Relationship with SUMP guidelines

Looking at the SUMP guidelines, Step 2.3.2 is closely related to Phase I ‘Preparing well’ - Step 1 ‘Determine your potential for a successful SUMP’ - Activity 1.3 ‘Conduct self-assessment’ and Step 2 ‘Define the development process and scope of plan’ - Activity 2.2 ‘Strive for policy coordination and an integrated planning approach’ - Step 3 ‘Analyse the mobility situation and develop scenarios’ - Activity 3.1 ‘Prepare an analysis of problems and opportunities’ - Activity 3.2 ‘Develop scenarios’.

Relationship with SECAP guidelines

Data collection of data is a critical part of SEAP/SECAP, as described in the guidelines ‘How to develop a Sustainable Energy Action Plan Guidebook part 2’, chapters 4.2.2.

Sharing data among departments within the same local authority may appear obvious, however experi­ence shows that creating a common data repository (with a more or less complex form, ranging from a shared folder system to a proper database) and common standards for data collection and storage may well prove a challenge and a very much needed procedural innovation. Lack of coordination among different departments in the same city quite often leads to collecting the same data twice, using different measurement units and standards for data storage. Collecting data for the elaboration and/or moni­toring of SECAPs and SUMPs presents common, often overlapping fields and actions as well as significant differ­ences related to procedures and methodologies (e.g. gath­ering data from existing sources rather than implementing direct measurements on the ground). This translates into the opportunity to exploit economies of scale, avoid dupli­cations and use more refined data when available.

A typical example is collecting traffic-related CO2 emissions in an area using actual vehicle counting data, which is typical for the elaboration of a SUMP or data on fuel sold in a specific territory, often available only at a county level (as typically used in SECAP elaboration). The comparison of two sets of data, acquired by different methods, can help to identify e. g. discrepancies between fuels sold and vehicles actually circulating in an area. In case of significant discrepancies, a choice may be made to opt for the more detailed and reliable information, which may be the one gathered on the ground. Different techniques and methodologies typically have (sometimes significantly) different costs. Exploiting interdepartmental synergies and choosing wisely where to invest for data gathering may help choose the least cost-intensive way to retrieve reliable data.

One additional feature related to data gathering and sharing is the opportunity to have relevant support from a range of local actors and stakeholders, providing data and information they may have due to their institutional functions. In return, the exchange of information and knowledge provided by other parties may prove as beneficial to the stakeholders involved in the process.

The data on energy consumption used to define the BEI in SECAP have to be consistent with data identified in SUMP’s initial assessment (Step1). More specifically, data on energy consumption for vehicles have to be consistent with the empirical and simulation results typically available and necessary for SUMP's elaboration and monitoring.

SIMPLA, therefore, suggests to compare CO2 emissions resulting from both SECAP and SUMP data collecting methods. The output of this comparison process should be a common methodology to evaluate CO2 emissions, ensuring the same CO2 emissions values in the same year in the two plans at least for the overlapping sectors (e.g. private transport CO2 emissions). Taking into account that the BEI defined at the time of the submission of the SECAP to the CoMO cannot be changed and has to be the baseline for the following emission inventories in the monitoring process, for the purpose of the harmonization process an alternative new BEI (Baseline Emission Inventory) can be defined, choosing a base year coinciding with the year of the initial scenario of the SUMP.

In order to obtain a correct emissions evaluation for both plans, the same set of CO2 emission factors should be used. Whether you decide to use standard IPCC (based on the carbon content of each fuel), or LCA emission factors (taking into consideration the overall life cycle of the energy carrier), SIMPLA suggests to use those the “CoM Default . for the Member States of the European Union”1.

In order to optimize data collection needed to elaborate context analyses, BEI/MEI, actions’ impacts, initial and future scenarios, a shared database of mail contacts and site links should be created by the harmonization team. This database should be made available to the various departments, putting each of them in charge of specific data collection, saving time and trying to avoid duplications.

One possible technique to tackle this step is the following. Identify the reference years of the data contained or cited in the plans; evaluate the congruence of data (if referring to comparable periods); compare data sources and processing methods where available. Formulate written proposals for alignment of datasets reference years and sources; if necessary modify data values in the plans. Produce an activity report, including a table compiled on the basis of the indications above.

Based on the results of this step, it is possible to re-address the previous step involving policy-makers.


Example: systematic approach for tracking energy efficiency

Croatia has introduced two national internet platforms for monitoring energy efficiency development: one is ISGE, a dynamic software for measuring actual energy consumption in public buildings, and the other is SMIV, a monitoring platform intended for registering all savings. ISGE, or eng. EMIS – Energy management information system – was developed under the United Nations Development Programme in Croatia, which undertook the first brave steps into a more energy efficient public sector. ISGE was introduced to all public buildings and monitors their energy consumption through energy bills for electricity, heating and water. The system is currently run manually, meaning that each public building has a designated person who enters the bills on a monthly basis. Municipalities use this platform widely when developing SECAPs.

The other Internet platform that has been introduced is the National System for Monitoring, Measuring and Verifying Energy Savings (Croat. SMIV), through which all realized energy savings are monitored at a national level. Croatia is one of the first EU countries that have a system for planning and monitoring the implementation and notification on the realization of all savings. SMIV is being used by state institutions, local and regional governments, energy service providers and the Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund. SMIV monitors the implementation of projects and energy efficiency measures in all sectors of final consumption (households, utility, transport, industry) and the realization of energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions reductions set in the national and local energy plans.


1. Make reference to version 2017 downloadable at dataset/jrc-com-ef-comw-ef-2017(please check JRC website for future updates) Source: Guidelines ‘Developing and implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan’ European Common (2014)