10 CDP 20Cities 202013 Summary 20report Wealthier 20Healthier 20Cities

Written by CDP www.cdp.net +44 (0) 207 970 5660 [email protected] analysis and information design for CDP byIn proud partnership withSummary report on 110 global citiesCities from Dallas to Hanoi to Ouagadougou have participated in the largest and most comprehensive survey of cities and climate change.HanoiCities p04Risks and adaptation p08Economic opportunities p16Emissions measurement and reduction p20Water p26Appendix p28A Note on the Text: All data in this report is based on answers from city governments to the questions contained in the 2013 CDP Cities questionnaire, except where otherwise noted. Additional summary data is provided on a city-by-city basis in the Appendix to this report, and via the CDP website, www.cdp.netCDP, C40 and AECOM are proud to present our latest results from the third consecutive year of climate change reporting for cities.It was an impressive year. One hundred and ten cities reported on their climate change data to CDP this year (a 50% increase from 2012), making this document the largest and most comprehensive survey of cities and climate change published to date by CDP. City governments from Dallas to Hanoi to Ouagadougou participated, including over 80% of the membership of the C40a group of the worlds largest cities dedicated to climate change leadership.The data presented here conveys information about every aspect of climate change measurement and management in cities. Approximately two-thirds of reporting cities measure city-wide emissions. Together, these cities account for just over 1 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, putting them on par with Japan, the worlds third largest economy and fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions.Over 70% of cities now have a plan for adapting to the effects of climate change. And cities report over 1,000 individual actions designed to reduce emissions and adapt to a changing climate.CDP salutes the hard work and dedication of the worlds city governments in measuring and reporting these important pieces of data. With this report, we provide city governments with information and insights that we hope will assist their work in tackling the supreme challenge of climate change.For an in-depth analysis of trends relating to economic opportunities in cities, please see CDPs accompanying report, How Climate Change Is Giving Us Wealther, Healthier Cities.C40 is a network of the worlds megacities taking action to reduce GHG emissions.In 2013, CDP and C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) mark three years of partnership on the effort to engage cities in climate change data reporting; C40 Chair, New York City Mayor Michael R.Bloomberg invited all 63 C40 Cities to participate through CDPs reporting platform 53 cities responded. For more information, please visit www.c40.org. 3ChicagoDenver St LouisSan FranciscoSan Jose*PhoenixLos AngelesLas VegasSan DiegoTorontoMontrealClevelandEdinaMinneapolisDetroitNew YorkPhiladelphiaBaltimoreWashington, DCHoustonAustinNew Orleans*MiamiMexico CityDallas AtlantaAbidjanDoualaLagosAddis AbabaKampalaAbuja, FCTOuagadougouJohannesburgPietermaritzburgDurbanCape TownAntananarivoCopenhagen VilniusWarsawMoscowBerlinHamburgKadiovacikBornova*Istanbul*Athens OristanoOsloStockholmDublinGreater London AmsterdamGreater ManchesterRotterdamParisZurichMilan*PiacenzaTurin VeniceNaplesLisbonMadridZaragozaBarcelona*Basel*VancouverPortlandWonjuSuwonChangwonIncheonSeoulAnsanKaohsiungHong Kong*HanoiBangkokHo Chi Minh City*Jakarta*SingaporeTaipeiTokyoYokohamaMelbourneSydneyAparecidaSo PauloCuritibaPorto AlegreMontevideo SantiagoBelo HorizonteCampinas*Rio de JaneiroGoinia*CaliBogotCaracasBarranquilla*San SalvadorGuayaqulSalvador*RecifeLimaMagdalena del MarJaguarBuenos AiresChicagoDenver St LouisSan FranciscoSan Jose*PhoenixLos AngelesLas VegasSan DiegoTorontoMontrealClevelandEdinaMinneapolisDetroitNew YorkPhiladelphiaBaltimoreWashington, DCHoustonAustinNew Orleans*MiamiMexico CityDallas AtlantaAbidjanDoualaLagosAddis AbabaKampalaAbuja, FCTOuagadougouJohannesburgPietermaritzburgDurbanCape TownAntananarivoCopenhagen VilniusWarsawMoscowBerlinHamburgKadiovacikBornova*Istanbul*Athens OristanoOsloStockholmDublinGreater London AmsterdamGreater ManchesterRotterdamParisZurichMilan*PiacenzaTurin VeniceNaplesLisbonMadridZaragozaBarcelona*Basel*VancouverPortlandWonjuSuwonChangwonIncheonSeoulAnsanKaohsiungHong Kong*HanoiBangkokHo Chi Minh City*Jakarta*SingaporeTaipeiTokyoYokohamaMelbourneSydneyAparecidaSo PauloCuritibaPorto AlegreMontevideo SantiagoBelo HorizonteCampinas*Rio de JaneiroGoinia*CaliBogotCaracasBarranquilla*San SalvadorGuayaqulSalvador*RecifeLimaMagdalena del MarJaguarBuenos Aires110 responding cities:Fig. 1 Map of responding citiesCities110201173Cities reporting per year482012 20134: CitiesChicagoDenver St LouisSan FranciscoSan Jose*PhoenixLos AngelesLas VegasSan DiegoTorontoMontrealClevelandEdinaMinneapolisDetroitNew YorkPhiladelphiaBaltimoreWashington, DCHoustonAustinNew Orleans*MiamiMexico CityDallas AtlantaAbidjanDoualaLagosAddis AbabaKampalaAbuja, FCTOuagadougouJohannesburgPietermaritzburgDurbanCape TownAntananarivoCopenhagen VilniusWarsawMoscowBerlinHamburgKadiovacikBornova*Istanbul*Athens OristanoOsloStockholmDublinGreater London AmsterdamGreater ManchesterRotterdamParisZurichMilan*PiacenzaTurin VeniceNaplesLisbonMadridZaragozaBarcelona*Basel*VancouverPortlandWonjuSuwonChangwonIncheonSeoulAnsanKaohsiungHong Kong*HanoiBangkokHo Chi Minh City*Jakarta*SingaporeTaipeiTokyoYokohamaMelbourneSydneyAparecidaSo PauloCuritibaPorto AlegreMontevideo SantiagoBelo HorizonteCampinas*Rio de JaneiroGoinia*CaliBogotCaracasBarranquilla*San SalvadorGuayaqulSalvador*RecifeLimaMagdalena del MarJaguarBuenos Aires*Cities that reported privately296,471,000total population27cities33cities50citiesless than 600k600k-1.6mgreater than 1.6mFig. 2 Population breakdown of responding citiesCities: 5Cities: climate change and educationIn 2005, the city of Los Angeles began the Blue Bin School Recycling Program with only 10 elementary schools participating. There are now 648 schools enrolled, saving the district over US$2 million annually in hauling costs while teaching environmental stewardship.Cities: climate change and waterHalf of Londons water mains pipe infrastructure is over 100 years old and a third is over 150 years old. London has a high level of leakage with around a quarter of Londons water lost.6: CitiesCities: climate change and actionStockholm will reconstruct one of the citys locks to prevent sea water from entering into the Lake Mlaren. The planned measures in the new lock will provide good protection for buildings and infrastructure around the lake, and secure the drinking water for about two million people. Cities: climate change