Low carbon city development experience and lessons from
Asia
Shobhakar Dhakal1 and Lavinia Poruschi2
Global Carbon Project, National Institute for Environmental Studies
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Japan 305 8506
Introduction
This report presents and discusses the city carbon management policies and actions in Asia by
city government and national authorities. This report attempts to highlight the major
motivations, actions, areas of strengths and weakness, and perspectives on effectiveness of the
policies and frameworks in developing low carbon cities in Asia.
The report is divided into three sections. The first section highlights the national and
international frameworks including the formal policy processes and the role of international
NGOs and associations and their relevance for low carbon city development related actions and
policies in Asian cities. The second section provides detail discussions of policies and action of
individual key cities in Asia such as Tokyo, Yokohama, Kyoto, Kitakyushu, Seoul, Chinese cities,
Bangkok and Delhi. The key feature of this report is on Tokyo’s initiatives: Tokyo has become
the first city is the world to install Cap-and-Trade Program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Last section highlights some of the strengths and weaknesses of the prevailing cities’ approach
and lessons from Asia and the concluding statements.
The international and national context on low carbon city
Kyoto Protocol envisioned 6% reductions in GHGs for developed countries from the 1990 level
by 2010-12. The post-Kyoto regime that is in making is expected to be reasonably aggressive in
setting mid-term target (2020). Several countries have already made pledge and own targets in
accordance to The Copenhagen Accord. Despite many years of climate-awareness
internationally, global CO2 emissions have increased from 6.2 GtC annually in 1990 to 8.7GtC in
1
2
Corresponding author, e-mail: shobhakar.dhakal@nies.go.jp, shobhakar.dhakal@gmail.com
E-mail: lavinia.poruschi@nies.go.jp
1
2008 with accelerated rate of increase in the recent years (GCP, 2009). Asia is on fore-front of
this emission growth; China surpassed United States as largest CO2 emitter in 2006 and India
over-passed Russia to become third largest emitter. Japan is the fifth largest emitter as of 2008.
No country in Asia has mandated GHG mitigation obligations except Japan. Therefore, GHG
reduction efforts of cities, in general, are arbitrary and are pursued in a variety of degree
reflecting diverse local motivations. In Japan, its law requires prefectures and cities to develop
climate change mitigation action plans to share the burden of nation’s Kyoto target. Japanese
government has committed a 25% reduction of its GHGs by 2020 from 1990 level at COP-15 in
Copenhagen. South Korea announced a target to reduce emissions to 30 percent below
projected levels by 2020, which equates to a target of approximately 4 percent below 2005
levels.
China has made commitments during COP-15 to reduce the CO2 intensity of economy by 4045% by 2020 from the 2005 levels. Studies have shown that urban areas contribute to 85% of
China’s energy related CO2 emissions and its 35 key large cities of economic important with 18%
of population contribute to 41% of energy related CO2 emissions (Dhakal 2009; IEA 2008). China
already has a target of reducing energy intensity of economy by 20% in 11 th Five Year Plans
(2006-2010).China’s national approach is built around dampening its carbon profile rather than
absolute reduction with its target focusing on carbon intensity of economy rather than GHG
emissions. Cities are an integral part of this reduction. Big cities are making their own similar
target to comply with 11th Five Year Plan of cities as it has been passed-down from central
government to lower-tier governments. Further, the ability of cities and provincials heads to
meet energy intensity target has already been an indicator of their performance evaluation. To
meet the national climate target, China is likely to expand and consolidate the current approach
in its 12th Five Year Plan (2011-2015) with nationally “binding” targets. If that happens, it will
serve as a key tool to make provinces and cities comply. Some cities in China, such as Boading is
already active in developing low carbon city and the economy through massive promotion and
use of solar energy industries and use of renewable energy. China’s national climate target as
well as downscaling of its implementation3 to lower tier governments including cities are
motivated implicitly from few key factors, mainly, improving energy security, improving energy
efficiency, making a leap in renewable energy industry, and curtailing local pollution.
In India, national government committed to reduce emissions intensity of economy by 20 to 25
percent by 2020 from the 2005 levels during COP-15 in Copenhagen. India formulated National
Climate Change Action Plan in June 2008. The plan identifies eight core National Missions
3
In September 2006, the State Council approved the NDRC’s reduction target plan for energy intensity
improvement and subsequently mandated the provincial governments to further allocate targets to city and
county level, as well as to the industry sectors and major enterprises (Teng and Gu, 2007).
2
running through 2017 and formulates climate change action in accordance to economic growth
and developmental needs and maximizing co-benefits of climate change and development. A
number of these missions address urban areas for mitigating carbon. They include the
promotion of solar technologies in urban areas (Solar Mission) and reducing energy
consumption through demand-side management programs in the municipality and buildings
(Enhanced Energy Efficiency Mission). National Mission on Sustainable Habitat aims to promote
energy efficiency as a core component of urban planning and address key urban sectors such as
Energy Conservation Building Codes, urban waste management and recycling, automotive fuel
economy standards and using pricing measures to encourage the purchase of efficient vehicles,
and incentives for the use of public transportation4.
Indonesia has recently announced a target to reduce GHG emissions by 26 percent by 2020
from business-as-usual levels. It formulated National Action Plan Addressing Climate Change in
November 2007 that affirms that the development program should be firmly target to reduce
green house gas emissions and energy intensity from economic growth; the plan does not
address cities directly but a number of links to cities can be made5.
Such ambitious targets and plans made by countries in Asia can only be achieved if cities make
significant progresses in GHG mitigation. Cities account for 71% of global energy related CO2
emissions and cities are projected to account for 87% of all additional global increase in the CO2
emissions from energy in 2006-2030 (IEA, 2008). Therefore, how successful the cities would
reduce GHG emissions would determine the success of global carbon mitigation.
However, global climate regimes primarily address national carbon mitigation and the cities are
less engaged and consulted in the international climate debate. Local governments have
organized themselves through several international activities such as of International Council
for Local Environmental Initiative (ICLEI), EU cities alliances, Mayors Summits, C40 and others.
