Low Carbon Model Towns Project: A personal perspective on its evolution and future directions Pics from trips Alan Pears AM Senior Industry fellow, RMIT University Australia Associate Consultant Buro North Presentation at APEC Energy Working Group Meeting, Canberra Australia 10 May 2016

LCMT Brief history 2010: APEC Energy Ministers see need for action on urban emission reduction – Fukui Declaration EWG Objective: “encourage creation of low carbon communities in urban development plans, and share best practices for making such communities a reality” LCMT Task Force established, coordinated by APERC, overseen by Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, METI, Japan LCMT Project elements: Develop the ‘concept of the low carbon town’ as a guide for planners (Study Group A) Conduct feasibility studies [including case studies] Conduct policy reviews of planned town and city development projects (Study Group B) At EWG 45 (2013), development of indicators was included

LCMT Concept Document 5th edition Part I (20 pages) Overview Context and rationale Overview of the LCT concept and its breadth of application: “LCT means villages, towns, cities and regions which seek to become low carbon with a quantitative CO2 emissions reduction target and a concrete low-carbon developing plan irrespective of its size, characteristics and type of development” Qualifying criteria (governance, scope, detail, resources etc) Stages in LCT planning and implementation process including selection and use of indicators (next slide) Part II (44 pages) Approach Measures to use in LCT development Evaluating measures and effects Appendices (161 pages), including detailed information on measures and indicators

Overview of application of LCT approach (p Overview of application of LCT approach (p.12 The Concept of the Low-Carbon Town in the APEC Region 5th edition December 2015, APEC LCMT Task Force)

Key Principles underlying LCT (1) Provide practical guidance for city, national planners, policy makers Provide a clear framework that can be applied to underpin action and monitoring of progress against quantitative targets and timeframes Inform of case studies and best practice measures Recognise wide variation in stage of progress, available resources, institutional factors etc Complement action on other environmental, social and economic development aspects of development Focus on each participant’s progress in its context and diagnostic feedback, NOT compare across cities or economies

Key Principles underlying LCT (2) Present resources broadly respond to these principles, but may benefit from: More focus on time dimension and diagnostic feedback approaches Address blurring between performance indicators and specific measures Review of presentation: size and presentation of Concept document is daunting; need ‘marketing’ materials and maybe separate documents

TOP: Present assessment rating presentation for overall rank (stars) and major categories (radar diagram) LOWER: ideas to focus attention on progress and targets instead of comparisons between cities/towns

Context for LCT? Challenges: Opportunities: Increasing pressures due to population (including migration), economic development, environmental challenges – how to gain attention? Diverse institutional structures, access to resources, cultural drivers, kinds of impacts to be addressed, etc – can one product work? Wide variation in development, implementation and rate of progress of carbon reduction policy and action – need flexible, simple approach Variety of different city/town networks (eg C40, ICLEI), many evaluation tools and indicators (GRI, national carbon inventories, ISO, etc) – fragmentation, competition Often inadequate or inaccurate data – default values? Help collect? Opportunities: Increasing interest, commitment, recognition of need for action Many useful examples/case studies, lessons from experience Technologies, infrastructure solutions, social action models are improving, becoming more widely available, costs are declining

Positioning for LCT (1)? Is the product right: focused on specific target groups, priority issues, clear, practical, appropriate detail, engaging? Are potential users aware of it, skilled/competent, motivated, funded to use it? How would it replace, complement, or integrate into existing assessment and reporting/feedback systems used by APEC cities/towns, proposed ISO Standard 37120, etc? Are indicators appropriate, measurable, repeatable, useful, appropriately weighted? Can funding of low carbon projects be assisted (ABAC advice?) How does APEC want to utilise LCT? Many practical details must be addressed: Promotion, training, administration/delivery, funding, ongoing development, verification, data collection and analysis, etc

Positioning for LCT (2)? There is a role for LCT to support, among other outcomes: Development of structured, consistent policies and strategies and networking, especially for communities where action is still at an early stage Tracking of progress and diagnostic feedback Access to information resources on options for action, experience of others