Local Agenda 21 indicators by Udalsarea 21

Environmental Framework Programme Series • Nº 1. November 2000. “Economic Impact of Environmental Spending and Investment of the Basque Public Authorities” • Nº 2. May 2001. “Ecology Barometer 2001” • Nº 3. October 2001. “The Environment in the Basque Country” • Nº 4. January 2002. “European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development” • Nº 5. February 2002. “Inventory of Hazardous Waste in the Basque Country (Outline)” • Nº 6. April 2002. , “Cycling Towards Fume-free Cities” • Nº 7. May 2002. “Total Material Requirement of the Basque Country. TMR 2002” • Nº 8. July 2002. “Transport and the Environment in the Basque Country. TMA Indicators 2002” • Nº 9. August 2002. “Sustainable Development in The Basque Country” • Nº 10. October 2002. “Environmental Indicators 2002” • Nº 11 November 2002. “Inventory of GHG Emissions in the Basque Country 1990-2000” • Nº 12 November 2002. “Environment & Competitiveness in Business” • Nº 13 December 2002. “Industrial Ecology Barometer 2002” • Nº 14 January 2003. “Cities, Children & Mobility” • Nº 15 January 2003. “Climate Change” • Nº 16 January 2003. “Educating for Sustainability. School Agenda 21: a Guide for Schools” (CEIDA) • Nº 17 February 2003. “6th Environmental Action Programme of the European Community” • Nº 18 February 2003. “Environmental Tax Reform in the Basque Country” • Nº 19 April 2003. “The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg” • Nº 20 May 2003. “Methodological Guide to Calculating Local Sustainability Indicators in the Basque Country. Local Agenda 21 Indicators”

Basque Government WebSite on sustainable development in the Basque Country

Published by: Basque Government Department of Land Use and the Environment IHOBE -Sociedad Pública de Gestión Ambiental

Basque Translation: Elhuyar

English Translation: Chris Pellow

Registration nº: BI-1372-03 Printed entirely on recycled paper

Presentation by the Basque Govt. Minister

Sabin Intxaurraga Basque Govt. Minister for Land Use and the Environment

The Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2002-2020 sets out over 200 undertakings that directly or indirectly affect municipalities and the application of municipal policies. One such undertaking, specifically aimed at municipal councils, is that all municipalities in the Basque Country with more than 5000 inhabitants should have their own or a shared district-level Local Agenda 21 scheme designed by 2006. The Strategy is accompanied by a monitoring system that comprises 22 environmental indicators to measure the progress made towards sustainability in our country. If we transfer that need to measure progress at Basque Country level to municipal level sustainability, it becomes clear that common local sustainability indicators are needed. The set of 12 common indicators presented here will enable all Basque municipalities regularly to gauge their progress towards better quality of life for their residents, and to compare their situation with that of other municipalities involved in Local Agenda 21 schemes in their own local area and internationally. This guide has been drawn up by the Basque Government Department of Land Use and the Environment to facilitate the calculation of these common sustainability indicators. Along with the common indicators, a number of specific indicators have also been included, which can be adopted by municipalities at need and adapted to their own individual circumstances. The efforts that most Basque municipalities are making to attain local sustainability through the design and implementation of Local Agenda 21 schemes will surely be rewarded in the form of improvements in the quality of life of all Basque residents in the medium term.

Ă?NDEX Introduction

ENVIRONMENT: TERRITORY & PLANNING

Indicator 1: Availability of open public areas and services in the municipality

Indicator 2: Sustainable Land Use

ENVIRONMENT: MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT

Indicator 3: Local Mobility & Passenger Transport

Indicator 4: Distribution of Land in the Municipality Given Over to Transport Infrastructures

ENVIRONMENT: NATURAL RESOURCES

Indicator 5: Water Consumption

Indicator 6: Energy Consumption

ENVIRONMENT: WASTE

Indicator 7: Production & Management of Waste

Indicator 8: Discharges into Water

ENVIRONMENT: FACTORING THE ENVIRONMENT INTO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY

Indicator 9: Environmental Management Systems in the Municipality

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Indicator 10: Poverty & Social Exclusion

Indicator 11: Unemployment Rate

Indicator 12: Level of Satistaction of Local Residents with their Community

Proposal for Specific Indicators

Definition

Introduction Monitoring and assessing Local Agenda 21 schemes calls for a system of sustainability indicators that can: 1. obtain specific data to facilitate monitoring of the state of the municipality and the degree of success of the plan of action implemented; 2. help obtain information quickly and efficiently; 3. determine how deeply involved the various players are in the plan of action; 4. help in the management of municipal affairs and in the taking of policy decisions; 5. provide an overall view of the prevailing interests in the municipality; and 6. inform the various players in the municipality of the progress made. It is also interesting to be able to draw comparisons with other municipalities involved in Local Agenda 21 schemes. This requires common indicators, i.e. they must all measure the same things in the same ways. This guide presents 12 common local sustainability indicators for all Basque municipalities, based on international indicators. This methodological guide has been drawn up by the Basque Government Department of Land Use and the Environment to help municipalities set in place these common sustainability indicators. It presents a set of methodological “file cards” grouped on the basis of thematic areas, including the following points for each indicator: • a definition of the indicator; • its connection with the goals and undertakings of the Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy (in the case of environmental indicators) and the plan of action for Local Agenda 21 in each municipality; • technical points such as units of measurement, frequency of monitoring, desired trends, difficulty of calculation and significance (*** High, ** Medium, * Low); • graphs (as examples, with fictitious figures); • analysis of results; • calculation methods.

Each Basque municipality is distinct from all the others, so a number of specific indicators are also presented that may be adopted by municipalities as necessary. To facilitate calculation of these specific indicators the Basque Government Department of Land Use and the Environment offers personalised technical assistance through its environmental management company IHOBE, S.A.

LA 21 INDICATORS

ENVIRONMENT: TERRITORY & PLANNING Indicator 1: Availability of open public areas and services in the municipality Indicator 2: Sustainable land use

• Indicator 1 • Indicator 2

ENVIRONMENT: TERRITORY & PLANNING Indicator 1: Availability of open public areas and services in the municipality Open public areas and service areas help raise the quality of life of local residents. The proximity of services is also a key factor in reducing the need for people to make journeys.

