ASEAN Working Group on Environmentally Sustainable Cities AWGESC

  • Slides: 39
Download presentation
ASEAN Working Group on Environmentally Sustainable Cities (AWGESC)

ASEAN Working Group on Environmentally Sustainable Cities (AWGESC)

Content of Presentation n n Use of Key Indicators for CLEAN AIR, CLEAN WATER

Content of Presentation n n Use of Key Indicators for CLEAN AIR, CLEAN WATER AND CLEAN LAND (scoring and grading systems) Mechanism and implementation of ESC Award (types of awards, nomination process and review process)

Use of Key Indicators n n n Valuation of clean air indicators Simplicity, Valuation

Use of Key Indicators n n n Valuation of clean air indicators Simplicity, Valuation of clean water indicators Applicability, Scientific Valuation of clean and green indicators Reliability Performance score technique Grading technique for city achievement

Clean Air Indicators No Objectives 1 To ensure availability and quality of air quality

Clean Air Indicators No Objectives 1 To ensure availability and quality of air quality data 2 To reduce air emissions from mobile sources Environmental Indicators Output & Performance Environmental Quality Number of days in a year ambient SO 2, NO 2, CO, PM 10 levels exceeded the USEPA air quality standards n % vehicles that meet city/national standards during roadside inspection 3 To reduce air emissions from landbased sources % industries that fulfill the requirement of national standards 4 To increase energy efficiency and the use of cleaner fuels % of alternative fuels used Number of days in a year that Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) exceeded 100 (‘unhealthy’) n

Number of days in a year that Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) exceeded 100 (‘unhealthy’)

Number of days in a year that Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) exceeded 100 (‘unhealthy’) using USEPA standard Number of days (nd) Performance Score nd < 15 15 ≤ nd < 30 30 ≤ nd < 45 45 ≤ nd < 60 60 ≤ nd < 90 90 ≤ nd ≤ 120 ≤ nd ≤ 150 nd > 150 100 80 60 40 20 10 5 0

Number of days in a year ambient 4 key parameters (CO, SO 2, NO

Number of days in a year ambient 4 key parameters (CO, SO 2, NO 2, PM 10) levels exceeded the USEPA air quality standards Number of days in a year for CO levels Number of days in a year for SO 2 levels Number of days in a year for NO 2 levels Number of days in a year for PM 10 levels Score nd < 15 15 ≤ nd < 30 30 ≤ nd < 45 45 ≤ nd < 60 60 ≤ nd < 90 90 ≤ nd ≤ 120 ≤ nd ≤ 150 nd > 150 nd < 15 15 ≤ nd < 30 30 ≤ nd < 45 45 ≤ nd < 60 60 ≤ nd < 90 90 ≤ nd ≤ 120 ≤ nd ≤ 150 nd > 150 100 80 60 40 20 10 5 0

% Gasoline and Diesel fueled-vehicles that meet city/national standards during roadside inspection % gasoline

% Gasoline and Diesel fueled-vehicles that meet city/national standards during roadside inspection % gasoline fueledvehicles that meet city/national standards % diesel fueledvehicles that meet city/national standards Performance Score 1 < gas < 10 10 ≤ gas < 25 25 ≤ gas < 50 50 ≤ gas < 75 75 ≤ gas ≤ 100 1 < ds < 10 10 ≤ ds < 25 25 ≤ ds < 50 50 ≤ ds < 75 75 ≤ ds ≤ 100 10 25 50 75 100

% industries that fulfill the requirement of national standards % fulfilled industries Performance Score

% industries that fulfill the requirement of national standards % fulfilled industries Performance Score 1 < fi < 10 10 ≤ fi < 25 25 ≤ fi < 50 50 ≤ fi < 75 75 ≤ fi ≤ 100 10 25 50 75 100 Note: Prosentase dari jumlah industri yang dipantau

% of alternative fuels used Performance Score <1 1 ≤ af < 2 2

% of alternative fuels used Performance Score <1 1 ≤ af < 2 2 < af < 3 3 < af < 4 >4 10 25 50 75 100

Clean Air Indicators Performance (1 -100) No 1 Objectives To ensure availability and quality

