COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF %˛FFERENT GPP PRACTICESgreensproject.eu/wp-content/.../D2.4_Report-on-comparative-analysis-of... · This project is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme

D2.4 Prepared comparative analysis of different GPP practices

This project is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme

of the European Union under Grant Agreement 649860

1

Task 2.2. Comparative analysis of different GPP

practices identified

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT GPP

PRACTICES

Agreement No: 649860 — GreenS

Deliverable D2.4

May 2016




2

CONTENTS

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

1. THE GREENS PROJECT ..............................................................................................................3

2. METHODOLOGY FOR RECORDING AND COLLECTION OF GOOD AND BAD PRACTICES ..............4

3. SURVEYS..................................................................................................................................4

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................6

III. ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT GPP PRACTICES IN EACH COUNTRY ................................................. 11

1. Bulgaria ................................................................................................................................. 11

2. Cyprus ................................................................................................................................... 15

3. Germany ............................................................................................................................... 19

4. Italy ....................................................................................................................................... 23

5. Latvia .................................................................................................................................... 27

6. Slovenia ................................................................................................................................ 31

7. Spain ..................................................................................................................................... 35

8. Sweden ................................................................................................................................. 39

IV. COMMON RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 43

1. National policy framework for GPP ........................................................................................ 43

2. Institutional support activities for GPP .................................................................................. 44

3. Organisation’s activities......................................................................................................... 47

4. GPP implementation ............................................................................................................. 50

5. COMPARATIVE RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 60

V. ABSTRACT OF MAIN GOOD AND BAD (POOR) GPP PRACTICES ................................................... 79

VI. INDEX OF FIGURES................................................................................................................. 83

VII. INDEX OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. 85




3

I. INTRODUCTION

1. THE GREENS PROJECT

The “GreenS - Green Public Procurement Supporters for Innovative and Sustainable Institutional

Change” project is funded by the European Union’s “Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation

Programme” and will be implemented in a period of 36 months, starting from June 2015. The partner

consortium consists of 14 organisations from 8 European countries and is led by the project

coordinator ALESSCO – Local Energy Agency for Sustainable Development – Province of Cosenza

(Italy).

The GreenS overall objective is to strengthen capacity of public authorities to successfully apply

Green Public Procurements (GPPs) with priority, enhancing their ability and capacity to save energy,

reduce CO2 emissions and costs by applying innovative solutions on GPP. The project, aims at

contributing 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”. The

establishment of “supporting permanent structures”, called G.PP.S. – Green Public Procurement

Supporters (Supporting Units) within the participating Energy Agencies provides to the public

authorities long-term support and technical assistance on GPP. The innovation of this process will be

also well facilitated by the “dialogue and actions” and multi-level cooperation among different actors

at national, regional and local level on GPP.

Among the long-term objectives of the project are the following:

• to make green procurement practices, including for example Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Life

Cycle Procurement (LCP) analysis, common standard among public administrations, also

providing information on LCC of products;

• to contribute to boosting a process for setting common GPP criteria, tools and procedures in

the EU, also providing easy access to GPP (criteria, tools, procedures) for public

administrators in national language;

• to provide dialogue, suggestions to the political decision making process also legal and

operational guidance;

• to establish Supporting Structures at regional and local level on GPP

• to raise awareness among different actors on the potential of green procurement to reduce

LCC and LCP and CO₂ emissions

• to institutionalize the role of Energy Agencies (=Supporter Structures) on GPP;

• to enhance the cooperation among public authorities networks (national, regional and local)

by establishing networks of GPP stakeholders to promote the GPP-related consultation and

training to the target group




4

2. METHODOLOGY FOR RECORDING AND COLLECTION OF GOOD AND

BAD PRACTICES

Besides an extensive desk research and a review of the recent GPP and SEAP practices in the EU

Member States, this study essentially draws on the findings of a comprehensive data collection

exercise based on two different online surveys that has been submitted to public authorities at

different levels of government in each GreenS country.

The methodological approach has been chosen in align with project’s tasks and in agreement with

the GreenS partners. In order to secure a greater level of detail in our analysis, we have entirely rely

on the support of institutional bodies from the GreenS project and SEAP energy experts. National

experts has been acting as contact persons for their own countries to ease the process of data

collection and some also conducted personal interviews with public authorities during the

questionnaire process.

In order to make valid statements from the data collected, we must ensure that our results are as

accurate as possible and that the sample of authorities contacted is as valid as possible.

Overarching aim was to focus on targeted group for collecting quality data from real GPP

practitioners; otherwise too poor information with such small sample could be received. Therefore,

all responsible NPs have been asked to find and make contacts with at least 10 public authorities at

national/regional/local level (or personnel that are responsible for GPP implementation) that are

already implementing and are familiar with GPP. These could have been either a managerial staff

(director of procurement or other unit, official working at the ministry /region responsible for GPP

etc.) or procurers themselves.

3. SURVEYS

Two surveys provided organised collection of data that are most relevant for the illustration of GPP in

countries and in public organisations observed. Reporting of data involves analysis, interpretation

and presentation of data received. The results have been aimed to analyse and map the status of the

implementation of GPP. Assembled data described in detail all answers on every question for each

country separately and also summed up for all together. They have been presented in graphical and

table forms.

For obtaining required information we prepared two (2) on-line questionnaires (Q); one for public

procurers and one for national partners (NPs). The first questionnaire was focusing more on

practices, the other on the GPP process and policy at the national level.




5

1. The first questionnaire (Q1 – public procurers) was designed in order to collect data on the

procurement behaviours of public authorities in eight respective countries. The

questionnaire in English language was published online/HTML format to facilitate data

collection and tailor the survey to the respondents’ time preferences. It was translated in

only one national language (in Bulgarian) while in other countries public procurers got

language support from project’s institutional bodies. With the Q for public procurers, who

are in practice carrying out GPP and know the best how to do it, what and how much they

purchase, and what difficulties they are facing, we were collecting mainly two sets of data:

about their own organisation’ practices related to GPP and their own procurement

experience. Partially we also wanted to know how much they are aware of the national

policy of GPP.

The survey was carried out from November 2015 till April 2016. Overall, 114 questionnaires have

been received, more than 10 envisaged per each country (more than 14 in average per

country).

2. The second questionnaire (Q2 – national partners) weighed up broadly the institutional /

policy system of the GPP in the country and assessed in length the conceivable national

support activities in each country. The questionnaire was addressed to national partners

(NPs). First general section contained questions on the national status of GPP (policy

frameworks) and estimated level of GPP uptake etc. Another section focuses on the process,

i. e. all possible support activities that could help public procurers for easier, better and

quicker implementation of GPP in order to assess what exactly exists in these countries.