Definition: This indicator assesses what percentage of the population of a municipality (town centre and consolidated built-up areas in rural districts) live less than 300 m from an open public area (greater than 5.000 m2 and of any size) and from basic services. This indicator can also be calculated for distances of 150 and 500 m. 1. For the purposes of this indicator, “open public spaces” means: • Public parks, gardens and open spaces for the exclusive use of pedestrians and cyclists. Traffic islands, central reservations and cemeteries are excluded unless the local authority classes them as recreational or natural areas, or as sites of special historical or cultural significance. • Open-air sports facilities for use free of charge. • Privately owned areas open to the public without charge for most of the year, e.g. private parks and farmland used for leisure and open-air activities (e.g. farmhouse schools). 2. “Services” means: • Primary public health-care services (GP’s, pharmacies, hospitals, primary health centres and other public health facilities). • Public transport lines with a minimum running frequency (30 minutes), distinguishing between bus stops and taxi ranks. • State schools (compulsory education and publicly-owned nursery schools). • Food stores, points of sale of foodstuffs & bakery products. • Recycling services or facilities: selective collection bins, collection centres, green-dot facilities. • Banks. • Sports areas. • Cultural amenities: cultural centres, libraries, civic centres, museums, exhibition halls, theatres, cinemas, etc.

Goals & Undertakings in the Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2002-2020: ■ To promote more attractive design and improvement in quality of life in urban areas. ■ To promote the integration of natural elements into the urban landscape as a means of improving it aesthetically, increasing its biodiversity and providing solutions that increase environmental quality by increasing climate comfort (shaded areas, temperature modulation, increased humidity, air circulation, etc.), reduce noise levels, generate opportunities for leisure, etc. ■ To reduce mobility requirements by not favouring urban land uses and activities that increase demand for motorised transport.

1. AVAILABILITY OF OPEN PUBLIC AREAS AND SERVICES IN THE MUNICIPALITY

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda 21 plan of action.

Technical points: Units

Frequency

Desired trend

European

Difficulty

Significance

Two or four yearly

Upward

Yes

✵ Ecobarometer

✵✵

NB: *** High **Medium * Low

Graphs by way of example: 1. Availability of public open areas greater than 5.000 m2 % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1997

1999

2001

2003

Public open areas

2. Availability of public open areas of any size % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1997

1999

2002

Public open areas

2003

ENVIRONMENT: TERRITORY & PLANNING

3. Availability of basic services % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1997

1999

Health

Public transport

Foodstuffs

Recycling

2001

2003

Education

Analysis of results: The percentage of residents in the municipality that have open public areas within 300 m has increased over the past four years from 25% in 1999 to 51% in 2002. Similarly, availability of basic services (health, public transport, education, foodstuffs and recycling) has increased.

Calculation method: ■ Data are gathered from a four-yearly survey performed by IHOBE (“Municipal Eco-barometer Survey”) ■ If data are available on the location of the various services and open areas they can be cross-referenced with population and housing data to calculate an annual indicator. It is advisable to use GIS (Geographical Information Systems) for this calculation. The calculation procedure is as follows: i) Draw up a list for each service indicating all the units that provide the service and their location. For state schools the list would take the following form: Service unit

Location

1. Ramiro de Maeztu state primary school

C/ Albeniz, 2

2. Pío Baroja high school

C/ G. Zumalakarregi, 12

3. Koldo Mitxelena high school

C/ Horacio Etxebarria, 31

4. Miguel Unamuno state primary school

C/ Nagusi, 8

ii) Situate the various units on a plan of the municipality and trace circles with a 300 metre radius centred on each of them to determine their areas of influence.

1. AVAILABILITY OF OPEN PUBLIC AREAS AND SERVICES IN THE MUNICIPALITY

iii) Next estimate how many people live in the area of influence of the full set of service units. If the area outside the areas of influence is greater than that inside them, the number of people outside those areas can be calculated and subtracted from the total population of the municipality. In either case, data from the municipal population register can be used. iv) Finally, calculate the indicator according to the following formula: Population in area of influence of state schools

x 100

Total population of municipality

or the following if the population outside the area of influence is to be calculated:

(

1–

Population outside area of influence of state schools Total population of municipality

)

x 100

v) For open public areas the calculation procedure is very similar, except that: • A single list of all open public areas is drawn up, and those greater than 5000 m2 are marked. Open public area

Location

> 5.000 m2

1. New park

C/ G. Zumalakarregi etc.

Yes

2. Basketball court

C/ Pío Baroja, 13

3. Athletics track

C/ Sagasti, 9

• Trace perimeters 300 m outside the edge of each open area to determine their areas of influence (round off corners for greater precision):

ENVIRONMENT: TERRITORY & PLANNING

Indicador 2: Sustainable Land Use Land is a vital resource that has many key functions for environmental, economic, social and cultural life. Rational use of land is essential if balanced, environmentally friendly growth of society is to be ensured.

Definition: This indicator covers a number of points that provide an all-round picture of the degree of sustainability in land use. The factors analysed include: 1. Artificialised land: percentage (%) of total land in the municipality considered as artificialised. Expectations of growth (developable land) may be included separately. 2. Disused and potentially polluted land: surface area of disused land (m2) and potentially polluted (m2). 3. Intensity of land use: • 3.1. Nº of inhabitants per km2 of artificialised land. • 3.2. Nº of inhabitants on residential urban land per km2 of residential urban land. 4. 4. New development: distribution of new constructions: • 4.1. Greenfield land (%): land never previously built on (normally re-zoned land formerly classed as rural). • 4.2. Disused and polluted land recovered (%). • 4.3. Other land (%). 5. Restoration of urban land areas1: • Complete and partial rehabilitation of buildings (m2 of total surface area and total nº, including nº of buildings whose exteriors have been rehabilitated). • Disused land (m2 of surface area and total nº) recovered for new urban uses (including green belts). • Polluted land recovered (m2 & total nº). 6. Percentage (%) of total land in municipality classed as protected.

Goals & Undertakings in the Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2002-2020: ■ To maintain rehabilitation and regeneration work every year on degraded areas. ■ To carry out urban renovation work, demolition of industrial ruins and recovery of 75 hectares by 2006. ■ To avoid consuming land with low-density development by introducing higher building densities in the most appropriate areas in line with land use management instruments.

Surface area of rehabilitated buildings is measured as total surface area, and that of recovered land as ground area.

2. SUSTAINABLE LAND USE

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda 21 plan of action.

Technical Points: Units

Frequency

Desired trend

European

Difficulty

Significance

%: 1, 4, 6 m2: 2, 5 Inhab./Km2: 3

Two or four yearly

Upward: : 3.1, 3.2, 4.2, 4.3, 5, 6 Downward: 1, 2, 4.1

Yes

✵✵✵

NB: The desired trend in sub-indicator 3 will depend largely on the initial intensity.