and societyIn the Ivory Coast, reduced rainfall has negatively impacted crop production and income of the rural population. As a result, rural residents are migrating to cities like Abidjan expecting to fnd work. Cities: 7Physical risks: what cities are facingWhile Las Vegas is prepared for periods of intense heat, the impact of prolonged high temperatures in the western US will stress electricity supply, and any disruption to air conditioning in summer months could have pronounced impacts for citizens, children, elderly and at risk populations. Physical risks: what cities are facingIn late 2011, Bangkok suffered a severe food. The food caused disruption in the production processes of many factories. Transportation of goods and service was also limited. Risks andadaptation8: Risks and adaptationFig 3 Primary methodology used to evaluate physical risks% of responsesNumber of cities reporting risksBy typeFig 4Of 110 citiessurveyed:88 Citiesare reporting risks from temperature increase / heatwaves81 Citiesare reporting risks from frequent / intense rainfall49 Citiesare reporting risks from drought43 Citiesare reporting risks from storms / foods39 Citiesare reporting risks from sea level riseCities use a variety of methodologies to evaluate physical risks from climate change. Many of these methodologies are based on or heavily infuenced by the IPCCs risk assessment guidance, including ADAPT and UKCIP. State or region vulnerability and risk assessment methodologyIPCC models and climate change impact assessment guidanceAgency specifc vulnerability and risk assessment methodologyICLEI climate adaptationmethodology (ADAPT)UnknownUK Climate Impacts Partnership Framework (UKCIP)20%19%16%7%5%9%18%3%1%1%World Bank Urban Risk Assessment (URA)UNDP climate risk management methodologiesOtherNo evaluation doneRisks and adaptation :9Number of cities reporting risksBy regionFig 5Cities reporting risks from:AfricaEuropeLatin AmericaNorth AmericaTemperature increase / heatwavesFrequent / intenserainfall DroughtStorms / floods Sea level riseEast AsiaSouth Asia / Oceania12 cities11 cities30 cities23 cities27 cities7 cities7 9 3 4 411 10 5 2 223 21 16 9 1118 19 7 9 522 16 16 16 117 6 2 3 6See the interactive version of these chartsincluding more detail on risks and other reported information from citiesat www.cdp.net/cities10: Risks and adaptationNumber of risks reported by citiesBy timescaleFig 6Current2013Short term2014-2025Medium term2026-2050Long term2051-Drought21 21 15 27Frequent / intense rainfall60 32 7 21Sea level rise9 9 18 3Storms /fooding15 12 5 23Temperature increase / heatwaves109 56 14 46Risks and adaptation :11Cities that have a plan for increasing resilience to climate change2011-20132011 201208060201002013Fig 7Three most popular actions reported by cities for each risk# of actionsFig 8How are cities adapting to risks from temperature increase / heatwaves?Tree planting and/or green space creation initiatives.54Community engagement and education programs.26Projects or policies targeted at those most vulnerable.How are cities adapting to risks from frequent / intense rainfall?Stormwater capture systems. Flood defences (development, operation and storage).Water butts and rainwater capture initiatives.2230 1812How are cities adapting to risks from drought?Awareness campaigns or educational initiatives to reduce water use.Water supply and diversifcation programs.Water use restrictions.14 13 11080%40%20%100%4030 477860%63%64%71%# of cities% of cities12: Risks and adaptation8How are cities adapting to risks from storms / floods?Crisis management programs, including warning and evacuation systems.Flood defences (development, operation and storage).Stormwater capture systems.12 10See the interactive version of these chartsincluding more detail on risks and other reported information from citiesat www.cdp.net/citiesAdaptation: what cities are doingThe development of drainage infrastructure in Singapore, amounting to S$2bn (US$1.6bn) over the last 30 years, has reduced food prone areas from about 3,200 ha in the 1970s to about 49 ha as of January 2012. Adaptation: what cities are doingSo Paulo did a comprehensive evaluation of all risky areas for landslides and has undertaken an ambitious program to relocate all families living in the most risky areas.4How are cities adapting to risks from sea level rise?Flood defences (development, operation and storage).Projects or policies targeted at those most vulnerable.Building resilience and resistance measures.10 5 4Restricting development in food risk areas.Risks and adaptation :13Social risks reported as result of climate change# of risksFig 950Increased risk to already vulnerable populations38Increased incidence and prevalence of disease34 Increased demand for public services (including health)26 Increased resource demand17Fluctuating socio-economic conditions12 Migration from rural areas to cities12 Population displacement12 Increased confict and/or crime5 Loss of traditional jobs12Other social risksSocial risks: what cities are observingCape Town reports that an increase in disease associated with climate change can have widespread economic and health costs.Social risks: what cities are learningIt is well known by staff in Toronto Social Support and Housing Administration that when it gets hot, crime rates, domestic disputes and violence increase.14: Risks and adaptationCities that report they face social risks as a result of climate changeBy # and % of citiesFig 10Yes83 cities81%Top fve social risksBy region, # of citiesFig 11Europe30 citiesIncreased risk to already vulnerable populationsIncreased incidence and prevalence of diseaseIncreased demand for public services (including health)Increased resource demandFluctuating socio-economic conditions10%10% 10 cities NoDont know10 cities Latin America23 citiesNorth America27 citiesSouth Asia / Oceania7 citiesEast Asia11 citiesAfrica12 citiesCities reporting social risks from...241 144 4442 21363366 612118855101015150Risks and adaptation :15Opportunities: how cities are beneftingTo support local companies in developing exportable ICT green solutions, International Enterprise Singapore has set up a Green Programme Offce which helps companies to strengthen their offerings of energy-effcient ICT solutions and identify potential market opportunities. Opportunities: how cities are beneftingClimate change effects in Lisbon create an opportunity for an upgrade of environmental effciency processes. The goal of reducing public operating costs helps to attract fnancing for retrofts, which can be paid for with the expected savings.Economicopportunities16: Economic opportunitiesEconomic opportunities reported as a result of climate change# of citiesFig 1371 citiesDevelopment of new industries (e.g. clean tech)45 cities 39 cities 38 cities 32 cities 