measuring and reporting these important pieces of data. With this report, we provide city governments with information and insights that we hope will assist their work in tackling the supreme challenge of climate change. For an in-depth analysis of trends relating to economic opportunities in cities, please see CDP s accompanying report, How Climate Change Is Giving Us Wealther, Healthier Cities. A te on the Text: All data in this report is based on answers from city governments to the questions contained in the 2013 CDP Cities questionnaire, except where otherwise noted. Additional summary data is provided on a city-by-city basis in the Appendix to this report, and via the CDP website, C40 is a network of the world s megacities taking action to reduce GHG emissions. In 2013, CDP and C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) mark three years of partnership on the effort to engage cities in climate change data reporting; C40 Chair, New York City Mayor Michael R.Bloomberg invited all 63 C40 Cities to participate through CDP s reporting platform 53 cities responded. For more information, please visit 3

4 Cities Fig. 1 Map of responding cities 110 responding cities: Cleveland Greater M Vancouver Detroit Greater Lon Rotterdam San Jose* San Francisco San Diego Portland Edina Denver Las Vegas Los Angeles Austin Minneapolis Phoenix St Louis Dallas Atlanta Montreal New Orleans* Toronto New York Baltimore Washington, DC Chicago Philadelphia Lisbon Mexico City San Salvador Houston Barranquilla* Miami Ou Guayaquíl Bogotá Cali Caracas Magdalena del Mar Lima Recife Salvador* Goiânia* Jaguaré Campinas* Belo Horizonte Santiago Curitiba Porto Alegre Montevideo Rio de Janeiro Aparecida São Paulo Cities reporting per year Buenos Aires : Cities

5 296,471,000 total population 27 cities Fig. 2 Population breakdown of responding cities 33 cities 50 cities less than 600k 600k-1.6m greater than 1.6m Cities that reported privately * Stockholm Oslo Greater Manchester Copenhagen Vilnius Moscow Dublin Hamburg Greater London Amsterdam Warsaw Rotterdam Paris Basel* Zurich Berlin Lisbon Turin Milan* Venice Zaragoza Madrid Naples Piacenza Istanbul* Kadiovacik Oristano Athens Bornova* Barcelona* Tokyo Kaohsiung Seoul Hong Kong* Hanoi Yokohama Ansan Incheon Taipei Wonju Changwon Suwon Ouagadougou Lagos Abidjan Abuja, FCT Douala Addis Ababa Kampala Bangkok Singapore Ho Chi Minh City* Jakarta* onte Antananarivo Johannesburg aneiro recida Paulo Cape Town Pietermaritzburg Durban Melbourne Sydney Cities: 5

6 Cities: climate change and water Half of London s water mains pipe infrastructure is over 100 years old and a third is over 150 years old. London has a high level of leakage with around a quarter of London s water lost. Cities: climate change and education In 2005, the city of Los Angeles began the Blue Bin School Recycling Program with only 10 elementary schools participating. There are now 648 schools enrolled, saving the district over US$2 million annually in hauling costs while teaching environmental stewardship. 6: Cities

7 Cities: climate change and society In the Ivory Coast, reduced rainfall has negatively impacted crop production and income of the rural population. As a result, rural residents are migrating to cities like Abidjan expecting to find work. Cities: climate change and action Stockholm will reconstruct one of the city s locks to prevent sea water from entering into the Lake Mälaren. The planned measures in the new lock will provide good protection for buildings and infrastructure around the lake, and secure the drinking water for about two million people. Cities: 7

8 Risks and adaptation Physical risks: what cities are facing While Las Vegas is prepared for periods of intense heat, the impact of prolonged high temperatures in the western US will stress electricity supply, and any disruption to air conditioning in summer months could have pronounced impacts for citizens, children, elderly and at risk populations. Physical risks: what cities are facing In late 2011, Bangkok suffered a severe flood. The flood caused disruption in the production processes of many factories. Transportation of goods and service was also limited. 8: Risks and adaptation