Hence, with the questions for NPs we expected to gather up-to-date data about the policy

and institutional level of GPP in each project country. We assumed that NPs are very

knowledgeable about the state of art of the GPP in their respective countries and also we

need reliable data in order to consistently and trustworthily present the present status of

GPP for each project’s country in the final report of WP2. National partners also made

comparison with the data in the National Action Plans (NAPs) as published at the EU

Commission website (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/action_plan_en.htm).

The questionnaire in English language was published online/HTML format. The survey was

carried out between November and December 2015. Overall, 8 questionnaires have been

received, 1 per each country.




6

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

National policy framework for GPP and the awareness of procurers

• Based on the answers from 8 national partners we can see that in Bulgaria, Italy and Sweden

they do not have any mandatory provision (partially or fully) on GPP in place. We can confirm

that in all 8 countries they adopted the national action plan on GPP. Clear national targets

and timeframe for the GPP uptake is missing only in Germany. We identify prioritised GPP

products, services and works in all countries except in Germany and Cyprus. According to the

answers from national partners, we can find some kind of policy document about GPP (other

than NAP) in all countries except in Cyprus and Italy. A political agreement about GPP

implementation and assigned responsibilities on national level are in place in all 8

participating countries. A constant promotion of potential benefits of GPP is provided in

Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Latvia and Sweden. Such kind of activity on a national level

is missing in Slovenia and Spain. According to the answers a active monitoring and reporting

system on GPP is in place in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Latvia and in Slovenia, while in Germany,

Spain and Sweden we still miss such kind of system. Promotion and use of life cycle costing

(LCC) is provided in only 3 countries: Bulgaria, Germany and in Sweden.

• Majority of all respondents in 8 different countries confirmed that they are informed about

the national GPP policy or political agreement for the uptake of GPP in their country. We

identified the highest level of awareness in Latvia and Italy (100 % of respondents), while the

lowest in Spain (59 %) and in Sweden (53 %). The other countries are between these

percentages.

• There is also a high awareness of respondents about the national GPP targets. Similar to the

previous question, we identified the highest level of awareness in Italy (100 %) and in Latvia

(94 %) and the lowest in Sweden (53 %) and in Spain (only 29 % of the respondents). The

other countries are between 80 and 90 %.

• In general there is also a high familiarity of respondents in these 8 countries with priority GPP

products, services and works that are defined in the countries. We identified the highest

level of familiarity in Italy (91 %), Bulgaria (93 %) and Latvia (even 94 % of respondents),

while the lowest in Sweden (73 %), Cyprus (71 %) and especially in Spain (only 29 % of the

respondents).

• We identified lower level of awareness about statistic reporting on GPP in participating 8

countries. More or less half of all respondents are aware. The positive exemption countries

are again Latvia (75 %) and Italy (82 %), while the “poor” countries in this question are

Slovenia (42 %) and again Spain, whit the lowest level of awareness (only 24 % of the

respondents). The other countries are between these percentages.




7

• In general there is a medium level of experience of respondents in the countries with support

activities for GPP, those that support easier, better and quicker implementation of GPP and

which are in place in each participating country. We see that the highest level of experience

we have in Sweden (80 %), Latvia (81 %) and Italy (91 %), while the country with the lowest

level in this field is once again Spain (only 29 % of the respondents). Other countries

(Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany and Slovenia) have awareness level of about 50 %. Among them

they all utilise the most different websites.

Institutional national support activities for GPP

• The most institutional national support activities for GPP are in place in Germany (23 out of

24) where only a qualitative online green product catalogue is missing and in Sweden (17 out

of 24) where they still miss a regular newsletters about GPP, a real assessment of needs on

GPP, specialized publication about GPP, a specific working group for GPP, a green tender

database, a market analysis and an online green product catalogue. Slovenia has the least

institutional support activities for GPP (5 out of 24). Only a legal support from responsible

authority, a GPP website, regular GPP training events, a tender models and some kind of

CO₂/energy saving calculator is in place. The most common support activities in all

participating countries is the legal support from an responsible authority (only in Spain is still

missing) a clear guidance and tools for GPP (only in Slovenia is still missing) and pilot GPP

projects (only in Slovenia is still missing), while the most rare or inactive GPP support

activities are a real assessment of needs (only in Germany in place), a qualitative national

market analysis (only in Germany in place) and a green tender database (only in Germany

and in Bulgaria in place).

Information about organisation’s activities

• We identified very different results (between countries) from the respondents about the GPP

strategy or action plan on GPP in place in their organisations. We observed on one hand a

very high level of existence of some kind of GPP strategy or action plan on GPP in the

organisations in Germany (64 %), Sweden (67 %), Italy (82 %) and Cyprus (88 %), while on the

other hand a very low level in Spain (35 %), Latvia (13 %) and especially in Slovenia (8 %) and

in Bulgaria (only 7 % of the respondents).

• More similar results between different countries we observed regarding the question of the

existence of managerial support for the implementation of GPP in the organisations. We

identified the highest level of existence in Cyprus (71 %) and especially in Bulgaria (86 %),

while the lowest in Slovenia (42 %) and especially in Spain (only 18 % of the respondents).

The other countries (Germany, Italy, Latvia and Sweden) are between 50 and 65 %.




8

• More positive practices we identified for the political support for the implementation of GPP

in the most countries. The shining examples with the highest level of political support are

Sweden (87 %) and Italy (91 %), while in Cyprus (47 %) and Spain (35 %) we observed much

lower level of political support for the implementation of GPP. The other countries (Bulgaria,

Germany, Latvia and Slovenia) are between 60 and 70 %.

• We observe a low level (in general) of market engagement activities (any kind) in the

participating countries. We identified more or less the same “high” level of this kind of

activities in Cyprus, Germany and Italy (64 %), while a very low level in Slovenia, Cyprus,

Bulgaria and Slovenia (in general less than 30 %).

• We identified very different results between the 8 countries from the respondents about the

participation on any training seminars on GPP. We observed on one hand a very high level of

participation on a GPP training seminar of the respondents in Sweden (67 %), Slovenia (75

%), Latvia (88 %) and Italy (91 %), while on the other hand a relatively low level of

participation in Germany (55 %), Spain (47 %), Cyprus (13 %) and especially in Bulgaria (only

21 % of the respondents).

• Nearly half of the procurers in all participating EU countries include GPP criteria in tender

documents by themselves. This number is the lowest in Spain (30 %) and the highest in

Slovenia (56 %). The other countries are between these percentages. Spain (40 %) and

Cyprus (44 %) have the highest level of help from other departments or experts. The lowest

level of this kind of help we identified in Slovenia (22 %) and in Latvia (19 %). The other

countries are more or less on one third. Relatively small number of procurers use help from

some kind of external adviser. Bulgaria, Italy (25 %) and Latvia (29 %) have the highest level

of seeking help from a external adviser in the preparation of GPP tender documents.