Graphs by way of example: 1. Percentage of municipal land artificialised % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1997

1999

2001

2003

Artificialised land

2. Disused and potentially polluted land m2 1.000 800 600 400 200 0 1997

1999

2001

Disused land Potentially polluted land

2003

ENVIRONMENT: TERRITORY & PLANNING

3.1. Intensity of use of artificialised land hab./Km2 100 80 60 40 20 0 1997

1999

2001

2003

Intensity of use of artificialised land

NB: The graph for sub-indicator 3.2 is similar to that for 3.1, and they could be represented together on a single graph.

4. Distribution of new constructions % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % Other land

20 %

Disused & potentially polluted land Greenfield land

0% 1997

1999

2001

2003

5. Restoration of urban surface areas m2 1.000 800 600 400 Rehabilitation of buildings

200

Recovery of disused land Recovery of polluted land

0 1997

1999

2001

2003

NB: There is no need for a graph showing the total number of buildings rehabilitated and sites recovered, but these data may be mentioned in the analysis of results.

2. SUSTAINABLE LAND USE

6. Percentage of land in the municipality classed as protected % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1997

1999

2001

2003

Protected area

Analysis of results: Artificialised land stands at 50% and the trend is alarming. Intensity of land use has dropped to 50 inhabitants per km2, indicating reduced efficiency in land use. The increasing percentage of new constructions on greenfield sites is cause for concern. In the past four years the surface are of buildings rehabilitated and that of disused and polluted land recovered have increased. This has led to a drop in the amount of such land in the municipality.

Since 1999 the percentage of the land area of the municipality classed as protected has remained unchanged.

Calculation method: The variables and data sources needed to calculate these indicators are: ■ Artificialised land: this includes all land that is no longer classed as natural (urban & industrial land, roads, etc.), and therefore included in the category of “artificial surfaces” in CORINE Land Cover2. Dept. of Urban Planning or photo interpretation (GIS). ■ Total surface area of the municipality: all areas under the administration of the municipal authorities. EUSTAT or Dept. of Urban Planning. ■ Disused land: artificialised land with no productive use (housing, industry or services). Dept. of Urban Planning. ■ Potentially polluted land: IHOBE (Inventory of Potentially Contaminated Soil Areas). ■ Inhabitants: municipal register. ■ Residential urban land: Dept. of Urban Planning. ■ Inhabitants on residential urban land: municipal register.

http://www.mfom.es/ign/teledeteccion/telede_corine/nomenclatura.htm.

ENVIRONMENT: TERRITORY & PLANNING

■ New constructions on greenfield land (corresponding to all CORINE Land Cover categories except “artificial surfaces”). Dept. of Town Planning. ■ New constructions on other types of land: Dept. of Urban Planning. ■ Rehabilitation of buildings: total surface area (sum total of surface area on all floors) & nº of buildings rehabilitated (including exteriors). Dept. of Town Planning. ■ Recovery of disused land for new uses: surface area of disused artificialised land and nº of sites recovered. Dept. of Urban Planning. ■ Recovery of polluted land: IHOBE. ■ Protected areas: areas where vegetation or landscape is under specific protection and whose future development is limited. Dept. of Urban Planning. The formulae for calculating sub-indicators 1, 3, 4 & 6 are: 1. Artificialised land: Total artificialised land

x 100

Total land area of the municipality

3. Intensity of land use: 3.1. Intensity of use of artificialised land: Nº of inhabitants Total artificialised land

3.2. Intensity of use of residential land: Nº of inhabitants on residential urban land Total de suelo urbano residencial

4. New developments3: 4.1. Greenfield land: Greenfield land built on

x 100

Total surface area built on

4.2. Disused & polluted land recovered: Built-up surface area on disused & polluted land recovered

x 100

Total built-up surface area

4.3. Other land types: Remaining built-up surface area

x 100

Total built-up surface area

6. Superficie protegida respecto del total de la superficie del municipio: Protected surface area

x 100

Total surface area of municipality

Note that the sum of the sub-indicators for new development is 100%, so if two of the variablees are known the third can be calculated automatically.

LA 21 INDICATORS

ENVIRONMENT: MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT Indicator 3: Local Mobility & Passenger Transport Indicator 4: Distribution of Land in the Municipality Given Over to Transport Infrastructures

• Indicator 3 • Indicator 4

ENVIRONMENT: MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT Indicator 3: Local Mobility & Passenger Transport Increasing mobility and decreasing accessibility are threatening the quality of the environment, social welfare and the economic viability of cities. Major contributing factors include big increases in traffic and a radical change in the modes of transport used, with increasingly widespread use of private cars to the detriment of walking, cycling and public transport. Action must be taken at municipal level as necessary to reverse this trend. To attain sustainable mobility directive must be introduced to improve accessibility and travel. The main aim of urban transport policies should be to blend accessibility, economic development and environmental protection.

Definition: This indicator covers the mobility of the people in the municipality. It includes numerous points which can help draw up a general mobility model for local people: 1. Average number of journeys per inhabitant per day (nº of journeys per inhabitant). 2. Average distance travelled per day by each inhabitant (km. per inhabitant). 3. Average travel time per inhabitant (minutes per inhabitant). 4. Reason for journeys and frequency during the week, enabling journeys to be classed as systematic or non systematic (% of systematic journeys vs. % of non systematic journeys). 5. Modes of transport used to make journeys and distances of each journey (relative % for each mode of transport considered). The following modes of transport can be included: • Walking • Bike • Motor-cycle • Private car • Taxi • Bus • Metro • Tram • Combined.

Goals & Undertakings in the Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2002-2020: ■ To redirect the distribution of modes of transport to encourage collective & non motorised modes. ■ To reduce mobility requirements by not favouring urban planning activities & uses that will increase demand for motorised transport. ■ To encourage intermodality in passenger transport as a way of increasing efficiency in environmental and energy terms. ■ To encourage flexibility of schedules in those activities in which this is possible. ■ To factor external transport costs (marginal costs) into charges for the use of infrastructures.

3. LOCAL MOBILITY & PASSENGER TRANSPORT

■ To encourage those modes of transport that impact least on the environment via public pricing and/ or rating policies. ■ To give non motorised forms (walking & cycling) equal footing with motorised forms as recognised modes of transport. ■ To use smart transport systems to reduce overall demand and increase effectiveness. ■ To prioritise investment in infrastructures for more environmentally friendly modes of transport. ■ To work to reduce pollution due to roads, in line with the ceilings on emissions set by the EU. ■ To get passengers to switch from private to public transport as one of the objectives of the future Sustainable Transport Plan. ■ To increase the percentage of total passenger transport accounted for by collective modes in the main urban areas of the Basque Country by 10% over 2001 levels by 2006.

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda 21 plan of action.