9 Fig 3 Primary methodology used to evaluate physical risks % of responses 18% 20% Cities use a variety of methodologies to evaluate physical risks from climate change. Many of these methodologies are based on or heavily influenced by the IPCC s risk assessment guidance, including ADAPT and UKCIP. State or region vulnerability and risk assessment methodology World Bank Urban Risk Assessment (URA) 9% IPCC models and climate change impact assessment guidance UNDP climate risk management methodologies 1% 1% 3% 5% 7% 16% 19% Agency specific vulnerability and risk assessment methodology ICLEI climate adaptation methodology (ADAPT) Unknown UK Climate Impacts Partnership Framework (UKCIP) Other evaluation done Fig 4 Number of cities reporting risks By type Of 110 cities surveyed: 88 Cities are reporting risks from temperature increase / heatwaves 81 Cities are reporting risks from frequent / intense rainfall 49 Cities are reporting risks from drought 43 Cities are reporting risks from storms / floods 39 Cities are reporting risks from sea level rise Risks and adaptation :9

10 See the interactive version of these charts including more detail on risks and other reported information from cities at Fig 5 Number of cities reporting risks By region Cities reporting risks from: Temperature increase / heatwaves Frequent / intense rainfall Drought Storms / floods Sea level rise Africa 12 cities East Asia 11 cities Europe 30 cities Latin America 23 cities rth America 27 cities South Asia / Oceania 7 cities : Risks and adaptation

11 Fig 6 Number of risks reported by cities By timescale Current 2013 Short term Medium term Long term Temperature increase / heatwaves Frequent / intense rainfall Drought Storms / flooding Sea level rise Risks and adaptation :11

12 Fig 7 Cities that have a plan for increasing resilience to climate change # of cities % of cities % 80 63% 64% 71% 80% 60 60% 40 40% % Fig 8 Three most popular actions reported by cities for each risk # of actions How are cities adapting to risks from temperature increase / heatwaves? 54 Tree planting and/or green space Community creation initiatives. 26engagement and Projects education programs. 22or policies targeted at those most vulnerable. How are cities adapting to risks from frequent / intense rainfall? Stormwater capture systems. Flood defences (development, operation and storage). Water butts and rainwater capture initiatives. How are cities adapting to risks from drought? Awareness campaigns or educational initiatives to reduce water use. Water supply and diversification programs. Water use restrictions. 12: Risks and adaptation

13 Adaptation: what cities are doing The development of drainage infrastructure in Singapore, amounting to S$2bn (US$1.6bn) over the last 30 years, has reduced flood prone areas from about 3,200 ha in the 1970s to about 49 ha as of January Adaptation: what cities are doing São Paulo did a comprehensive evaluation of all risky areas for landslides and has undertaken an ambitious program to relocate all families living in the most risky areas. How are cities adapting to risks from storms / floods? Crisis management programs, including warning and evacuation systems. Flood defences (development, operation and storage). 8 Stormwater capture systems. How are cities adapting to risks from sea level rise? Restricting Flood defences (development, operation and storage). Projects or policies targeted at those most vulnerable. 4 Building resilience and resistance measures. development in flood risk areas. See the interactive version of these charts including more detail on risks and other reported information from cities at Risks and adaptation :13

14 Social risks: what cities are learning It is well known by staff in Toronto Social Support and Housing Administration that when it gets hot, crime rates, domestic disputes and violence increase. Social risks: what cities are observing Cape Town reports that an increase in disease associated with climate change can have widespread economic and health costs. Fig 9 Social risks reported as result of climate change # of risks 50 risk to already vulnerable populations 38 incidence and prevalence of disease 34 demand for public services (including health) 26 resource demand 17 Fluctuating socioeconomic conditions 12 Migration from rural areas to cities 12 Population displacement 12 conflict and/or crime 5 Loss of traditional jobs 12 Other social risks 14: Risks and adaptation

15 Fig 10 Cities that report they face social risks as a result of climate change By # and % of cities Yes 83 cities 10 cities Don t know 10 cities 81% 10% 10% Fig 11 Top five social risks By region, # of cities Cities reporting social risks from... risk to already vulnerable populations incidence and prevalence of disease demand for public services (including health) resource demand Fluctuating socio-economic conditions Africa 12 cities East Asia 11 cities Europe 30 cities Latin America 23 cities rth America 27 cities South Asia / Oceania 7 cities Risks and adaptation :15

16 Economic opportunities Opportunities: how cities are benefiting To support local companies in developing exportable ICT green solutions, International Enterprise Singapore has set up a Green Programme Office which helps companies to strengthen their offerings of energy-efficient ICT solutions and identify potential market opportunities. Opportunities: how cities are benefiting Climate change effects in Lisbon create an opportunity for an upgrade of environmental efficiency processes. The goal of reducing public operating costs helps to attract financing for retrofits, which can be paid for with the expected savings. 16: Economic opportunities