• We also asked from the procurers in 8 different countries for the estimation of the GPP in

the total number of organisations procurements and found out that such figures can be

proposed in the highest level in Latvia (63 %). In all other countries less than a half of the

procurers can found out such figures. The lowest level we identified in Sweden (27 %), in

Slovenia (25 %) and in Bulgaria (only 7 % of the respondents).

GPP implementation

• We observed relatively similar answers in the participating EU countries regarding the

question about the type of use of green or energy efficiency requirements in tenders. The

highest number of procurers in Slovenia, Latvia, Sweden, Italy and Cyprus state that these

are nationally developed criteria, while in Spain the highest number of procurers state that




9

these are requirements from environmental management systems and in Bulgaria and

Germany their state that this are the environmental technical standards. The lowest number

of procurers in all countries stated that they are using green criteria from other countries or

using provision set in different EU sector legislation.

• We observed very similar answers in all participating countries regarding the question about

stages of the procurement process in which the procurers usually include the green/energy

efficient criteria. We identified that in all 8 countries this is in the technical specifications,

followed by “in the contract performance clauses” and “in the requirements for

technical/professional ability of tenderer. We identified the lowest level of including the

green/energy efficient criteria in all countries in “all stages of GPP process”.

• According to the answers from the procurers in the last 3 years in Cyprus and Germany (also

in Italy) most frequently they prepared GPP contract for office IT equipment. The procurers

in Slovenia and Sweden they mostly prepared GPP contract for product group:

transport/vehicles. In Latvia we identified street lighting/traffic signals and

construction/buildings as the two most frequent product groups. Also in Bulgaria we see that

the most frequent product groups are construction/buildings and office IT equipment. In

Spain we see a very similar share of all energy efficient product/service/work groups.

• During the procurement process they are very often looking for innovative solutions (public

procurement of innovation) the procurers in Cyprus, Bulgaria, Germany and Italy. We

identified the lowest level regarding this question in Latvia and Slovenia.

• Regarding the answers about the decision on pre-commercial procurement during the

procurement process, we see relatively high number by the procurers in Bulgaria, Cyprus,

Germany and Sweden. On the other hand we identified a similar low level regarding this

question in Italy, Spain, Latvia and Slovenia.

• Positive answers regarding the question about asking for leasing possibilities during the

procurement process are very rare. But sometimes the procurers in Germany, Bulgaria and

Sweden they are asking for it. Regarding this question the answer “never” is the highest in

Slovenia, Latvia and Cyprus.

• More often than asking for leasing possibilities the procurers in all 8 countries are focusing

on the performance/functional specifications during the procurement process. We see

similar answers in all countries. The exceptions are Spain where we have the highest number

of answer: “almost always” and Latvia where we see answer “sometimes” as the most

frequent.




10

• During the procurement process they are very often monitoring contract compliance and

execution the procurers in Bulgaria. More than a half of the respondents in Spain almost

always are monitoring contract compliance and execution during the procurement process.

In Sweden we observe the lowest level of this activity.

• A very important question is related to the market analysis. During the procurement process

the procurers in Italy, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Cyprus are most active in carrying out a market

analysis. But also in other countries they are in carrying out a market analysis at least

sometimes.

• One fourth of the respondents in Slovenia answered that they almost always use life-cycle

costing (LCC) during the procurement process. We see that also the procurers in Bulgaria,

Cyprus and Germany are active on LCC during the procurement process at least sometimes.

We noticed a relatively low activity in Latvia.

• Almost one third of the procurers in Bulgaria almost always calculating CO₂ and energy

saving during the procurement process, which is the highest share from all participating

countries. But also in Cyprus, Germany, Slovenia and Italy we see that at least sometimes the

procurers use some kind of CO₂ or energy saving calculators. In Spain we noticed the highest

number of procurers who answered that they never use such kind of tools.

• On the basis of the additional questions for national partners the main difficulties for

procurers in the implementation process of GPP seems to be: lack of knowledge about GPP

policy and GPP criteria (especially in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Slovenia and Spain). Huge

difficulty seems to be also the market readiness and the information about green market (in

all participating countries). They also claim about lack of trainings and support activities ((in

all participating countries) and higher prices of green services/products etc (in Bulgaria,

Germany, Latvia, Slovenia and Spain).

• Based on the answers from the procurers in 8 different EU countries the most respondents

are seeking for the following 3 support for the GPP implementation in the future:

information on market availability (especially in Slovenia, Italy, Germany, Spain and Cyprus),

sources of GPP criteria to use (especially in Germany, Bulgaria and Cyprus) and for evaluation

of life cycle costing – LCC (especially in Italy, Sweden and Germany). We identified no

answers that some of the procurers do not need any support on the implementation of GPP.

Relatively low number of procurers stated that they need support to understand

mechanisms for appropriate monitoring and reporting (especially in Spain, Slovenia,

Germany or in Sweden), support to understand environmental aspects in relation to

purchase (in Sweden, Italy, Slovenia or in Bulgaria and support for running pilot project on

GPP (in Germany, Italy, Sweden or in Bulgaria).




11

III. ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT GPP PRACTICES IN EACH

COUNTRY

1. Bulgaria

National policy framework for GPP and the awareness of procurers in Bulgaria

Out of 10 listed possible aspects of the national GPP policy components there is only one publicised

that seems to be vain in the country: mandatory provision on GPP. There also exist estimated data

about GPP procurement uptake.

Majority (86 %) 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 (79 %) of

respondents about the national GPP targets and even higher is (93 %) familiarity with priority GPP

products, services and works that are defined. Only one third (34 %) are conscious about statistic

reporting on GPP in the country. Half of respondents have experience with support activities (50 %)

for GPP, those that support easier, better and quicker implementation of GPP and which are in place

in the country. Among them they utilise the most the existing websites, the NAP and several projects

funded by Horizon 2020 etc.

Not so widely the organisation applies market engagement activities and they claim that there is

weak attendance at GPP trainings, only few organisations adopted GPP policy/strategy and their

awareness of statistical reporting on GPP is limited.

Institutional national support activities for GPP in Bulgaria

From 24 listed support activities that recognisable facilitate the GPP implementation there are more

than a half that are very likely missing in the country. These are: GPP website, regular newsletters,

real assessment of needs, specialised publications about GPP, webinars, platform for exchange of

best practices, regular training events, networking and exchange events, specific working groups for

GPP, tender models for products, market analysis for priority products / services / works, online

green products catalogue, LCC guidance and cost/benefit analysis of GPP. Further improvements are

seen in clear definition of what is "green" procurement, dissemination of GPP's benefits,

development of full set of instruments for support of public authorities and business and clear and

encouraging legal frame.




