City Administration 

- Leadership 
- Societal engagement 
- Policy, programmes, capacity building 


City Associations and 
Networks 

- Collaboration mechanisms 
- Benchmarking 
- Experience sharing and dissemination 


Industry 

- Innovations 
- Solutions 
- Research resources 
- New business models 


Academia / RTOs / EERA 

- Insight development, research capability, scientific support along the 
entire value chain 
- Independent validation 
- Dissemination 
- Discussion forum 


Society 

- Ideas, opinion, feedback 
- Engagement on service operations 




 

To help ensure that all these parties come together in a more coordinated manner, we recommend: 

i. Effective action will require a continued platform for action at European level. In turn this 
will require a continued important role for the European Commission to host such a 
platform and support stakeholder coordination. 
ii. The ”Stakeholder Platform for Smart Cities and Communities” plays an increasingly 
prominent role in supporting the necessary coordination and communication activities, and 
that further definition and communication of this role is established. 
iii. Increased coordination between existing and planned initiatives on urban-specific actions 
will help to utilise synergies, specifically with regard to: 
a. Different EU policy packages and initiatives of relevance to sustainable urban 
development 
b. The reference framework for sustainable cities which is supported by DG REGIO, as 
well as other initiatives taken to date, for instance the Covenant of Mayors, CIVITAS, 
Green Digital Charter, and the like 
c. Links to other EIPs of relevance, such as Active and Healthy Aging EIP; 





12.2.3 Country Smart City Landscaping and Bench-learning 

Each Member State is approaching the topic of smart cities from a different angle, and applying 
different instruments (regulation, policy, programmes, funding, etc.) to develop their market and 
improve their cities. Some differences are logical, given the context and maturity of each Member 
State. However the opportunity to share approaches in a more structured fashion can help Member 
States develop better plans more swiftly – delivering the “European advantage”. 

To support this process the annex of the OIP will outline a brief profile for each Member State that 
captures known key points regarding the context and approach being taken. It is seen to be a 
pragmatic first start; not intended as a firm and accurate reflection of matters within these 
countries. 

Specific recommended actions to support this (inter-)national level comparison and learning include: 

i. Develop a more robust comparison framework; and populate with more accurate 
information and data 
ii. Promote increased open experience sharing – via public, industry, academia, and association 
means – about what works and does not work for particular contexts 
iii. Feed the insights from such exercises into EU policy and regulatory processes; national; and 
city-level actions 


12.2.4 “Kite Mark” recognition 

To help instil greater confidence from all stakeholders (including city residents), the idea of a ’kite 
mark’ for smart projects is proposed. The benefit of such an approach will also include fulfilling 
important political and societal motives. 

Specifically, it is recommended to: 

i. Design a means by which a ’kite mark’ approach for smart initiatives can be implemented in 
an effective and efficient manner. This could include less formal as well as more formal 
certification means, as appropriate 
ii. Link this initiative to ongoing knowledge management and dissemination plans 
iii. Exploit existing and new urban networks, and the city conferences and events, in 
implementation 


12.2.5 Events and Marketing 

A growing number of city conferences and events are now taking place – with multiple sources, and 
of variable quality. This is both a good thing – it raises awareness; and bad – they compete for 
stretched resources. On balance however, this setting presents a very valuable asset for us to 
support the goals of the EIP; and disseminate actions resulting from it. 

Current events may be national, European, and global in attendance. They also straddle a number of 
‘smart’ themes and city domains – thus engaging different functional experts. Some of which well 
served (notably e.g. ICT); some perhaps less so, or are presently supported by function-specific 
events which may reduce the opportunity to deal with cross-functional opportunities (which are at 
the heart of many of the OIP actions). 

The goal is to maximise the means by which we can exploit existing events, and establish key new 
ones. 

In addition, the use of multi-media to increase reach, personalise and generally enhance 
communications and dissemination is vital to coordinate as best possible. 

Specific actions that can help support our cause include: 


i. Set up an action group as part of the EIP that is specifically charged with addressing this 
theme 
ii. Develop an EU Smart City brand and associated messaging 
iii. Set in place social media plans for EU Smart Cities 
iv. Map the (smart) city event calendar – working with networks that may already have such 
data – to assess which are most impactful, and which we should seek to increase 
engagement with 
v. identify which international events to proactively support, and how best to position a 
coordinated message (notably that will help share leading EU city practices, and support EU 
industry exportation) 
vi. Identify which professions / themes / audiences are insufficiently served by events and 
marketing; and propose corrective action 
vii. Use the EIP HLG and Sherpa members to promote messaging 
viii. Develop clear goals and targets on all above and establish a suitable monitoring mechanism 


12.2.6 Progress Monitoring 

Given the scale and complexity of what the EIP on Smart Cities seeks to accomplish, it is vital that 
there are some very clear (and ambitious) goals set, which engage city officials, industry, and other 
stakeholders. 