Clean Air Indicators Performance (1 -100) No 1 Objectives To ensure availability and quality of air quality data Number of days compliance 0 -15 days > 1530 days >3045 days >45 -60 days >60 -90 days >90120 days >120150 days >150 days Number of days in a year that Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) exceeded 100 (‘unhealthy’) 100 80 60 40 20 10 5 0 - SO 2 100 80 60 40 20 10 5 0 - NO 2 100 80 60 40 20 10 5 0 - CO 100 80 60 40 20 10 5 0 - PM 10 100 80 60 40 20 10 5 0 Number of days in a year ambient 4 key parameters levels exceeded the USEPA air quality standards

No 2 3 No 4 Objectives % compliance To reduce air emissions from mobile

No 2 3 No 4 Objectives % compliance To reduce air emissions from mobile sources To reduce air emissions from landbased sources Performance (1 -100) 1 -10 >10 -25 >25 -50 >50 -75 >75 -100 % gasoline fueledvehicles that meet city/national standards during roadside inspection 10 25 50 75 100 % diesel fueledvehicles that meet city/national standards during roadside inspection 10 25 50 75 100 % industries that fulfill the requirement of national standards 10 25 50 75 100 Objectives Ratio compliance To increase energy efficiency and the use of cleaner fuels % of alternative fuels used Performance (1 -100) <1 1 < af < 2 2 < af < 3 3 < af < 4 >4 10 25 50 75 100

Note: n n The new industries concerned are those established after year 2000. The

Note: n n The new industries concerned are those established after year 2000. The valuation for Clean Air is undertaken using the following method: n Use average performance score for sub-components contained in the same component n The total performance score is categorized into 5 (five) grades as follows; Total performance score < 90 is very poor 90 ≤ total performance score < 180 is poor 180 ≤ total performance score < 270 is moderate 270 ≤ total performance score < 360 is good Total performance score ≥ 360 is excellent

Clean Water Indicators No 1 2 Environmental Indicators Objectives To achieve good accessibility and

Clean Water Indicators No 1 2 Environmental Indicators Objectives To achieve good accessibility and quality of water supply To protect water resources, safeguard ecosystems and public health Output & Performance % households with access to potable water infrastructure n % households with tap water that meets WHO drinking water standard n % households and industries linked to sewerage system or equivalent where discharge meets national standards 3 To move towards sustainable supply & use of water % Capacity of city in supplying water to meet average consumption 4 To inculcate environmental responsibility and ownership n% school at all levels with water conservation education programs Environmental Quality Annual average levels of p. H, DO, TSS, BOD, and n faecal coliform, (At least 4 parameters to be reported. For Thailand, TSS is not included) % of available freshwater from ground and surface water extracted for use n

% households with access to potable water infrastructure % Households access (ha) 1 ≤

% households with access to potable water infrastructure % Households access (ha) 1 ≤ ha < 10 10 ≤ ha < 20 20 ≤ ha < 40 40 ≤ ha < 60 60 ≤ ha < 80 80 ≤ ha ≤ 100 Performance Score 10 20 40 60 80 100

% households with tap water that meets WHO drinking water standard % Compliance to

% households with tap water that meets WHO drinking water standard % Compliance to water standard (ws) Performance Score 1 < ws < 10 10 ≤ ws < 20 20 ≤ ws < 40 40 ≤ ws < 60 60 ≤ ws < 80 80 ≤ ws ≤ 100 10 20 40 60 80 100

% households and industries linked to sewerage system or equivalent where discharge meets national

% households and industries linked to sewerage system or equivalent where discharge meets national standards % meet to water standard (ws) Performance Score 1 ≤ ws < 10 10 ≤ ws < 20 20 ≤ ws < 40 40 ≤ ws < 60 60 ≤ ws < 80 80 ≤ ws ≤ 100 10 20 40 60 80 100

% Capacity of city in supplying water to meet average consumption % Capacity to

% Capacity of city in supplying water to meet average consumption % Capacity to supply Performance score ≤ 25 25 < cs ≤ 50 50 < cs ≤ 90 >90 25 50 75 100

Annual average levels of p. H, DO, TSS, BOD, and Faecal-coliform The number of

Annual average levels of p. H, DO, TSS, BOD, and Faecal-coliform The number of key parameter that meet National Standard Performance Score 4 3 2 1 0 100 75 50 25 0 The annual average levels of p. H, DO, TSS, BOD, and Faecal coliform are measured at the main river which across the city selected by the Local Government. The sampling should be conducted at least twice in a year in the different season (dry and rainy season). The evaluated data is obtained by averaging those water quality parameters. The national standard used should be in accordance with the stipulated class of the measured river segment. The data should be collected in the latest year.