17 Fig 12 Yes 98 cities Cities that report climate change presents an economic opportunity # and % of cities 91% 4% 6% 4 cities Don t know 6 cities Fig 13 Economic opportunities reported as a result of climate change # of cities 71 cities 45 cities 39 cities 38 cities 32 cities 31 cities Development of new industries (e.g. clean tech) attention to other environmental concerns efficiency of operations infrastructure investment Additional funding opportunities energy security Economic opportunities: 17

18 To learn more about how specific cities are seeking economic opportunities due to climate change, visit the online CDP Cities 2013 report at Fig 14 Economic opportunities By region, # of opportunities Africa Development of new industries (e.g. clean tech) Additional funding options energy security efficiency of operations attention to other environmental concerns 3 infrastructure investment 2 East Asia Development of new industries (e.g. clean tech) 12 efficiency of operations infrastructure investment attention to other environmental concerns energy security 3 Additional funding options 1 Europe Development of new industries (e.g. clean tech) 24 infrastructure investment energy security attention to other environmental concerns Improved efficiency of operations 8 Additional funding options 4 18: Economic opportunities

19 Latin America attention to other environmental concerns 14 Development of new industries (e.g. clean tech) infrastructure investment Additional funding options Improved efficiency of operations energy security 4 rth America Development of new industries (e.g. clean tech) efficiency of operations infrastructure investment attention to other environmental concerns Additional funding options energy security South Asia and Oceania Development of new industries (e.g. clean tech) infrastructure investment 7 6 attention to other environmental concerns Additional funding options 5 4 energy security 4 Improved efficiency of operations 2 Economic opportunities: 19

20 Emissions measurement and reduction CDP Cities 2013 Focus Global Protocol for Community-scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Over 30 cities and communities from around the world will be pilot testing the Global Protocol for Community-scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0. The document and the pilot test represents a joint effort by C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, World Resources Institute, and ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability in collaboration with the Joint Work Program of the Cities Alliance among the World Bank Group, UN-HABITAT, and UNEP. The GPC was first launched in May 2012 by C40, WRI and ICLEI (GPC Partners) and provides a consistent and transparent framework for measuring and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the community-level. The pilot testing cities range from small communities such as the Ballynagran Energy Plus Community in Ireland and Los Altos Hills in the USA, to mega cities like Rio de Janeiro, London, and Tokyo. The pilot project will go through vember Based on the lessons learned from the pilot cities, the GPC Partners will finalize and publish the GPC in The GPC will help harmonize the GHG accounting and reporting frameworks for cities and communities in order to facilitate city-tocity comparison and learning, climate financing, and accountability of cities and communities to take meaningful actions to reduce their GHG impacts. The GPC initiative also received broad support from some of the most influential international organizations in the sustainable development field such as OECD, UNFCCC, IPCC, IGES, CDP, WWF, eight cities, and three national governments to serve as the advisory committee for this work. C40 Cities Fig 15 Primary methodology used to calculate city-wide emissions % of responses 10% 9% 6% 42% 28% Private institute/non-profit methodology 21% IPCC (historical or hybrid) methodology 21% Regional/local government guideline 21% National/EU government guideline 10% Other 33% Examples of methodologies in the Other category include those promulgated by national governments (e.g. Australia, Denmark) and non-profits, universities, and institutes (e.g. Bilan Carbone in France, the Statistical Institute of Berlin-Brandenburg for Berlin), as well as proprietary methodologies developed by local governments themselves (e.g. Yokohama, Stockholm, Rotterdam) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions pilot version 1.0 (C40, ICLEI, WRI and partners) US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting (ICLEI) Other International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 20: Emissions measurement and reduction