However, more attention and work is needed in this field to generate widely agreed approaches to 
progress monitoring. 

i. It is recommended that, early in the EIP cycle, attention and resource is put to developing 
this area. A High-Level Group champion / sponsor for this can support ownership, visibility 
and goal monitoring within that community. The output should include a clear programme 
goals; an easy to communicate roadmap; principles that will underpin programme success; 
and a mechanism and resource by which we will demonstrate that. 


12.2.7 Funding 

All the above does not come without resource input. 

EIP: Although no funding instrument, the EIP can ensure a programmatic approach to coordinate the 
overall EIP activities – particularly for initial communication and mobilisation, and later 
dissemination, is a significant task. Central coordination, with federated action, will help ensure 
success. 

Funding of City Initiatives: The funding of the collaborative and federated actions by city 
stakeholders is dealt with through various other initiatives – some of which are EU funds such as 
H2020 Calls, Structural Funds; and others as yet to be determined – a growing number through 
other funding means. This too is not trivial, particularly in the context of European cities of which 
many operate under severe fragmented and constrained budgets. However many also recognise the 
need and potential to address the ’smart’ agenda and often seek seed funding to inform their 
strategies and kick-start their programmes. A successful implementation of the EIP and the related 
commitments under the Invitation for Commitments will largely depend on how funds, and 
particularly access to private finance, can be made available to such stakeholders. 

i. It is recommended that the various means by which funding can be made available is made 
very much simpler to comprehend for city stakeholders – most notably the modest sized 
cities and European SME community. The innovative SME instruments under H2020 are of 
particular relevance in this context. 


 


13 Conclusion 

This OIP and the SIP, of which it seeks to serve, are means to engage, develop and share ideas, and 
build momentum for smart cities across Europe. This is vital for the quality of life in Europe's cities 
and the overall well-being of its citizens, and also of very significant importance for the vitality of 
European businesses – notably also as they seek to compete on a global stage. 

The profound challenges that we face in Europe: dwindling resources; increasing cost of resources 
(energy); aging city infrastructures and stretched budgets; are all very good reasons for us to put 
priority to our endeavours on smart cities. 

The vast potential that integrating technologies across the ICT, energy and mobility and transport 
sector can bring to a city present a very good reason in itself, too! 

European cities and companies alike are ideally positioned to benefit from this smart cities dynamic 
– assuming we take appropriate speedy action. 

. Our society is increasingly engaged and motivated to play an active part 
. We have access to enormous research and innovation capacities 
. Europe’s location as well as its rich culture; its varying levels of maturity – all provide high 
relevance to countries worldwide. This can offer great potential for European industry and 
innovative SMEs. 


The EIP is founded on some key and explicit objectives: to accelerate development; to act at scale; 
to demonstrate impact; and in so doing ensure greater collaboration cross-city and sector, and seek 
common solutions. These must be forefront in all our actions towards making the political objectives 
real: a significant improvement of citizens' quality of life; an increased competitiveness of Europe's 
industry and innovative SMEs, together with a strong contribution to sustainability and the EU’s 
20/20/20 energy and climate targets (Strategic Implementation Plan, p. 3). 

We have embarked on a new process for partnering cities and communities with innovative 
companies and other partners through this EIP. It can be the start of a new phase in Europe’s urban 
development journey and warrants commitment to ensure that the start of the journey will be one 
sufficient city stakeholders join, that momentum will be built, and that it can be sustained over time. 

Perhaps the most important ingredient however is very human, and involves a new way of leading 
this: both institutionally, and individually. That involves a personal choice that we can all take! 

 


Annexes 

Annex A: Local Ecosystems – a framework 

 

Introduction 

Annex A further elaborates on the framework of the Local Ecosystem described in chapter 7 on 
Business Models, Finance & Procurement. The annex aims to provide the reader with a more 
practical overview of key characteristics and a set of essential ingredients to create and maintain a 
Local Ecosystem. 

Local Ecosystem 

Definition: 

A local ecosystem is a market place on city level, in which prosumers, local and global industries and 
governments participate in order to achieve value. These values can be financial or non-financial, 
such as air quality, use of public space, social interaction and other forms of quality of live. The 
difference between a traditional market and a local ecosystem is that a traditional market is defined 
by two roles: the supplier and the customer. The ecosystem combines more roles and integrates 
private and public investments, public and private services, consumption and production, education, 
job creation and a governance model to integrate all participating stakeholders in a combined 
business model. 

Local government: How can the local government help create a Local Ecosystem? 

i) Participate in the local ecosystem: develop, join, share vision and show commitment to this 
vision; 
ii) Enable projects on a local scale, both financially and legal, and adopt results; 
iii) Promote achievements; 
iv) Invitation for next steps; 


Criteria for projects: The aim of the project must be to define and implement the business model for 
the local ecosystem. For a project to create a local ecosystem it needs to have: 

i) A clear view on the governance entity (including all relevant stakeholders); 
ii) A local goal on a well-defined issue; 
iii) A clear view on the motives of each participant; 
iv) Commitment of the local government. 


