Štefan Žohar, 14.9greensproject.eu/.../2015/09/stefan-zohar...2016.pdf · webinar, 14.9.2016 ....

Štefan Žohar, 14.9.2016

Pomurje Region

129.000 inhabitants 28 municipalities 39.330 housekeepings 5.000 SME’s the less developed region in Republic of Slovenia most rural area in Slovenia emigration of young people low education structure

Establishment of LEA Pomurje

March 2005 (European Commission) Institution for promotion of sustainable energy development Local, regional, transnational One municipality for all 28 municipality – Letter of mandate

Mision & Vision

Contribution to sustainable development of region in the field of RES & RUE. Promotion, Animation, Programming, Investments, etc.

To be a leading actor on RES & RUE in Pomurje Region and

Nort-Eastern Slovenia and cross-boarder region (Slo – A – Hu – Cro)! We are on track…!

…our work/objectives

Lower energy consumption; Exploitation of RES; Less CO2 emissions; Energy programming

EE in Slovenia

National consortium of energy agencies Creation; support of ministry 2012

Other references of LEAP

Other projects of LEAP

Other projects of LEAP

Presenter

Presentation Notes

All mantioned past activities, experiences, projects helpt us by the preperation and implementation of the work package that I will present you in the frame of GreenS project.

GreenS Green public procurement supporters for

innovative and sustainable institutional change

WORK PACKAGE 2

Institutional needs on GPP and Good and Bad practices

WEBINAR, 14.9.2016

Presenter

Presentation Notes

For the questions and comments, please notice them and you will have time on the end of ALL 3 presentations!

GreenS Work Packages

The overall objective of the project is • to further enhance ability and capacity of public authorities to save energy, reduce CO2 emissions and costs by applying innovative solutions on GPP;

• to overcome the obstacles and the barriers to take-off the GPP as described in the Communication of the European Commission “Public Procurement for a Better Environment”.;

• to address the obstacles to the uptake of GPP that have been identified by the partners in their own country (context analysis) and which come from the WP2 – Institutional needs on GPP and Good and bad practices analysis in each participating country.

BACKGROUND OF WP2 …

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The aim of this work packages 2 is to gather information regarding the good and bad methods and policies for GPP implementation, market up-take, legal frameworks, undertaken at EU level and to analyze their results in order to identify the most innovative and efficient cases. On the other hand we wanted to collect and highlight also practices, with bad and inefficient results. Each partner identified the practices on GPP concerning the purchase of energy efficient products and services by Institutional Bodies at national and local level. This action has given us an overview on the process and methodology implemented by procures in each country to purchase “green” goods and services. In addition, through the analysis of at least 15 SEAPs in each partner country, the partners find where and how the local authorities need support for green products and services (energy related).

WP2 tasks

Task 2.0 Work package coordination Task 2.1. Gather information of good and bad practices on purchase of energy efficient products and services Task 2.2. Comparative analyses of different GPP practices identified Task 2.3. Identification and analysis of local/regional authorities needs through the SEAP´s Task 2.4. Monitoring and evaluation program

Deliverable (number) Deliverable name

D 2.1 Template and methodology for recording and

collection of good and bad practices

D 2.2 Inventory/recording process

D 2.3 1 Expanded list of good and bad practices

D 2.4 1 Prepared comparative analysis of different

GPP practices

D 2.5 1 Identification/evaluation roundtable

meeting

D 2.6 1 summary report on the needs

D 2.7 Evaluation report on implementation

WP2 deliverables

Presenter

Presentation Notes

This tasks includes 7 deliverables that you see on this slide!

WP2 results http://greensproject.eu/en/our-findings/

http://greensproject.eu/en/our-findings/


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Here is our project website and if you go to chapter “our findigs” you will see bellow listen up the documents, which I´m gonna present to you in short version!


Deliverable 2.1_Template and methodology for recording and collection of good and bad practices



Deliverable 2.1_Template and methodology for recording and collection of good and bad practices CONTENT

1. METHODOLOGY FOR RECORDING AND COLLECTION OF GOOD AND BAD PRACTICES – September 2015 A. Questionnaires Q1 – public procurers Q2 – national partners B. Comparative analysis / matrix

2. TEMPLATES FOR RECORDING AND COLLECTION OF GOOD AND BAD PRACTICES A. Draft version B. Final version Template for questionnaire Q1 - public procurers Template for questionnaire Q2 – national partners

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The questionaire were prepared by Alenka Burja, who is a leading expert in Slovenia in the field of Green Public Procurements in general! And we split the queestionaires in two parts! The first questionnaire (Q1 – public procurers) is designed in order to collect data on the procurement behaviours of public authorities in eight respective countries. The second questionnaire (Q2 – national partners) weigh up broadly the institutional / policy system of the GPP in the country and assess in length the conceivable national support activities in each country. The questionnaire is addressed to national partners (NPs).

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd-68GPpUSwhNi1mIlXo5Z9_GXT0rATZfARyTS_ysJ2HmxBIA/viewform?c=0&w=1

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc1uuyYg6IDLcepa9yFET2GwXFKHZpdlvYvqdgElqqh38_FVg/viewform?c=0&w=1

Deliverable 2.2_Inventory/recording process with presentation of good and bad practices


Presenter

Presentation Notes

When we had this questionnairies ONLINE, we started to motivate public procurers to take part in the questionairies!