Technical Points: Units

Frequency

Journeys/ inhab.: 1 Four yearly km./inhab.: 2 Minutes/inhab.: 3 %: 4 & 5

Desired trend

European

Difficulty

Significance

Downward: 1, 2, 3 & private journeys. Upward: non motorised & collective journeys..

Yes

✵

✵✵✵

Graphs by way of example: 1. Average nº of journeys per inhabitant per day Journeys./inhab. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1992

1996

Average nº of journeys

2000

2004

ENVIROMENT: MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT

2. Average distance per inhabitant Km./inhab./day 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1992

1996

2000

2004

Average distance per inhabitant

3. Average journey time per day Minutes/inhab./day 40 30 20 10 0 1992

1996

2000

2004

Journey time

4. Systematic vs. non systematic journeys % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1992

1996

2000

Systematic journeys Non systematic journeys

2004

3. LOCAL MOBILITY & PASSENGER TRANSPORT

5. Nº of journeys per mode % 100 %

Walking Combined

80 %

Tram Metro

60 %

Bus

40 %

Taxi Car

20 %

Motor-cycle Bike

0% 1992

1996

2000

2004

NB: The various modes of transport may be grouped into categories to make this indicator easier to understand: non motorised transport (walking, bike), private transport (car, motor-cycle), public transport (remaining modes):

5. Nº of journeys per mode % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % Public transport

20 %

Private transport Non motorised transport

0% 1992

1996

2000

2004

NB: Sub-indicator 6 can be represented in the same way as sub-indicator 5.

Analysis of results: Mobility requirements of local residents continue to increase. The number of journeys, distance travelled and time used have all grown since 1999. The percentage of systematic journeys is also increasing. Modal distribution of journeys has remained unchanged over the past 4 years: 50% non motorised transport, 30% public transport and 20% private transport.

Calculation method: ■ Data obtained from the four-yearly survey conducted by IHOBE (municipal eco-barometer survey). 21

ENVIROMENT: MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT

Indicator 4: Distribution of Land in the Municipality Given Over to Transport Infrastructures The distribution in the municipality of land used for infrastructures is highly important in terms of influence on the mobility habits of local people. A distribution that prioritises non motorised transport over motorised forms will encourage the use of the former. Increasing the surface area given over to public transport will also encourage its use.

Definition: This indicator assesses what percentage of land in the municipality is given over to transport infrastructures, broken down by types of transport: 1. Surface area for pedestrians (reverse priority streets – shared with cars but pedestrians have priority – and pavements). 2. Surface area given over to cycling (cycle lanes). 3. Surface area for collective public transport (bus lanes, tramways). 4. Surface area for motor vehicles (thoroughfares within the town, local roads and tracks), excluding the area reserved for collective public transport.

Goals & Undertakings in the Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2002-2020: ■ To redirect the distribution of modes of transport to encourage collective & non motorised modes. ■ To reduce mobility requirements by not favouring urban planning activities & uses that will increase demand for motorised transport. ■ To encourage intermodality in passenger transport as a way of increasing efficiency in environmental and energy terms. ■ To give non motorised forms (walking & cycling) equal footing with motorised forms as recognised modes of transport. ■ To prioritise investment in infrastructures for more environmentally friendly modes of transport.

4. DISTRIBUTION OF LAND IN THE MUNICIPALITY GIVEN OVER TO TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURES

■ To increase the amount of Basque public sector investment in more environmentally friendly modes of transport by 10% over 2001 levels by 2006, in detriment to investment in new road infrastructures. ■ To increase the percentage of total passenger transport accounted for by collective modes in the main urban areas of the Basque Country by 10% over 2001 levels by 2006.

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda 21 plan of action.

Technical Points: Units

Frequency

Desired trend

European

Difficulty

Two or four yearly

Upward: 1, 2 & 3 Downward: 4

✵ Ecobarometer

Graph by way of example: Distribution of land in municipality given over to transport infrastructures

% 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1996

1998

2000

1. Pedestrians

3. Public tansport

2. Bikes

4. Motor Vehicles

2002

Significance ✵✵

ENVIROMENT: MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT

Analysis of results: Sustainability levels in the land given over to transport infrastructures in the municipality have risen since 1999. The area for pedestrians and cyclists currently stands at 50%, compared to 30% in 1999. The percentage of infrastructures for public transport rose from 20% in 1999 to 30% in 2002. All this has been in detriment to the percentage of land given over to motor vehicles.

Calculation method: Three methods can be used to calculate this indicator: ■ Data obtained via the municipality’s digital cartography system (GIS). ■ Calculation of the surface area given over to each category using detailed maps of the municipality. ■ Data obtained via field work. The calculation formulae are: Surface area for pedestrian use

x 100

Surface area in municipality given over to transport infrastructures Surface area set up for cycling

x 100

Surface area in municipality given over to transport infrastructures Surface area for public transport

x 100

Surface area in municipality given over to transport infrastructures Surface area for motor vehicles Surface area in municipality given over to transport infrastructures

x 100

LA 21 INDICATORS

ENVIRONMENT: NATURAL RESOURCES Indicator 5: Water Consumption Indicator 6: Energy Consumption

• Indicator 5 • Indicator 6

ENVIRONMENT: NATURAL RESOURCES Indicator 5: Water Consumption Water is a relatively abundant resource in our world, but water cycles mean that there can be restrictions on its availability at some times and in some places. Human beings require a great deal of water to meet their basic needs for drinking, washing & cooking. Likewise, all ecosystems need water to remain healthy. Limitations on the availability of water and the different uses for which it is needed may sometimes lead to water stress.

Definition: This indicator examines various types of water consumption in the municipality: 1. Domestic consumption (l/inhab./day). 2. Total water demand (upstream supply) of the municipality (m3/year). 3. Sectoral breakdown of total water demand in the municipality (%). The sectors considered are: • Domestic. • Services. • Industrial. • Municipal. • Agricultural. 4. Losses in the distribution network as a percentage of total demand (%).

Goals & Undertakings in the Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2002-2020: ■ To encourage water saving. ■ To promote the modification of non sustainable water consumption habits. ■ To improve efficiency in water use.

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda 21 plan of action.

Technical Points: Units

Frequency

Desired trend

European

Difficulty

Significance

l/inhab./day: 1 m3/year: 2, 4 %: 3

Annual

Downward

✵✵

5. WATER CONSUMPTION

Graphs by way of example: 1. Domestic water consumption l/inhab./day 30

0 1999

2000

2001

2002

Domestic water consumption

2. Total water demand m3/year 3.000

2.000

1.000

0 1999

2000

2001

2002

Total water demand

3. Sectoral breakdown of total water demand % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1999

2000

2001

2002

Municipal Industrial Residential and services

NB: Total water demand by the agricultural sector can also be included if figures are available.