% of available freshwater from ground and surface water extracted for use Water stress

% of available freshwater from ground and surface water extracted for use Water stress < 1700 m 3/ca/year, Water scarcity < 1000 m 3/ca/year Water Stress = The number of available water m 3/ca/year The number of population Available Water /number of population (aw) Performance Score <1000 ≤ aw < 1400 ≤ aw < 1600 ≤ aw < 1700 ≤ aw< 1800 ≤ aw < 1900 ≤ aw < 2000 ≥ 2000 0 10 20 40 60 80 90 100 < 1700

% school at all levels with water conservation education programs % Schools (sc) Performance

% school at all levels with water conservation education programs % Schools (sc) Performance Score 1< sc < 10 10 ≤ sc < 20 20 ≤ sc < 40 40 ≤ sc < 60 60 ≤ sc < 80 80 ≤ sc ≤ 100 10 20 40 60 80 100

Clean Water Indicators No 1 2 Objectives To achieve good accessibility and quality of

Clean Water Indicators No 1 2 Objectives To achieve good accessibility and quality of water supply To protect water resources, safeguard ecosystems and public health % compliance Performance (1 -100) 1 -10 >10 -20 >20 -40 >40 -60 >60 -80 >80 -100 % households with access to potable water infrastructure 10 20 40 60 80 100 % households with tap water that meets WHO drinking water standard 10 20 40 60 80 100 % households linked to sewerage system or equivalent where discharge 10 20 40 60 80 100 % industries linked to sewerage system or equivalent where discharge meets national standards 10 20 40 60 80 100

Performance No 3 Objectives To move towards sustainable supply & use of water Compliance

Performance No 3 Objectives To move towards sustainable supply & use of water Compliance % Capacity of city in supplying water to meet average consumption <25 >25 -50 >50 -90 25 50 75 >90 100 Performance (1 -100) No 4 Objectives % compliance 1 -10 To inculcate environmental responsibility and ownership % school at all levels with water conservation education programs 10 >10 -20 >20 -40 >40 -60 >60 -80 20 40 60 80 >80100

Note: n The valuation for Clean Water is done using the following method: n

Note: n The valuation for Clean Water is done using the following method: n Use average performance score for sub-components contained in the same component n The total performance score is categorized into 5 (five) grades as follows; Total performance score <135 is very poor 135 ≤ total performance score < 270 is poor 270 ≤ total performance score < 405 is moderate 405 ≤ total performance score < 540 is good Total performance score ≥ 540 is excellent

Clean and Green Land Indicators Environmental Indicators No 1 Objectives To ensure the effective

Clean and Green Land Indicators Environmental Indicators No 1 Objectives To ensure the effective storage, segregation and collection of wastes Overall recycling rate Output & Performance % waste at source that is stored in dedicated holding areas/receptacles before being disposed promptly n % waste collected from door to door/collection point n % waste transported in covered vehicles on a daily basis n % recyclable (3 R) waste segregated at source n Environmental Quality % reduction in total waste generated a year

% waste at source that is stored in dedicated holding areas/receptacles before being disposed

% waste at source that is stored in dedicated holding areas/receptacles before being disposed promptly % Waste (wa) Performance Score 0< wa< 15 15 ≤ wa < 30 30 ≤ wa < 45 45 ≤ wa ≤ 60 wa > 60 100 80 60 40 20 Note: The smaller the waste is stored in dedicated holding areas the better the waste management performance

% waste collected from door to door/collection point, % waste transported in covered vehicles

% waste collected from door to door/collection point, % waste transported in covered vehicles on a daily basis, overall recycling rate (% recycled waste from the whole ones), % reduction in total waste generated a year. % Waste (wa) Performance Score 0< wa< 15 15 ≤ wa < 30 30 ≤ wa < 45 45 ≤ wa ≤ 60 wa > 60 100 80 60 40 20

% green area from total area of the city % Green Area (ga) Performance

% green area from total area of the city % Green Area (ga) Performance Score 1< ga< 7 7 ≤ ga < 15 15 ≤ ga < 23 23 ≤ ga < 30 ga ≥ 30 20 40 60 80 100

% area that comply the stipulated spatial plan of the city % Compliance Performance