CONTENT I. Inventory process for recording and collection of good and bad practices a) Questionnaires 1) Questionnaire on Good Practice in implementing Green Public Procurement (GPP) 2) Questionnaire on implementing Green Public Procurement (GPP) for NPs b) Comparative analysis / matrix II. Results and other aspects/information on previous good and bad GPP practices per countries

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The comparative analysis of survey results should fully reveal GPP practices and processes in GreenS countries. Method that was used for this comparison was set of indicators that are following all four sections of both questionnaires and are basically covering most of the answers. Marking each indicator with corresponding answers from survey clearly pointed out the main strengths and weaknesses in the countries involved and the manners and approaches of GPP implementation. However, some additional individual qualitative assessments had been needed as well which was employed by giving grades to certain indicators. In this way the good and weaker (bad) practices of GPP implementation could be portrayed for each country individually. The results have been evaluated and presented in total value, so for all countries together, in graphical and table form. It also has to be noted that analysis of results does not serve at all for comparison of actions between different countries but rather shows how these countries are performing with GPP implementation.

II. Results and other aspects/information on previous good and bad GPP practices per countries

Q1 – PUBLIC PROCURERS

Overall, 114 questionnaires have been received (target: 80), more than 10 envisaged per each country (more than 14 in average per country)

Q2 - NATIONAL PARTNERS Overall, 8 questionnaires have been received, 1 per each country


Q1 examples - How do you include GPP criteria in tender documents?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

40%

41%

50%

40%

48%

56%

30%

46%

30%

44%

25%

30%

19%

22%

40%

29%

25%

11%

15%

25%

29%

17%

10%

18%

5%

4%

10%

5%

5%

6%

20%

7%

By myself With the help of other departments´ experts

With the help of external adviser Other


Presenter

Presentation Notes

Of course I can not show you all the paragrafs, results and datas in one hour, but I will show you some examples that you will get a filling of the complete document, wich you can find on our project website! And the first is …..

Q1 examples - What “type” of green/energy efficiency requirements do you usually use?

EU GPP criteria

Nationallydeveloped

criteria

Green criteriafrom othercountries

Criteria fromEcolabels

Environmentaltechnicalstandards

Criteria from anyappropriately

certified orlabelled products

Requirementsfrom

environmentalmanagement

systems

Provisions set indifferent EU

sector legislation

Other

Bulgaria Cyprus Germany Italy

Latvia Slovenia Spain Sweden


Q1 examples - In which stages of the procurement process do you usually include the green/energy efficient criteria?

When defining the subjectmatter of the contract

In the requirements fortechnical/professional ability

of the tenderer

In the technicalspecifications

In the award criteria

In the contract performanceclauses

In all stages of GPP process

Bulgaria Cyprus Germany Italy Latvia Slovenia Spain Sweden


Q1 examples - What kind of support for the GPP implementation would you need in future?

Information on market availability

of products/services/works

Professional technical support

To understand environmentalaspects in relation to purchase

For evaluation of life-cyclecostings (LCC)

To understand mechanisms forappropriate monitoring and

reporting

Information on potential benefitsof GPP (environmental,

economic, social, cultural)

How to integrateenvironmental/energy efficiency

considerations into tender…

Sources of GPP criteria to use

How to verify environmentalclaims made by tenderers

How to use award criteria

For sharing of experience andknowledge

Professional GPP trainingseminars

For running pilot project on GPP

For establishing GPP online forum

No need for support

Do not know!



Q1 examples - During the GPP procurement process, how often are you ... ... using life-cycle costing (LCC)

14% 6%

25% 18%

14% 24%

18% 9% 6%

6%

13%

21% 12%

73%

36%

25%

33%

18%

53%

36% 41%

9%

27%

31%

33%

18%

20%

14% 18% 27%

38%

8%

41%

13%

almost always often sometimes seldom never


Q1 examples - For which energy efficient products did you prepare GPP contract in the last 3 years?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2%

11%

14%

13%

11%

26%

14%

12%

17%

18%

22%

21%

7%

16%

11%

20%

8%

3%

2%

9%

2%

2%

4%

3%

3%

5%

3%

2%

6%

8%

11%

19%

8%

16%

26%

11%

24%

6%

4%

3%

5%

7%

2%

13%

11%

5%

5%

18%

6%

4%

12%

6%

5%

5%

5%

5%

19%

11%

5%

3%

18%

13%

9%

6%

6%

5%

3%

3%

2%

6%

5%

4%

2%

2%

3%

4%

2%

5%

34%

5%

7%

Electricity

Office IT Equipment

Imaging Equipment

Electrical and ElectronicEquipment used in the HealthCare SectorTransport/vehicles

Infrastructure works(motorways, bridges, etc.)

Street lighting and traffic signals

Waste Water Infrastructure

Construction/Buildings

Combined Heat and Power


Q2 examples - National support activities


41,7% 45,8%

95,8%

41,7% 41,7%

20,8%

62,5%

70,8%


Presenter

Presentation Notes

The second questionaire Q2, wich was caried out from the national partners and just ones per each country, we see here the questions related to national support activities and we see a expacted result ….