These organizations are lobbying for a stronger role of city governments internationally. They
are not only raising awareness to cities’ authorities on climate change issues but are also giving
them voices and reasons for actions. Increasingly, cities, especially big cities, around the world
want to show that they are green and sympathetic to climate change mitigation. Asia hosts a
large number of cities of various sizes. These cities, apart from those in Japan and Korea, are
primarily cities in developing countries. The priority, awareness and capacity to address low
carbon city development in these cities are utterly lacking. Despite that, a number of these
cities have formulated action plans to combat climate change.
4
For details see web-site of Prime Minister of India at http://pmindia.nic.in/climate_change.htm
The plan on mitigation addresses industry sector and energy sector. The energy sector envisions increasing share
of renewable into energy mix, promoting geothermal and employing CCS. For details see: http://dnacdm.menlh.go.id
5
3
In the international arena, to what extent cities should be engaged in global climate negotiation
could be debated. Whether cities should work strictly under national framework for climate
change mitigation or additionally, should global cities develop collective strategies, engage
broadly, and whether resources to support low carbon city development could flow directly to
cities from international mechanisms are debatable.
Several Asian cities have made ambitious climate targets. These are often limited to big cities.
City
Short/mid-term
target of reduction
Long-term
target
Baseline
year
Total GHG emission
amount (year)
Source
ACT, Australia 2000 level (4.059
mn tons CO2e) by
2025 (0%)
Sydney
1.6 mn tons;
50% of 1990 by
2030 or 70% of
2006 by 2030
Seoul
40% (2030)
Bangkok
15% below BAU
scenario
Tokyo
25% (2020)
60% (2050)
2000
4.45 mn tons CO2e
(2005)
2
1990 or
2006
5.4 mn tons CO2
(2006)
Kitakyushu
30% (2030)
Kyoto
Yokohama
40% (2030)
>30% (2025) per
person
(4.02tCO2/p)
50-60%
(2050)
60% (2050)
>60%
(2050) per
person
(2.3tCO2/p)
1990
2012
2000
42. 75
59.6 mn tons CO2eq(2006)
4
5
3
2005
1
1990
2004
1
1
5.74 tCO2e/person
(2004)
1. Eco-Model City Project, Oct 2009, Regional Revitalization Bureau, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of Japan
2. Weathering the Change: The ACT Climate Change Strategy 2007-2025. ACT, Canberra
3. TMG (2010)
4. http://www.c40cities.org/docs/ccap-seoul-131109.pdf
5. BMA Climate Change Action Plan 2007-2012, Bangkok Metropolitan Government, Bangkok, 2007.
4
Climate change action of Tokyo
Tokyo Metropolitan Government (called Tokyo, here) aims to reduce GHG emissions from
Tokyo by 25% below 2000 (or 19% below 1990) levels by 2020. Tokyo emits 59.6 mn tons of
CO2e annually for 2006 fiscal year making 4.8 tCO2e emissions per person (TMG 2010).
Tokyo’s 2006 GHG emission is higher by 3.2% from the 1990 level. Energy related CO2 makes a
majority, 95%, of it. 38% of energy related CO2 emissions, the largest sectoral share, is
contributed by commercial sector alone. In past two decades (1990-2006), emission from
industry sector has declined by 45% in Tokyo but commercial and residential sectors have outgrown by 37% and 16% respectively. The transport sector contributes as a second largest sector
to energy related CO2 emissions (26%) but the volume of emission from this sector has stayed
same as that of 1990. Therefore, the commercial sector is an area of considerable policy focus
for GHG mitigation in Tokyo over these years (TMG 2008).
Tokyo’s Cap-and-Trade Program
Tokyo has now become world’s first city to implement Cap-and-Trade Program for reducing CO2
emissions and it has become Japan’s first mandatory emissions trading scheme. The Cap-andTrade program has already started from April 2010 (Japanese 2010 fiscal year) and it mostly
covers the CO2 emissions6 from energy use in large scale businesses and buildings of
commercial and industrial sectors. It includes factories, public buildings (including
governmental ministries), commercial buildings and educational institutions. It essentially
includes point sources as well as heat and electricity use. “Large Facilities” consuming over
1,500 kiloliter per year (crude oil equivalent) fall under the cap and obliged by law to set target,
submit five year reduction plan, and annual progress report7. About 1,400 such facilities8
(about 1% to total in Tokyo) come under the cap that account for about 20% of total CO2
emissions in Tokyo (or 13 mn tons CO2)9. The small and medium sized facilities are not subject
to the cap but the companies or businesses with multiple buildings, each of which are below
1,500 KL provision but collectively exceed 3,000 KL, require submitting report on annual energy
efficiency plans to be made public.
The allocation of emissions for facilities follows grandfathering method. In this method, total
emission allowance is the 94% of base year emissions (means 6% reductions) multiplied by the
6
Only energy related CO2 are covered in the mechanism which accounts for 95% of total GHG emissions in 2006.
If many tenants “cumulatively” exceed this limit, tenants are required by law to cooperate with building owner to
report emissions.
8
This means number of sites, but not number of businesses. TMG reports “about 1,400” facilities are under
scheme (TMG, 2010); World Bank mentions 1,340 facilities (WB 2010).
9
This is 40% of total CO2 emitted by commercial and industry sectors. The commercial and industry sectors
together contribute about 45% of total GHG emission or 47% of total energy related CO2 emission in Tokyo.
7
5
compliance period (5 years). The base year emission is an average emission of any three desired
years within 2002-2007. There are separate provisions for new entrants. Facilities whose energy
consumption falls below 1,500 KL threshold for 3 consecutive years are allowed to leave the
scheme. The target of this scheme is final energy users, therefore, CO2 emissions from
electricity generations are attributed to the facilities. A fixed emission factor is used in the
scheme in order to avoid the complications such as the stoppage of nuclear power plants by
TEPCO (similar to British Government’s CRC Scheme)10. Facilities are also required to verify
emissions through licensed private audit firms. In July 2009, Tokyo established the (a)
Guidelines for calculating GHGs for facilities under the cap (b) Guidelines for verifying GHG for
registered verification agencies, and (c) Guidelines for applying procedures for acquiring status
of verification agency.