31 citiesIncreased attention to other environmental concernsIncreased efficiency of operationsIncreased infrastructure investmentAdditional funding opportunitiesIncreased energy securityCities that report climate change presents an economic opportunity# and % of citiesFig 12Yes98 cities4%91%Dont know6 cities 6%No4 cities Economic opportunities: 17123Economic opportunitiesBy region, # of opportunitiesFig 14Development of new industries (e.g. clean tech)Africa8 6 4 4Additional funding optionsIncreased energy securityIncreased effciency of operationsIncreased attention to other environmental concerns2Increased infrastructure investment3Development of new industries (e.g. clean tech)East Asia5 4 4Increased effciency of operationsIncreased infrastructure investmentIncreased attention to other environmental concernsIncreased energy security1Additional funding options8Development of new industries (e.g. clean tech)Europe9 9 8Increased infrastructure investmentIncreased energy securityIncreased attention to other environmental concernsImproved effciency of operations4Additional funding options24To learn more about how specifc cities are seeking economic opportunities due to climate change, visit the online CDP Cities 2013 report at www.cdp.net/cities18: Economic opportunities10 7Increased attention to other environmental concernsLatin America8 8Development of new industries (e.g. clean tech)Increased infrastructure investmentAdditional funding optionsImproved effciency of operations4Increased energy securityDevelopment of new industries (e.g. clean tech)North AmericaIncreased effciency of operationsIncreased infrastructure investmentIncreased attention to other environmental concernsAdditional funding optionsIncreased energy security4Development of new industries (e.g. clean tech)South Asia and Oceania5 4Increased infrastructure investmentIncreased attention to other environmental concernsAdditional funding optionsIncreased energy security2Improved effciency of operations1423 19 13 13 10 77 6Economic opportunities: 19Emissions measurement and reductionCDP Cities 2013 FocusGlobal Protocol for Community-scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC)Over 30 cities and communities from around the world will be pilot testing theGlobal Protocol for Community-scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0. The document and the pilot test represents a joint effort by C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, World Resources Institute, and ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability in collaboration with the Joint Work Program of the Cities Alliance among the World Bank Group, UN-HABITAT, and UNEP. The GPC was frst launched in May 2012 by C40, WRI and ICLEI (GPC Partners) and provides a consistent and transparent framework for measuring and reportinggreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the community-level. The pilot testing cities range from small communities such as the Ballynagran Energy Plus Community in Ireland and Los Altos Hills in the USA, to mega cities like Rio de Janeiro, London, and Tokyo. US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting (ICLEI) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas InventoriesGlobal Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions pilot version 1.0 (C40, ICLEI, WRI and partners)OtherInternational Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI)33%6%9%42%10%Fig 15 Primary methodology used to calculate city-wide emissions% of responses28%Private institute/non-proft methodology21%IPCC (historical or hybrid) methodology21%Regional/local government guideline21%National/EU government guideline10%OtherExamples of methodologies in the Other category include those promulgated by national governments (e.g. Australia, Denmark) and non-profts, universities, and institutes (e.g. Bilan Carbone in France, the Statistical Institute of Berlin-Brandenburg for Berlin), as well as proprietary methodologies developed by local governments themselves (e.g. Yokohama, Stockholm, Rotterdam).The pilot project will go through November 2013. Based on the lessons learned from the pilot cities, the GPC Partners will fnalize and publish the GPC in 2014. The GPC will help harmonize the GHG accounting and reporting frameworks for cities and communities in order to facilitate city-to-city comparison and learning, climate fnancing, and accountability of cities and communities to take meaningful actions to reduce their GHG impacts.The GPC initiative also received broad support from some of the most infuential international organizations in the sustainable development feld such as OECD, UNFCCC, IPCC, IGES, CDP, WWF, eight cities, and three national governments to serve as the advisory committee for this work.C40 Cities20: Emissions measurement and reductionBrazil* Canada* All cities 2011**All cities 2012**Germany* Japan* United States*5.4916bn3bn2bn1bn4bn5bn0Total city-wide emissions reported to CDP compared to countriesBillions of metric tonnes of CO2eFig 16All cities 2013**1.1801.021 0.9780.6800.7490.5530.475* US Energy Administration International Energy Statistics (http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8)The chart shows total city-wide emissions compared to other major economies.City emissions represent total city-wide Scope 1 and 2 CO2e emissions reported by cities to CDP.The year of their attribution refects the year they were reported to CDP, not necessarily the year of measurement.Representative country emissions are from 2011, the latest year available from the US Energy Information Agency.2011 201202013Fig 17 Cities reporting municipal and city-wide emissions2011-20132011 2012 2013060%40%20%100%8060201004080%24 33 45 31 51 6950%45%41%65%70%63%Municipal inventory City-wide inventoryCity governments often take responsibility for two different GHG inventories: emissions resulting from municipal operations (also known as local government operational emissions) and those relating to activities across the community as a whole (also known as city-wide emissions). The years in this chart refect the year the emissions were reported to CDP, not necessarily the year of measurement.