Deliverable 2.3_Expanded list of good and bad practices



CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3

II. QUESTIONNAIRE Q1 – public procurers ........................................................................................... 4

1. BULGARIA (public procurers - 14) ................................................................................................ 4

2. CYPRUS (public procurers - 17) .................................................................................................. 15

3. GERMANY (public procurers – 12) ............................................................................................. 26

4. ITALY (public procurers - 11) ...................................................................................................... 36

5. LATVIA (public procurers – 16) .................................................................................................. 47

6. SLOVENIA (public procurers – 12) ............................................................................................. 59

7. SPAIN (public procurers – 17) .................................................................................................... 70

8. SWEDEN (public procurers – 15)................................................................................................ 84

III. QUESTIONNAIRE Q2 – national partners ..................................................................................... 95

1. BULGARIA (National Association of Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria) ....................... 95

2. CYPRUS (Department of Environment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment of Cyprus) ................................................................................................................... 101

3. GERMANY (ICLEI) ..................................................................................................................... 106

4. ITALY (Regione Calabria) .......................................................................................................... 111

5. LATVIA (Riga planning region) ................................................................................................. 117

6. SLOVENIA (Association of Municipalities and Towns of Slovenia) .......................................... 123

7. SPAIN (FAMP and APEC) .......................................................................................................... 129

8. SWEDEN (Energikontor Norr) .................................................................................................. 136



CONTENT by countries Q1 I. Summary of results II. Awareness about national policy framework for GPP (Q1-5) I. Information about organisation’s activities (Q6-12) II. GPP implementation (Q13-18) III. Graphical presentation

Q2 I. Summary of results

Deliverable 2.3_Expanded list of good and bad practices - SLOVENIA Q1

Awareness about national policy framework for GPP (Q1-5)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

As I sad: the results in this document is split to each country and I had to chouse one and I deside to present you our Slovenian results! But you can of course closely look it your one country on our website! In Slovenia close to all (92 %) of respondents confirmed that they are informed about the national GPP policy or political agreement for the uptake of GPP in their country. There is also high awareness (83 %) of respondents about the national GPP targets and quite high (75 %) is familiarity with priority GPP products, services and works that are defined. Less than a half (42 %) are aware about statistic reporting on GPP in the country.


Information about organisation’s activities (Q6-12)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Only 8 % of respondents declare that their organisations have a GPP strategy or action plan on GPP in place. The managerial support experience 42 % of respondents while a share of political support is much higher (67 %). Any kind of market engagement activities are practising only one third (33 %) of respective organisations/public procurers.


Information about organisation’s activities (Q6-12)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Training seminars on GPP attended quite high number (75 %) of respondents. More than a half (56 %) of procurers includes GPP criteria in tender documents by themselves while one fifth (22 %) are esking help from other department’s experts and 17 % are looking for external advices in the preparation of GPP tender documents. We also asked for the estimation of the GPP in the total number of organisation's procurements; results show that only one quarter (25 %) can propose such figure, which range between 10 and 20 %.


GPP implementation (Q13-18)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

What type of green or energy efficiency requirements do respondents usually use in tenders? The highest number of procurers state that these are nationally developed criteria based on the EU GPP criteria and environmental technical standards. And where do they include criteria? Most often this is in the technical specifications and when defining the subject matter of the contract.


GPP implementation (Q13-18)

17. What do you see as main difficulty for the implementation of GPP? Please list up to 5

OPEN QUESTIONS

Presenter

Presentation Notes

In the last 3 years most frequently they prepared GPP contract for the following energy efficient products, services and works: transport, electricity, office IT equipment and construction/buildings. During the procurement process they are often monitoring contract compliance and execution, focusing on performance/functional specifications but not asking lots for leasing possibilities. The question related to the difficulties where in form of open questions where the procurers can listen up to 5 answers and in Slovenia the main difficulties for procurers in the implementation of GPP seem to be: lack of knowledge, insufficient offers, price and complexity of preparation of criteria.


GPP implementation (Q13-18) 18. What kind of support for the GPP implementation would you need in future?

12

10

4 4

3

5

6

7

3

4

2

7

3

4

0

1

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Most respondents want to have the following support in the future for the GPP implementation: information on market availability of products/services/works, professional technical support, which sources of GPP criteria the use and professional GPP training seminars! And in the frame of GreenS project we implemeting also trainings for public procurers and the content of this training must be related to most of this results of the questionare – of course related to the answers by each country!


Type of authority

Central authority 25%

Regional authority

0%

Local authority 50%

Public or semi-public authority or organisation

25%

Other 0%

1. Mestna občina Velenje

2. Center za usposabljanje, delo in varstvo, Črna na Koroškem 3. Municipality of Maribor 4. MJU

5. Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy

6. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food

7. Bolnišnica Sežana

8. Local community Duplek

9. Mestna občina Murska Sobota

10. Vojnik

11. Mestna občina Koper 12. VDC POLŽ Maribor

Full name of your organisation and department:

Presenter

Presentation Notes

On the last slide regarding the questionaires for public procurers we see the structure of the respondents and in Slovenia…..


SLOVENIA (Association of Municipalities and Towns of Slovenia) Q2 - National policy framework and institutional support activities for GPP Summary of results

Out of 10 listed possible aspects of the national GPP policy components there are two shown that seems to be weak in the country: - promotion of potential benefits of GPP and - use of LCC. Data about GPP procurement and percentage of country’s GPP uptake are clearly presented. From 24 listed support activities that recognisable facilitate the GPP implementation five has been chosen as being active: legal support from responsible authority, training events, websites established, tender models and CO2/energy saving calculator. Further improvements are seen in institutionalized support activities and better communication.


Q2 - National policy framework and institutional support activities for GPP

Separate data available for green contracts at statistical portal: YES

Number of all procurement: 5383

Number and/or percentage of GPP purchase: 20,23%

Value of all procurement: 2.008.696.053

Financial value and/or percentage of GPP purchase: 23,66%

Percentage of country's GPP uptake: 44,79% for 8 priority product groups

Please state for which year are these data. Any other explanation? 2014

12. Every country has some kind of statistical portal for public procurement tenders and contracts. Are there data available for green contracts as well?