In the scheme, the first compliance period (FY 2010-2014) aims to reduce 6% from base-year
emissions amongst the capped sectors finally reaching to 17% by the end of second compliance
period (FY2015-2020). Facilities are allowed to “bank” the surplus within given compliance
period but are not allowed to “borrow” in current compliance period from the following
compliance period. In case of non-compliance, a fine of JPY 500,000 coupled with additional
reduction obligation beyond the shortfall is imposed and facilities are publicly disclosed (WB,
2010; TMG 2010).
The scheme aims to trade within Tokyo but also offers three type of flexibility. First, the
facilities are allowed to buy credits from small/medium facilities inside Tokyo which are not part
of the cap but are carrying out voluntary emission reduction (to be verified by the third party).
Second, the provisions for applying credits from large facilities outside Tokyo are being
developed with some purchase restriction. Those large facilities having base year emissions less
than 150,000 tCO2 are covered in this flexibility and buyers can only buy up to one-third of the
base year emissions. Third, the use of Renewable Energy Certificates of Japan is allowed. The
scheme also provides measures to protect against a surge in trading price through Renewable
Energy Certificates and other measures such as the banking of environmental benefits from
TMG’s subsidies to 40,000 households for solar application in Solar Bank and selling them in the
form of Green Electricity (heat) Certificates (TMG, 2010).
The roots of Tokyo’s Cap-and-Trade go back to early 2000 when it amended the Ordinance for
mandatory emissions reporting for large emitters. This allowed TMG to collect large
information, to make fact-based analyses and to argue reasonably to support the mechanism.
Coverage of only CO2, and simple fuel consumption-based calculation for CO2 helped. TMG
initiated Cap-and-Trade deliberations and the voluntary scheme in parallel since 2002. The
10
TMG aims to promote CO2 reduction from power plants through separate measures called Energy and
Environmental Plan.
6
inability to achieve the desired results in voluntary schemed also convinced the Cap-and-Trade
proponents to argue for mandatory emissions trading. Intensive public discussions, stakeholder
consultations, appropriate legal frameworks and focus to large scale emitted are major reasons
that made mechanism possible to implement (WB, 2010).
The impact of Tokyo’s initiative is likely to have enormous impact and influence. It houses 50%
of listed companies on the Tokyo Stock Exchange; its activities account for 20% of Japan’s GDP;
and Tokyo is seat of Japan’s national government. Influence will extend beyond Japan because
it is a first city wide such mechanism and is different from EU-ETS or RGGI in US for covering
large-scale office buildings. The British Government introduced Carbon Reduction Commitment
(CRC) is similar to Tokyo for that it also covers commercial sector.
Other measures
While the recent Cap-and-Trade Program has become a cornerstone of Tokyo’s GHG policy,
Tokyo’s GHG policies have spanned over a decade. It launched a two-stage information
campaigns titled Stop Global Warming Campaign in 2002. In Late 2002, a number of key ideas
for future climate policies were envisioned:

Making CO2 cuts mandatory for business operations, including their office facilities

Strengthening standards for energy efficiency for new buildings

Creating a system to fully inform consumers of information on energy efficiency

Strengthening measures to curb CO2 emissions from road traffic

Promoting a shift to renewable energy

Promoting measures to tackle the heat island effect as part of the urban planning
In 2002-2004, TMG launched Phase 1 of its three-year Voluntary Scheme. In this scheme, apart
from the mandatory emission reporting, the facilities set emission-reductions voluntarily and
implemented the three-year emissions reduction plan. In 2005-8, the phase 2 of voluntary
scheme made the public announcements of reduction plans and their evaluations. The lessthan desired outcomes from voluntary scheme gave impetus for mandatory Cap-and-Trade
scheme.
For low carbon urban development, a range of policies are put into place in Tokyo. Tokyo Green
Building Program requires new buildings to be high performance. This program was started in
2002 and further enhanced for standards and coverage in 2005 and 2008 respectively. It
requires the new buildings with 10,000 floor area or larger to submit the environmental
7
performance rating document. The rating elements are composed of energy,
resources/materials use, natural environment and heat island mitigation. In addition, the
building owners are required to pursue sustainable design according to the TMG guideline, and
rated results go to public disclosure system. About 1,500 buildings are under this program by
early 2008 (TMG, 2008). In addition to the Green Building Program, TMG has made low carbon
prerequisite for large urban development with standards on insulation and energy efficiency in
building equipments. A separate TMG’s Green Labeling Program for Condominiums requires
the developers of large condominium to display environmental performance labeling (with
three stars) for sales. A new District Energy Program for efficient use has recently been
established in Tokyo.
Japan’s national plan for introduction of renewable energy outlines a tenfold increase in
capacity solar power capacity by 2020 (14 GW) and reaching a renewable energy use share of
20% of total demand, and 40 times capacity increase by 2030 (53 GW) (REN21, 2009) . National
administration has not focused on other renewable energy industries as much as solar, making
PV industry the most advanced renewable energy sector in Japan. In this context, most of the
large cities in Japan are taking action to reach that target11. From 2009, TMG started a subsidy
system for solar energy equipments. In 2009-2010 alone 40,000 households have installed solar
energy facilities12 in Tokyo. The system provides subsidy of 300 thousand Yen for photovoltaic
system (3kw), 200 thousand Yen for solar heat system (6m2), and 30 thousand yen for solar hot
water supplier (4 m2). Remarkable distinctions of the TMG’s program, from the national subsidy
scheme13, are the prolonged application period for Tokyo city subsidies and the larger amounts
of funds availability
In order to reduce CO2 emissions from transportation, TMG program includes the promotion of
use of low fuel consumption vehicle, reduce fuel consumption through improving average
travelling speed, promote eco-driving, and vehicular traffic management.