21 Fig 16 6bn 5bn 4bn 3bn Total city-wide emissions reported to CDP compared to countries Billions of metric tonnes of CO 2 e * US Energy Administration International Energy Statistics ( gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8) ** CDP data The chart shows total city-wide emissions compared to other major economies. City emissions represent total city-wide Scope 1 and 2 CO 2 e emissions reported by cities to CDP. The year of their attribution reflects the year they were reported to CDP, not necessarily the year of measurement. Representative country emissions are from 2011, the latest year available from the US Energy Information Agency. 2bn 1bn United States* Japan* All cities 2013** All cities 2012** Germany* All cities 2011** Canada* Brazil* Fig 17 Cities reporting municipal and city-wide emissions City governments often take responsibility for two different GHG inventories: emissions resulting from municipal operations (also known as local government operational emissions) and those relating to activities across the community as a whole (also known as city-wide emissions). The years in this chart reflect the year the emissions were reported to CDP, not necessarily the year of measurement. # of cities % of cities % 80 65% 70% 63% 80% 60 50% 45% 41% 60% 40 40% % Municipal inventory City-wide inventory Emissions measurement and reduction: 21

22 CDP Cities 2013 Focus Korea s cities Korean cities have demonstrated a remarkable commitment to transparent reporting on climate change. Thanks to a partnership between CDP and the Korea Productivity Center (KPC), the number of Korean cities reporting to CDP this year increased to 20 from two in (te that only six Korean cities are included in this report, due to publication timelines). Korea is now the country with the second-highest number of reporting cities, after the United States. In addition to C40 member cities Seoul and Changwon, the Korea sample includes first-time responding cities such as Incheon, Suwon, and Ansan. CDP s partner, KPC, is a government bureau under the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy established in 1958 and the leading provider of sustainability information and services in the Republic of Korea. Look for a special publication on all reporting Korean cities coming later in the year from CDP and KPC. Verification: what cities are doing Seoul s inventory is externally verified by Lloyd s Register Quality Assurance Ltd. (LRQA) using the ISO standard (Validation and/or verification of greenhouse gas assertions). Data has been verified for calendar years based on a limited level of assurance at a 5% level of materiality. Fig 18 Number of cities that reported city-wide emissions By region Europe rth America Latin America East Asia South Asia/Oceania Africa 26 of 30 cities 19 of 27 cities 11 of 23 cities 6 of 11 cities 5 of 7 cities 2 of 12 cities Fig 19 Total city-wide emissions reported to CDP Metric tonnes CO 2 e, bn 0.978bn 1.021bn metric tonnes CO 2 e 2011 metric tonnes CO 2 e 2012 metric tonnes CO 2 e : Emissions measurement and reduction

23 To see interactive maps of cities reported emissions from , visit Fig 20 Cities reporting city-wide Scope 3 emissions Fig 21 Cities reporting that city-wide emissions have been verified # of cities % of cities % % 80 80% 80 80% 60 60% 60 60% % 7 33% 38% % 20% % 26% 27% % 20% Scope 3: how cities are measuring The total carbon footprint (3 scopes) of Greater Manchester s residents and industries was calculated, as a single exercise in Manchester recognizes that it is necessary to understand embedded emissions in goods and services in order to fully understand the processes and changes necessary for cities to tackle climate change. Emissions measurement and reduction: 23

24 Fig 22 City-wide emissions reduction targets By city, by % planned reduction over time te: Where cities report multiple targets, the longest term target is shown. Ansan 20% Amsterdam Atlanta Baltimore Belo Horizonte Berlin Buenos Aires Cape Town 10% Chicago Copenhagen Denver Dublin Durban Hamburg Incheon Kadiovacik 3% Kaohsiung Lisbon Greater London Los Angeles Madrid Greater Manchester Melbourne Miami Minneapolis Montreal Naples New York Oristano Oslo Paris Philadelphia 20% Piacenza Portland Rio de Janeiro 20% Rotterdam 50% San Diego San Francisco 25% Santiago 20% São Paulo 30% Seoul 40% St Louis 25% Stockholm Sydney Taipei Tokyo Toronto Turin Vancouver Vilnius Warsaw Washington, DC Wonju Yokohama 15% 15% 40% 25% 20% 25% 30% 30% 20% 20% 48% 100% 25% 30% 25% 21% 25% 20% 25% 30% 40% 33% 20% 20% 7% 40% 100% 60% 30% 20% 30% 35% 30% 70% 80% 80% 100% 80% 80% 100% 60% 80% 80% Range of reduction target 10% 50% 100% Shaded on scale by percent. 24: Emissions measurement and reduction