** CDP data# of cities% of citiesEmissions measurement and reduction: 21Number of cities that reported city-wide emissionsBy regionFig 18Europe26of 30 citiesNorth America Latin America19of 27 cities11of 23 citiesEast Asia6of 11 citiesSouth Asia/Oceania Africa5of 7 cities2of 12 citiesVerification: what cities are doingSeouls inventory is externally verifed by Lloyds Register Quality Assurance Ltd. (LRQA) using the ISO 14064-3 standard (Validation and/or verifcation of greenhouse gas assertions).Data has been verifed for calendar years 1990-2010 based on a limited level of assurance at a 5% level of materiality.CDP Cities 2013 FocusKoreas citiesKorean cities have demonstrated a remarkable commitment to transparent reporting on climate change.Thanks to a partnership between CDP and the Korea Productivity Center (KPC), the number of Korean cities reporting to CDP this year increased to 20 from two in 2012. (Note that only six Korean cities are included in this report, due to publication timelines). Korea is now the country with the second-highest number of reporting cities, after the United States.In addition to C40 member cities Seoul and Changwon, the Korea sample includes frst-time responding cities such as Incheon, Suwon, and Ansan. CDPs partner, KPC, is a government bureau under the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy established in 1958 and the leading provider of sustainability information and services in the Republic of Korea. Look for a special publication on all reporting Korean cities coming later in the year from CDP and KPC.1.021bnmetric tonnes CO2e20130.978bnmetric tonnes CO2e20120.680bnmetric tonnes CO2e2011Total city-wide emissions reported to CDPMetric tonnes CO2e, 2011-2013Fig 1922: Emissions measurement and reductionTo see interactive maps of cities reported emissions from 2011-2013, visit www.cdp.net/citiesCities reporting city-wide Scope 3 emissions2011-2013Fig 202011 201208060201002013080%40%20%100%407172660%23%33%38%Cities reporting that city-wide emissions have been verifed2011-2013Fig 212011 201208060201002013080%40%20%100%408142560%26%27%36%Scope 3: how cities are measuringThe total carbon footprint (3 scopes) of Greater Manchesters residents and industries was calculated, as a single exercise in 2011. Manchester recognizes that it is necessary to understand embedded emissions in goods and services in order to fully understand the processes and changes necessary for cities to tackle climate change.# of cities% of citiesEmissions measurement and reduction: 23So PauloSt LouisStockholmSydneyTaipeiTokyoTorontoTurin30%25%70%60%25%30%40%Range of reduction targetAmsterdamAtlantaBaltimoreBelo HorizonteBerlinBuenos AiresCape TownChicagoCopenhagenDenverDublinDurbanHamburgIncheonKadiovacikKaohsiungLisbonGreater LondonMelbourneMiamiMinneapolisNew YorkOristanoParisPhiladelphiaPortlandRio de JaneiroRotterdamSan DiegoSantiago1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 205010% 100%Shaded on scale by percent.50%40%15%15%20%40%30%10%80%100%25%20%25%80%30%3%30%20%60%100%25%30%30%21%25%20%80%20%50%80%20%100%Note: Where cities report multiple targets, the longest term target is shown. City-wide emissions reduction targetsBy city, by % planned reduction over timeFig 22Ansan 20%Los AngelesMadridGreater ManchesterMontrealNaplesOsloPiacenzaSan Francisco 25%VancouverVilniusWarsawWashington, DCWonjuYokohama20%20%80%7%80%33%35%20%48%30%25%100%20%Seoul 40%24: Emissions measurement and reductionEnergy demand in buildings 11.95m Energy supply 14.68m Waste 20.92m To learn more about what specifc cities are doing to reduce city-wide greenhouse gas emissions, visitwww.cdp.net/citiesCities reporting city-wide reduction activitiesBy category, % of citiesFig 23% of citiesTransport60%Energy demand in buildings56%Waste42%Urban land use39%Energy supply38%Education25%Outdoor lighting18%Water14%Finance13% Food9%Public procurement8%Other17%Anticipated lifetime emissions reductions reported by citiesBy category (millions metric tonnes CO2e)Fig 24Other 4.78m Transport 24.65m Education 1.43mFood 1.25m Urban land use 0.98mWater 0.11mOutdoor lighting 0.05m Public procurement 0.05m Note that anticipated emissions reductions are diffcult to estimate. This data therefore refects a signifcant bias toward emissions reduction actions that are easier to quantify.Emissions measurement and reduction: 25Water: what cities are doingDublin residents will soon have to pay water charges. This will be handled by Irish Water, a newly established organization.Water: how cities are mitigating riskSydney has worked closely with a huge range of industry partners, including Sydney Water, to come up with a solid master plan that will ensure the local areas water needs are met sustainably. Sydney is thinking locally, rather than relying on large-scale remote solutions.The best solution is based on water effciency, recycled water options, and a reduction in stormwater pollution. The plan details how to bring together these solutions, where they should be located and how they will perform.WaterTo learn more about cities, climate change and water, visit www.cdp.net/cities 26: WaterRisks to municipal water supplyBy category, % of responsesFig 25% of responsesIncreased water stress or scarcity34% Declining water quality18% Flooding17% Inadequate or ageing infrastructure14% Higher water prices9% Regulatory6% Other2%Risks to municipal water supplyBy timescale, # of citiesFig 26Increased water stress or scarcityDeclining water qualityFloodingInadequate or ageing infrastructureCurrent2013Short term2014-2025Medium term2026-2050Long term2051-17 10 10 81 9 8 54 4 8 72 4 4 9Actions cities are taking to mitigate risks to water supplyBy type, # of citiesFig 27Conservation education and incentivesWater recycling and reusePolicy actionDiversifying water supplyOtherRepair infrastructureWater qualityGreenspace / watershed protectionStormwatermanagementDesalinationNew infrastructure41879991316182124Water :27AppendixResponding citiesAfricaCountryNoteNumber of responding citiesPopulationClimate change resilience plan?12 47,171,866 1,725,033 42,046,185City of Abidjan Cte dIvoire5,000,000No No NoAbuja Federal Capital Territory Nigeria 2,045,000 YesAddis Ababa City Administration Ethiopia *2,900,000Yes No NoAntananarivo Madagascar 1,363,000No NoCity of Cape Town South Africa3,700,000Yes 2007 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI)205,502 Yes Yes 2007 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI)20,550,175 Yes Yes YesVille de Douala Cameroon2,500,000Yes 2011 ISO 14064 211 No No YesCity of Durban South Africa3,468,086Yes 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)1,519,320 Yes No Yes 2011 Other 21,496,010 Yes Yes YesCity of Johannesburg South Africa * 3,888,180Yes No NoKampala City Uganda 1,659,600Yes No NoCity of Lagos Nigeria *18,000,000Yes No NoCommune de Ouagadougou Burkina Faso2,000,000 City of Pietermaritzburg South Africa 648,000Yes NoEast Asia11 44,654,9862,972,568Ansan Metropolitan Government South Korea761,279Yes YesChangwon City South Korea *1,100,000Yes 2012 Other 18,479 No No Yes NoGovernment of Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionHong Kong ^ *7,000,000/ / / / / / / / / / / /Incheon Metropolitan Government South Korea2,880,257Yes YesKaohsiung City Government Taiwan 1,525,642Yes 2012 Other 133,349 No No Yes 2011 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories63,640,300 No No YesSeoul Metropolitan Government South