Climate change action of other Asian cities
While Tokyo is a leading city for climate change actions in Asia, a number of other city initiatives
exist. Unlike Tokyo, other cities have not created a system of mandated emissions reduction
target and plans. These efforts are more inspirational and co-benefits for many cities, especially
for cities in South and South-East Asia, than what is planned and achieved as a climate policy. In
11
According to the Japan Renewable Energy Policy Portal, http://www.re-policy.jp/
http://www2.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp/kikaku/renewables/index.html
13
Implemented by the Japan Photovoltaic Energy Association at the Japan Photovoltaic Center (website:
http://www.j-pec.or.jp/)
12
8
addition, a large number of cities are either not aware or are not seriously pursuing carbon
cause, even rhetorically.
Yokohama: Yokohama City has been nominated as one of Japan’s Eco-Model Cities in 2008
and it targets a reduction in GHG emissions per person with over 30% by 2025 (4.02 tCO2/person) and over 60% by 2050 (2.30 t-CO2/person) from 2004 levels (5.74 t-CO2/person)14.
Yokohama city’s largest GHG emissions source are household and the transport sectors each
accounting for about 22.5% of the emissions, followed by the energy (19%), commercial (17%),
industrial (15.2%) and waste (3%) sectors in 2005. While industrial sector GHG emissions have
seen a decrease in the past, by comparison, the emissions from households and commercial
buildings have risen by about 40% and 80% in 1990-2005 periods. This growth needs to be
tamed and GHG reductions in all sectors are essential. A detailed action plan has been devised15
which enlists 2000-2013 FY as an initial action period where reduction in CO2 will be nominal
but prepares the city for a large future reductions in CO2. Thus, despite that Yokohama’s plan
coverall all major sectors (including transport and others), its climate policy corner-stone
remains the households, about eleven thousand offices from the commercial sector and
renewable energy sector. These are framed in simple terms as reducing of emissions from (a)
living (b) work and (c) renewable energy sector. Energy efficiency improvements in commercial
buildings and households are aimed to achieved through support to energy-saving products
(such as energy labels and campaigns), promoting energy-saving economic activities all 110,000
companies16, granting economic incentive such as lower property taxes for CASBEE certifies
houses17, implementing provision for all buildings with over 2,000 sq m surface area to be
designed as low carbon buildings. Transport sector aims to reduce emissions through
encouraging to use and improving the state of public and non-motorizes transport systems,
restrict automobiles entering specific areas and high charges for parking, eco-driving campaigns,
and promotions of fuel-efficient and electric vehicles (low interest loans, lower property taxes
where property is sued for charging electric vehicles etc). It aims to increase the consumption
of renewable energy by 10 times by 2025 from 2004 level, which means a raise renewable
energy usage share by ten folds, from 0.7% (1.7 PJ) in 2004 to 12% (17 PJ) by 2025. In future
14
Yokohama Climate Change Action Policy English leaflet (2008) and Yokohama City CO-DO30 Road (2009).
Yokohama City CO-DO30 Road Map (2009) was used to provide data all throughout this report. It is available in
Japanese at: http://www.city.yokohama.jp/me/kankyou/ondan/plan/codo30/pdf/honpen.pdf
16
This includes re-enforcement of the Climate Change Prevention Measure Planning System for all companies with
large emissions and enabling voluntary participation by small and medium size companies (advisory services).
17
CASBEE stands for Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency, a system that makes
comprehensive environmental burden evaluations of buildings taking into consideration factors such as energy
efficiency, recycling capacity or room qualities. It was introduced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport
and Tourism of Japan in 2001 and specific tools for evaluation of different building types occurred over the next
four years (see homepage of the system (in Japanese) at http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/about_cas.htm)
15
9
renewable energy portfolio, solar power is to contribute 66% (44% for electricity and 17% for
heating), biomass 11% and other sources for remaining 23% in Yokohama’s plan. These are to
be achieved through a number of policy measures, some of notable ones are: demonstration
and implementation at municipal buildings18, expansion of existing subsidy system on
renewable energy for domestic and commercial building applications, fixed-price purchase
system, mandatory regulatory system of information provision to housing customers,
mandatory examination, and mandatory renewable energy integration in new houses.
Yokohama’s 2010 residential subsidy program for rooftop solar power installations has offered
subsidy to 2000 houses at 40,000 yen/kW installed (approx. US$ 45819) with a maximum of 150
thousand yen subsidy20. Subsidies are also offered for solar heating systems and larger rooftop
installations for public institutions21.
Kyoto: The city that bears the name of Kyoto Protocol with 1.5 million inhabitants and 50
million visitors annually set its GHG emissions mitigation targets of 40% reduction by 2030 and
60% by 2050 from 1990 levels. The GHG emissions of Kyoto in 1990 were 7.72 million tons CO2e,
it peaked in 1996 with little over 8 million tons and oscillated downwards with 6.93 million tons
in 200822. The city’s 2010 GHG emissions’ reduction target formulated earlier, of 10% or
reaching a level of 6.95 million tons CO2e, was achieved. Still, whether this is a sustainable
reduction remains to be seen because the emissions profile of Kyoto shows that the 10% target
was reached before in the 2002 – 2003 period, yet lower levels did not keep steady (Kyoto,
2009; Kyoto, 2010).
Kyoto’s past emission profile shows that industry sector’s contribution has declined in relative
(27% to 16%) as well as in absolute terms (1.96 mn tons to 1.07 mn tons of CO2) in 1990-2006
but commercial and household sectors have outgrown significantly (Kyoto, 2010)23. Thus, the
corner-stones of the new target aimed for 2030 and 2050 are the low-carbon buildings,
pedestrian-centered urban planning, use of local materials, and changes to prevailing lifestyle.
Kyoto’s plan requires large businesses to be subjected to a particular regime, which requires
them to submit their carbon emission inventory and plans for abating emissions every three
18
The CO2 emissions of municipal government is 4% of Yokohama’s total as of now.
Rate at US$ 1 = 87.24 yen
20
This is in addition to national subsidy if they fit into the national program’s criteria.