25 Fig 23 Cities reporting city-wide reduction activities By category, % of cities To learn more about what specific cities are doing to reduce city-wide greenhouse gas emissions, visit % of cities Transport 60% Energy demand in buildings 56% Waste 42% Urban land use 39% Energy supply 38% Education 25% Outdoor lighting 18% Water 14% Finance 13% Food 9% Public procurement 8% Other 17% Fig 24 Anticipated lifetime emissions reductions reported by cities By category (millions metric tonnes CO 2 e) Other 4.78m Energy demand in buildings 11.95m Energy supply 14.68m Education 1.43m Food 1.25m Urban land use 0.98m Water 0.11m Outdoor lighting 0.05m Public procurement 0.05m Waste 20.92m Transport 24.65m te that anticipated emissions reductions are difficult to estimate. This data therefore reflects a significant bias toward emissions reduction actions that are easier to quantify. Emissions measurement and reduction: 25

26 Water To learn more about cities, climate change and water, visit Water: what cities are doing Dublin residents will soon have to pay water charges. This will be handled by Irish Water, a newly established organization. Water: how cities are mitigating risk Sydney has worked closely with a huge range of industry partners, including Sydney Water, to come up with a solid master plan that will ensure the local area s water needs are met sustainably. Sydney is thinking locally, rather than relying on large-scale remote solutions. The best solution is based on water efficiency, recycled water options, and a reduction in stormwater pollution. The plan details how to bring together these solutions, where they should be located and how they will perform. 26: Water

27 Fig 25 Risks to municipal water supply By category, % of responses % of responses Fig 27 Actions cities are taking to mitigate risks to water supply By type, # of cities water stress or scarcity 34% Declining water quality 18% Flooding 17% Inadequate or ageing infrastructure 14% Higher water prices 9% Regulatory 6% Other 2% Conservation education and incentives Water recycling and reuse Policy action Fig 26 Risks to municipal water supply By timescale, # of cities Diversifying water supply 16 Current 2013 Short term Medium term Long term Repair infrastructure 13 water stress or scarcity Water quality New infrastructure 9 Declining water quality Greenspace / watershed protection Flooding Stormwater management Desalination 4 Inadequate or ageing infrastructure Other Water :27

28 Appendix Responding cities Country te Number of responding cities Population Climate change resilience plan? Africa 12 47,171,866 City of Abidjan Côte d Ivoire 5,000,000 Abuja Federal Capital Territory Nigeria 2,045,000 Yes Addis Ababa City Administration Ethiopia * 2,900,000 Yes Antananarivo Madagascar 1,363,000 City of Cape Town South Africa 3,700,000 Yes Ville de Douala Cameroon 2,500,000 Yes City of Durban South Africa 3,468,086 Yes City of Johannesburg South Africa * 3,888,180 Yes Kampala City Uganda 1,659,600 Yes City of Lagos Nigeria * 18,000,000 Yes Commune de Ouagadougou Burkina Faso 2,000,000 East Asia City of Pietermaritzburg South Africa 648,000 Yes 11 44,654,986 Ansan Metropolitan Government South Korea 761,279 Yes Changwon City South Korea * 1,100,000 Yes Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Hong Kong ^ * 7,000,000 / Incheon Metropolitan Government South Korea 2,880,257 Yes Kaohsiung City Government Taiwan 1,525,642 Yes Seoul Metropolitan Government South Korea * 10,437,326 Yes Suwon Metropolitan Government South Korea 1,132,171 Yes Taipei City Government Taiwan 2,622,883 Yes Tokyo Metropolitan Government Japan * 13,184,161 Yes Wonju Metropolitan Government South Korea 323,885 Yes City of Yokohama Japan * 3,687,382 South Asia / Oceania 7 34,628,654 Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Thailand * 5,701,394 Yes Hanoi City Vietnam * 6,700,000 Yes Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam ^ * 7,165,398 / Jakarta City Government Indonesia ^ * 9,600,000 / City of Melbourne Australia * 98,162 Yes Singapore Government Singapore * 5,183,700 Yes City of Sydney Australia * 180,000 28: Appendix