ENVIROMENTE: NATURAL RESOURCES

4. Losses in the distribution network as a percentage of total demand % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% 1999

2000

2001

2002

Losses in distribution network

Analysis of results: Domestic water consumption continues to increase year by year. Average water consumption in the municipality is 27 litres per inhabitant per day. Similarly, total water consumption in the municipality has increased since 1999. The municipal sector continues to be the biggest consumer, through its share of the total dropped from 50 to 35% from 1999 to 2002 and the volume of water it consumed dropped from 1050 to 980 m3. The remaining sectors increased their share of total consumption in the municipality and the volume of water they consumed. . In 2002 300 litres of water was lost in the distribution network for every m3 distributed. .

Calculation method: The information sources for this indicator are: ■ For domestic water consumption (volume of water billed): water utility supplying the municipality. ■ For total water demand: water utility supplying the municipality (private water supplies must be included if figures are available, as must demand for water form the agricultural sector). ■ For the sectoral breakdown of water demand: water utility supplying the municipality, plus irrigation organisations working with agricultural consumers. ■ For nº of inhabitants: municipal register. The calculation formulae are: 1. 1. Domestic water consumption: Volume of water supplied for domestic use Total population of municipality/ 365

3. Sectoral breakdown of consumption: divide water consumption in each sector by total demand less losses in the distribution network (thus allocating the right proportion of distribution losses to each sector). Domestic water consumption

x 100

Total water demand – distribution losses

The figures for the remaining sectors are calculated in the same way. 4. Losses in the distribution network as a percentage of total water demand Losses in distribution network Total water demand

x 100

6. ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Indicator 6: Energy consumption Energy is essential for the well-being and economic development of society as a whole, but it is also a major source of impacts on the environment. Energy production, transmission, distribution and consumption all produce environmental impacts, the extent of which depends on the type of energy and the technology used in each case.

Definition: This indicator analyses the various types of consumption of electricity and natural gas in the municipality. 1. Domestic consumption (tep/inhab./year). 2. Municipal consumption (tep/year). 3. Sectoral breakdown of consumption in the municipality into: • Domestic. • Services. • Industrial. • Municipal. • Transport. • Agricultural. NB: Only electricity and natural gas are considered due to the difficulty of obtaining data on energy consumption from other sources. This means that comparisons between municipalities must be treated with extreme caution.

Goals & Undertakings in the Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2002-2020: ■ To promote improvements in energy efficiency in all sectors of activity ■ To encourage energy saving in all sectors.

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda 21 plan of action.

Aspectos técnicos: Units tep/inhab./year: 1 tep/year: 2 %: 3

Frequency

Desired trend

European

Difficulty

Significance

Annual

Downward

✵✵

✵✵✵

ENVIROMENTE: NATURAL RESOURCES

Graphs by way of example: 1. Domestic electricity & natural gas consumption tep/inhab./year 10

0 1999

2000

2001

2002

Electricity Natural gas

2. Total electricity & natural gas consumption tep/year 10.000

5.000

0 1999

2000

2001

2002

Electricity Natural gas

3. Sectoral breakdown of electricity & natural gas consumption % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1999

2000

2001

Residential

Municipal

Services

Transport

Industrial

Agricultural

2002

6. ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Analysis of results: Domestic electricity & natural gas consumption has increased over the past 4 years, and in 2002 reached 5.4 tep per inhabitant per year (detail types of energy). Total electricity and natural gas consumption in the municipality has performed similarly, with an increase of 650 tep since 1999 (detail types of energy). All sectors have contributed to the increase, as energy consumption has increased in all of them. Transport and the municipal sector are the biggest consumers at 25% each. Industry and services account for 20% each, and domestic consumption for 10%.

Calculation method: The sources of the information used to calculate this indicator are: ■ For natural gas & electricity consumption: request for sectoral breakdown of data from utilities. ■ For nº of inhabitants: municipal register. The calculation formulae are: 1. 1. Domestic electricity & natural gas consumption Electricity supplied for domestic use Nº of inhabitants in the municipality

Natural gas consumption is calculated in the same way. 3. The sectoral breakdown of electricity and natural gas consumption is obtained by dividing electricity and natural gas consumption figures for each sector by the total consumption for each energy source.

LA 21 INDICATORS

ENVIRONMENT: WASTE Indicator 7: Production & Management of Waste Indicator 8: Discharges into water

• Indicator 7 • Indicator 8

ENVIRONMENT: WASTE Indicator 7: : Production & Management of Waste The growth in consumption that has accompanied increases in per capita income is also linked to high levels of waste production, and this in turn gives rise to high costs in monetary and environmental terms, including consumption of material & energy resources, land occupation, etc. The environmental impact of waste depends ultimately on how that waste is treated. Recycling is a way of minimising waste production, and increasing the percentage of waste recycled and valorised must be a top priority at local level.

Definition: This indicator analyses the volume of waste produced and how that waste is managed. The main variables considered are: 1. MSW produced per inhabitant per day (kg./inhab./day). 2. MSW management: valorisation (recycling – selective collection & incineration – & dumping) (%). 3. Hazardous waste produced (mt./year). 4. Hazardous waste management: valorisation & disposal (%).

Goals & Undertakings in the Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2002-2020: ■ To stabilise MSW production per capita at 2001 levels by 2012. ■ To stabilise hazardous waste production at 2000 levels by 2006. ■ To reduce the proportion of MSW sent to landfills to 75% of the total by 2006. ■ To increase the proportion of hazardous waste valorised to 50% more than 2000 levels by 2006.

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda 21 plan of action.

Technical Points: Units Kg./inhab./day: 1 %: 2 & 4 mt./year: 3

Frequency Anual

Desired trend Downward: 1, 3, landfill & disposal. Upward: valorisation

European

Difficulty

Significance

✵

✵✵✵

7. PRODUCTION & MANAGEMENT OF WASTE

Graphs by way of example: 1. MSW production Kg./inhab./day 30

0 1999

2000

2001

2002

MSW production

2. MSW management % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1999

2000

2001

2002

2000

2001

2002

Landfilling Incineration Recycling

3. Hazardous waste production Mt./year 30

0 1999

Hazardous waste production

ENVIRONMENT: WASTE

4. Hazardous waste management % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 %

Valorisation Disposal

0% 1999

2000

2001

2002

Analysis of results: The municipality produces more waste each year. Per capita waste production in 2002 was 27 kg, up from 20 kg in 1999. The amount of hazardous waste produced in the municipality has also increased since 1999. Although more and more waste is being produced, treatment is improving. In 1999 only 30% of MSW was valorised (10% incinerated, 20% recycled), while in 2002 40% were valorised (15% incinerated and 25% recycled). Valorisation of hazardous waste was up from 20% in 1999 to 35% in 2002.