Risk management: There are several instruments a local government can use to reduce risks. For 
example: 

i) Create a sufficient period for the return on investment; 
If the business case is viable for a longer period (e.g. 7 years instead of 3 years), long term 
licenses will help. See the case “large scale insulation” and “car sharing”. 
ii) Facilitate in lower interest rate; 


If the interest rate in common business will be 10% (personal loan) a guarantee or 
participation in a revolving fund may lower this to below 5%. See the case “large scale 
insulation”. 

iii) Create a local open market; 


If the required business model must give a solution for many participants, using the same 
infrastructure, data or delivery organization, a trusted third party is needed. The local 
government can start this TTP, or create the regulations and licenses for this TTP. See the 
case “car sharing” and “last mile logistics” as an example. 

iv) Enable replicability; 



If the companies involved need to invest in solutions, it will help them to have more cities 
where they can sell their solution. Cities can exchange solutions and by doing this, they can 
help these companies in finding new costumers. In the case “last mile logistics” the 
software development involved is an example where a larger market helps lowering the 
costs. 

Governance entity 

Definition: 

Governance Entities (GEs) manage information flows among stakeholders, 
collecting/aggregating/processing data related to value-added processes in smart cities. GEs also 
include the capacity to certify data in terms of quality and integrity with reference to defined 
criteria, enabling innovative financial mechanisms (e.g. smart bonds, crowd-funding, etc.). Local 
Ecosystems are key to initiate the building of GEs, since they enable the clustering of defined 
Stakeholders (including citizens) along value creating chains, generating tangible results and raising 
awareness among players of the smart initiatives. Local Ecosystems are attractive for investors, and 
can be used by local bodies and municipalities as a catalyst to start innovative “smart” policies. 

Criteria for the governance entity: A local ecosystem has a viable governance structure if the 
following elements are operational in the total governance entity: 

i) Promoter body; 
ii) Achieving body; 
iii) Financial institute; 
iv) Guarantor body; 
v) Certification authority. 


Promoter Bodies 
Bodies which promote the implementation of smart initiatives (infrastructures, new services, etc.). 
These bodies can be national authorities, administrative bodies, government agencies, large private 
investors, etc. 

Achieving Bodies 
Bodies which are in charge of physically building infrastructures and smart services and of ensuring 
efficiency in the course of time. These entities can be businesses, construction companies, etc. 

Financial Institutions 
Institutions whose task is to aggregate flows of investment by private capital, through the PPP 
mechanisms. Such entities can be banks, foundations, capitals managing bodies, large private 
investors, etc. 

Guarantor Bodies 
Bodies through systems of insurance policies provide coverage of private investments made through 
PPP mechanisms. These bodies can be Insurance agencies, National Banks, International Banks, 
Capitals management bodies, Foundations, managers of programs and / or national and European 
investment funds, etc. 

Certification Authorities 

On a higher level a certification authority can be defined, to evaluate the local ecosystem and ensure 
the re-usability throughout Europe. By creating an independent certification, private and public 
funding can be made easier. The certification authority could be organized on a national level or on a 
regional level, depending on the existing national structure. Certification authorities are able to 
provide the information necessary to evaluate the quality and the sustainability of a smart initiative. 
Sensitive data and information are certified and protected on behalf of investors. Data are related to 
integrate-managed cluster of stakeholders. Certification Authorities can be created as smart new 
companies. 


Annex B: Example cases of Local Ecosystems 

 

Introduction 

Annex B includes five exemplar cases of a Local Ecosystem as referred to in chapter 7 on Business 
Models, Finance & Procurement. The cases illustrate the framework described in Annex A. For each 
of the cases the common goal, issues, basic concept, stakeholders involved, initiator, role of the 
government, contract(s) and financing is shortly described. 

Case: Large Scale Insulation 

Common goal 

Reduce residential energy usage. 

Issues 

Investment too high for private owners, insecure about quality of insulation. For 
landlords issue of split incentive. 

Basic concept 

Lower energy cost, but pay back investment solved in monthly pay through 
energy bill, so monthly cash out will be the same during payback period (7-10 
years). After that lower cost. Create total solution with advice, quality control 
and a revolving fund with low interest. 

Stakeholders involved 

Utility, local government, local installation companies, banks and citizens 

Initiator 

(Local) government, trusted third party 

Role of government 

Financial guarantee in revolving fund up to 10%, in order to lower interest rate. 

Contract(s) 

Local corporation or foundation as central point, contracting all stakeholders. 

Financing 

Payments by inhabitants of the houses. Financing by banks and local 
government. 



 

Case: Solar on Apartment Buildings 

Common goal 

Use own solar energy. 

Issues 

To use the PV solar from an apartment building, local grid should be used (<100 
meters). But using the grid, will force the inhabitants to sell the energy to the 
supplier and buy it back. Then there is no business case. 