21
Yokohama city, Climate Change Policy headquarters at http://www.city.yokohama.jp/me/kankyou/ondan/,
accessed July 21, 2010
22
Numbers are from the Kyoto GHG Emissions report for 2008 published in 2010. Calculations were based on
regional factors (supplied by Kansai Electric Power Company) which led to different baselines, targets and current
achievements estimations from previous calculations based on national emissions’ factors in the “Kyoto plan
towards an environmental model city” of 2009.
23
Household sector: 21.4% to 29.7% (1.55 mn tCO2 to 1.89 mn tCO2); commercial sector: 20.9% to 26.7% (1.52
mn tCO2 to 1.76 mn tCO2).
19
10
years. At present, 148 businesses have entered to one of these categories: a) energy producers,
using energy in terms of crude oil equivalents of more than 1500 kiloliters; b) transporters,
owning more than 100 trucks, buses or railway cars, or more than 150 taxis; c) others, emitting
more than 3,000 tons CO2 annually. The GHG inventory, reports, and plans of each of these
businesses are publicly disclosed at City government’s web-page.
Similar to Yokohama and other Japanese cities, building sector has been tackled by CASBEE
rating system in Kyoto. In this, one of the key criteria is the energy performance. In Kyoto’s plan
Local has been the catch phrase; CASBEE Kyoto building certification for Kyoto includes
considerations to use of locally produced material to aid energy-saving and creating enduring
structures (on example is consumption of locally produced timber). For household sector,
Kyoto’s plan envisions the expansion of renewable energy by encouraging solar PV installation
for residential use. In 2010, subsidies of 80,000 yen per KW (approx. US$ 917) were made
available for Kyoto city residents24, who could also benefit from a national grant of maximum
70,000 yen per kW for installations of less than 65kW25. The subsidy scheme in Kyoto aims to
reduce GHG emissions by 59,400 tons of CO2 by 2030 through expansion of solar PV. In Kyoto’s
plan, compact and public are another two keywords. Its thrusts are on those urban planning
policies that aim to reduce the number of cars in the street. Thus, eco-commuting of local
government employees, wider sidewalks, special public transport lanes, restriction of vehicle
access to narrow streets, biodiesel operated city buses, infrastructure for recharging EV
batteries and use of fuel-efficient are the key components of GHG mitigation plan.
Kitakyushu: Kitakyushu represents an industrial city of Japan and is recently selected for
model city program of the national government. Kitakyushu’s target is to reduce GHG to an
order of 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2050 from 2005. In 2005, the city emitted about 15.6 m tons
GHGs. Unlike, Tokyo or Kyoto, Kitakyushu is an industrial city and thus 66% of the total GHG
emissions originate from the industrial sector. The share of transport, commercial, household
and waste sectors are 9%, 8%, 7% and 3% respectively. The target of Kitakyushu aims to reduce
27% of emissions from industrial activities, 47% from transport, 42% from commercial, 35%
from households, and 26% of all other emissions from 2005 levels.
24
For other areas within Kyoto prefecture, subsidies were usually much smaller, hovering around a 30 thousand
yen per KW upper limit. Total number of residences in the prefecture that were allowed to receive the subsidy was
15,000. See portal of Kyoto prefecture in Japanese, http://www.pref.kyoto.jp, or of Kyoto city, in Japanese,
http://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp
25
Another condition is the price: should be less than 650 thousand yen (approx US$ 7,450). The National Japan
Photovoltaic Expansion Center explanation of the 2010 system, in Japanese, available at: http://www.jpec.or.jp/012app_h22.html
11
Kitakyushu Action Plan primarily focuses on urban planning, energy, industry, and community.
Like other Japanese cities, it primary use CASBEE system to address building sector. In line with
national promotion plans, greater use of solar PV in households and public facilities are
envisaged through subsidy program and the new energy sources such as waste heat from
industrial plants will be utilized. To reduce emissions at community level, the plan aims to
promote an efficient and durable housing to be developed together with the public
transportation. Kitakyushu aims to enable a greater use of fuel cells, electric cars and public
electric bicycles in city’s transport system.
Seoul: Seoul is a key city in terms of climate change agenda. South Korea became OECD
member and is likely to come under emission reduction obligation in post-Kyoto regime. City of
Seoul has developed an ambitious Master Plan to reduce GHGs to 40% by 2030 from 1990 level.
Since, building and transport account for 90% of total GHGs in Seoul and only 0.4% of the
power consumed in self-generated, Seoul’s low carbon policies focuses on energy efficiency,
renewable energy (to increase renewable portfolio in energy supply internally), and energy
saving in transport and building sectors. The plan mainly aims at increasing renewable supply by
20%, energy consumption reduction to 20% from 2000 levels and creating one million
additional green jobs by promoting 10 major Green Technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells by
2030. Plan of Seoul envisions transforming existing 10,000 buildings larger than 2,000 m2 into
green building by 2030, making mandatory for all new buildings to acquire green building
certificates by 2030, transforming all public transportation into green vehicles, expanding public
transportation ridership rate to 70% by 2020, and creating 207km long bike-only lanes at main
roads to increase bike ridership rate up to 10% by 202026. In the Master Plan, Seoul plans to
invest 45 billion US$, including private investment, by 2030. 10 major Green Technologies
selected by the Seoul Metropolitan Government for promotion for carbon mitigation are:
hydrogen fuel cell, solar cell, IT electricity, green building, LED lighting, Green IT, green cars,
urban environment recovery, recovering waste into resource, and climate change adaptation
technology. Seoul plans to invest around 2 billion US$ (an average of 100 million US$ annually)
and 200 million US$ per technology in R&D by 203027.
The city’s climate adaptation plan aims to establish a system of vulnerability assessment,
preventive adaptation, restoration of 13 streams, an intensive management of contagious
diseases, heat waves, climate-related damages, water shortages and ecosystem disruptions.
26
27
The Master Plan for 2030 is extended from 2020, therefore many target might have still set for 2020.
http://www.c40cities.org/docs/ccap-seoul-131109.pdf
12
Chinese cities: The climate change is not a key and priority policy agenda for Chinese cities.