Korea *10,437,326Yes Yes 2010 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories49,750,736 Yes Yes YesSuwon Metropolitan Government South Korea1,132,171Yes YesTaipei City Government Taiwan2,622,883Yes No 2011 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories15,040,800 No No YesTokyo Metropolitan Government Japan * 13,184,161Yes 2011 Other 1,988,011 No Yes Yes 2010 Other 61,640,000 No No YesWonju Metropolitan Government South Korea 323,885Yes YesCity of Yokohama Japan *3,687,382No 2011 Other 832,729 No No Yes 2009 Other 19,051,000 No No YesSouth Asia / Oceania7 34,628,65456,684 69,704,706Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Thailand * 5,701,394Yes Yes NoHanoi City Vietnam *6,700,000Yes No NoHo Chi Minh City Vietnam ^ * 7,165,398/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Jakarta City Government Indonesia ^ *9,600,000/ / / / / / / / / / / / /City of Melbourne Australia * 98,162Yes 2012 Australian National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination18,414 Yes Yes Yes 2010 Other 4,155,010 Yes No YesSingapore Government Singapore * 5,183,700Yes Yes 2011 Other 4,510,000 No No YesCity of Sydney Australia *180,000No 2011 Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Public Sector Standard38,270 Yes Yes Yes 2006 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI)5,457,064 No Yes Yes28: AppendixMunicipal reporting yearMunicipal inventory methodMunicipal emissionsMetric tonnes CO2eCalculate municipal Scope 3?Municipal emissions verifed?Municipal emissions reduction target?City-wide reporting yearCity-wide inventory methodologyCity-wide emissionsMetric tonnes CO2eCalculate city-wide Scope 3?City-wide emissions verifed?City-wide emissions reduction target?12 47,171,866 1,725,033 42,046,185City of Abidjan Cte dIvoire5,000,000No No NoAbuja Federal Capital Territory Nigeria 2,045,000 YesAddis Ababa City Administration Ethiopia *2,900,000Yes No NoAntananarivo Madagascar 1,363,000No NoCity of Cape Town South Africa3,700,000Yes 2007 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI)205,502 Yes Yes 2007 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI)20,550,175 Yes Yes YesVille de Douala Cameroon2,500,000Yes 2011 ISO 14064 211 No No YesCity of Durban South Africa3,468,086Yes 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)1,519,320 Yes No Yes 2011 Other 21,496,010 Yes Yes YesCity of Johannesburg South Africa * 3,888,180Yes No NoKampala City Uganda 1,659,600Yes No NoCity of Lagos Nigeria *18,000,000Yes No NoCommune de Ouagadougou Burkina Faso2,000,000 City of Pietermaritzburg South Africa 648,000Yes No11 44,654,9862,972,568Ansan Metropolitan Government South Korea761,279Yes YesChangwon City South Korea *1,100,000Yes 2012 Other 18,479 No No Yes NoGovernment of Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionHong Kong ^ *7,000,000/ / / / / / / / / / / /Incheon Metropolitan Government South Korea2,880,257Yes YesKaohsiung City Government Taiwan 1,525,642Yes 2012 Other 133,349 No No Yes 2011 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories63,640,300 No No YesSeoul Metropolitan Government South Korea *10,437,326Yes Yes 2010 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories49,750,736 Yes Yes YesSuwon Metropolitan Government South Korea1,132,171Yes YesTaipei City Government Taiwan2,622,883Yes No 2011 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories15,040,800 No No YesTokyo Metropolitan Government Japan * 13,184,161Yes 2011 Other 1,988,011 No Yes Yes 2010 Other 61,640,000 No No YesWonju Metropolitan Government South Korea 323,885Yes YesCity of Yokohama Japan *3,687,382No 2011 Other 832,729 No No Yes 2009 Other 19,051,000 No No Yes7 34,628,65456,684 69,704,706Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Thailand * 5,701,394Yes Yes NoHanoi City Vietnam *6,700,000Yes No NoHo Chi Minh City Vietnam ^ * 7,165,398/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Jakarta City Government Indonesia ^ *9,600,000/ / / / / / / / / / / / /City of Melbourne Australia * 98,162Yes 2012 Australian National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination18,414 Yes Yes Yes 2010 Other 4,155,010 Yes No YesSingapore Government Singapore * 5,183,700Yes Yes 2011 Other 4,510,000 No No YesCity of Sydney Australia *180,000No 2011 Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Public Sector Standard38,270 Yes Yes Yes 2006 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI)5,457,064 No Yes Yes^ *Reporting privatelyC40 memberAppendix: 29Responding citiesEuropeCountryNoteNumber of responding citiesPopulationClimate change resilience plan?3059,382,733 45,411,289 248,351,641City of Amsterdam Netherlands * 747,290Yes Yes 2011 Other 5,094,000 No Yes YesCity of Athens Greece * 664,046Yes 2012 No No 2007 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories4,471,000 No Yes NoAjuntament de Barcelona Spain ^ *1,615,448/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Basel-Stadt Switzerland ^ *190,000/ / / / / / / / / / / / /City of Berlin Germany *3,438,000Yes Yes 2009 Other 20,168,000 No Yes YesBornova Municipality Turkey ^ 420,000/ / / / / / / / / / / / /City of Copenhagen Denmark * 539,542Yes Yes 2011 Other 2,124,000 No Yes YesDublin City Council Ireland 506,211Yes 2011 Other 109,250 No Yes Yes YesFree and Hanseatic City of Hamburg Germany1,812,709Yes No 2010 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories18,286,235 No No YesIstanbul Metropolitan Municipality Turkey ^ * 13,317,240/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Village of Kadiovacik Turkey 214Yes Yes 2012 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories647 No No YesCity of Lisbon Portugal547,631Yes No 2009 Other 3,189,867 No No YesGreater London Authority United Kingdom * 7,810,000Yes Yes 2010 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories44,284,675 No No YesAyuntamiento de Madrid Spain *3,253,735No No 2010 Other 12,039,000 No No YesGreater Manchester United Kingdom2,629,400Yes No 2010 Other 16,608,920 Yes No YesComune di Milano Italy ^ *1,341,830/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Moscow Government Russia *10,563,000Yes 2012 Other 43,230,745 No No Yes YesComune di Napoli Italy 1,004,500Yes Yes 2005 Other 2,913,435 Yes Yes YesComune di Oristano Italy32,400No Yes YesCity of Oslo Norway *613,000Yes 2011 Other 151,133 Yes No Yes 2011 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI)2,344,284 Yes No YesCity of Paris France * 2,257,981Yes 2011 Other 167,075 Yes No Yes 2009 Other 7,413,300 Yes Yes YesComune di Piacenza Italy 103,610No 1990 Other 21,192 No Yes 1990 Other 615,452 No YesGemeente Rotterdam Netherlands * 605,500Yes Yes 2011 Other 29,460,000 No Yes YesCity of Stockholm Sweden * 860,000Yes No 2010 Other 3,189,000 Yes Yes YesComune di Torino Italy 911,823Yes 2005 Other 5,065,364 Yes