Basic concept 

If laws are changed, the business case for the investors is no issue. 

Stakeholders involved 

Utility, national government and citizens. 

Initiator 

Citizens. 




Role of government 

Create legal way to use own PV installation. 

Contract(s) 

Associations of inhabitants will do the investment and divide the produced 
energy pro rata. Special contract with grid operator may be needed. 

Financing 

Investment by inhabitants of the houses. 



 

Case: Car Sharing 

Common goal 

Government: Reduce number of cars and lower emissions; Citizens: use a car 
when needed at lower price and higher comfort. 

Issues 

Need for charging infrastructure, create initial number of electrical cars. 

Basic concept 

Shared cars can be used for time needed, parked anywhere without cost. Users 
pay per hour having the car. 

Stakeholders involved 

Shared car service provider, local government and citizens. 

Initiator 

Shared care service providers. 

Role of government 

Give car share providers license to parking facilities at lower tariff, long term 
certainty for investments and campaign support, in exchange for number of EV 
and (contribution in) charging points that can be used by others. 

Contract(s) 

License agreement between city and car share provider. Citizens have contract 
with car share provider and pay per use. 

Financing 

Investments in cars by car sharing service provider. Charging points owned by 
city or charging point operator (TTP). 



 

Case: ‘Last Mile Logistic’ 

Common goal 

Less air pollution and heavy traffic. 

Issues 

Distribution to the house is done by large number of distributors. 

Basic concept 

Create local service point. Distributors deliver to service point. Last mile delivery 
on request by EV, driven by reintegrating long term unemployed. 

Stakeholders involved 

Distributors, local government, reintegration program for unemployed and 
citizens. 

Initiator 

Local government. 

Role of government 

Create local service points and operator. The operator connects tracking and 
tracing software to distributors, and creates last mile distribution delivery 




process. 

Contract(s) 

City owned last mile operator has contracts with distributors. 

Financing 

Investments in last mile distribution organisation is partly covered by the 
reintegration program for long term unemployed. Tracking and tracing software 
once developed can used in many cities. Investment in EV cars by government or 
TTP, payback in transaction fee. 



 

Case: Energy Storage and Distributed Generation 

Common goal 

Increase revenues and assure environmental sustainability of distributed 
generation. 

Issues 

Power sources (including buildings as prosumers) are organized as Virtual Power 
Plants (VPP). Energy storage is the catalyst of the optimization process (economic 
and/or environmental) of this distributed power networks, enabling balancing 
use and production of energy. Innovative batteries are tested (including car 
batteries, seen as distributed storage capacity), paving the way to business 
models for battery charging, also at home. The context can also be used by 
authorities to assess the effects of change of regulations based upon the 
opportunities offered by technology. 

Basic concept 

Create a context that is “big enough” to simulate market behaviour and to create 
a request of products that is attractive for manufacturers and service providers 
(avoid mere academic tests). This enables starting the investigation of the 
acceptable price for a given technology (bottom-up, market driven approach vs. 
technology-oriented strategy). 

Stakeholders involved 

Manufacturers, ICT companies, owners of power plants, citizens owning 
buildings, regulatory bodies, SMEs. 

Initiator 

A cluster of companies owning power plants. 

Role of government 

Use the results to search for possible regulatory updates/upgrades to be 
proposed to the EU, taking into account the opportunities offered by technology 
and new business models. Assure replicability at regional and national level. 

Contract(s) 

The initiative is based on a business plan, where all involved Stakeholders share 
opportunities and risks. 

Financing 

Investments by owners of power plants. Manufacturing companies can fund the 
initiative to get market estimations and reliable data, and can test new products 
covering their costs. Local banks can find business options. 




 

Annex C: Country Landscaping 

 

1. Introduction 

This annex seeks to collect, in a consistent structure, some key information on how ‘smart cities’ is 
being addressed within the Member States. It represents a work in progress, presently covering only 
five Member States with drafts for several others being finalised at the moment. The purpose is to 
provide a coarse comparison that can help countries compare context, support dialogue, and inform 
action. Clearly, the selection of the five Member States covered here is in no way to be taken as a 
value judgment, indeed it could not be for some of the most advanced Members States in terms of 
'smart cities' are, unfortunately, not yet covered. Indeed, we would very many welcome 
contributions from interested readers that may allow us finishing this part of the work faster. 

2. Landscape Format 

The layout seeks to capture on ‘1 side of A4’ general contextual information, and known initiatives 
within the public sector. These include the likes of: 

Contextual Facts 

. Urbanisation %; rate of (historical data if no forecasts) 
. # cities of different populations 
. General state of urban infrastructure 
. Metrics on mobility, energy, broadband penetration, internet and mobile use 
. Policy context on focus domains (e.g. smart meters) 
. Existing City Associations 
. City ‘Power’ – to what extent do cities hold autonomy on policy, programmes, funding etc. 