29 ^ Reporting privately * C40 member Municipal reporting year Municipal inventory method Municipal emissions Metric tonnes CO 2 e Calculate municipal Scope 3? Municipal emissions verified? Municipal emissions reduction target? City-wide reporting year City-wide inventory methodology City-wide emissions Metric tonnes CO 2 e Calculate city-wide Scope 3? City-wide emissions verified? City-wide emissions reduction target? 1,725,033 42,046, International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 205,502 Yes Yes 2007 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 20,550,175 Yes Yes Yes 2011 ISO Yes 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) 1,519,320 Yes Yes 2011 Other 21,496,010 Yes Yes Yes 2,972, Other 18,479 Yes / / / / / / / / / / / Yes Yes 2012 Other 133,349 Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 63,640,300 Yes 49,750,736 Yes Yes Yes Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 15,040,800 Yes 2011 Other 1,988,011 Yes Yes 2010 Other 61,640,000 Yes Yes 2011 Other 832,729 Yes 2009 Other 19,051,000 Yes 56,684 69,704,706 Yes / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 2012 Australian National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination 18,414 Yes Yes Yes 2010 Other 4,155,010 Yes Yes Yes 2011 Other 4,510,000 Yes 2011 Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Public Sector Standard 38,270 Yes Yes Yes 2006 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 5,457,064 Yes Yes Appendix: 29

30 Responding cities Country te Number of responding cities Population Climate change resilience plan? Europe 30 59,382,733 City of Amsterdam Netherlands * 747,290 Yes City of Athens Greece * 664,046 Yes Ajuntament de Barcelona Spain ^ * 1,615,448 / Basel-Stadt Switzerland ^ * 190,000 / City of Berlin Germany * 3,438,000 Yes Bornova Municipality Turkey ^ 420,000 / City of Copenhagen Denmark * 539,542 Yes Dublin City Council Ireland 506,211 Yes Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg Germany 1,812,709 Yes Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Turkey ^ * 13,317,240 / Village of Kadiovacik Turkey 214 Yes City of Lisbon Portugal 547,631 Yes Greater London Authority United Kingdom * 7,810,000 Yes Ayuntamiento de Madrid Spain * 3,253,735 Greater Manchester United Kingdom 2,629,400 Yes Comune di Milano Italy ^ * 1,341,830 / Moscow Government Russia * 10,563,000 Yes Comune di Napoli Italy 1,004,500 Yes Comune di Oristano Italy 32,400 City of Oslo rway * 613,000 Yes City of Paris France * 2,257,981 Yes Comune di Piacenza Italy 103,610 Gemeente Rotterdam Netherlands * 605,500 Yes City of Stockholm Sweden * 860,000 Yes Comune di Torino Italy 911,823 Yes Comune di Venezia Italy * 270,600 Yes Vilnius City Municipality Lithuania 523,050 Yes City of Warsaw Poland * 1,708,491 City of Zaragoza Spain 701,887 Yes Stadt Zürich Switzerland 393,595 30: Appendix

31 ^ Reporting privately * C40 member Municipal reporting year Municipal inventory method Municipal emissions Metric tonnes CO 2 e Calculate municipal Scope 3? Municipal emissions verified? Municipal emissions reduction target? City-wide reporting year City-wide inventory methodology City-wide emissions Metric tonnes CO 2 e Calculate city-wide Scope 3? City-wide emissions verified? City-wide emissions reduction target? 45,411, ,351,641 Yes 2011 Other 5,094,000 Yes Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 4,471,000 Yes / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Yes 2009 Other 20,168,000 Yes Yes / / / / / / / / / / / / Yes 2011 Other 2,124,000 Yes Yes 2011 Other 109,250 Yes Yes Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 18,286,235 Yes / / / / / / / / / / / / Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 647 Yes 2009 Other 3,189,867 Yes Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 44,284,675 Yes 2010 Other 12,039,000 Yes 2010 Other 16,608,920 Yes Yes / / / / / / / / / / / / 2012 Other 43,230,745 Yes Yes Yes 2005 Other 2,913,435 Yes Yes Yes 2011 Other 151,133 Yes Yes 2011 Global Protocol for Community- Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI) Yes Yes 2,344,284 Yes Yes 2011 Other 167,075 Yes Yes 2009 Other 7,413,300 Yes Yes Yes 1990 Other 21,192 Yes 1990 Other 615,452 Yes Yes 2011 Other 29,460,000 Yes Yes 2010 Other 3,189,000 Yes Yes Yes 2005 Other 5,065,364 Yes Yes 2005 Other 76,400 Yes Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 1,418,344 Yes Yes 2011 Other 1,499,304 Yes Yes 2011 Other 1,499,304 Yes Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 13,304,435 Yes Yes 2011 Other 3,336,447 Yes Yes 2010 Other 1,973,200 Yes Yes Appendix: 31