12

Information about organisation’s activities in Bulgaria

Only 7 % of respondents declare that their organisations have a GPP strategy or action plan on GPP.

But on contrary, the managerial support experience the majority of respondents (86 %) and a bit

less (71 %) the political support. Any kind of market engagement activities are practising in one fifth

(21%) of public procurers in question. Training seminars on GPP attended also by only one fifth of

respondents.

Figure 1: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN BULGARIA

Some 40 % of procurers include GPP criteria in tender documents by themselves while nearly one

third (30 %) are seeking help from other department’s experts in the preparation of GPP tender

documents and one quarter (25 %) hire external advisers. We also asked for the estimation of the

GPP in the total number of organisation's procurements; results show that only 7 % (one procurer)

can propose such figure, which could be 50 %.

GPP implementation in Bulgaria

What type of green or energy efficiency requirements do respondents usually use in tenders? The

highest number of procurers state that these are environmental technical standards, criteria from

eco-labels, requirements from environmental management systems and nationally developed

criteria. Where do they include criteria? Most often this is in the technical specifications while

interestingly, the answers for other procurement stages are nearly equally distributed.

In the last 3 years most frequently they prepared GPP contract for the following energy efficient

products, services and works: buildings and office IT equipment, and also indoor and street lighting.

By myself

40%

With the

help of other

departments

´ experts

30%

With the

help of

external

adviser

25%

Other

5%




13

Figure 2: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN BULGARIA

During the procurement process they are very often monitoring contract compliance and execution

and focusing on performance / functional specifications but only seldom they are asking for leasing

possibilities and using life-cycle costing (LCC).

Figure 3: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN BULGARIA

Electricity

Office IT Equipment

Imaging Equipment

Electrical and Electronic Equipment used in the Health …

Transport/vehicles

Infrastructure works (motorways, bridges, etc.)

Street lighting and traffic signals

Waste Water Infrastructure

Construction/Buildings

Combined Heat and Power

Indoor lighting

Water-based Heaters

Other

0% 50% 100%

... looking for innovative solutions (public procurement …

... deciding for pre-commercial procurement

... asking for leasing possibilities

... focusing on performance/functional specifications

... monitoring contract compliance and execution

… carrying out market analysis

… using life-cycle costing (LCC)

… calculating CO2 and energy savings

21%

21%

7%

36%

50%

36%

14%

29%

21%

7%

0%

21%

43%

0%

14%

14%

14%

36%

43%

29%

0%

21%

21%

21%

36%

29%

14%

14%

7%

36%

36%

21%

7%

7%

36%

0%

0%

7%

14%

14%

almost always often sometimes seldom never




14

The main difficulties for procurers in the implementation of GPP seems to be: lack of knowledge

about GPP criteria, trainings and information, professional support, lack of information for available

green products/services on the market, higher costs of “green” products etc.

Many respondents are seeking the following support in the future for the GPP implementation:

professional GPP training seminars, sources of GPP criteria to use, how to integrate

environmental/energy considerations into tender procedures, information on market availability,

evaluation of life cycle costing – LCC etc.

Figure 4: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN BULGARIA




15

2. Cyprus

National policy framework for GPP and the awareness of procurers in Cyprus

Out of 10 listed possible aspects of the national GPP policy components there are three revealed that

seems to be unsuccessful in the country; GPP products, services, works prioritised, other (than NAP)

policy document about GPP and promotion and use of GPP. There is also no offered data about

percentage of the country’s GPP uptake.

Majority (88 %) of respondents confirmed that they are informed about the national GPP policy or


respondents about the national GPP targets and high is (71 %) familiarity with priority GPP products,

services and works that are defined. More than a half (59 %) is conscious about statistic reporting on

GPP in the country. Half of respondents have experience with support activities (53 %) for GPP, those

that support easier, better and quicker implementation of GPP and which are in place in the country.

Among them they utilise the most the website of the Environmental Department.

Not so much the organisation apply market engagement activities and they claim that there is weak

attendance at GPP trainings and have not much political support for GPP implementation.

Institutional national support activities for GPP in Cyprus

From 24 listed national support activities that recognisable facilitate the GPP implementation there

are nearly half that are very likely not operational. These are: GPP website, real assessment of needs,

specialised publication about GPP, webinars, platform for exchange of best practices, help desk for

procurers and for suppliers, regular training events, tender models for products, green tender

database, market analysis for priority products / services / works, LCC guidance and cost/benefit

analysis of GPP. Further improvements are seen in GPP law with penalties.

Information about organisation’s activities in Cyprus

Only 12 % of respondents declare that their organisations have a GPP strategy or action plan on GPP in

place. But on contrary, the managerial support experience high number of respondents (71 %) and

much less (43 %) the political support. Any kind of market engagement activities are practising in less

than a third (29%) of public procurers in question. Training seminars on GPP attended nearly half (47 %)

of respondents.

Some 41 % of procurers include GPP criteria in tender documents by themselves while a bit higher

number (44 %) are seeking help from other department’s experts in the preparation of GPP tender

documents.




16

Figure 5: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN CYPRUS

We also asked for the estimation of the GPP in the total number of organisation's procurements;

results show that nearly one third (29 %) can propose such figure, which are quite high: 50 %, 70 %,

100 %, 75 % and 15-20 %.

GPP implementation in Cyprus


highest number of procurers state that these are nationally developed criteria, environmental

technical standards and EU GPP criteria. Where do they include criteria? Most often this is in the

technical specifications and when defining the subject matter of the contract.


products, services and works: office IT equipment and indoor lighting but also for

construction/buildings, street lighting, transport and electricity.

By myself

41%

With the help

of other

departments´

experts

44%

With the help

of external

adviser

11%

Other

4%




17

Figure 6: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN CYPRUS

During the procurement process they are very often focusing on performance / functional

specifications, monitoring contract compliance and execution and carrying out market analysis and

the least often they are asking for leasing possibilities.

Figure 7: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN CYPRUS

Electricity

Office IT Equipment

Imaging Equipment


Transport/vehicles






Indoor lighting

Water-based Heaters

Other

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

... looking for innovative solutions (public procurement of

innovation)








12%

0%

0%

29%

24%

12%

6%

24%

35%

24%

12%

29%

29%

29%

24%

6%

35%

29%

24%

35%

35%

24%

12%

24%

12%

41%

24%

6%

6%

24%

41%

24%

6%

6%

41%

0%

6%

12%

18%

24%





18

The main difficulties for procurers in the implementation of GPP seem to be: lack of information and

knowledge about GPP criteria, higher costs of green products, no support, no information about

green products etc.


information on market availability, sources of GPP criteria to use, professional GPP training seminars

etc.