Public Sector Initiatives 

Policy and Strategy 

. What focus and priorities 


Governance 

. Tier structure and implications 
. City Government Department(s) leading on smart cities 
. Notable roles of other sectors – e.g. Industry; Academia etc. 


Programmes 

. National and regional programmes of note 
. Particular cities and initiatives in the limelight 


Funding 

. How is city funding managed; what sources 


Other Matters of Note: 

. Extent of public services vs. private 
. Activities on smart city standards 
. Academic leaders 



Finland 

Urban Contextual Facts 

. 69% urbanised of 5.45 million total population (Statistics Finland, 2013) 
. 0 cities > 1mln pop; 9 cities > 100k (Helsinki, Espoo, Tampere, Vantaa, Oulu, Turku, Jyväskylä, Kuopio, 
Lahti). Lead urban areas: Helsinki (603k), Espoo (257k), Tampere (217k), Vantaa (205k), Oulu (191k) 
. 2012 CO2 emissions= 60.9 MT decreased 5.9 MT from 2011. CO2 from transport decreasing. Particulates 
stable. Energy consumption stabilised in 21st century: use of renewables increased to 32% of 
consumption in ‘10, (e.g. use of heat pumps increased rapidly). Travel time to work grown in recent years. 
Nos. cars increased since ‘90s, but vehicle mileage stabilised. Cities have large green areas (31-48%) – 
more than EU average. (Finnish Environment Institute, 2013). High investments in infrastructure (3% of 
GDP in land and water construction). Strengths of the Finnish transport system are good traffic flow and 
low congestion, well-functioning public transport and management of winter conditions. (VATT, 2012) 
. Mobility metrics: volume of mobility (vehicle/day) by the Finnish Transport Agency 
. Energy metrics: Household / Industrial energy consumption, Electricity & heat production (Fi Statistics) 
. City networks: International Regions Benchmarking Consortium (Helsinki); European New Towns Platform 
(ENTP) (Vantaa); Eurocities (Espoo, Helsinki, Oulu, Tampere, Turku, Vaasa), Airport Region Conference 
(ARC) (Vantaa); WHO Healthy Cities National Networks (16 cities); Union of the Baltic Cities (12 cities) 
. Policy Highlights: High degree of deregulated infrastructure i.e. energy, Telecom, Transport 
. Policy highlight: National Climate and Energy Strategy (latest update approved by Government 20-3-13) 
. City ‘Power’: Budget based on local income tax, state subsidies and in some cities also leaseholds 


Public Sector City Initiatives 

Policy and Strategy 

. Open and smart services -strategy has been developed in cooperation of the six largest cities. Strategy is 
part-funded by the EU regional development fund; partly by state and cities, total budget reaching 79M€. 
. Ministry of Transport and Communication has a strategy for smart transport and mobility 
. “Smartness” is highlighted in several cities strategies, e.g. Helsinki, Kemi, Tampere, Mikkeli, Jyväskylä 


Governance 

. Council of State set targets in ‘08 in its long-term climate and energy strategy: energy consumption down 
11% by ‘20, 33% by ’50; requiring energy efficiency in living, construction and transport. (Ymparisto.fi) 
. In the ”Environmental Strategy for Transport 13-20” the Ministry of Transport and Communication the 
targets relate to controlling climate change, improving living environment, decreasing health issues 
caused by transport, and protecting the Baltic Sea (Ministry of Transport and Communication, 2012). 
. The 2008 “National Waste Management Plan” sets a target that by 2016 50% of waste is recycled and 
30% is used as energy; with 20% of waste to dumping grounds. (The Ministry of Environment, 2008) 


Programmes 

. INKA-program (Ministry of Employment and Economy) financed by Finnish Funding for Innovation 
(TEKES) has chosen smart city to be one of five focus areas. City of Tampere is administering the theme. 
. TEKES launched “Witty City” (Fiksu kaupunki) program, to secure projects of ~100mln (40mln from 
TEKES) 
. TEKES launched an Electric Vehicle Systems programme, EVE 
. Smart city is a focus area of Finnish Transport Research and Innovation Partnership (FINTRIP) – a program 
of Ministry of Transport and Communication. Fintrip plans a programme with the theme of city mobility. 
. City of Jyväskylä is participating in the PLEEC –project (Planning for energy efficient cities) (EU, FP7) and 
the target is to develop a model for planning an energy efficient and smart city. 
. One of Forum Virium’s innovation projects is Smart City which is involved in the development of digital 
urban services that make travelling and living in the city easier 
. Cities of Helsinki and Oulu were participating in the FIREBALL project (Smart cities as Innovation 
Ecosystems Sustained by the Future Internet) (EU, FP7), 2010-2012. 
. TranSmart: a spearhead program led by VTT (Gov owner R&D Institute) on Mobility / low carbon energy 
. Finnish Research Institute (VTT) has a spearhead program: Productivity with Internet of Things, IoT 





