Relationship with SUMP guidelines

Independently from the starting context, any harmonization process should result in two aligned and homogeneous plans (a SUMP and a SECAP), along with the necessary elements and prescriptions to stay harmonized over time, during their implementation and monitoring/ evaluation phases. As for all processes, this needs to be attentively observed and controlled in order to avoid dis-alignments (e.g. one of the plans being modified without the subsequent modifications occurring in the other).

Looking at the SUMP guidelines, Step 2.5 is closely related to Phase III ‘Elaborating the plan’ - Step 11 ‘Learn the lessons’ - Activity 11.1 ‘Update current plan regularly’, Activity 11.2 ‘Review achievements – understand success and failure’ and Activity 11.3 ‘Identify new challenges for next SUMP generation’.

Relationship with SECAP guidelines

Step 2.5 is closely related to the ‘review’ of a SEAP/SECAP referred to as ‘review’ in the guidelines ‘How to develop a Sustainable Energy Action Plan Guidebook part 1’ chapter 1.4.

This chapter explains how to plan for updating and continuation.


Every 2 years (according to the SECAP and SUMP harmonized monitoring plan) a joint review of the plans should be done by the harmonization team, following the same steps described for the initial harmonization.

The actual frequency depends on the land use planning, political, legislative, and technical context. The rationale is to focus on reviewing the achievements of the SECAP and SUMP assessing both the broader impact on energy sustainability and mobility and the effectiveness of the planning process itself. This helps to provide a sound basis for the next planning cycle.

The aims of this step are:

  • Assessment of the broader impact of the measures implemented (when a sufficient number of results is available).
  • Analysis of the planning process, the actual plans and their implementation with an eye to success stories and failures.
  • Enhancement of the understanding of the planning process and overall impact of implemented measures.
  • Documentation of lessons learned to prepare for the next SECAP or SUMP generation.
  • Listing of objectives that could not be reached, but are still on the agenda.
  • Communication of the “lessons learnt” to the harmonization team and key stakeholders.
  • Consolidation of planning framework.

The experience from countries where sustainable urban mobility planning has been mandatory for some years shows that each planning cycle helps improve the expertise on sustainable urban mobility planning and to increase the effectiveness of the next planning cycle.

The process evaluation can use participatory observation, focus groups, and interviews. The updating phase for either SECAP or SUMP is the suitable stage to undertake the harmonization activity with the other plan.


Expected output:
  • Document: Plan for communication