How Ljubljana is making its name as Europe's green capital

Ljubljana. Image: Gilad Rom/Flickr/Creative Commons.

How can a European city create its own unique identity in the 21st century? After all, there are so many places – London, Paris, Rome – which can distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack with an array of monuments and attractions. But what if you're the capital city of a relatively new country?

Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, is an excellent place to visit: a city with a pretty castle at its heart that's been present in some form for almost 900 years. This year, it’s trying to make its mark on the map by flaunting its credentials as Europe's Green Capital for 2016, a title awarded by the European Commission.

Of course, the place and the people who live in it have existed for centuries, but Slovenia itself is a relatively new feature of the international scene, first coming into existence when it broke away from Yugoslavia in 1991. In 2004, it became a member of the EU and NATO; in 2007 joined the Eurozone, the first ex-communist country to do so.

The capital has undergone numerous environmental changes in recent years to shape up its green credentials. It’s introduced underground car parking facilities, to get vehicles off the roads. It’s also limited the roads on which cars can travel within the city.  All this has helped the city to decrease traffic by 12 per cent since 2011.

Ljubljana's bike scheme. Image: TAS/Flickr/creative commons.

It’s hoping to double the share of journeys taken by bike, too. The city's own bike hire scheme, BicikeLJ, costs just €3 per year, with unlimited free rides if they last under an hour. Anything above that starts at €1, but you can simply swap bikes at the nearest station before the time's up, making it an insanely cheap travel option.

If you're running out of steam, the city centre hosts Kavalir electric cars, which look like golf carts and can accommodate up to five passengers and roam around the city all day with a simple hop-on, hop-off system for free. The system runs through major inner city routes which are free from other vehicles and personal cars.


Ljubljana's city authority has also set a range of goals to deal with energy and waste management for the next few years. The city wants renewables to provide a quarter of its energy supply by 2020; it’s aiming to cut CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by the same date, too. And, thanks to separate waste bins throughout the city, the population was already recycling two-thirds of their waste by 2014.

Sure, the Slovenian capital is smaller than many of the large cities in the UK, home to just under 300,000 people. But its small size is what makes it a great place to experiment with new ideas of social renewal which can be a model for other larger cities. Here's hoping Britain can follow many of these lessons.

 
 
 
 

Two east London boroughs are planning to tax nightlife to fund the clean up. Will it work?

A Shoreditch rave, 2013. Image: Getty.

No-one likes cleaning up after a party, but someone’s got to do it. On a city-wide scale, that job falls to the local authority. But that still leaves the question: who pays?

In east London, the number of bars and clubs has increased dramatically in recent years. The thriving club scene has come with benefits – but also a price tag for the morning clean-up and cost of policing. The boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets are now looking to nightlife venues to cover these costs.

Back in 2012, councils were given powers to introduce ‘late night levies’: essentially a tax on all the licensed venues that open between midnight and 6am. The amount venues are expected to pay is based on the premises’ rateable value. Seventy per cent of any money raised goes to the police and the council keeps the rest.

Few councils took up the offer. Four years after the legislation was introduced, only eight local authorities had introduced a levy, including Southampton, Nottingham, and Cheltenham. Three of the levies were in the capital, including Camden and Islington. The most lucrative was in the City of London, where £420,000 was raised in the 2015-16 financial year.

Even in places where levies have been introduced, they haven’t always had the desired effect. Nottingham adopted a late night levy in November 2014. Last year, it emerged that the tax had raised £150,000 less than expected in its first year. Only a few months before, Cheltenham scrapped its levy after it similarly failed to meet expectations.


Last year, the House of Lords committee published its review of the 2003 Licensing Act. The committee found that “hardly any respondents believed that late night levies were currently working as they should be” – and councils reported that the obligation to pass revenues from the levy to the police had made the tax unappealing. Concluding its findings on the late night levy, the committee said: “We believe on balance that it has failed to achieve its objectives, and should be abolished.”

As might be expected of a nightlife tax, late night levies are also vociferously opposed by the hospitality industry. Commenting on the proposed levy in Tower Hamlets, Brigid Simmonds, chief executive at the British Beer and Pub Association, said: “A levy would represent a damaging new tax – it is the wrong approach. The focus should be on partnership working, with the police and local business, to address any issues in the night time economy.”

Nevertheless, boroughs in east London are pressing ahead with their plans. Tower Hamlets was recently forced to restart a consultation on its late night levy after a first attempt was the subject of a successful legal challenge by the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers (ALMR). Kate Nicholls, chief executive at the ALMR, said:

“We will continue to oppose these measures wherever they are considered in any part of the UK and will urge local authorities’ to work with businesses, not against them, to find solutions to any issues they may have.”

Meanwhile, Hackney council intends to introduce a levy after a consultation which revealed 52 per cents of respondents were in favour of the plans. Announcing the consultation in February, licensing chair Emma Plouviez said:

“With ever-shrinking budgets, we need to find a way to ensure the our nightlife can continue to operate safely, so we’re considering looking to these businesses for a contribution towards making sure their customers can enjoy a safe night out and their neighbours and surrounding community doesn’t suffer.”

With budgets stretched, it’s inevitable that councils will seek to take advantage of any source of income they can. Nevertheless, earlier examples of the late night levy suggest this nightlife tax is unlikely to prove as lucrative as is hoped. Even if it does, should we expect nightlife venues to plug the gap left by public sector cuts?