. VTT has innovation program Smart Energy grids, Ingrid 




 

France 

Urban Contextual Facts 

. Urban population is 85% of total population. Cities represent today 22% of the whole territory, with 47.9 
million inhabitants, i.e. 77.5% of the French population. Densely-populated area 12.4 % in 2012 (Capital 
city with 10.3 million inhabitants, 31 cities with 200 to 2000k inhabitants, 22 cities with 100 to 200k 
inhabitants, more than 2000 smaller cities). 
. Cities are key investors in infrastructures in the transport, housing and environmental protection sectors. 
In most cities housing infrastructure dominates this pool. 
. The cash-strapped government’s limited capacity to fund major projects outright leads to some cutbacks 
and postponements and greater reliance on PPP funding. Currently, PPP initiatives priced at €33 billion 
are in the infrastructure pipeline through 2020 to fund projects than include expanding high-speed rail. 
. The current government is paring back investment in nuclear power, the nation’s primary energy source, 
and looking to gain efficiencies from energy-saving technologies, equipment, and systems as well. 
. French Urban space is not homogeneous, and urbanisation can have various forms. Most complex one is 
“rurbanisation”, i.e. extension of the city over the countryside – giving the impression of being back to 
the countryside. 
. In terms of transportation and commuting, whilst the number of individual trips achieved per day is 
roughly speaking the same everywhere (between 3.0 in Paris and 3.4 in other French big cities), the use 
of a car is lower when the area is less heavy (1 trip among 8 in Paris, ~9 among 10 in small cities suburbs). 
As such, the more the habitat is dense, the more people use public transports, bicycles and walking. 


Public Sector City Initiatives 

Policy and Strategy 

. France has created Data.gouv.fr portal in December 2011; the site now has over 350.000 data sets. The 
inter-ministerial mission Etalab, which is now a service of the French Prime Minister, is responsible for 
creating and populating the data.gouv.fr open public data portal. 
. In terms of opening up data, the pioneering French local authorities were Rennes and then Paris in 2010. 
Montpellier and a number of other Cities, Regions and Departments also followed. 
. In 2013 Etalab ran the Dataconnexions competition to reward the most innovative companies among 
those collecting and re-using public data. 


Governance 

. A national decentralization reform was implemented in the 1990s and 2000s to reduce the economic 
importance of central government decisions in French urban areas and particularly the largest ones. A 
governance system with three types of authority incites municipalities to join forces to provide public 
services. 


Programmes 

. Environment-oriented : Agenda 21, Grenelle de l’environnement, EcoQuartier, EcoCités 
. The “Atelier National” process – exploring new approaches of projects and partnerships in regions with 
lack of or no engineering skills 
. Territories Workshops – relying on a partnership between the State, local authorities and representatives 
for local consultation and co-creation 
. The Urbanism Prize (Grand prix de l’urbanisme) - awarded by an international jury 


Funding 

. Digital infrastructure-oriented funding programmes : Quartier numérique (€200 million), Territoires NFC 
(€66 million) 


Other Matters of Note: 

. Territories developing “Smart City” initiatives include Grand Lyon, Grand Nancy, Grand Angouleme, 
Angers Loire Métropole, City of Nice 





 

Germany 

Urban Contextual Facts 

. 74% urbanised of 80 mln total population 
. 4 Cities > 1mln population (Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Cologne) 
. 80 Cities > 100,000 population (incl. 4 >1mln; and 10 >500,000) 
. Lead Urban Areas (cities >500,000): Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, 
Dortmund, Essen, Bremen, Dresden, Leipzig, Hanover, Nuremberg 
. Urban Infrastructure – ‘mature & stressed’; notably aging utility systems; congested urban road network; 
high-maintenance rail system; mature building stock ... all exacerbated by long-term forecast public 
budget constraints. 
. Policy Highlights: Renewable Energy Law (“EEG – Umlage”); Energy Conversion (“Energiewende”) 
. City Networks: City Utility Companies – often (co-)owned by one of the top four utility companies (RWE, 
E.ON, EnBW, Vatenfall); large independent City Utility Companies: RheinEnergie (Cologne), MVV 
(Mannheim) 
. City ‘Power’: Budget based on local business tax (“Gewerbesteuer”) and income tax (tbc) 


Public Sector City Initiatives 

Policy & Strategy 

. German Government has launched an initiative on the “City of the Future” as a national platform. This is 
a research-to-implementation initiative with a long term perspective, supported by Ministries of 
Research, Ecology, Economy, and Buildings. It involves 30 stakeholder groups and 100 independent 
experts. It addresses four principle themes: energy and resources; climate and governance; 
transportation management; systems approach 
. The “Morgenstadt – City of Tomorrow” initiative has been launched by the Fraunhofer Institute 
. The German Innovation Roundtable has initiated the “Smart City Forum” 
. “Nachhaltige Städte – Norderstedt et al.” 