32 Responding cities Country te Number of responding cities Population Climate change resilience plan? Municipal reporting year Municipal inventory method rth America 27 36,623,791 City of Atlanta USA 432,427 Yes 2010 Other City of Austin USA * 812, Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of Baltimore USA 621,074 Yes City of Chicago USA * 2,833,321 Yes 2012 Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Public Sector Standard City of Cleveland USA 393, Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of Dallas USA 1,197, Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of Denver USA 600,158 City of Detroit USA 707, Other City of Edina USA 47, Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of Houston USA * 2,100, Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of Las Vegas USA 583,756 Yes 2012 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) City of Los Angeles USA * 4,065,585 Yes 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of Miami USA 408,750 Yes 2007 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of Minneapolis USA 387,753 Ville de Montréal Canada 1,886, Other City of New Orleans USA ^ * 343,829 / / / New York City USA * 8,336,697 Yes 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of Philadelphia USA * 1,555,000 Yes 2010 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of Phoenix USA 1,500, Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of Portland, Oregon USA * 566, Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of San Diego USA 1,301,617 Yes 2009 Other City of San Francisco USA * 815,358 Yes 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of San Jose USA ^ 971,464 / / / City of St Louis USA 319,294 Yes 2010 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) City of Toronto Canada * 2,615,000 Yes 2011 Other City of Vancouver Canada * 603,500 Yes 2012 Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Public Sector Standard Washington, DC USA * 617, Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/ California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board) 32: Appendix

33 ^ Reporting privately * C40 member Municipal emissions Metric tonnes CO 2 e Calculate municipal Scope 3? Municipal emissions verified? Municipal emissions reduction target? City-wide reporting year City-wide inventory methodology City-wide emissions Metric tonnes CO 2 e Calculate city-wide Scope 3? City-wide emissions verified? City-wide emissions reduction target? 24,056, ,366, ,406 Yes 2010 Other 9,650,000 Yes Yes Yes 75,130 Yes 2010 Other 7,579,144 Yes Yes Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 33,545,577 Yes Yes 387,331 Yes Yes 2010 US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting 12,892,686 Yes 402,560 Yes 2010 US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting 17,229,388 Yes 2011 Other 9,161,000 Yes Yes 2,189,984 25,172 Yes 1,227,491 Yes Yes 91,904 Yes 12,002,077 Yes 2010 Other 33,935,814 Yes Yes 81,327 Yes Yes 2006 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI) 4,762,364 Yes Yes 2011 US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting 4,735,289 Yes Yes 116,630 Yes Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 13,722,942 Yes Yes / / / / / / / / / / 3,295,720 Yes Yes Yes 2011 US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting 53,358,868 Yes Yes Yes 482,390 Yes 2010 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 19,780,964 Yes Yes 590,961 Yes Yes Yes 79,452 Yes Yes 2011 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI) 7,773,812 Yes Yes 139,752 Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 12,624,227 Yes 208,401 Yes Yes 2011 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 5,058,389 Yes Yes Yes / / / / / / / / / / 285,425 Yes Yes 2010 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 7,506,359 Yes Yes 573,125 Yes Yes 2011 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI) 333,541 Yes Yes 2012 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI) 20,662,821 Yes Yes 2,686,164 Yes 527,811 Yes Yes Appendix: 33

34 Responding cities Country te Number of responding cities Population Climate change resilience plan? Latin America 23 74,009,341 Município de Aparecida Brazil 35,000 Yes Alcadia Distrital de Barranquilla Colombia ^ 1,186,865 / Municipality of Belo Horizonte Brazil 2,375,151 Yes Bogotá Distrito Capital Colombia * 7,155,052 Yes City of Buenos Aires Argentina * 2,891,082 Yes Santiago de Cali Colombia 2,269,630 Municipality of Campinas Brazil ^ 1,080,113 / Alcaldía Metropolitana de Caracas Venezuela * 3,220,540 Yes Municipality of Curitiba Brazil * 1,800,000 City of Goiânia Brazil ^ 1,301,892 / Santiago de Guayaquil Ecuador 2,350,915 Yes Prefeitura Municipal de Jaguaré Brazil 24,678 Yes Metropolitan Municipality of Lima Peru * 7,824,027 Yes Municipalidad de Magdalena del Mar Peru 50,764 Mexico City Mexico * 8,851,080 Yes Municipalid de Montevideo Uruguay 1,319,108 Yes Municipality of Porto Alegre Brazil 1,409,351 Yes Municipality of Recife Brazil 1,537,704 Yes Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro Brazil * 6,323,037 Yes City of Salvador Brazil ^ 2,675,656 / San Salvador El Salvador 316,090 Región Metropolitana de Santiago Chile * 6,685,685 Yes Prefeitura de São Paulo Brazil * 11,376,685 34: Appendix