Figure 8: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN CYPRUS




19

3. Germany

National policy framework for GPP and the awareness of procurers in Germany

Out of 10 listed possible aspects of the national GPP policy components there are three exposed that

seems to be unimpressive in the country; clear national targets and timeframes for the GPP uptake,

GPP products, services, works prioritised, and monitoring and reporting systems in place. There is

also no offered data about percentage of the country’s GPP uptake.

Nearly four-fifths (82 %) of respondents confirmed that they are informed about the national GPP

policy or political agreement for the uptake of GPP in their country. The same number of

respondents expressed awareness (82 %) about the national GPP targets and the same number (82

%) is familiar with priority GPP products, services and works that are defined. Less than a half (45 %)

are conscious about statistic reporting on GPP in the country. More than a half of respondents (55 %)

are knowledgeable about support activities for GPP that are in place in the country. Among them

they utilise the most the websites and trainings.

Institutional national support activities for GPP in Germany

From 24 listed national support activities that recognisable facilitate the GPP implementation there is

only one that is not in place: this is online green products catalogue. Further improvements are seen

in embedding GPP training in the vocational training, setting staff performance indicators, centralised

monitoring system and more hurdles for not involving green criteria in tenders.

Information about organisation’s activities in Germany

Two-thirds (64 %) of respondents announced that their organisations have a GPP strategy or action

plan on GPP in place. The managerial support experience a bit more than a half (55 %) of respondents

while a segment of political support is much higher (73 %). Any kind of market engagement activities

are practising two-third (64 %) of public procurers. Training seminars on GPP attended some half (55 %)

of respondents.

Exactly half (50 %) of procurers includes GPP criteria in tender documents by themselves while one-

fifth (25 %) are seeking help from other department’s experts and 15 % are looking for external

advices in the preparation of GPP tender documents.




20

Figure 9: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN GERMANY


results show that even 45 % can propose such figure, which are quite high: 90 %, 25 %, 60 %, 30 %

and 25 %.

GPP implementation in Germany


highest number of procurers state that these are environmental technical standards and any other

appropriate green criteria, but also EU GPP and Ecolabel criteria. Where do they include criteria?

Most often this is in the technical specifications and when defining the subject matter of the

contract.


products, services and works: office IT equipment, vehicles, electricity and indoor lighting.

By myself

50%

With the

help of

other

departmen

ts´ experts

25%

With the

help of

external

adviser

15%

Other

(decree on

GPP)

10%




21

Figure 10: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN GERMANY

During the procurement process they are often focusing on performance/functional specifications

and monitoring contract compliance and execution but also looking for innovative solutions in

general, using LCC and calculating CO2 and energy savings. Not to greater extent they are deciding for

pre-commercial procurement.

Figure 11: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN GERMANY

Electricity

Office IT Equipment

Imaging Equipment


Transport/vehicles






Indoor lighting

Water-based Heaters

Other









9%

9%

9%

18%

27%

9%

0%

9%

36%

9%

9%

36%

18%

9%

18%

27%

18%

36%

55%

27%

27%

36%

73%

36%

36%

9%

18%

18%

27%

36%

9%

18%

0%

36%

9%

0%

0%

9%

0%

9%





22

The main difficulties for procurers in the implementation of GPP seem to be: lack of information, lack

of knowledge concerning legal requirements & possibilities, costs, suitable products, budget etc.

Most respondents are seeking the following support in the future for the GPP implementation:

information on market availability of products/services/works, sources of GPP criteria to use,

evaluation of LCC and how to verify claims made by tenderers.

Figure 12: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN GERMANY




23

4. Italy

National policy framework for GPP and the awareness of procurers in Italy

Out of 10 listed possible aspects of the national GPP policy components there are three make known

that seems to be weak in the country: mandatory provision on GPP, other (than NAP) policy

document about GPP and promotion and use of LCC. There are no data about GPP procurement.

All respondents (100 %) confirmed that they are informed about the national GPP policy or political

agreement for the uptake of GPP in their country, are aware about the national GPP targets and

almost all (91 %) are familiar with priority GPP products, services and works that are defined in the

country. Over four-fifths (82 %) of respondents are also conscious about statistic reporting on GPP in

the country and almost all (91 %) have experience with support activities for GPP that are in place in

the country. Among them they utilise the most the websites (mostly of the Italian Ministry for the

Environment).

Institutional national support activities for GPP in Italy


are more than a half that are very likely failed to be noticed. These are: technical / expert support for

GPP criteria, regular newsletters, real assessment of needs, webinars, platform for exchange of best

practices, help desk for procurers and for suppliers, tender models for products, green tender

database, good practice exchange, market analysis for priority products / services / works,

CO₂/energy saving calculator, LCC guidance and cost/benefit analysis of GPP. Further improvements

are seen in enforced communication and information activities and with providing tender templates

for services, products and works.

Information about organisation’s activities in Italy

Over four-fifths (82 %) of respondents declare that their organisations have a GPP strategy or action

plan on GPP in place. The managerial support experience nearly two thirds (64 %) of respondents

while a feeling for a political support is much higher (91 %). Any kind of market engagement activities

are practising 64 % of respondents. Training seminars on GPP attended almost all (91 %) of

respondents.

Some 40 % of procurers includes GPP criteria in tender documents by themselves while nearly one

third (30 %) are seeking help from other department’s experts and one quarter (25 %) are looking for

external advice in the preparation of GPP tender documents.




24

Figure 13: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN ITALY


results show that only 36 % can propose such figure, which are very different: 30 %, 90 %, 98 % and

10 %.

GPP implementation in Italy


highest number of procurers state that these are nationally developed criteria, criteria from

Ecolabels, environmental technical standards and criteria from any appropriately certified or labelled

products. Where do they include criteria? Mostly this is in the technical specifications.

In the last 3 years most frequently they prepared GPP contract for no exclusively energy related

products, services and works (such as cleaning, paper, catering services, furniture etc.), but quite

some purchase has been done for office IT equipment.

By myself

40%

With the

help of

other

department

s´ experts

30%

With the

help of

external

adviser

25%

Other

5%




25

Figure 14: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN ITALY

During the procurement process they are very often focusing on performance/functional

specifications, monitoring contract compliance and execution and carrying out market analysis.

calculating CO₂ and energy savings Less seldom they are asking for leasing possibilities or using life-

cycle costing (LCC).

Figure 15: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN ITALY

Electricity

Office IT Equipment

Imaging Equipment


Transport/vehicles






Indoor lighting

Water-based Heaters

Other









18%

27%

18%

9%

9%

27%

9%

9%

27%

36%

45%

9%

27%

27%

36%

18%

36%

27%

18%

36%

27%

18%

45%

45%

9%

18%

27%

27%

18%

9%

9%

27%

27%

18%





26

The main difficulties for procurers in the implementation of GPP seem to be: lack of knowledge and

information about GPP policy, criteria and green market, difficulties with the evaluation of criteria,

lack of national support and training, lack of environmental criteria and standardised monitoring

system etc.


information on market availability of products/services/works and for evaluation of LCC, information

on potential benefits of GPP and professional technical support.