YesComune di Venezia Italy * 270,600Yes 2005 Other 76,400 No Yes Yes 2005 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories1,418,344 No Yes YesVilnius City Municipality Lithuania 523,050Yes 2011 Other 1,499,304 No Yes Yes 2011 Other 1,499,304 No Yes YesCity of Warsaw Poland *1,708,491No No 2007 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories13,304,435 No Yes YesCity of Zaragoza Spain701,887Yes No 2011 Other 3,336,447 No No YesStadt Zrich Switzerland 393,595Yes 2010 Other 1,973,200 No Yes Yes30: AppendixMunicipal reporting yearMunicipal inventory methodMunicipal emissionsMetric tonnes CO2eCalculate municipal Scope 3?Municipal emissions verifed?Municipal emissions reduction target?City-wide reporting yearCity-wide inventory methodologyCity-wide emissionsMetric tonnes CO2eCalculate city-wide Scope 3?City-wide emissions verifed?City-wide emissions reduction target?3059,382,733 45,411,289 248,351,641City of Amsterdam Netherlands * 747,290Yes Yes 2011 Other 5,094,000 No Yes YesCity of Athens Greece * 664,046Yes 2012 No No 2007 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories4,471,000 No Yes NoAjuntament de Barcelona Spain ^ *1,615,448/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Basel-Stadt Switzerland ^ *190,000/ / / / / / / / / / / / /City of Berlin Germany *3,438,000Yes Yes 2009 Other 20,168,000 No Yes YesBornova Municipality Turkey ^ 420,000/ / / / / / / / / / / / /City of Copenhagen Denmark * 539,542Yes Yes 2011 Other 2,124,000 No Yes YesDublin City Council Ireland 506,211Yes 2011 Other 109,250 No Yes Yes YesFree and Hanseatic City of Hamburg Germany1,812,709Yes No 2010 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories18,286,235 No No YesIstanbul Metropolitan Municipality Turkey ^ * 13,317,240/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Village of Kadiovacik Turkey 214Yes Yes 2012 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories647 No No YesCity of Lisbon Portugal547,631Yes No 2009 Other 3,189,867 No No YesGreater London Authority United Kingdom * 7,810,000Yes Yes 2010 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories44,284,675 No No YesAyuntamiento de Madrid Spain *3,253,735No No 2010 Other 12,039,000 No No YesGreater Manchester United Kingdom2,629,400Yes No 2010 Other 16,608,920 Yes No YesComune di Milano Italy ^ *1,341,830/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Moscow Government Russia *10,563,000Yes 2012 Other 43,230,745 No No Yes YesComune di Napoli Italy 1,004,500Yes Yes 2005 Other 2,913,435 Yes Yes YesComune di Oristano Italy32,400No Yes YesCity of Oslo Norway *613,000Yes 2011 Other 151,133 Yes No Yes 2011 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI)2,344,284 Yes No YesCity of Paris France * 2,257,981Yes 2011 Other 167,075 Yes No Yes 2009 Other 7,413,300 Yes Yes YesComune di Piacenza Italy 103,610No 1990 Other 21,192 No Yes 1990 Other 615,452 No YesGemeente Rotterdam Netherlands * 605,500Yes Yes 2011 Other 29,460,000 No Yes YesCity of Stockholm Sweden * 860,000Yes No 2010 Other 3,189,000 Yes Yes YesComune di Torino Italy 911,823Yes 2005 Other 5,065,364 Yes YesComune di Venezia Italy * 270,600Yes 2005 Other 76,400 No Yes Yes 2005 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories1,418,344 No Yes YesVilnius City Municipality Lithuania 523,050Yes 2011 Other 1,499,304 No Yes Yes 2011 Other 1,499,304 No Yes YesCity of Warsaw Poland *1,708,491No No 2007 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories13,304,435 No Yes YesCity of Zaragoza Spain701,887Yes No 2011 Other 3,336,447 No No YesStadt Zrich Switzerland 393,595Yes 2010 Other 1,973,200 No Yes Yes^ *Reporting privatelyC40 memberAppendix: 31Responding citiesNorth AmericaCountryNoteNumber of responding citiesPopulationClimate change resilience plan?Municipal reporting yearMunicipal inventory method27 36,623,791 24,056,515 281,366,212City of Atlanta USA 432,427Yes 2010 Other 512,406 No No Yes 2010 Other 9,650,000 Yes Yes YesCity of Austin USA *812,025No 2012 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)75,130 No No Yes NoCity of Baltimore USA 621,074 Yes No 2010 Other 7,579,144 Yes YesCity of Chicago USA * 2,833,321Yes 2012 Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Public Sector Standard No No Yes 2010 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 33,545,577 No Yes YesCity of Cleveland USA 393,806No 2010-12Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)387,331 Yes No Yes 2010 US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting 12,892,686 Yes No NoCity of Dallas USA 1,197,816 2010 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)402,560 No No Yes 2010 US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting 17,229,388 No No NoCity of Denver USA600,158No Yes 2011 Other 9,161,000 Yes No YesCity of Detroit USA 707,000No 2010 Other 2,189,984 No No No NoCity of Edina USA 47,941 No 2007 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)25,172 Yes No NoCity of Houston USA * 2,100,000No 2010 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)1,227,491 Yes No Yes NoCity of Las Vegas USA 583,756Yes 2012 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 91,904 No No Yes NoCity of Los Angeles USA *4,065,585Yes 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)12,002,077 No No Yes 2010 Other 33,935,814 Yes No YesCity of Miami USA 408,750 Yes 2007 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)81,327 Yes No Yes 2006 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI)4,762,364 No No YesCity of Minneapolis USA 387,753Yes 2011 US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting 4,735,289 Yes No YesVille de Montral Canada1,886,481 No 2010 Other 116,630 Yes No Yes 2009 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 13,722,942 Yes No YesCity of New Orleans USA ^ * 343,829/ / / / / / / / / / / / /New York City USA *8,336,697Yes 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)3,295,720 Yes Yes Yes 2011 US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting 53,358,868 Yes Yes YesCity of Philadelphia USA * 1,555,000Yes 2010 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)482,390 No No Yes 2010 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 19,780,964 Yes No YesCity of Phoenix USA 1,500,000No 2005 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)590,961 Yes Yes Yes NoCity of Portland, OregonUSA *566,143No 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)79,452 Yes No Yes 2011 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI)7,773,812 Yes No YesCity of San Diego USA1,301,617Yes 2009 Other 139,752 No No Yes 2009 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 12,624,227 No No YesCity of San FranciscoUSA *815,358Yes 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)208,401 No Yes Yes 2011 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 