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The procentage can be compare to other countries!


Q2 - National policy framework and institutional support activities for GPP

NATIONAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES IN TOTAL - SLOVENIA

YES 21%

NO 79%

Presenter

Presentation Notes

HIPERLINK !!!

Deliverable 2.4_Comparative analysis of different GPP practices identified


Presenter

Presentation Notes

And now the most important document; the comparative analysis! In the previous document we so the results presented by countries and in this document we will see the common results of the consortium – in 8 included countries, which we can also seen as the common results of EU.





CONTENTS 1. METHODOLOGY FOR THE EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF DATA............................................ 3

2. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1. National policy framework for GPP ......................................................................................... 3

2.2. Institutional support activities for GPP .................................................................................... 4

2.3. Organisation’s activities ........................................................................................................... 8

2.4. GPP implementation .............................................................................................................. 11

3. INDEX OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... 21

4. INDEX OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... 21

Presenter

Presentation Notes

IN GENERAL ….when drawing up a tender in public procurement, it is hard to talk about “bad” practices because the process is highly demanding and follows strict legal procurement requirements – I hope you agree whit that. Therefore, we hawe looked here at data collection mainly on “good” practices, some of which are of very good and some of “basic” or weaker performance. However, GPP implementation is not only about preparing the green tender documents, but also concretise them with many other support activities: political, managerial, information exchange, promotion, trainings, assistance, help, etc.

NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR GPP ( weakest/strongest elements )

mandatory provision onGPP

adopted national actionplan on GPP

clear national targets andtimeframes for the GPP

uptake

GPP products, servicesand works priorised

other (than NAP) policydocument about GPP

political agreementabout GPP

implementation

assigned responsibilitieson national level

promotion of potentialbenefits of GPP

monitoring and reportingsystems in place

promotion and use ofLCC (life cycle costing)


Presenter

Presentation Notes

The worst element of the presented arguments is the absence of the promotion and use of LCC (life cycle costing) among public procurers. There are two other weaker elements: knowledge about the existence of monitoring and the statistical reporting for GPP tenders and contracts (basically only two countries could report about the percentage of the GPP uptake in 2014); and lack of any mandatory provision on GPP uptake.


INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES legal support from responsible authority

GPP webside

technical / expert support for GPP criteria

regular updating of GPP criteria

regular newsletters about GPP

real assessment of needs

specialized publications about GPP

clear guidance and tools for GPP

GPP webinars

platform for exchange of best practices

helpdesk for procurers

helpdesk for suppliersregular GPP training events

regular GPP networking and exchangeevents

specific working groups for GPP

tender models forproducts/services/works

green tender database

good practice exchange

pilot GPP projects

market analysis for priorityproducts/services/works

online green products catalogue

CO2/energy saving calculator

life cycle costing (LCC) guidance

cost/benefit analyses of GPP

Presenter

Presentation Notes

What makes GPP implementation easier? Obviously, the following items can be categorised as good practices: existence of clear guidance and tools for GPP, implementation of pilot GPP projects, and legal support from responsible authorities. Regular GPP networking and exchange events, regular trainings, GPP websites and CO2 / energy saving calculators are also among relatively strong support activities. Bad performing elements are: absence of real assessment of needs for procurement in organisations, absence of market analysis for priority products/services/works, and also absence of a green tender database. Weaker spots are: no cost/benefit analyses of GPP, technical/expert support, helpdesk for procurers, helpdesk for suppliers, regular newsletters and specialized publications about GPP, GPP webinars, and platform for exchange of best practices. �


IMPROVEMENT OF GPP UPTAKE

SUPPORT

INFORMATION

LEGAL ASPECTSTRAINING

DEFINITION OFGPP

Presenter

Presentation Notes

So, according to the national partners (institutional bodies), how could the GPP uptake in the countries be improved? The answers were in for of OPEN QUESTIONS and the respondents suggest several possibilities, but mostly with regard to enhanced support to public procurers, more reliable information about GPP, greater legal clarity, and more training


GPP AT ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL ( awerness of public procurers about GPP )

information on a national GPPpolicy or political agreement for

uptake of GPP

awareness of national targets forGPP

awareness of statistical reportingon GPP

awareness of any prority GPPproducts, services and works

awareness of any supportactivities for GPP (i.e. help desk,

guidance, etc.)

adopted GPP policy/strategy

managerial support for GPP

political support for GPPimplementation

market engagement activities

attendance at GPP training

Presenter

Presentation Notes

We also searched for the information on awareness of the public procurers of the existing national policy on GPP and on the level of support that they get within their organisations. Without a doubt, they are very well informed about the existence of national GPP policies or political agreements for the uptake of GPP, and they are quite well aware of the national targets for GPP and priority GPP products, services and works. This leads to the possible assumption of good practice: when public procurers are more familiar with the existence of a national GPP policy, the implementation of GPP could also be more feasible. At least two weaker points should be mantioned here: not many organisations have a GPP policy or GPP strategy in place, and market engagement activities in their organisations, as well is the awareness of statistical reporting on GPP quite weak.


USE OF SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

WEBSITES

GUIDANCE

TRAININGS

SEMINARS

NATIONAL PROCUREMENTAGENCY

In the frame of implementingprojects from HOROZON

2020, IEE, etc.

NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FORGPP

OTHER (different answers)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

- Are public procurers aware of the existing support activities and do they use them? They are quite aware of their existence, but the majority of them only use created websites with GPP content.


