"Local Climate Protection Programmes in Australia and New Zealand", AF
Professor Jens Hoff
Executive summary – “Local Climate Protection Programmes in Australia
and New Zealand”
This report is a study of the Communities for Climate Protection (CCP) programme in New
Zealand and the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) programme in Australia. These two basically
identical programmes were voluntary programmes for local councils whereby they committed
themselves to reduce their own and their communities‘ emissions of CO2 by following a
quantifiable approach marked by the achievement of milestones (1 to 5).
The programmes were implemented in collaboration between the Ministries of Environment, the
local government organisations and local councils in the two countries, and delivered by ICLEI
Oceania. They were joined by roughly 50% of local governments in both countries holding around
85% of the populations. The Australian programme ran from 1997 to 2009, while the New
Zealand programme ran from 2004 to 2009.
This report is written as a first part of the Danish CIDEA (Citizen Driven Environmental Action)
project. The reason for the CIDEA project to study the CCP programmes is that even though local
measures to reduce CO2 emissions have certainly been taken in Denmark as well as in other
European countries, no nation-wide local campaigns have been carried out in Europe. The CCP
programmes constitute an attempt at such campaign, and the CIDEA project is convinced that
there are a number of lessons to be learned by evaluating the results of the CCP. These lessons
concerns among other things: Have emission reductions actually been achieved? How useful has
the CCP methodology been in terms of committing councils themselves, citizens and businesses
to actions that reduce their carbon footprint‘? What benefits have councils had from implementing
the CCP programme?
The results of the CCP programmes are summarised in the following points:
Significant CO2-e abatements and financial savings have been made.
For example in 2009 abatements were 0.7% of Australia‘s total emissions. No other sector was
reporting similar results.
The CCP programme raised awareness about climate change broadly in the involved
councils/local communities.
The CCP programme gave councils a strong focus, which led to the formulation of a coherent
program on climate change, and allowed them to take on a leadership role in the local community.
The leadership role was important in aligning the agendas of different stakeholders, and in local
efforts to achieve attitude- and culture changes towards a more environmentally sustainable local
community.
The CCP programme created a network among participating councils for sharing experiences
and motivating each other. It also provided a framework to engage with other levels of
government, an internal business rationale for climate change action, and access to international
best practice.
Over half of the involved councils completed milestone 5 in the programme. 47% of councils
now have a specific climate change action plan, while 36% have a cross-departmental plan. All
councils that have action plans have set reduction targets for council‟s own emissions and about
half have also set reduction targets for their community emissions.
For 45% of the involved councils the CCP programme has had effects on council organization.
Typical changes are: a) creating a position as a Climate Change Officer or Energy Manager (63%
of councils), b) making a specific department responsible for climate change action (21% of
councils), c) incorporation of the council‘s plan on climate change into the council‘s long term
strategic plan (94% of councils with plan have done this).
Concerning the use of conventional media to engage the local community in actions to reduce
CO2 emissions the local newspaper is the most commonly used tool (75% of councils).
Educational programmes for schools and other groups of citizens were used by 68% of councils.
Concerning digital media almost all councils use their websites to engage the local community.
Interactive methods (Facebook, blogs, Twitter etc.) were used by very few councils.
Climate change adaptation has become an important new item in council action plans.
However, 76% of councils still prioritize reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in their action
plans, while 24% now prioritize adaptation.
The report also deals with the main political, organisational and financial dilemmas that councils
have been confronted with when implementing climate change action plan, and the strategies that
councils have developed for tackling these dilemmas.
The main political dilemmas are seen to be:
That national regulation or lack of regulation might impose severe restrictions on the goals that
councils can set in their climate change action plans.
Councils have little control over citizens‘ energy consumption patterns making it difficult to set
reduction goals for the community sector.
Whether ―ownership‖ of projects should be mainly with councils or shifted to citizens.
The main organisational dilemmas are seen to be:
Climate politics cuts across well-established sectors raising the question about whether formal
organisational changes should be made to account for this.
Different levels of local government have different tasks, which gives different priorities.
The main financial dilemmas are seen to be:
Whether investments related to CO2 abatements should be financed within existing budgets,
from accumulated ―earmarked‖ funds or from loans.
In terms of CO2 emissions is it best that councils own assets like public means of transportation
and utilities, should they involve themselves in public-private partnerships in the area, or should
they contract out?