5,058,389 Yes Yes YesCity of San Jose USA ^971,464/ / / / / / / / / / / / /City of St Louis USA319,294Yes 2010 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)285,425 Yes No Yes 2010 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 7,506,359 Yes No YesCity of Toronto Canada * 2,615,000Yes 2011 Other 573,125 Yes No Yes 2011 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI)20,662,821 Yes No YesCity of Vancouver Canada * 603,500Yes 2012 Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Public Sector Standard 333,541 Yes No Yes 2012 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI)2,686,164 No No YesWashington, DC USA *617,996No 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)527,811 No No Yes Yes32: AppendixMunicipal emissionsMetric tonnes CO2eCalculate municipal Scope 3?Municipal emissions verifed?Municipal emissions reduction target?City-wide reporting yearCity-wide inventory methodologyCity-wide emissionsMetric tonnes CO2eCalculate city-wide Scope 3?City-wide emissions verifed?City-wide emissions reduction target?27 36,623,791 24,056,515 281,366,212City of Atlanta USA 432,427Yes 2010 Other 512,406 No No Yes 2010 Other 9,650,000 Yes Yes YesCity of Austin USA *812,025No 2012 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)75,130 No No Yes NoCity of Baltimore USA 621,074 Yes No 2010 Other 7,579,144 Yes YesCity of Chicago USA * 2,833,321Yes 2012 Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Public Sector Standard No No Yes 2010 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 33,545,577 No Yes YesCity of Cleveland USA 393,806No 2010-12Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)387,331 Yes No Yes 2010 US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting 12,892,686 Yes No NoCity of Dallas USA 1,197,816 2010 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)402,560 No No Yes 2010 US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting 17,229,388 No No NoCity of Denver USA600,158No Yes 2011 Other 9,161,000 Yes No YesCity of Detroit USA 707,000No 2010 Other 2,189,984 No No No NoCity of Edina USA 47,941 No 2007 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)25,172 Yes No NoCity of Houston USA * 2,100,000No 2010 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)1,227,491 Yes No Yes NoCity of Las Vegas USA 583,756Yes 2012 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 91,904 No No Yes NoCity of Los Angeles USA *4,065,585Yes 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)12,002,077 No No Yes 2010 Other 33,935,814 Yes No YesCity of Miami USA 408,750 Yes 2007 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)81,327 Yes No Yes 2006 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI)4,762,364 No No YesCity of Minneapolis USA 387,753Yes 2011 US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting 4,735,289 Yes No YesVille de Montral Canada1,886,481 No 2010 Other 116,630 Yes No Yes 2009 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 13,722,942 Yes No YesCity of New Orleans USA ^ * 343,829/ / / / / / / / / / / / /New York City USA *8,336,697Yes 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)3,295,720 Yes Yes Yes 2011 US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting 53,358,868 Yes Yes YesCity of Philadelphia USA * 1,555,000Yes 2010 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)482,390 No No Yes 2010 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 19,780,964 Yes No YesCity of Phoenix USA 1,500,000No 2005 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)590,961 Yes Yes Yes NoCity of Portland, OregonUSA *566,143No 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)79,452 Yes No Yes 2011 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI)7,773,812 Yes No YesCity of San Diego USA1,301,617Yes 2009 Other 139,752 No No Yes 2009 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 12,624,227 No No YesCity of San FranciscoUSA *815,358Yes 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)208,401 No Yes Yes 2011 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 5,058,389 Yes Yes YesCity of San Jose USA ^971,464/ / / / / / / / / / / / /City of St Louis USA319,294Yes 2010 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)285,425 Yes No Yes 2010 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI) 7,506,359 Yes No YesCity of Toronto Canada * 2,615,000Yes 2011 Other 573,125 Yes No Yes 2011 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI)20,662,821 Yes No YesCity of Vancouver Canada * 603,500Yes 2012 Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Public Sector Standard 333,541 Yes No Yes 2012 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI)2,686,164 No No YesWashington, DC USA *617,996No 2011 Local Government Operations Protocol (ICLEI/The Climate Registry/California Climate Action Registry/California Air Resources Board)527,811 No No Yes Yes^ *Reporting privatelyC40 memberAppendix: 33Responding citiesLatin AmericaCountryNoteNumber of responding citiesPopulationClimate change resilience plan?2374,009,341 7,030,186 128,878,542Municpio de Aparecida Brazil35,000Yes No NoAlcadia Distrital de Barranquilla Colombia ^1,186,865/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Municipality of Belo Horizonte Brazil2,375,151Yes No 2010 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI)2,878,873 No No YesBogot Distrito Capital Colombia * 7,155,052Yes 2012 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories15,757,162 No No YesCity of Buenos Aires Argentina * 2,891,082Yes 2010 Other 552,541 No No Yes 2010 Other 9,813,933 Yes No YesSantiago de Cali Colombia2,269,630No 2000 2,534,598 No No No 2011 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories4,664,731 No No NoMunicipality of Campinas Brazil ^ 1,080,113/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Alcalda Metropolitana de Caracas Venezuela *3,220,540Yes No 2011 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories17,213,803 Yes No NoMunicipality of Curitiba Brazil * 1,800,000No No NoCity of Goinia Brazil ^1,301,892/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Santiago de Guayaquil Ecuador 2,350,915Yes No NoPrefeitura Municipal de Jaguar Brazil24,678Yes No NoMetropolitan Municipality of Lima Peru *7,824,027Yes No NoMunicipalidad de Magdalena del Mar Peru50,764No 2011 Other 572 Yes Yes No NoMexico City Mexico * 8,851,080 Yes 2010 Other 3,899,890 Yes No No 2010 Other 26,232,831 No No NoMunicipalid de Montevideo Uruguay 1,319,108Yes 2006 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI)42,585 No Yes No 2006 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories4,242,000 No Yes NoMunicipality of Porto Alegre Brazil1,409,351Yes No NoMunicipality of Recife Brazil 1,537,704Yes No NoPrefeitura do Rio de Janeiro Brazil *6,323,037Yes No 2005 