SOURCES OF GREEN CRITERIA USED

EU GPP criteria

nationally developed criteria

green criteria from othercountries

criteria from Ecolabels

environmental technicalstandards

criteria from any appropriatelycertified or labelled products

requirements fromenvironmental management

systems

provisions set in different EUsector legislation

Presenter

Presentation Notes

- The sources for green/energy efficient criteria are mostly nationally developed criteria (based mainly on the EU GPP criteria) and environmental technical standards or criteria from Ecolabels. They are not likely to be familiar with the green criteria from other countries or with provisions set out in different EU sector legislation that might be used as a source of GPP criteria.

Deliverable 2.4_Comparative analysis of different GPP practices identified INCLUSION OF GREEN CRITERIA IN PROCUREMENT STAGES

when defining the subjectmatter of the contract

in the requirements fortechnical/professionalability of the tenderer

in the technicalspecifications

in the award criteria

in the contractperformance clauses

in all stages of GPPprocess

Presenter

Presentation Notes

- By far the most common inclusion of green/energy efficient requirements within the procurement stages are the technical specifications. Very often the respondents define requirements for the tender’s technical and professional ability, as well as in the definition of the subject matter of the contract – although the matter should be always set as it clearly indicates the main intention of the procurement at the very beginning of the procurement process. Much less used are the award criteria – as a very useful and supportive tool for searching the best green/energy efficient products in the market – and the contract performance clauses that can define additional requirements for contractors. Very few respondents have chosen the provision to include green/energy related requirements in all stages of GPP process when preparing green tender.

Deliverable 2.4_Comparative analysis of different GPP practices identified NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT

information on market availability ofproducts/services/works

professional technical support

to understand environmental aspects inrelation to purchase

for evaluation of life-cycle costings (LCC)

to understand mechanisms forappropriate monitoring and reporting

information on potential benefits of GPP(environment., econom., social, cultural)

how to integrate environmental/EEconsiderations into tender procedures

sources of GPP criteria to usehow to verify environmental claimsmade by tenderers

how to use award criteria

for sharing of experience and knowledge

professional GPP training seminars

for running pilot project on GPP

for establishing GPP online forum

no need for support

Presenter

Presentation Notes

- In the future, public procurers would mostly need the following support for the GPP implementation: information about market availability of products/services/works; which sources of GPP criteria to use; how to evaluate life cycle costings (LCC), professional GPP training seminars and professional technical support in preparation of GPP tender documents. They expressed the least need for running pilot projects on GPP and for establishing GPP online forums. However, it is very interesting to see that the respondents expressed a relatively low need to understand the environmental aspects of to purchase and to obtain information on potential benefits of GPP.

Deliverable 2.4_Comparative analysis of different GPP practices identified INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS

...looking for innovativesolutions (public procurement

of innovation)

...deciding for pre-commercialprocurement

...asking for leasing possibilities

...focusing on performance /functional specifications

...monitoring contractcompliance and execution

...carrying out market analysis

...using life-cycle costing (LCC)

...calculating CO2 and energysavings

Presenter

Presentation Notes

- The answers to the question about how often do public procurers look for innovative solutions during the GPP tendering process revealed that they are most often focusing on performance/functional specifications and on monitoring of compliance and execution of the contracts. On the other hand, they very rarely ask for leasing possibilities, decide for pre-commercial procurement or use life cycle costing tool.

Deliverable 2.4_Comparative analysis of different GPP practices identified ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED

electricity

office IT equipment

imaging equipment

electrical and electronic equipmentused in the health care sector

transport/vehicles

infrastructure works (motorways,bridges, etc.)

street lighting and traffic signalswaste water infrastructure

constructions/buildings

combined heat and power

indoor lighting

water-based heaters

other (air conditioners, cateringservices, food, furniture, paper, print

service, none)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

- In the last three years, the respondents most frequently purchased the following energy efficient products/services/works: transport/vehicles, office IT equipment, electricity, construction/buildings, and indoor and street lighting. Only few of them purchased water-based heaters or electrical and electronic equipment used in the healthcare sector.

Deliverable 2.4_Comparative analysis of different GPP practices identified MAIN DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GPP

USE OF GPP CRITERIA

PROCURERS

MARKET READINESS

LACK OF SUPPORT

LACK OF INFORMATIONABOUT GPPPROVIDERS / SUPPLIERS

LEGISLATION /ORGANISATION / POLICY

TRANINGS

BUDGET

Presenter

Presentation Notes

- According to the procurers, the main difficulties regarding the implementation of GPP are those related to the GPP criteria (such as how to form the right ones) and to the knowledge/skills of the procurers in this field. The other set of difficulties includes all those regarding any kind of support and information about GPP. The third robust cluster represents insufficient market readiness (for example, not enough offer of green products on the market or higher prices for green products). There are interesting answers about the limitations of organisations’ budgets and about the competency of suppliers.

COMMON CONCLUSIONS - Q1 and Q2

GOOD PRACTICES National level 1. According to national partners (institutional bodies), all respective countries have: - adopted national action plan on GPP, - reached political agreement on GPP implementation in the country, and - assigned responsibilities for GPP at the national level. 2. Among various institutional support activities in GreenS countries, the existence of:

- clear guidance and tools for GPP, - implementation of GPP pilot projects, and - legal support from the responsible authorities all had received the highest confirmation from national partners. 3. Information on the national GPP policy or political agreement on GPP uptake are identified quite high

among public procurers.


Presenter

Presentation Notes

What are BAD and what GOOD exampleses? The survey results and comparison show that many GPP practices are commonly applied to various categories of GPP implementation by public procurers and administrations. On the other hand, the application of at least some categories still remains limited. Therefore, some of these categories could be listed among the good, while others among the bad GPP practices. Additionally, barriers for actions designed to overcome them are considered relevant by the respondents, and the needs for further improvements are being clearly highlighted. What exactly are the GOOD PRACTICES on the national level???