Figure 16: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN ITALY




27

5. Latvia

National policy framework for GPP and the awareness of procurers Latvia

Out of 10 listed possible aspects of the national GPP policy components there is only one disclosed

that seems to be weak in the country – this is promotion and use of LCC. And there are some data

about GPP procurement.

All (100 %) 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 very high awareness (94 %)

of respondents about the national GPP targets and very high (94 %) is familiarity with priority GPP

products, services and works that are defined. More than two third (75 %) are conscious about

statistic reporting on GPP in the country. Very high numbers of respondents have experience with

support activities (81 %) for GPP, those that support easier, better and quicker implementation of

GPP and which are in place in the country. Among them they utilise the most the websites

(http://www.iub.gov.lv/lv, www.varam.gov.lv/lat/darbibas_veidi/zalais_publiskais_iepirkums/), guidance,

trainings, seminars, conferences etc.

Institutional national support activities for GPP Latvia


are more than a half that are very likely still missing. These are: technical / expert support for GPP

criteria, regular updating of GPP criteria, regular newsletters, real assessment of needs, specialised

publication about GPP, webinars, platform for exchange of best practices, help desk for procurers

and for suppliers, green tender database, good practice exchange, market analysis for priority

products / services / works, CO₂/energy saving calculator and cost/benefit analysis of GPP. Further

improvements are seen by ensuring free of charge technical support available for public bodies and

municipalities and setting up mandatory GPP for priority groups.

Information about organisation’s activities in Latvia

Only 12 % of respondents declare that their organisations have a GPP strategy or action plan on GPP

in place. But on contrary, the managerial support experience two third of respondents (62 %) and the

same share (62 %) of political support. Any kind of market engagement activities are practising in two

third (62%) of public procurers in question. Training seminars on GPP attended high number (87 %)

of respondents.




28

Nearly half (48 %) of procurers include GPP criteria in tender documents by themselves while 28 % is

looking for external advices and 19 % are seeking help from other department’s experts in the

preparation of GPP tender documents.

Figure 17: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN LATVIA


results show that nearly two third (62 %) can propose such figure, which range between 15 and 30 %.

GPP implementation in Latvia


highest number of procurers state that these are nationally developed criteria. Where do they

include criteria? Most often this is in the technical specifications and when defining the subject

matter of the contract.


products, services and works: construction/buildings, street lighting, transport and electricity.

By myself

48%

With the

help of other

departments

´ experts

19%

With the

help of

external

adviser

28%

Other (we

usually do

not include)

5%




29

Figure 18: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN LATVIA

During the procurement process they are often carrying out market analysis and monitoring contract

compliance and execution and focusing on performance / functional specifications and less often

using life-cycle costing (LCC).

Figure 19: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN LATVIA

Electricity

Office IT Equipment

Imaging Equipment


Transport/vehicles






Indoor lighting

Water-based Heaters

Other

0% 50% 100%









0%

0%

0%

6%

13%

6%

0%

0%

19%

6%

13%

19%

25%

25%

6%

13%

31%

44%

13%

50%

38%

25%

25%

31%

44%

31%

31%

19%

6%

44%

31%

44%

6%

19%

44%

6%

19%

0%

38%

13%





30

The main difficulties for procurers in the implementation of GPP seems to be: difficult for local

municipalities, high costs of green products and lack of supply, weak knowledge and awareness

about GPP criteria, lack of support (managerial, political, financial) etc.


professional GPP training seminars, information on market availability, on potential GPP benefits,

etc.

Figure 20: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN LATVIA




31

6. Slovenia

National policy framework for GPP and the awareness of procurers in Slovenia

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.

Close to all (92 %) of respondents confirmed that they are informed about the national GPP policy or


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 conscious about statistic

reporting on GPP in the country. Half of respondents (52 %) have experience with support activities

for GPP, those that support easier, better and quicker implementation of GPP and which are in place

in the country. Among them they utilise the most different websites (http://www.umanotera.org/,

http://www.djn.mju.gov.si/sistem-javnega-narocanja/zeleno-jn,

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/toolkit_en.htm) and attend trainings.

Institutional national support activities for GPP in Slovenia

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.

Information about organisation’s activities in Slovenia

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. 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 seeking help from other department’s experts and 17 % are looking for external

advices in the preparation of GPP tender documents.




32

Figure 21: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN SLOVENIA


results show that only one quarter (25 %) can propose such figure, which range between 10 and 20

%.

GPP implementation in Slovenia


highest number of procurers state that these are nationally developed criteria based on the EU GPP

criteria and environmental technical standards. Where do they include criteria? Most often this is in

the technical specifications and when defining the subject matter of the contract.


products, services and works: transport, electricity, office IT equipment and construction/buildings.

By myself

56%

With the help

of other

departments´

experts

22%

With the help

of external

adviser

17%

Other (decree

on GPP)

5%




33

Figure 22: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN SLOVENIA

During the procurement process they are often monitoring contract compliance and execution,

focusing on performance/functional specifications but not asking lots for leasing possibilities.

Figure 23: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN SLOVENIA

Electricity

Office IT Equipment

Imaging Equipment


Transport/vehicles






Indoor lighting

Water-based Heaters

Other

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%









0%

0%

0%

0%

25%

8%

25%

17%

25%

8%

0%

58%

33%

33%

0%

17%

33%

42%

25%

33%

17%

17%

33%

33%

33%

25%

8%

0%

17%

33%

33%

25%

8%

25%

67%

8%

8%

8%

8%

8%





34

The main difficulties for procurers in the implementation of GPP seem to be: lack of knowledge,

insufficient offers, price, complexity of preparation of criteria etc.


information on market availability of products/services/works and professional technical support,

etc.

Figure 24: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN SLOVENIA




35

7. Spain

National policy framework for GPP and the awareness of procurers in Spain

Out of 10 listed possible aspects of the national GPP policy components there are three brought to

light that seems to be unconvincing in the country; promotion of potential benefits of GPP, use of

LCC and monitoring and reporting systems in place (which is further backed with no offered data

about percentage of the country’s GPP uptake).

More than a half (59 %) of respondents confirmed that they are informed about the national GPP

policy or political agreement for the uptake of GPP in their country. Much less (29 %) respondents

also know about the national GPP targets and the same percentage is familiar with priority GPP

products, services and works that are defined. Only one fifth (24 %) are conscious about statistic

reporting on GPP in the country. Not so much experience (recognition) there is with support

activities (29 %) for GPP; among existing they utilise the most the website

(http://www.dipucordoba.es/#!/contenidos/21741/buenas_practicas_ambientales_en_

contratacion_publica_sostenible), organised training courses and the NAP.