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories11,351,700 Yes No YesCity of Salvador Brazil ^2,675,656/ / / / / / / / / / / / /San Salvador El Salvador316,090No No NoRegin Metropolitana de Santiago Chile *6,685,685Yes 2009 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories19,592,190 Yes Yes YesPrefeitura de So Paulo Brazil * 11,376,685No Yes 2009 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories15,115,000 No No Yes34: Appendix^ *Reporting privatelyC40 memberAccounted for in the population of Lima for regional population numberMunicipal reporting yearMunicipal inventory methodMunicipal emissionsMetric tonnes CO2eCalculate municipal Scope 3?Municipal emissions verifed?Municipal emissions reduction target?City-wide reporting yearCity-wide inventory methodologyCity-wide emissionsMetric tonnes CO2eCalculate city-wide Scope 3?City-wide emissions verifed?City-wide emissions reduction target?2374,009,341 7,030,186 128,878,542Municpio de Aparecida Brazil35,000Yes No NoAlcadia Distrital de Barranquilla Colombia ^1,186,865/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Municipality of Belo Horizonte Brazil2,375,151Yes No 2010 Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GPC) Pilot Version 1.0 (C40 and ICLEI)2,878,873 No No YesBogot Distrito Capital Colombia * 7,155,052Yes 2012 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories15,757,162 No No YesCity of Buenos Aires Argentina * 2,891,082Yes 2010 Other 552,541 No No Yes 2010 Other 9,813,933 Yes No YesSantiago de Cali Colombia2,269,630No 2000 2,534,598 No No No 2011 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories4,664,731 No No NoMunicipality of Campinas Brazil ^ 1,080,113/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Alcalda Metropolitana de Caracas Venezuela *3,220,540Yes No 2011 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories17,213,803 Yes No NoMunicipality of Curitiba Brazil * 1,800,000No No NoCity of Goinia Brazil ^1,301,892/ / / / / / / / / / / / /Santiago de Guayaquil Ecuador 2,350,915Yes No NoPrefeitura Municipal de Jaguar Brazil24,678Yes No NoMetropolitan Municipality of Lima Peru *7,824,027Yes No NoMunicipalidad de Magdalena del Mar Peru50,764No 2011 Other 572 Yes Yes No NoMexico City Mexico * 8,851,080 Yes 2010 Other 3,899,890 Yes No No 2010 Other 26,232,831 No No NoMunicipalid de Montevideo Uruguay 1,319,108Yes 2006 International Emissions Analysis Protocol (ICLEI)42,585 No Yes No 2006 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories4,242,000 No Yes NoMunicipality of Porto Alegre Brazil1,409,351Yes No NoMunicipality of Recife Brazil 1,537,704Yes No NoPrefeitura do Rio de Janeiro Brazil *6,323,037Yes No 2005 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories11,351,700 Yes No YesCity of Salvador Brazil ^2,675,656/ / / / / / / / / / / / /San Salvador El Salvador316,090No No NoRegin Metropolitana de Santiago Chile *6,685,685Yes 2009 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories19,592,190 Yes Yes YesPrefeitura de So Paulo Brazil * 11,376,685No Yes 2009 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories15,115,000 No No YesImagery and graphics creditsAerial images of participating cities sourced by AECOM via Shutterstock. CoverNew York2Hanoi6London, Los Angeles7Abidjan, Stockholm8Las Vegas, Bangkok13Singapore, So Paulo14Toronto, Cape Town16Singapore, Lisbon22Seoul-Incheon, Seoul23Manchester26Dublin, SydneyBack coverNew YorkGraphic design and information charts by AECOM (Daniel Elsea, Louis Webb Bird). Important noticeThe contents of this report may be used by anyone providing acknowledgement is given to CDP. This does not represent a license to repackage or resell any of the data reported to CDP and presented in this report. If you intend to do this, you need to obtain express written permission from CDP before doing so.CDP and AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) prepared the data and analysis in this report based on responses to CDP Cities 2013 information request. CDP and AECOM do not guarantee the accuracy of completeness of this information.CDP and AECOM make no representation or warranty, express or implied, and accept no liability of any kind in relation to the report including concerning the fairness, accuracy, or completeness of the information and/or opinions or other data contained herein. All opinions expressed herein by CDP and/or AECOM are based on their judgment at the time of this report and are subject to change without notice due to economic, political, industry, and frm-specifc factors. Guest commentaries, where included in this report, refect the views of their respective authors. CDP and AECOM and their affliated member frms or companies, or their respective shareholders, agents, members, partners, principals, directors, offcers, and/or employees, may have a position in the securities discussed herein.The securities mentioned in this document may not be eligible for sale in some states or countries, nor are they suitable for all types of investors; their value and the income they produce may fuctuate and/or be adversely affected by exchange rates. CDP refers to Carbon Disclosure Project, a United Kingdom company limited by guarantee, registered as a United Kingdom charity number 1122330. AECOM is a global provider of professional technical and management support services to a broad range of markets, including design, planning, environment and infrastructure. Through their work, they create, enhance and sustain the worlds built, natural and social environments.Appendix: 35CDP contacts Paul Dickinson Executive ChairmanPaul Simpson Chief Executive OffcerNigel Topping Chief Innovation OffcerAuthors Conor Riffe Head of CitiesKyra Appleby Account ManagerPauline Martin Project OffcerCDP 40 Bowling Green Lane London EC1R 0NE United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 20 7970 5660 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7691 7316 www.cdp.net [email protected] @CDPCDP Board of Trustees Chair: Alan Brown SchrodersBen Goldsmith WHEB GroupChris Page Rockefeller Philanthropy AdvisorsTakejiro SueyoshiJeremy Smith Berkeley EnergyChristoph Schrder TVM CapitalTessa Tennant The Ice OrganisationMartin Wise Relationship Capital PartnersAECOM team Gary Lawrence Chief Sustainability OffcerClaire Bonham-Carter Director of Sustainable Development Alexander Quinn Director of Sustainable EconomicsVanessa Lauf EconomistDavid Levin Sustainability Consultant Daniel Elsea Creative DirectorContactClaire Bonham-Carter AECOM +1 415 955 2800 [email protected] www.aecom.com/News/Sustainability Lead SponsorsC40 team Amanda Eichel Director of Initiatives and City SupportSeth Schultz Director of ResearchKerem Yilmaz Director of Research ProjectsMichael Marinello Director of CommunicationsBrooke Russell Director of Communications, Editorial and Content