GOOD PRACTICES

Organisational level 1. A good example is clearly the cooperation of public procurer with other experts within the organisation when

preparing GPP tender documents. 2. The participation of public procurers at GPP training seminars is quite important.


Presenter

Presentation Notes

What are the GOOD PRACTICES on the organisational level???


GOOD PRACTICES

GPP implementation level 1. The most common source for GPP criteria are nationally developed criteria, which are mainly based on the EU

GPP criteria.

2. According to the results, public procurers most often include green/energy-related criteria in the technical specifications. 3. The most frequently purchased products in the last three years were: vehicles, office IT equipment, electricity, buildings, and indoor and outdoor lighting. 4. During the GPP process, procurers most often focus on performance / functional specifications and on monitoring contract compliance and execution.


Presenter

Presentation Notes

What are the GOOD PRACTICES on the implementation level???


BAD PRACTICES

National level The weakest points, as defined by the institutional bodies, are: - significant lack of promotion and use of LCC (life-cycle costing) in these countries, - substantial absence of real needs assessment for procurement in organisations, and - lack of market analysis for priority products/services/works. Only three countries reported the existence of a statistics portal for public procurement tenders and contracts, and only two estimated the shares of the country’s GPP uptake. Furthermore, the awareness among procurers of statistical reporting on GPP is quite weak.


Presenter

Presentation Notes

What are the BAD PRACTICES on the national level???


BAD PRACTICES

Organisational level At the level of public organisation in which public procurers work, three critical weaknesses were noted: - organisations rarely adopt GPP policies or strategies; - organisations do not undertake much market engagement activities; and - procurers find it difficult to decide on the share of GPP in the total number of procurements within their organisation.


Presenter

Presentation Notes

What are the BAD PRACTICES on the organisational level???


BAD PRACTICES

GPP implementation level 1. The use of award criteria as reported by respondents is low, although public procurers usually evaluate the quality of the tenders and compare costs at the award stage. Award stage could also recognise environmental performance better than the minimum requirement set in the technical specifications. 2. Based on the results, decisions for pre-commercial procurement are rare among procurers.


Presenter

Presentation Notes

What are the BAD PRACTICES on the implementational level???

In ADDITION to Deliverable 2.4 Comparative matrix

Presenter

Presentation Notes

On the website of GreenS you will also find a matrix excel table, where we defined the evaluation of all questionairies!

Deliverable 2.5_Identificaion/evaluation roundtable meeting


Presenter

Presentation Notes

On the website you will also find a document, which presenting our first international roundtable in Maribor, where the aim of this meeting was to talk about some crusial questions related to data colection and to evaluate the preliminary results of the questionaires!



CONTENT Minutes of the kick-off meeting

Annex 1: Presentations Annex 2: Participants list Annex 3: Roundtable photos

The evaluation process at the round table took place in the form of a dialogue of identification of the work done, i.e. the activities carried out by each partner. The preliminary and the intermediate aggregate results (the responses available and received at the time) were presented by the lead partner. Therefore, the ensuing round table discussion among the partners could also be defined as Learning-by-doing.

Still, certain shortcomings have been observed: delays by partners in mobilizing organizations to include and reply to the partners’

questionnaires => Action = to intensify the mobilization of public organizations and to establish specific contacts of partners with the relevant organizations

lack of understanding of certain specific questions in questionnaires by the individual partners => Action = to send additional information


Deliverable 2.6_Summary report on the needs




CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3

2. Questionnaire for identification of local / regional authorities’ needs through the SEAP´s – Q3 ... 4

3. Summary results on Q3 questionnaire .......................................................................................... 10

A. General data about the SEAP´s .................................................................................................. 12

B. Integration process of GPP into the SEAP .................................................................................. 15

C. GPP implementation .................................................................................................................. 24

D. Needs ......................................................................................................................................... 30


1. INTRODUCTION

In Europe, public authorities are major consumers, spending approximately EUR 2 trillion annually, equivalent to approximately 19% of the EU’s gross domestic product. Part of this budget is also available (or should be available) in SEAP´s of each municipality, because municipalities are public authorities as well.

We wanted to know how the Green Public Procurement (GPP) is currently integrated into the SEAP preparation process. In addition, and even more importantly, we wanted to make identification and analysis of municipalities’ future needs through the SEAP preparation and implementation process.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The fact is that public authorities spend aproxx. 2 trillion EUR in a year and part of this budget should be also available in Sustainable Energy Action Plans of each Covenant of Mayors municipality. And because of that we wanted to know ….