But, the local priorities such as energy efficiency improvement, local pollution reduction and
economy are linked to the national and worldwide climate policy agendas. Consequently,
Chinese cities often rationalize and address climate mitigation as a co-benefit of the result of
these priority local agendas. As mentioned earlier, 12th National Plan is expected to be
proactive than 11th Plan (1996-2010) on climate and energy efficiency agenda and it has
potentials to spur a new wave in Chinese cities to tackle energy-climate related issues. Whether
cities merely follow national governments’ plan and guidance or formulate additional ambitious
agendas and plans is yet to be seen. In the past, few cities, such as Shanghai, Beijing and
Baoding had shown considerable interest to WWF’s Low Carbon City Initiative in China28.
Shanghai took part in the initiative to address the energy efficiency issues in large commercial
buildings, mainly through the demonstration projects, research and public awareness. Baoding
city, as a part of the WWF Initiative, aimed to spur its solar industries through better
networking and information sharing, encouraging investment and other supporting activities.
Separately, Beijing, Shanghai and other cities addressed or rationalized the actions on climate
through activities related to pollution reduction, economic structure adjustment, clean coal
technology or less coal reliance in urban areas and industries, improving public transport
improvement, and other areas of energy management. Beijing installed massive subsidy system
for efficient lighting, heating system and public transport in 10 th and 11th Five Year Plans29. In
11th Five year Plan Shanghai envisioned to reach wind-driven energy generation of 200-300 MW
and solar photovoltaic generation of 10 MW by 2010 making its renewable energy share to
0.5% in its energy portfolio (Li et al, 2010).If 20% energy intensity targets are achieved
Shanghai will decrease the energy intensity from 0.88 tce/10,000 Yuan in 2005 to 0.70
tce/10,000 Yuan in 2010 and the energy intensity of the industrial sector by 35% and that of the
tertiary sector by 15%. Although, such measures in Chinese cities are not primarily for climate
change mitigation and, in reality, cities’ CO2 emission are increasing dramatically given high rate
of economic growth, they are and will lead into the dampening of the CO2 emission growth. In
addition, bolden by economic surpluses, the enthusiasm to build model cities exist in China as
reflected by ambitious plans for Dontang city near Shanghai and a recent attempt to build 8.8
28
WWF’s LCCI focus was on (a) supporting the research and the implementation of policies which contribute to
low carbon development (b) supporting capacity building on energy efficiency and renewable energy, and support
demonstration projects (c) promoting energy efficient technology transfer and cooperation between China and
developed countries (d) exploring new finance and investment instruments and sustainable trade opportunities for
energy efficiency and renewable energy industry, and (e) improving public awareness on climate change
29
20 million RMB are paid to the consumer and 1.8 million lamps are installed in public toilet, schools and metro
stations in 2004-7; since 1998, the Beijing government invested heavily to refurbish about 10,000 coal-fired boilers
with gas or electricity fired boilers; subsidies to heat pump project was 35 RMB/m2 for water source heat pump
and 50 RMB/m2 for ground source heat pump; during the past two five year plans, the Beijing municipal
government provided subside to the public transportation sector to promote CNG buses, the building of CNG
fueling stations and retrofitting of buses and taxis (Teng and Gu, 2007).
13
sq km Turpan City in northwest China (in Xinjiang) as a national model for green city
development by National Development and Reform Commission and the National Energy
Administration30.
Bangkok: Bangkok (means, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration unless otherwise stated),
with 9% of country’s population, emits 26% of nation’s CO2 emissions from energy use (Dhakal,
2010). The city has been enthusiastically involved with many international partners in debating
low carbon city development. It unveiled BMA Action Plan on Global Warming Mitigation 2007
– 2012 in 2007 and outlined several initiatives and set a target of reducing BAU GHG in 2012 by
15%31. The GHG inventory that the city presented in its action plan is difficult to understand
and perhaps not comprehensively prepared32 but it outlines five initiatives that is reported to
have potentials to reduce the GHG emissions to 20% below the business-as-usual scenario by
2012 (equates to 8.7% below 2005 by 2012). They are (a) expanding mass transit rail system,
improving current bus system and bus rapid transit system, road network and traffic- about
5.53 mn tCO2e/year reductions from BAU in 2012 (b) promote the use of gasohol and
biodiesel- about 0.61 mn tCO2e/year reductions from BAU in 2012 (c) improving building energy
efficiency in municipal, and commercial buildings and reducing electricity consumption though
various conservation campaigns- 2.25 mn TCO2e/yr reduction from BAU in 2012 (c) waste and
wastewater management -0.46 mn tCO2e reduction, and (d) expanding park area to increase
carbon absorption- 1 mn TCO2e absorption.
Delhi: Delhi (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) became the first city in India to
unveil a plan to tackle climate change in November 2009. The plan, officially known as Climate
Change Agenda for Delhi 2009-12 outlines 65 agenda points for actions in various sectors33 that
the local government intends to undertake in the coming years (SOE, 2010). The plan closely
follows Prime Minister’s National Action Plan for Climate Change in essence which are
mentioned in the earlier section of this report. The actions are largely organized under national
missions (except Himalayan Ecosystem and Agriculture) , namely (a) solar mission (b) energy
efficiency mission (c) sustainable habitat including public transport (d) green India (e) water
mission, and (f) strategic knowledge for climate change. Delhi plan aims to increase a greater
30
The city to depend on solar and wind energy for lighting and hot water supply; geothermal resources for winter
heating and summer cooling; employing electric buses and taxis; first experimental project in China's arid western
interior to develop energy-efficient and pollution-free cities; a photovoltaic power generation plant with installed
capacity of 13 megawatts (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-05/11/c_13288735.htm)
31
BMA Action Plan on Global Warming Mitigation 2007 – 2012, Bangkok Metropolitan Government, 2007.
32
The Action Plan report 42.75 mn t-CO2eq GHG emissions from Bangkok. The reporting disaggregates emissions
(electricity 34%, transport 50%, waste 3% and others 13%) but it does not produce details based on wellestablished definitions (either IPCC inventory or traditionally used in energy analyses such as by sector and fuel
type) prompting to some confusion whether accounting of emission is sound. The reported BAU emissions in 2012
are 48.7 mntCO2e.