Governance 

. So far, smart city special initiatives are not in place beyond those noted above 
. Energy related issues are addressed either by Ministry of Economics or with respect to sustainability by 
Ministry of Environment and regarding buildings by Ministry of Transport and Buildings 
. Transport related issues are addressed by Ministry of Transport and Buildings 


Programmes 

. National platform “eMobility” in place with four show cases (Berlin, Stuttgart-Karlsruhe, Bavaria-Saxony, 
Wolfsburg) 


Funding 

. No dedicated and significant smart city funding available 


Other Matters of Note: 

. Growing number of citizen funded/owned energy coops 
. Academic leadership of note: Fraunhofer (Fokus, IAO, IBP); TU Berlin; TU Darmstadt; DFKI (eMobility) 




 

 


Netherlands 

Urban Contextual Facts 

. 83.2% urbanised of 16.8 mln total population, with considerable growth expected for 4 largest cities 
. 0 Cities > 1mln population 
. 27 Cities > 100,000 population (Regional population and households prognosis CBS, October 2013) 
. Lead Urban Areas: Amsterdam 799.442, Rotterdam 614.453, Den Haag 502.802 Utrecht 324.723 
. Urban Infrastructure and Morphology – congestion has diminished due to improved highways, energy 
transition is lagging far behind (only 4% renewables, mainly biomass) and the Netherlands will probably 
by far not meet EU targets on energy, energy networks not yet attuned to large-scale decentral energy 
production, better use of currently built-up area, restructuring outdated business parks and 60s-70s 
districts, hardly any urban expansion due to current reform housing market and economic situation, 
especially Amsterdam and Utrecht will have considerable population growth in the next decades 
. Policy Highlights: National Energy Accoord (Energy Agreement for Sustainable Growth), society-wide 
agreement of companies, societal organisations, research institutes to improve the Dutch situation for 
clean energy, September 2013 
. City Networks: G4, G32 (top 4 and 34 Dutch cities), VNG (all municipalities), Platform31 (dissemination of 
knowledge); 
. City ‘Power’: Mid. Political decision power via elected members; Reliance on C.Gov grants / formula for 
city funding approved by VNG; Limited city-level revenue source; Local policy power; many 
responsibilities shifted recently from central or regional government to local government, many cities 
have austerity measures, housing associations too due to Housing Agreement (approved 18-12-2013) 


Public Sector City Initiatives 

Policy and Strategy 

. Amsterdam has embraced the Smart City concept as an overarching principle and Amsterdam Economic 
Board is the thriving force behind many initiatives. Almere collaborates with Amsterdam on this, and 
works on projects as Big Data Centre. Amsterdam Metropolitan Solutions is a collaboration between TU 
Delft, Wageningen University, MIT and other partners, also TNO. Amsterdam will host a major 
international event on Smart Cities in May 2014. 
. Other cities are applying smart city principles but are not always labelling them as such (e.g. Rotterdam). 
Many larger cities (from G32) explore currently how the concept can help them (e.g. Delft). 
. At the 12th Nov 2013 Innovatie-Estafette 2013 in Amsterdam several partners signed the Knowledge 
Network ‘NL – Smart Cities’. Aims: better urban quality of life, more competitive NL businesses 
. Digitale Steden Agenda: Innovative solutions for cities, initiated by G4, G32, and Platform31 


Governance 

. Topic is addressed at national level both by Ministry of Economic Affairs and by Ministry of Infrastructure 
and Environment. 


Programmes 

. Knowledge Network is first start. No overarching national program aiming at implementation but smaller 
programs focusing on knowledge exchange 


Funding 

. No specific funding schemes at national level, many project funded by European funds (ERDF, FP7) 
. Limited city-raised public budgets; 


Other Matters of Note: 

. Some provinces who sold their energy companies in the past are now using this money to stimulate 
green deals and innovation (e.g. Province of North Brabant/TU Eindhoven/Brainport) 




 

 


Spain 

Urban Contextual Facts 

. 77.4% Urban population (2011) / 0.9% urban rate (2005-2010) 
. >1M inhabitants: Madrid (3.2M, 2013), Barcelona (1.6M, 2013) 


Valencia (0.8M), Sevilla (0.7M), Zaragoza (0.7M), Malaga (0.6M) 

. City associations (listed only those related to topic) 
- RECI (Smart Cities Spanish Network) 
- RECC (Climate Cities Spanish Network) 
. Existing energy and energy related metrics (Spanish National Institute www.ine.es) 
- Waste/ residue generation by activity sector; Urban waste; Waste treatment and management; 
Energy consumption by activity sector; Production of energy by sources; Consumption of energy by 
sources 
. Mobility metrics (RACC www.racc.com) 
- Transportation; Movements; Users; Airport/ train/ ports (passengers and tn) 
. Notable city focus: 
- Barcelona: urban planning, transportation, municipal taxes, security, urban maintenance, municipal 
site development (kindergarten, sports centres, elderly homes, social housing). Decentralization of 
policies at municipal level through 10 districts 