Calculation method: The sources of the information used to calculate this indicator are: ■ For data on production & management of MSW: request data on collection (conventional, selective & green dot schemes) and MSW management from supra-local bodies (“Mancomunidades” in Gipuzkoa, “Cuadrillas” in Araba and “Garbiker” in Bizkaia). Breakdowns of these data by municipalities may not be available: in that case estimates may be made on a per capita basis. ■ For data on production & management of hazardous waste: request for data from the Basque Government (Environment Dept.) on how much hazardous waste is declared by industries classed as hazardous waste producers located in the municipality. ■ For nº of inhabitants: municipal register. The calculation formulae are: 1. 1. MSW production: MSW collected Total population of municipality/ 365

2. MSW management: MSW collected selectively

x 100

MSW produced

MSW incinerated MSW produced

x 100

MSW sent to landfill

x 100

MSW produced

4. Hazardous waste management: Hazardous waste valorised

Hazardous waste disposed of

x 100

Hazardous waste produced

x 100

8. DISCHARGES INTO WATER

Indicator 8: Discharges into Water How water can be used depends on its quality. Water for drinking, recreational activities, industrial use and agricultural use must be of an acceptable standard. Ecosystems also require a certain level of quality if they are to maintain themselves. The many substances that can affect water quality if discharged into it include organic materials, nutrients, heavy metals and pesticides. A great many such substances end up in water as a result of human action, mainly through discharges from municipal networks, industry, farming and livestock businesses, etc. Waste water needs to be treated before it is returned to natural water courses.

Definition: This indicator analyses water quality from two points of view: 1. Quality of river water (BMWP Index) and shoreline and estuarine waters if any (biotic coefficient). 2. Sewage and sewerage systems from residential homes in the municipality (%). • 2.1. Homes connected to the municipal sewerage network (%). • 2.2. Homes not connected to the municipal sewerage network but equipped with adequate waste water treatment systems (%). This indicator can be supplemented with data on accidental discharges into water.

Goals & Undertakings in the Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2002-2020: ■ To ensure that 80% of bodies of water are classed as environmentally and chemically good or very good by 2012. ■ To reduce discharges of hazardous substances and pollutants.

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda 21 plan of action.

Technical Points: Units

Frequency

Desired trend

European

Difficulty

Significance

BMWP index & biotic coefficient: 1 %: 2

Annual

Upward: 1 Upward: 2

✵✵

✵✵✵

ENVIRONMENT: WASTE

Graphs by way of example: 1. River water quality RIVERS (Annual score as per BMWP index) Basin

River

Station 1998 1999 2000 2001

Artibai

Baia

Barbadun

Galdames Goritza Merkadillo Bidasoa Atxispe Butroe

A-062 A-202 BA-258 BA-558 MGA-075 MG-045 M-190 BI-555 BAT-060 B-062 B-226 D-296 D-460 DEG-068 DO-095 EG-146 EG-370 NA-260 IA-120 IA-222 AS-045 AS-160 IE-140 GA-095 KAH-100 I-140 I-160 I-271 I-394 KA-326 KA-372 KA-517

Bidasoa Butroe

Deba

Ega

Ego Oñati Ega

Ibaizabal

Altube Arratia Asua Elorrio Galindo Herrerías Ibaizabal

Kadagua

2 4 1 6 1 3 1 2 3 1 5 5 5 6 5 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 3 5 1 4 4 4 5 4 6 4

1 4 2 6 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 5 5 6 4 4 3 4 3 6 4 5 4 5 1 4 5 5 6 4 6 5

3 4 2 5 1 3 2 3 3 3 6 5 5 6 4 4 4 3 4 6 5 6 4 5 1 5 5 6 6 4 3 4

1 3 2 6 1 3 2 1 3 1 5 5 5 6 3 4 3 2 3 4 4 6 3 5 1 5 6 5 6 4 3 4

Basin

River

Ibaizabal

Nerbioi

Inglares

Karrantza Lea

Oiartzun Oka

Oiartzun Golako Oka

Omecillo

Oria

Urola

Urumea

Zadorra

Aiuda Zadorra

Station 1998 1999 2000 2001 N-120 N-258 N-338 N-520 IN-175 IN-235 K-130 L-040 L-112 L-196 OI-102 OKGO-120 OK-045 OK-114 OM-080 OM-244 OM-380 O-262 O-424 O-490 U-160 U-210 U-490 UR-320 UR-434 ZAY-018 ZAY-372 Z-060 Z-160 Z-336 Z-576 Z-828

6 4 6 5 3 4 3 2 2 2 5 3 3 5 2 3 4 3 5 4 6 6 3 2 4 3 2 6 4 3 5 4

6 4 6 5 3 3 3 1 2 1 3 2 2 6 3 3 4 5 5 4 6 6 3 3 6 3 3 5 4 3 4 4

6 4 6 5 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 1 3 6 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 6 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 4 5 5

6 5 6 6 3 3 2 1 2 4 5 1 1 5 1 1 4 4 5 4 5 6 5 1 3 1 2 5 3 3 5 3

BMWP Biotic Index: 1

Very clean water

Polluted water

Non polluted water

Very polluted water

Water with some effects of pollution

Extremely polluted water Estimates based on prior data

NB: This table shows the changes in the quality of inland waters at all sampling stations in the Basque Country. Graphs can be drawn up by selecting the figures for those stations that are representative for the municipality in question. Quality of coastal and estuarine waters can be included in the same way.

8. DISCHARGES INTO WATER

2.1. Homes in the municipality connected to the mains sewerage system % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1999

2000

2001

2002

Homes connected to mains sewerage system

NB: The graph for sub-indicator 2.2 can be produced similarly to that for 2.1.

Analysis of results: 90% of the residents in the municipality are connected to the mains sewerage network, as compared to 70% in 1999.

NB: An assessment of the BMWP index and biotic coefficient should be given along with the index itself.