33
This includes water, waste, forestry, buildings, lighting, energy, renewable energy, and transport sectors.
14
use of solar energy through subsidies and mandatory programs34 for solar thermal applications
and employing photovoltaic applications in government areas and schools35. Mandatory
energy conservation building code is a cornerstone of the energy efficiency improvements in
government buildings and all new construction projects applied for Environmental Clearance.
The utilization of 2.5 million compact fluorescence lamps (CFL) by 2012 is sought in the Plan and
it aim to promote the Star rating of all electrical equipments through systematic campaign. In
recent years, to improve public transport and to tackle air pollution, Delhi massively expanded
the rail based Metro system as a back-bone of the public transportation and it also massively
indicted the CNG vehicles into public transport system by the court order. An expansion of
metro to 150 kms and 12,000 buses by 2012 are targets of Delhi’s plan (Delhi 2009). The ability
of CNG vehicles to mitigate climate change however can be contested but other targets such as
substantially increasing road tax on cars, promoting biofuels (10% in fossil fuel) and tax
concessions for clean vehicles will likely to have positive effects in Delhi is implemented. Two
coal plants of total 200 MW powers Delhi as of now (rests are imported) and the plan aims to
disband or switch to natural gas by 2014 or earlier.
34
This includes, Rs 6000 (about 130 US$) subsidy per consumer on 100 Litre Per Day (LPD) capacity for domestic
applications and Rs 60,000 (about 1,300 US$) subsidy for 1,000 LPD for non-commercial institutions; notification
for mandatory use of solar water heating in hotels and hospitals was issued in 2008.04.21 (Vide no F.DTL/2010/F13/2008/EO/EE&REM/77).
35
Such as Civic Center, zonal offices, hospitals, staff quarters etc.
15
Lessons from Asian cities and concluding remarks
The degree of city government’s association to the climate change mitigation action varies
cross Asia. Cities such as Tokyo and other Japanese municipalities are mandated by Japan’s law
to develop local climate change mitigation action plans but within Japanese cities too, the level
of implementation of action plans varies. Tokyo, and to some extent, Yokohama and Kyoto, has
strong overarching policies, clear targets, well developed future roadmaps with mandatory
provisions (Tokyo is way ahead to other cities for mandatory provisions) that can be tracked
and measured annually. All three cities boast considerable subsidy systems for residential solar
power and thermal installations in addition to the national promotional funds. Japanese cities,
including Kitakyushu, have good operational plans and targets for building and other sectors
but they rely heavily on either the voluntary measures or strengthening of existing measures in
energy sectors, energy efficiency improvement in appliances, buildings and transportation.
They do not always have mandated measures to ensure success. The success of implementation
in such cases is not assured. This applies to type of measures being planned in Seoul also.
Outside of Japan and Korea, city governments, rather than having an overarching climate policy
and developing of climate policy actions, use co-benefits of local actions on their priority issues
such as air pollution, transport, energy efficiency etc (which are not formulated as a climate
policy) for GHG reduction and to rationalize their actions and achievement of climate change
actions. This applies to many East Asian cities including Chinese cities as of now. Our earlier
discussions on actions of many cities shows that, cities, without having an overarching climate
policy, also carry out many activities sparsely that may contribute to dampen the growth of
GHG emissions. In those cases, GHGs may be mitigated in one sector, but their implications or
impact to the whole city is largely unknown. In addition, there are large numbers of cities in
Asia which are indifferent to climate change issues due to either a lack of awareness and
knowledge or focus on other immediate and pressing priorities. Many cities respond to the call
of international networks such as ICLEI to join climate movement and carry out awareness
raising campaigns usually supported by external donors on an ad-hoc basis. Such a diversity of
action remains no surprise since the stage-of-development, income, and commitment to global
climate regimes of nations varies across Asia.
One of the fundamental knowledge needed for any climate change action plan is a reasonably
robust GHG accounting of cities. Good GHG accounting not only provides ideas on sources but
also where to focus action on climate change and the scale of potential GHG mitigation. Our
general survey shows that cities (even big cities that are active on climate agenda such as Delhi,
16
Bangkok and Jakarta) do not have a reliable GHG inventory of a single year, let alone yearly
updates and their realistic use in the policy process. Without such GHG inventory, a realistic
plan could become a far from the reality. Let’s look at the loop-sides of Delhi’s climate change
action plan for example. First, the GHG inventory of the city has not been created or published
in a reasonably robust fashion. SOE (2009) only reports Delhi’s CO2 emissions from power,
transport and domestic sectors as 22.49 mn tCO2 for 2007-8. The relative contribution of
sectors, activities and fuel types in detailed is not known or reported and the contribution of
sectors such as commercial sectors and industries cannot be ignored for Delhi. Second, there
are no clear GHG reduction targets to be achieved by 2012. Third, how much each of the
stipulated actions by Delhi would reduce carbon and how they will be achieved is not clear.
Fourthly, to implement 65 climate change action agendas in Delhi, the government requires a
strong implementation plans and sound capacity than what exits. Therefore, Delhi’s climate
agenda should be taken largely as a preliminary attempt to rationalize climate action and to
start generating ideas and create positive discussions and awareness within the government as
well as with various stakeholders rather than a serious climate action plan. Bangkok’s plan and
policies mentioned earlier are also more inspirational because the resource and capacity
assessment to carry out the plan are largely unknown. But, such inspirational plan and planning
process in cities of developing countries is essential now to push climate agenda because cities’
technical capacity, resources and priority are less on these issues, and, in most cases, climate
change actions are externally driven or motivated. Many cities are exploring ways to internalize
climate change actions in the positive spirit. There also seems to be few areas where all local
government can act easily, such as, building energy efficiency issues, building codes and
certification system, municipal services, traffic management and waste handling.