35 ^ Reporting privately * C40 member Accounted for in the population of Lima for regional population number Municipal reporting year Municipal inventory method Municipal emissions Metric tonnes CO 2 e Calculate municipal Scope 3? Municipal emissions verified? Municipal emissions reduction target? City-wide reporting year City-wide inventory methodology City-wide emissions Metric tonnes CO 2 e Calculate city-wide Scope 3? City-wide emissions verified? City-wide emissions reduction target? 7,030, ,878,542 / / / / / / / / / / / / 2010 Global Protocol for Community- Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI) IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 2,878,873 Yes 15,757,162 Yes 2010 Other 552,541 Yes 2010 Other 9,813,933 Yes Yes ,534, IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 4,664,731 / / / / / / / / / / / / IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 17,213,803 Yes / / / / / / / / / / / / 2011 Other 572 Yes Yes 2010 Other 3,899,890 Yes 2010 Other 26,232, International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 42,585 Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 4,242,000 Yes 11,351,700 Yes Yes / / / / / / / / / / / / IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Yes IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 19,592,190 Yes Yes Yes 15,115,000 Yes Important notice The contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to CDP. This does not represent a license to repackage or resell any of the data reported to CDP and presented in this report. If you intend to do this, you need to obtain express written permission from CDP before doing so. CDP and AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to CDP Cities 2013 information request. CDP and AECOM do not guarantee the accuracy of completeness of this information. CDP and AECOM make no representation or warranty, express or implied, and accept no liability of any kind in relation to the report including concerning the fairness, accuracy, or completeness of the information and/ or opinions or other data contained herein. All opinions expressed herein by CDP and/or AECOM are based on their judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry, and firm-specific factors. Guest commentaries, where included in this report, reflect the views of their respective authors. CDP and AECOM and their affiliated member firms or companies, or their respective shareholders, agents, members, partners, principals, directors, officers, and/or employees, may have a position in the securities discussed herein. The securities mentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some states or countries, nor are they suitable for all types of investors; their value and the income they produce may fluctuate and/or be adversely affected by exchange rates. CDP refers to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number AECOM is a global provider of professional technical and management support services to a broad range of markets, including design, planning, environment and infrastructure. Through their work, they create, enhance and sustain the world s built, natural and social environments. Imagery and graphics credits Aerial images of participating cities sourced by AECOM via Shutterstock. Cover New York 2 Hanoi 6 London, Los Angeles 7 Abidjan, Stockholm 8 Las Vegas, Bangkok 13 Singapore, São Paulo 14 Toronto, Cape Town 16 Singapore, Lisbon 22 Seoul-Incheon, Seoul 23 Manchester 26 Dublin, Sydney Back cover New York Graphic design and information charts by AECOM (Daniel Elsea, Louis Webb Bird). Appendix: 35

36 CDP contacts Paul Dickinson Executive Chairman CDP Board of Trustees Chair: Alan Brown Schroders AECOM team Gary Lawrence Chief Sustainability Officer C40 team Amanda Eichel Director of Initiatives and City Support Paul Simpson Chief Executive Officer Ben Goldsmith WHEB Group Claire Bonham-Carter Director of Sustainable Development Seth Schultz Director of Research Nigel Topping Chief Innovation Officer Authors Conor Riffle Head of Cities Kyra Appleby Account Manager Chris Page Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Takejiro Sueyoshi Jeremy Smith Berkeley Energy Christoph Schröder TVM Capital Alexander Quinn Director of Sustainable Economics Vanessa Lauf Economist David Levin Sustainability Consultant Daniel Elsea Creative Director Kerem Yilmaz Director of Research Projects Michael Marinello Director of Communications Brooke Russell Director of Communications, Editorial and Content Pauline Martin Project Officer Tessa Tennant The Ice Organisation Martin Wise Relationship Capital Partners Contact Claire Bonham-Carter AECOM CDP 40 Bowling Green Lane London EC1R 0NE United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Lead Sponsors