Calculation method: The sources of the data used to calculate this indicator are: ■ For river water (BMWP index), estuarine and coastal water (biotic coefficient) quality data: request sent to the Basque Government (Dept. of the Environment) for information from sampling stations near the municipality. In some cases provincial councils may also be able to provide these data. ■ For data on homes connected to the mains sewerage network: request sent to water utility. ■ For number of homes in the municipality: Urban Planning Dept. The calculation formulae are: 2.1. Homes in the municipality connected to the mains sewerage network: Nº homes connected to mains sewerage network Total nº of homes NB: Sub-indicator 2.2 is calculated similarly to 2.1.

x 100

LA 21 INDICATORS

ENVIRONMENT: FACTORING THE ENVIRONMENT INTO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY Indicator 9: Environmental Management Systems in the Municipality

• Indicator 9

ENVIRONMENT: FACTORING THE ENVIRONMENT INTO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY Indicator 9: Environmental Management Systems in the Municipality Commitment to the environment in the municipality means being aware of the impact that the different activities of local people can have and acting responsibly and competitively. It means seeking to factor environmental variables into day-to-day management of companies, authorities and NGO’s, and seeing this as a challenge and an opportunity. To do this, mechanisms must be set in place to prevent or minimise the impact that the activities of these organisations has on the environment.

Definition: This indicator analyses the extent to which environmental management systems are implemented (ISO 14001, EMAS, Ekoscan, Sustainability Reports) in the various activities of the municipality: 1. Large companies and SME’s. 2. Public institutions (town hall, publicly owned organisations & companies). 3. 3NGO’s.

Goals & Undertakings in the Basque Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2002-2020: ■ To encourage the monitoring of how legislation is applied by means of an EMAS environmental management system. ■ To encourage environmental management systems, environmental reports, etc. ■ To have 50 Basque firms holding EMAS certificates by 2006. ■ To have 10 Basque firms with GRI sustainability reports drawn up by 2006 and 40 by 2012. ■ To increase the number of firms with certified environmental management systems (EMAS or ISO 14001) to 600 by 2006 and 1.000 by 2012. ■ To ensure that 50% of the public bodies in the Basque Country (Basque Government, provincial councils, town halls, publicly-owned companies & other bodies) have certified environmental management systems by 2006.

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda 21 plan of action.

Technical Points: Units

Frequency

Desired trend

European

Difficulty

Annual

Upward

Yes

✵

Significance ✵✵

9. ENVIROMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN THE MUNICIPALITY

Graph by way of example: Environmental Management Systems in the Municipality % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1999

2000

2001

2002

Firms Public bodies NGO's

Analysis of results: There is a clear commitment to the environment on the part of society. The percentage of firms, public bodies and NGO’s with environmental management systems is increasing as time goes by.

Calculation method: The sources of the information used to calculate this indicator are: ■ For large firms & SME’s with environmental management systems: IHOBE. ■ For public bodies with environmental management systems: town hall, IHOBE. ■ For NGO’s with environmental management systems: town hall, IHOBE. ■ For nº of large firms & SME’s, public bodies & NGO’s: town hall. The calculation formulae are: Nº of large firms & SME’s with environmental management systems

x 100

Total nº of large firms & SME’s Nº of public bodies with environmental management systems Total nº of public bodies Nº of NGO’s with environmental management systems Total nº of NGO’s

x 100

LA 21 INDICATORS

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Indicator 10: Poverty & Social Exclusion Indicator 11: : Unemployment Rate Indicator 12: Level of Satisfaction of Local Residents with their Community

• Indicator 10 • Indicator 11 • Indicator 12

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Indicator 10: Poverty & Social Exclusion Poverty lies ate the root of many forms of marginalisation: the poorest people are on the margins of many of the services offered by society. Many of those who live in the poorest conditions cannot afford to take part in cultural activities, play sports, further their education or keep up to date with the main events around which much of social life revolves.

Definition: This indicator analyses the percentage of families in the municipality that receive “Basic Income” benefit. The indicator can be supplemented with data from the EUSTAT Poverty and Social Inequality Survey or with data from the social services in the municipality.

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda 21 plan of action.

Technical Points: Units

Frequency

Desires trend

European

Difficulty

Annual

Downward

✵

Significance ✵✵✵

Graph by way of example: Families Receiving Basic Income Benefit % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 1999

2000

2001

2002

Families receiving Basic Income benefit

Análisis de resultados: The percentage of families receiving Basic Income benefit doubled from 15% in 1999 to 30% in 2002.

10. POVERTY & SOCIAL EXCLUSION

Calculation method: The sources of the information used to calculate this indicator are: ■ For nº of families receiving Basic Income benefit: Town Council Social Services Dept. ■ For total nº of families: Town council, EUSTAT The calculation formulae are: Nº of families receiving Basic Income benefit Total nº of families

x 100

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

IndicaTor 11: Unemployment rate Work is both a means and an end for human beings: it provides them not only with material well-being but also with a sense of identity, an awareness of their position in society and a feeling of belonging. Work – for themselves or for others – is essential if people are to achieve a dignified quality of life. It provides them with food, clothing and housing, or at least with the income needed to purchase them. It is the main way of meeting the basic needs of human beings: an adequate standard of living, enough to eat, an adequate home, clean water and a satisfactory health system. Loss of employment can have many negative consequences in terms of security and equality. The loss of income it entails means a loss of purchasing power and can lead people to feel a loss of dignity and self-respect, thus wrecking their social relationships. Unemployment can also result in a breakdown of family relations.

Definition: This indicator analyses what percentage of the working-age population are unemployed. The information it provides can be supplemented by breaking down unemployment data by sex and age groups.

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda 21 plan of action.

Technical Points: Units

Frequency

Desired trend

European

Difficulty

Annual

Downward

✵

Significance ✵✵

11. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

Graph by way of example: Unemployment rate % 30 %

20 %

10 %

0% 1999

2000

2001

2002

Unemployment rate

Analysis of results: 11% of the working-age population of the municipality are unemployed. This figure is well up on the 4% recorded in 1999.

Calculation method: The sources of the information used to calculate this indicator are: â&#x2013; For the unemployment rate: EGAILAN or EUSTAT.

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Indicator 12: Level of satisfaction of local residents with their community There are many indicators that can be used to measure the well-being of the public: per capita income, unemployment rates, access to housing, etc. These indicators are usually based on objective criteria reflected in statistics. They are useful, but need to be supplemented by more subjective indicators: in an analysis of people’s well-being it is a good idea to find out how well they themselves believe that they live.

Definition: This indicator analyses the public’s perceived level of well-being by collecting data on levels of satisfaction (highly satisfied, fairly satisfied, fairly unsatisfied, highly unsatisfied or “non response”) in regard to the community in general and to a number of specific areas, i.e.: 01. The municipality in general as a place to live and work. 02. Standard, availability and affordability of housing. 03. Job opportunities. 04. Quality and quantity of natural environment (green areas, rivers, etc.). 05. Quality of built-up area (streets, public spaces, condition of buildings, etc.). 06. Standard of social & health services. 07. Standard of cultural, recreational and leisure services. 08. Standard of schools & colleges. 09. Standard of pubic transport services. 10. Opportunities to take part in municipal planning & decision-making processes. 11. Standard of public safety & security.