2. Questionnaire for identification of local / regional authorities’ needs through the SEAP´s – Q3 … ONLINE

The tasks under Work package 2: Institutional needs on GPP and Good and bad practices have been divided in the following five lots: • National policy framework for GPP • Institutional support activities for GPP • Organisation’s activities on GPP • GPP implementation • Needs of public authorities through the SEAP´s

Presenter

Presentation Notes

If we see the task of the work, we see some logical continuation!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfaT5hc-9iYsJpGSpKF6VP0pVPbLdZaXoyU7HMMUhEoRqiQFA/viewform?c=0&w=1




3. Summary results on Q3

Goal Results Difference

Number of Q3´s from LA 105 108 + 3

Number of Q3´s per country

15 * 7 countries 7 countries 0

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Our target were 105 …


BULGARIA CYPRUS ITALY LATVIA 1 Beloslav Lakatamia Bocchigliero Balvi 2 Krivodol Aglantzia Cosenza Ikskile 3 Aksakovo Aradippou longobucco Jekabpils 4 Suvorovo Lefkara Montalto Uffugo Jelgava 5 Valchi Dol Paralimni Morano Calabro Jurmala 6 Varna Agros Panettieri Liepaja 7 Sozopol Platres San Lorenzo Bellizzi Limbazi 8 Nessebar Kyperounta Vaccarizzo Albanese Livani 9 Dalgopol Episkopi Verbicaro Ludza

10 Balchik Agios Athanasios AielloCalabro Ogre 11 Karlovo Strovolos Rende Riga 12 Kostinbrod Larnaca Calopezzati Salaspils 13 Ihtiman Latsia Castrolibero Saldus 14 Lom Lefkosia Grisolia Tukums 15 Mizia Engkomi Laino Castello Valka 16 Dobrich Municipality longobucco

SLOVENIA SPAIN SWEDEN

∑ 108

public authorities IN TOTAL

1 Puconci Puerto Real Skellefteå 2 Cankova Pulpí Jokkmokk 3 Kuzma La Carolina Öävertorneå 4 Ljutomer Huetor Tajar Älvsbyn 5 Moravske Toplice San Fernando Luleå 6 Odranci Teba Kiruna 7 Rogašovci Cabra Arjeplog 8 Turnišče Calaf Piteå 9 Razkrižje Conil de la Frontera Eskilstuna

10 Beltinci Jimena de la Front. Helsingborg 11 Krško Ubrique Lerum 12 Maribor Castell. de la Front. Växjö 13 Brda Barbate Finspång 14 Velenje Huesa Jönköping 15 Nazarje Biota Arvika

16 Sestrica

Deliverable 2.6_Summary report on the needs How many people live in the municipality? (Number of inhabitants per municipalities)

0,00

200 000,00

400 000,00

600 000,00

800 000,00

1 000 000,00

1 200 000,00

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The respondents were mostly municipalities and through them we reached quite high number of people! Included are 694.440 inhabitants from Bulgaria, 323.850 from Cyprus, 161.928 from Italy, 1.070.592 from Latvia, 225.999 from Slovenia, 279.747 from Spain and 761.897 from Sweden. In total 3.518.453 inhabitants.

Deliverable 2.6_Summary report on the needs Did your municipality sign the Covenant of Mayors commitment? (% of YES)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Bulgaria Cyprus Italy Latvia Slovenia Spain Sweden

94 100 100 100 100 100 100

Presenter

Presentation Notes

I will show you some of the results also from this last document! And the firs is related to the Covenant of Mayors iniciative and the inclusion of each public authorities! And we see that only 1 municipality from all in the Q3 involved municipalities/cities (108 in total) is not part of the Covenant of Mayors initiatives jet.

Deliverable 2.6_Summary report on the needs What is your SEAP target for CO2 savings / reduction in %? (average in % per municipality)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


25,1 %

33,5 %

22,6 % 23,3 % 21,8 %

24,8 %

34,4 %

Presenter

Presentation Notes

From the included countries and they municipalities Cyprus (33,5 % in average) and Sweden (34,4 % in average) has the most ambitious goals regarding SEAP CO2 savings / reductions. The other countries have in average from 20 till 25 % set reductions (Covenant of Mayors average reduction target till 2020 is 28%) and a new EU target of reducing CO2 emissions by 40% by 2030 is set.

Deliverable 2.6_Summary report on the needs What is your SEAP target for CO2 savings / reduction in tonnes or tonnes per capita? (average by municipalities in tonnes of CO2 per capita)

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00


1,22

2,04

0,84 0,70

3,78

1,10

1,68

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The next question is focusing on the CO2 reduction per capita. As we see the highest value has in average the 15 municipalities from Slovenia (3,78 tonnes per capita) – but also because of the lower number of population in general, followed by Cyprus (2,04 tonnes per capita) and Sweden (1,68 tonnes per capita).


Did your municipality include a “GPP expert” in the preparation of SEAP? (YES/NO)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


100%

13% 13% 13% 7%

100% 100% 87% 87% 87%

93% NO

YES

Integration process of GPP into the SEAP

Presenter

Presentation Notes

In the section called Integration process of GPP into the SEAP we wanted to know how the Green Public Procurement (GPP) is currently integrated into the SEAP preparation process. Although we recorded some bad results (based on the questionnaires), a lot of municipalities (for example in Bulgaria, Sweden, etc.) are active in “green” planning activities, but they are mostly not included in their SEAP´s. The most municipalities/cities have not included any kind of GPP expert person in the SEAP preparation process. The only exception is Cyprus (based on the questionnaires), where all the 16 asked municipalities had some kind of GPP expert included.

Deliverable 2.6_Summary report on the needs Does your municipality have a “GPP expert” in its internal / administrative structure? (YES/NO)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


7% 7% 7% 7%

100% 100% 100% 93% 93% 93% 93%

NO

YES

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Related also to the previous question, municipalities/cities have in general no »GPP expert« in its internal / administrative structure. Only in Latvia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden we recorded 1 municipality/city.

Deliverable 2.6_Summary report on the needs How many municipalities have in their internal / administrative structure of the municipality directly involved person in work on GPP?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


16 15

16 15 15

16 15

2

15 16

1 2

6

9

Total number of municipalities

Number of municipalities that have directly involved emloyees in work on GPP

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Although they do not have an internal GPP expert, but they have directly involved person in work on GPP internal / administrative structure of the municipality, especially in Cyprus and Italy.