Some of the key lessons from Asian experiences on climate change action plans are;

Tokyo’s experience shows us that a mandated planning system is likely to bring
intended results instead of only relying on voluntary measures and anticipating good
outcomes. Tokyo, Yokohama and Kyoto has shown to us that their planning systems
have relied on the fact-based information, which in-turn, helped to bring consensus for
action.

Reasonably robust GHG inventory and carrying out a fact based analyses in necessary
and a fact based planning on real impacts of various GHG mitigation actions to be
pursued. In addition, many cities have pursued co-benefits as a stepping stone for
climate mitigation, in such cases, a fact based co benefit analyses of various synergies
and conflicts would help.

The conceptual framework of low carbon city is yet fuzzy. How much is low carbon and
in what circumstance is unclear. Developing cities are already low carbon and the use of
17
the word “low carbon” pre-empts the need for them to purse low carbon planning. City
Climate Action Plans of cities often fails to answer what makes low carbon and to
extend the coverage of action to carbon sinks in additions to GHG source. In addition to
sinks, the link and need for simultaneous planning for climate change adaptation in city
development planning might be necessary as a planning itself. In those areas, where
there are positive or negative feedback between mitigation and adaptation, urban heat
island is a clear example of it, it is very apparent.

Interventions to energy efficiency and pilot activities on renewable energy are attractive
and good initial steps but should not be the final goal in climate change plans. Cities
have to address low carbon development as a overarching and long term development
process beyond energy-centric action-view.

Cities need to avoid Diet Pizza Syndrome to avoid rebound effects, that means, the scale
of activities themselves needs dampening or reducing, not only the energy or carbon
emission per unit of activities. This call for important considerations to the way we
commute in land and sky, use building space, consumes energy and materials, and our
life style. Further, cities may be able to make a large difference to global GHG emissions
by rational consumption of water (from pumping, desalination etc.), construction
materials, buildings, packaging and other goods and services. The scope of cities’ GHG
mitigation could go beyond production based GHG accounting and cities should judge
their responsibility reasonably.

An integrated urban system planning is must for low carbon city development. A
fragmented mitigation here and there may have unintended consequence and prone to
GHG “leakage” unless GHGs are not evaluated at whole urban level. For cities, climate
action plans are made at city-administrative boundaries but regional consideration and
coordination is essential to optimize urban development and avoid “leakage” when city
is only a small fraction of a larger agglomeration unit.

Governance paradox is a mounting concern for low carbon development of Asian cities.
Cities are governed in a complex fashion by multiple authorizes and role of city
government is often limited including technical and financial capacity and jurisdiction.
Therefore, low carbon development is a process where multiple levels of authorities
need to coordinate their jurisdiction, resources, implementation capacity and spare of
influence for collective planning and implementation.
The beauty of Asian cities lies in diversity in climate change actions which include a wide
spectrum of experience from Japan to South Asia. Tokyo is in global forefront to city action.
18
South Asia has less or no priority in climate change mitigation. Nevertheless, such reality fits
with African context and learning from Asia could be of use to South African cities.
19
References
Delhi (2009) Climate Change: Agenda for Delhi 2009-2012. Directorate of Information and Publicity, The
Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi.
Dhakal, Shobhakar (2009). Urban energy use and carbon emissions from cities in China and policy
implications. Energy Policy, 37:4208–4219.
Dhakal, Shobhakar (2010). GHG emissions from urbanization and opportunities for urban carbon mitigation.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.05.007, Elsevier.
Fei Teng and Alun Gu (2007), Climate Change: National and Local Policy Opportunities in China, The
Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Note di Lavoro Series 74.2007, Italy.
IEA (2008) World Energy Outlook. International Energy Agency, Paris.
Kitakyushu (2007) Eco, thereby enhancing Global Partnership, City of Kitakyushu, Kitakyushu’s International
Environmental Cooperation, Kitakyushu
Kitakyushu (2008) Kitakyushu: Plan towards an environmental model city [Original Japanese title: Kitakyushushi kankyou moderu toshi kodo keikaku], International City Division, Kitakyushu
Kyoto (2009) Kyoto plan towards an environmental model city [Kyoto-shi kankyou moderu toshi koudo
keikaku], Kyoto (available at: http://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/kankyo/page/0000056642.html, accessed 20 July
2010)
Kyoto (2010) Kyoto GHG emissions report for 2008 [Original Japanese title: 2008 (Heisei 20) toshi no ondan
kouka gasu haishutsuryou (sokuhouchi) ni tsuite], Kyoto City Environment Management, Kyoto (available at:
http://www.city.kyoto.lg.jp/kankyo/page/0000080963.html, accessed July 20, 2010)
Li Li, Changhong Chen, Shichen Xie, Cheng Huang, Zhen Cheng, Hongli Wang, Haiying Huang, Jun Lu,
Shobhakar Dhakal. 2010. Energy demand and carbon emissions under different development scenarios for
Shanghai, China. Energy Policy, 38 (9) 4797-4807
(REN21) Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. 2009. Renewables Global Status Report,
France: REN21 (available at http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdf, accessed July 22, 2010)
SOE (2010) State of Environment Report for Delhi, 2010. Department of Environment and Forests,
Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi.
TMG (2008) The Greenhouse Gas Inventory of Tokyo 2007. Bureau of the Environment, Tokyo Metropolitan
Government, 2008.
TMG (2010) Tokyo Cap-and-Trade Program: Japan’s first mandatory emissions trading scheme. Bureau of the
Environment, Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2010.
WB (2010) Tokyo’s Emissions Trading System: A Case Study. Directions in Urban Development, June 2010
issue, Urban Development and Local Government Unit, The World Bank.
Yokahama (2008) Yokohama climate change action policy leaflet (2008), Yokohama (available at:
http://www.city.yokohama.jp/me/kankyou/ondan/plan/codo30/leaf_english.pdf, accessed: July 16, 2010)
20
Yokohama (2009) Yokohama City CO-DO30 Road Map [Original Japanese title: Yokohama-shi CO-DO30 Roudo
Mappu], Yokohama (available at:
http://www.city.yokohama.jp/me/kankyou/ondan/plan/codo30/pdf/honpen.pdf, accessed: July 16, 2010)
21