Objectives of the Plan of Action: To be established for each municipality. See Local Agenda 21 plan of action.

Technical Points: Units % & average

Frequency

Desired trend

European

Difficulty

Significance

Four.-yearly

Upward

Yes

✵

✵✵

12. LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF LOCAL RESIDENTS WITH THEIR COMMUNITY

Graph by way of example: 1. General level of public satisfaction with the municipality % 100 % 80 % 60 % Highly saisfied

40 %

Fairly unsatisfied Fairly satisfied

20 %

Hihgly unsatisfied Indifferent

0% 1991

1995

1999

2003

Graphs for variables 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 11 can be drawn up along similar lines.

Analysis of results: The general level of public satisfaction with the municipality has increased since 1991. 50% of the population currently declare themselves satisfied or highly satisfied with the municipality, as compared to just 30% in 1991. The percentage of people who declare themselves unsatisfied or highly unsatisfied has dropped from 50% to 30% since 1991. The average score awarded to the municipality by the population rose from 2.75 (between unsatisfied and indifferent) in 1991 to 3.4 (between indifferent and satisfied) in 2002.

Calculation method: â&#x2013; The formulae for calculated the average scores are: The formulae for calculated the average scores are: Average score = MS + S + I + MIn + In MS =

% of people highly satisfied

100

% of people satisfied

100

% of people indifferent

100

In =

% of people unsatisfied

100

MIn =

% of people highly unsatisfied 100

Proposal for Specific Indicators Environmnet Indicator

Definition

Units

Desired trend

1. Urban air quality

Nº of days when recorded air quality is Nº of days classed as “good”. The pollutants to be (%) considered are SO2, NO2, PM10, CO & O3. (This can also be expressed as the % of the population exposed to high levels of each pollutant).

2. Environmental education

Nº of environmental education activities in the municipality & nº of participants.

Nº of activities Nº of participants

Upward

3. Energy efficiency in homes

Nº of homes/ buildings with energy efficiency certificates.

Nº of homes/buildings

Upward

4. Consumption of products that foster sustainability

% of total consumption accounted for % by products with eco-label and biological or fair trade products.

Upward

5. Municipal spending on the environment

% of current spending in municipality allocated to the environment.

Upward

6. Ecological footprint

An informational indicator that shows Ha/inhab. the nº of hectares per inhabitant of ecologically productive land (crops, grazing land, woodland & water systems) needed to produce the resources used by a given population with a given standard of living, wherever that area may be.

Downward

7. Traffic density on basic road network

Average density of traffic recorded at representative points on the basic road network.

Nº vehicles/ day

Downward

8. Nº of vehicles

Nº of vehicles by type (passenger cars, motor-cycles, etc.)

Nº of vehicles per type.

Downward

9. Urban noise levels

% of population exposed to noise levels higher than recommended by WHO.

Downward

10. Woodland planted & cut down

Ratio of woodland planted (with autochthonous species) to woodland cut down (expressed preferably in nº of trees).

Area planted/ area cut down

11. Use of treated water

% of treated water re-used.

Upward

12. Use of renewable energy sources

Total consumption (or production) renewable energy.

tep

Upward

13. Knowledge of the Basque language

% of Basque speakers.

Upward

Upward (Downward)

>1 & upward

PROPOSAL FOR SPECIFIC INDICATORS

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Indicator

Units

Desired trend

% of current municipal spending allocated to social policies.

Upward

% of current municipal spending 15. Involvement of the municipality in international allocated to co-operation for international development. solidarity activities

Upward

16. Population ageing rate

% of population aged 65 or more.

Downward

17. Integration of immigrant population.

Nº of immigrants registered as resident in the municipality.

Nº of people

Upward

18. Public involvement

Nº of meetings of standing municipal bodies whose purpose is to increase public involvement, broken down by topics (environment, social matters, etc.).

Nº of meetings

Upward

19. Public safety & security

Nº of crimes & misdemeanours committed in the municipality per 1000 inhabitants.

Nº of crimes & misdemeanours

Downward

20. Road safety

Nº of accidents per 1000 vehicles.

Nº of accidents

Downward

14. Municipal spending on social policies

Definition

References ■ Municipal Environment Agency, Environment Dept., Environment Unit, Javier Celma, Carmen Cebrián Resultado de los Indicadores Europeos en la ciudad de Zaragoza. Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza. Zaragoza City hall, Zaragoza, 2002. ■ Pamplona City Hall. Pamplona Agenda 21 Local. Pamplona City Hall, Pamplona, 2002. ■ Ente Vasco de la Energía and Assocition of Basque Municipalities. Guía municipal de sostenibilidad energética. EVE & EUDEL, 2003. ■ Vitoria-Gasteiz City Hall. Vitoria-Gasteiz hacia un desarrollo sostenible. Boletines 1998-1999-20002001-2002. http://www.vitoria-gasteiz.org/ceac/agenda21/default.htm ■ City of Helsinki. The Core Indicators for Sustainable Development in Helsinki. http://www.hel.fi/tietokeskus/en/tutkimuksia/keke02.pdf ■ Barcelona Provincial Council. Sistema Municipal d’Indicadors de Sostenibilitat. Barcelona Provincial Council. Barcelona, 2000. http://www.diba.es/xarxasost/indi/home.asp ■ Provincial Council of Bizkaia, Dept. of the Environment and Territorial Action Sistema de Indicadores de Sostenibilidad de los Municipios de Bizkaia. http://web.bizkaia.net/Ingurugiroa_Lurraldea/Jasangarritasuna/ca_indicadores.htm ■ European Sustainable Cities & Towns Campaign and the European Sustainable Cities Project. Towards a Local Sustainability Profile - European Common Indicators. http://www.sustainable-cities.org/indicators/Indicator_total_november%202002.pdf ■ Basque Government Department of Land Use and the Environment. Medio Ambiente en la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco: Indicadores Ambientales 2002. Sociedad Pública de Gestión Ambiental IHOBE. Bilbao, 2002. http://www.ihobe.net/publicaciones/descarga/Indicadores_Ambientales.pdf ■ Basque Government. Programa Marco Ambiental de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (2002 2006) Estrategia Ambiental Vasca de Desarrollo Sostenible (2002 - 2020). Sociedad Pública de Gestión Ambiental IHOBE. Bilbao, 2002. http://www.ihobe.net/publicaciones/descarga/PMA-Cast.pdf ■ United Kingdom Government. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Local quality of life counts. http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/indicators/local/localind/index.htm