Deliverable 2.6_Summary report on the needs Is GPP included as one of the measures of SEAP?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


67%

37%

13% 13% 18%

67%

100%

33%

63%

87% 87% 82%

33%

NO

YES

Presenter

Presentation Notes

During the SEAP preparation process the most municipalities/cities in Cyprus and Sweden, they included GPP as one of the measures of SEAP. In other countries just in few examples or even not at all.

Deliverable 2.6_Summary report on the needs Does your municipality have a GPP action plan?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


20%

67%

100%

80%

100% 100% 100% 100%

33%

NO

YES

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The logical continuation of the questions is that the most municipalities/cities in the countries have no GPP action plan on the local level. Only in case of Sweden the most municipalities includes some kind of action plans regarding GPP.

Deliverable 2.6_Summary report on the needs Financial value of GPP procurements from SEAP (in EUR)

0

2 000 000

4 000 000

6 000 000

8 000 000

10 000 000

12 000 000

BULG

ARIA

(1 m

unic

ipal

ity)

CYPR

US

(15

mun

icip

aliti

es)

ITAL

Y(0

mun

icip

aliti

es)

LATV

IA(n

o da

ta)

SLO

VEN

IA(1

mun

icip

ality

)

SPAI

N(2

mun

icip

aliti

es)

SWED

EN(1

mun

icip

ality

)

50.000 €

11.000.500 €

0 € 36.576 €

1.460.476 € 530.000 €

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The total value of GPP procurements from SEAP´s in 108 municipalities from 7 countries is more than 13 mill. EUR, but as you see in few previous answers, Cyprus has in all 15 municipalities implemented some kind of GPP action based on actions set up in SEAP.


SECTION C: GPP implementation OPEN QUESTIONS

SECTION D: Needs

•Procurement objective

EXAMPLE: How important would it be to expand the guidebook

“How to develop a sustainable energy action plan (SEAP)" with GPP aspects? •(possible answers: 1 – less important, 2 – important, 3 – very important)

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00


2,69 3,00

1,25

3,00

2,33 2,58

1,55

Presenter

Presentation Notes

In section GPP impementation we wanted to know how the Green Public Procurement (GPP) is currently integrated into the SEAP implementation process. Based on the results in Section B - Integration process of GPP into the SEAP the logical continuation of the results has follow also in Section C - GPP implementation, but as a results of additional interviews a lot of municipalities (for example in Bulgaria, Sweden, etc.) are, as I sad before, active in implementation of different “green” activities, but they are mostly not included in their SEAP´s or even not called GPP. In the last section - Needs we wanted to make identification of municipalities’ future needs through the SEAP preparation and implementation process. The questions related to IMPLEMENTATION were in form of OPEN questions and the questions related to the NEEDs in the form of numbers by level of importance for each question (as you see a example on a slide) and the commom results you will see on next slide!


Conclusion and key findings of the report

According to the collected and analyzed needs of the public procurers, recorded at the level of the organizations involved in the context of this document, they could be appropriately positioned in the so-called “Action Plan”. As can be seen from the analysis, the GPP tool is very poorly (actually, almost never) incorporated into the SEAP preparation and implementation process. The fact is that the GPP tool can help public procurers to significantly contribute to the realization of the objectives in line with SEAP, so it makes sense to coordinate these two tools, which are identical in their objectives, at the level of commitment.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Common and most important conclusion is that (based on the answers) that the GPP is very poorly incorporated into the preperation and implementation process of the Sustainable Energy Action Plans of the public authorities, alhough this tool can help public authorities to significantly contribute to the realization of the objectives in line with SEAP, so it makes sense to coordinate these two tools, which are identical in their objectives, at the level of commitment.


SEAP guidelines

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The results of the questionaires forced us to look one more time to the SEAP guidelines and alhogh we have a new guideline and green public procurement is mentioned as part of one chapter as one of good examples, but we think that it makes seens to define more strictly the importance of implementation of GPP in the preperation and implementation process of the SEAP´s . And based on this, as a added value of our project, we prepared some recommendations to the quidelines for improvement of SEAP´s in the future.


Conclusion and key findings of the report

Consequently, as the key findings of the report, the Action Plan includes the following proposals: 1. to contact the Covenant of Mayors Office (CoM), established and funded by the

European Commission, 63-67 Rue d’Arlon, 1040 Brussels, Belgium; 2. to introduce the initiative of the WP coordinator and preparer of this document who

proposes based on the findings to determine with appropriate amendments / with an annex to the SEAP Guidebook that in their preparation of SEAP, public authorities strive towards following the basic principles of GPP as early as the first stage of the conception of the Action Plan. And the team which is preparing SEAP should undertake to fully integrate green public procurement in the Action Plan.

3. for the Covenant of Mayors Office to try to add green public procurement in the first amendments to the SEAP Guidebook as a separate section which will also contribute to the SEAP goals – the provided reduction of CO2 emissions

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Now we are in the process of sending this recommendatins to the Covenant of Mayors Office .

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !!!

…AND PLEASE STAY “GREEN”!

LOCAL ENERGY AGENCY POMURJE Martjanci 36

9221 Martjanci Tel.: (02) 538-13-54

Splet: www.lea-pomurje.si E-pošta: [email protected]

http://greensproject.eu/

http://www.lea-pomurje.si/



mailto:[email protected]



http://greensproject.eu/

Štefan Žohar, 14.9greensproject.eu/.../2015/09/stefan-zohar...2016.pdf · webinar, 14.9.2016 ....

Documents