Public Sector City Initiatives 

Policy and Strategy 

. National Level: 
. Barcelona: In 2011 the City launched a new strategy and transformational plan to introduce new 
technologies, improve the overall operation and management of the city, and foster economic growth 
and welfare of citizens. The strategy strongly aligns with Horizon 2020 priorities, and promotes more 
sustainable, smart and inclusive development, along the lines of 4 P’s; Place (city), People (citizens), 
Private (business) and Public (administration). ICT is core to the strategy. Barcelona is working in a cyclic 
innovation model to provide better services to citizens so that they can integrate the changes and 
environmental needs in a flexible, continuous and agile way – launching innovations in different areas of 
the city. The strategy has been developed as a transversal innovation within the City Council. 


Governance 

. City transformation is a city-led policy. 
. For infrastructure Central Government plays crucial role in budgeting initiatives. 


Programmes 

. National level: smart city activities noted in several (of the larger) cities 
. Barcelona manages a portfolio of 25 smart city projects covering: infrastructure network, e-vehicle, 
health, apps, tools to promote innovation, ICT deployment, management through ICT etc. 




 

 

 

 


United Kingdom 

Urban Contextual Facts 

. 90% urbanised of 63.7 mln total population (UN world development indicators – 12th of 195) 
. 4 Cities > 1mln population (London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool) 
. 63 Cities > 100,000 population(ONS data 2011) 
. Lead Urban Areas: Gtr London: 9.8 mln (met area 13.7m); Gtr Manchester 2.5mln; West Midlands 2.4mln 
. Urban Infrastructure – ‘mature and stressed’; notably aging utility systems; congested urban road 
network; high-maintenance rail system; mature building stock; exacerbated by severe budget constraints. 
. Policy Highlights: Energy Green Deal 
. City Networks: Core Cities (top 8 English cities); 
. City ‘Power’: Mid. Political decision power via elected members; 8 City Mayors; Reliance on C.Gov grants 
/ formula for city funding; Limited city-level revenue source (ca. 5%); Local policy power; strong C.Gov; 
weak regions; modest strength cities (constrained by complex fragmented governance bodies) 


Public Sector City Initiatives 

Policy and Strategy 

. UK has moved from behind on ‘smart cities’ over the past 2 years to a position in the leaders. The 
Technology Strategy Board (TSB) initiative on Future City Demonstrators (a competition that attracted 30 
bids) developed considerable momentum. This granted L24mln funds to Glasgow; and L1mln to London, 
Bristol; and Peterborough. The TSB incubator programme will provide support for innovation and SMEs. 
Sustaining this momentum will present ongoing challenges. 
. London for example has established a ‘Smart London Board’ comprising leading academics; also specific 
boards to address infrastructure and other key domain plans. All to support latest Vision 2020 ambitions. 
. The UK Smart City strategy was launched in Oct 2013 at Ministerial level 
. UK “Smart City Forum” launched Dec 2013, jointly chaired by 2 Ministers, and comprising senior (~25) 
membership from C.Gov, Cities, Industry/SME, and Academia. 6 thematic initiatives are now launched. 


Governance 

. Complex governance. Multiple C.Gov policy and funding Depts affecting cities. CLG (Community and Local 
Gov) Dept provides C.Gov oversight. LGA (Local Gov Assctn) provides political oversight. Most cities / city 
regions have some form of Local Partnership with representation from main public agencies (councils; 
health; emergency services; education etc.) and local enterprise to support collaborative decision making 
on public services, economy and the like. 
. Cabinet Office presently coordinating ‘City Deals’ that agree governance and some aspects of funding at 
city-region level. City Minister in place (Rt Hon Greg Clark). 
. BIS (Business Innovation and Skills) Department is taking a leading role in UK smart city activities. 
. Focus is on cities as means for economic regeneration – notably also of the SME community. 


Programmes 

. TSB “Future Cities” programme, and new Future Cities Catapult organisation, both creating momentum. 
. Glasgow as TSB Demonstrator city is receiving focus; Manchester visible internationally for ICT 
exploitation; London clearly influential as a world city. 


Funding 

. Central bias. Limited (~5%) city-raised public budgets; growing institutional and Industry infrastructure 
funding – still considered moderate risk. 


Other Matters of Note: 

. UK smart cities market estimated to represent €30 billion p.a. by 2020 (BIS Oct’13 SC background paper) 
. Considerable and growing ‘externalisation’ of public / city services to private sector 
. Key ‘smart city’ challenges captured in recent BIS (Arup) TSB Demonstrator Bid analysis report 
. Coordinated programme of smart city standards launched by BSI 
. Academic leadership of note: LSE (London School of Economics Centre for Cities); UCL (Urban Lab: grand 
challenge of sustainable cities); ... often joint initiatives with Industry 




 