Institutional national support activities for GPP in Spain

Among 24 listed national support activities that recognisable facilitate the GPP implementation there

are several that are very likely not functioning well. These are: legal support from responsible

authorities, technical/expert support, regular updating of GPP criteria, real assessment of needs, help

desk for procurers and for suppliers, specific working groups for GPP, green tender database and

market analysis for priority products / services / works. Further improvements are seen in stronger

political support, clearer legal framework, more expertise with procurers and more training.

Information about organisation’s activities in Spain

One third (35 %) of respondents declare that their organisations have a GPP strategy or action plan

on GPP. Managerial support experience even not one fifth (18 %) of public procurers and a bit more

there is (35 %) political support. Any kind of market engagement activities are practising not even

one fifth (18%) of public procurers in question. Training seminars on GPP attended nearly half (47 %)

of respondents.

Less than one third (30 %) of procurers include GPP criteria in tender documents by themselves while

in much higher extent they are seeking (40 %) help from other department’s experts in the

preparation of GPP tender documents.




36

Figure 25: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN SPAIN

We also asked for the estimation of the GPP in the total number of organisations procurements and

found out that such figures can be proposed by 47 % of respondents such as: 80 %, 3 %, 25 %, 5 %, 5

%, 5 %, respectively.

GPP implementation in Spain


highest number of procurers state that these are requirements from environmental management

systems after which is followed by criteria from Ecolabels, environmental technical standards, and

criteria from any appropriately certified or labelled products. Where do they include criteria? Most

often this is in the technical specifications, in the requirements for technical/professional ability of

tenderer and in the contract performance clauses.


products, services and works: electricity, indoor lighting, transport/vehicles, and office IT equipment.

By myself

30%

With the

help of other

departments

´ experts

40%

With the

help of

external

adviser

10%

Other

20%




37

Figure 26: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN SPAIN


and focusing on performance / functional specifications but nearly never deciding for pre-

commercial procurement or calculating CO₂ and energy savings.

Figure 27: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN SPAIN

Electricity

Office IT Equipment

Imaging Equipment


Transport/vehicles






Indoor lighting

Water-based Heaters

Other

0% 50% 100%









24%

6%

0%

41%

53%

29%

18%

18%

12%

0%

12%

12%

0%

12%

6%

6%

12%

12%

29%

12%

18%

18%

18%

18%

18%

24%

24%

12%

6%

12%

18%

0%

35%

59%

35%

24%

24%

29%

41%

59%





38

The main difficulties for procurers in the implementation of GPP seems to be: lack of knowledge,

trainings and information, weak political and technical support, product availability on the market,

legal knowledge, higher prices of green services/products etc.

Many respondents are seeking for the following support for the GPP implementation in the future:

information on market availability, professional technical support, evaluation of life cycle costing -

LCC, sources of GPP criteria to use, information on potential benefits of GPP (environmental,

economic, social, and cultural) and many others.

Figure 28: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN SPAIN




39

8. Sweden

National policy framework for GPP and the awareness of procurers in Sweden

Out of 10 listed possible aspects of the national GPP policy components there are only two

highlighted that seems to be not in force in the country; no mandatory provision on GPP and no

monitoring and reporting systems in place which is further backed with no offered data about

percentage of the country’s GPP uptake.

More than a half (53 %) of respondents confirmed that they are informed about the national GPP

policy or political agreement for the uptake of GPP in their country. The same number also knows

about the national GPP targets. Much more respondents (73 %) are familiar with priority GPP

products, services and works that are defined. In lesser extent they (47 %) are conscious about

statistic reporting on GPP in the country. Far more experienced (recognisable) are with support

activities (80 %) for GPP, those that support easier, better and quicker implementation of GPP and

which are in place in the country. Among them they utilise the most the website such as the National

Agency for Public Procurement (which contains also GPP criteria:

(http://www.upphandlingsmyndigheten.se/en), the Swedish Competition Authority (which is in

charge also for (green) public procurement: http://www.konkurrensverket.se/en) and the EU GPP

website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm

Institutional national support activities for GPP in Sweden

Out of 24 listed national support activities that recognisable facilitate the GPP implementation there

are only few that are not institutionalised yet. These are specialised publications about GPP, regular

newsletter, green tender database, online green products catalogue, specific working groups for GPP,

market analysis and real assessment of needs. Further improvements are seen in more training

sessions for procurers and more resources to encourage the use of GPP.

Information about organisation’s activities in Sweden

Two third (67 %) of respondents declare that their organisations have a GPP strategy or action plan

on GPP. Managerial support experience more than a half (53 %) of public procurers and a lot more

(87 %) political support. Any kind of market engagement activities are practising more than a half (53

%) of public procurers in question. Training seminars on GPP attended two third (67 %) of

respondents.




40

Nearly half (46 %) of procurers include GPP criteria in tender documents by themselves and nearly

one third (29 %) of them are seeking help from other department’s experts in the preparation of GPP

tender documents.

Figure 29: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN SWEDEN

We also asked for the estimation of the GPP in the total number of organisations procurements and

found out that this data is hard to obtain – only 27 % of respondents could give some figures such as:

50 %, 5 % and 10 %.

GPP implementation in Sweden


highest number state that these are nationally developed criteria, criteria from eco-labels and

environmental technical standards. Where do they include criteria? Most often this is in the technical

specifications and in the requirements for technical/professional ability of tenderer.


products, services and works: transport/vehicles, office IT equipment, indoor lighting, electricity and

street lighting.

By myself

46%

With the

help of other

departments

´ experts

29%

With the

help of

external

adviser

18%

Other (from

the swedish

procurement

agency,

Kriteriebiblio

teket)

7%




41

Figure 30: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN SWEDEN

During the procurement process in most cases they are in general often looking for innovative

approaches listed among responses.

Figure 31: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN SWEDEN

Electricity

Office IT Equipment

Imaging Equipment


Transport/vehicles






Indoor lighting

Water-based Heaters

Other

0% 50% 100%









7%

7%

0%

13%

0%

20%

0%

0%

20%

20%

20%

33%

20%

7%

13%

20%

27%

13%

40%

40%

47%

40%

53%

53%

27%

40%

20%

7%

20%

20%

20%

27%

20%

20%

20%

7%

13%

13%

13%

0%





42

The main difficulties for procurers in the implementation of GPP seems to be: know how about what

is available on the market, following up the tender, legal knowledge, to communicate the advantages

of using procurement for better environment, to get the political and economic support needed,

form the right criteria, checking compliance, increased cost etc.