% area that comply the stipulated spatial plan of the city % Compliance Performance Score 1< co< 20 20 ≤ co < 40 40 ≤ co < 60 60 ≤ co < 80 ≥ 80 20 40 60 80 100

Clean and Green Land Indicators No 1 Objectives To ensure the effective storage, segregation

Clean and Green Land Indicators No 1 Objectives To ensure the effective storage, segregation and collection of wastes Performance (20 -100) % Compliance % waste at source that is stored in dedicated holding areas/ receptacles before being disposed promptly 1 -15 >15 -30 >30 -45 >45 -60 >60 100 80 60 40 20 Performance (1 -100) No 2 Objectives % compliance 1 -15 >15 -30 >30 -45 >45 -60 >60 % waste collected from door to door/collection point 20 40 60 80 100 % waste transported in covered vehicles on a daily basis 20 40 60 80 100 Overall recycling rate 20 40 60 80 100 % reduction in total waste generated a year 20 40 60 80 100

Performance (1 -100) No 3 Objectives To protect green area % compliance % green

Performance (1 -100) No 3 Objectives To protect green area % compliance % green area from total area of the city 1 -7 >7 -15 >15 -23 >23 -30 >30 20 40 60 80 100 Performance (20 -100) No 4 Objectives To protect green area % compliance % area that comply the stipulated spatial plan of the city 1 -20 20 >20 -40 >40 -60 >60 -80 40 60 80 >80 100

n Note: The valuation for Clean and green land is conducted using the following

n Note: The valuation for Clean and green land is conducted using the following method: - Use average performance value for components contained in the same indicator - The total performance value is categorized in to 5 (five) grades as follows: Total performance score = 80 is very poor 80 < total performance score < 160 is poor 160 ≤ total performance score < 240 is moderate 240 ≤ total performance score < 320 is good Total performance score ≥ 320 is excellent

Mechanism and Implementation of ASEAN ESC Award The mechanism encompasses types of awards, nomination

Mechanism and Implementation of ASEAN ESC Award The mechanism encompasses types of awards, nomination process and review process. Nominated cities should have population between 200. 000 – 1, 5 million

Type of awards Types of awards can be provided based on possible selected category

Type of awards Types of awards can be provided based on possible selected category comprising clean air, clean water and clean land.

Nomination and review processes are divided into four phases as follows: PHASE 1 (1

Nomination and review processes are divided into four phases as follows: PHASE 1 (1 st year) Each member country can nominate the city to be awarded. In this phase, self review by nominating country is applied. The review is done using each country’s criteria and indicator.

PHASE 2 (2 nd year) Each member country can nominate three cities based on

PHASE 2 (2 nd year) Each member country can nominate three cities based on every single category which is selected by the Country. In this phase, self review by nominating country is also applied. The award could be given for the cities which achieve at least “good performance” on the single category they selected. Every National Focal Point will be presented the nominated cities to the Chairperson of AWGESC in AWGESC Meeting.

PHASE 3 (3 rd year) Each member country proposed the award based on two

PHASE 3 (3 rd year) Each member country proposed the award based on two category comprising clean air, clean water, and clean land in which the city is supposed to achieve “good or excellent performance” for one category, while performance of the second category has to be at least “moderate”.

PHASE 4 (4 th year) Each member country proposed the award based on whole

PHASE 4 (4 th year) Each member country proposed the award based on whole category comprising clean air, clean water, and clean land in which the city is supposed to achieve “good or excellent performance” for two categories, while performance of the third category has to be at least “moderate”.

PHASE 5 (6 th year) In addition to using the three mentioned categories (whole

PHASE 5 (6 th year) In addition to using the three mentioned categories (whole category) as in the phase 3, the city should use holistic approach incorporating as well the following components: ü ü ü ü Air quality and management Water quality and management Land quality and management Health and sanitation Good governance which consists of: Institutional mechanism, Monitoring/enforcement and mechanism of public petition/complaint address, financial mechanism, stakeholder/Public participation/Awareness activities Education and awareness

Certificate of recognition In addition to the award mentioned above, it is suggested to

Certificate of recognition In addition to the award mentioned above, it is suggested to provide a certificate to appreciate the cities which achieve a significant progress and improvement on one of the above areas (clean air, water, sanitation, public involvement etc). The certificate is started to deliver at the second phase.