Many respondents are seeking for the following support for the GPP implementation in future:

evaluation of life cycle costing -LCC, information on market availability, professional technical

support, sharing experience and knowledge etc.

Figure 32: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN SWEDEN




43

IV. COMMON RESULTS

Good and bad practices of GPP

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. Therefore, we are

looking here at data collected 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.

Responses under Points 1 and 2 have been given by eight national institutional bodies, and under

Points 3 and 4 are responses by 114 public procurers.

1. National policy framework for GPP

From the answers received, there are three main clear indicators that characterise good practice of

GPP implementation in the countries observed. These are: adopted national action plan on GPP,

political agreement about GPP implementation in the country, and assigned responsibilities for GPP

at the national level (all respondents had a unanimous opinion about this). Many respondents also

highlighted that there are clear national targets and timeframes for the GPP uptake in place in their

respective countries, as well as prioritised GPP products, services and works, and promotion of

potential benefits of GPP and other (not only NAP) policy document about GPP. On the other hand,

very few respondents agreed that the life cycle costing (LCC) is promoted and used among public

procurers.




44

Figure 33: NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR GPP

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 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.

2. Institutional support activities for GPP

What makes GPP implementation easier? Obviously, the following three 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 the following: absence of real assessment of needs for procurement in

organisations, of market analysis for priority products/services/works, and also of a green tender

database. Weaker spots are more numerous: 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.

mandatory provision on GPP

adopted national action plan

on GPP

clear national targets and

timeframes for the GPP

uptake

GPP products, services and

works priorised

other (than NAP) policy

document about GPP

political agreement about

GPP implementation

assigned responsibilities on

national level

promotion of potential

benefits of GPP

monitoring and reporting

systems in place

promotion and use of LCC

(life cycle costing)




45

Figure 34: INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

legal support from responsible authority

GPP websidetechnical / 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 suppliers

regular GPP training events

regular GPP networking and exchange

events

specific working groups for GPP

tender models for

products/services/works

green tender database

good practice exchange

pilot GPP projects

market analysis for priority


online green products catalogue

CO2/energy saving calculator

life cycle costing (LCC) guidance

cost/benefit analyses of GPP




46

So, according to the national partners (institutional bodies), how could the GPP uptake in the

countries be improved? Respondents suggest several possibilities, mostly with regard to enhanced

support to public procurers, more reliable information about GPP, greater legal clarity, and more

training.

Figure 35: IMPROVEMENT OF GPP UPTAKE

SUPPORT

INFORMATION

LEGAL ASPECTSTRAINING

DEFINITION OF

GPP




47

Tabela 1: IMPROVEMENT OF GPP UPTAKE

SUPPORT

development of a complete set of support instruments for public authorities and

businesses; GPP uptake in Latvia could be improved by ensuring free-of-charge

technical support available to public bodies and municipalities, with improved support

activities and better communication; it is important for Public Administrations to have

tender templates for services, products and works; weak political support (budget

savings are often prioritised over green purchasing criteria); more resources for

support; financial instruments for small municipalities to encourage the use of GPP;

current economic situation has also played as a negative role for GPP, since initial

purchasing cost became the only valid criteria for procurement departments; political

decisions

9

INFORMATION

it is important to enforce communication and information activities, for example with

periodic focus events at the local level; wide and continuous promotion of the benefits

of GPP; difficulties in finding reliable information and practical tools for GPP

implementation; the need for expertise in implementation of green criteria in public

procurement; green products are still perceived to be more expensive (than standard

products); tools such as Life-Cycle Cost Analysis are not used by public administration

at all; more obstacles for embedding green criteria in tenders

7

LEGAL ASPECTS

clear and stimulating legal frame; GPP implementation would be higher only if GPP

became a law with penalties; setting up mandatory GPP for priority groups; unclear

legal framework; centralised monitoring system; staff performance indicators

6

TRAINING

integration of GPP training into vocational training as a mandatory component, lack of

training, lack of appropriate training programmes for public servants to develop

technical and legal skills on GPP, training

4

DEFINITION OF GPP

Clear and exhaustive definition of what is "green" procurement.

1

3. Organisation’s activities

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.




48

Figure 36: GPP AT ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL

At least two weaker points should be emphasised here: not many organisations have a GPP policy or

strategy in place, and market engagement activities in their organisations, as well is the awareness of

statistical reporting on GPP, are quite weak.

information on a national

GPP policy or political

agreement for uptake of

GPP

awareness of national

targets for GPP

awareness of statistical

reporting on GPP

awareness of any prority

GPP products, services and

works

awareness of any support

activities for GPP (i.e. help

desk, guidance, etc.)

adopted GPP

policy/strategy

managerial support for GPP

political support for GPP

implementation

market engagement

activities

attendance at GPP training




49

- 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.

Figure 37: USE OF SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Tabela 2: USE OF SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

WEBSITES 46

GUIDANCE 8

TRAININGS 6

SEMINARS 4

NATIONAL PROCUREMENT AGENCY 4

WITHIN PROJECTS UNDER HORIZON 2020, IEE, ETC. 4

NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR GPP 2

OTHER (DIFFERENT ANSWERS) 13

WEBSITES

GUIDANCE

TRAININGS

SEMINARS

NATIONAL PROCUREMENT

AGENCY

In the frame of

implementing projects from

HOROZON 2020, IEE, etc.

NATIONAL ACTION PLAN

FOR GPP

OTHER (different answers)




50

4. GPP implementation

However, the most important phase of the GPP implementation is certainly the preparation of the

tender documents and the use of GPP criteria. How public procurers are carrying out these tasks?

The responses showed that the majority of respondents are including GPP criteria in tender

documents either by themselves or with the help of experts from other departments. However, the

assistance of an external consultant is often used as well.

Figure 38: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS

by myself

with the help of other

departments’ experts

with the help of external

adviser

other




51

- 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.

Figure 39: SOURCES OF GREEN CRITERIA USED

EU GPP criteria

nationally developed

criteria

green criteria from other

countries

criteria from Ecolabels

environmental technical

standards

criteria from any

appropriately certified or

labelled products

requirements from

environmental

management systems

provisions set in different

EU sector legislation




52

- 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

tenderer’s technical and professional ability, as well as in the definition of the subject matter of the

contract – although the latter 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 (though not simple) 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.

Figure 40: INCLUSION OF GREEN CRITERIA IN PROCUREMENT STAGES

when defining the

subject matter of the

contract

in the requirements

for

technical/professional

ability of the tenderer

in the technical

specifications

in the award criteria

in the contract

performance clauses

in all stages of GPP

process




53

- 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.




54

Figure 41: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT

information on market availability of


professional technical support

to understand environmental aspects

in relation to purchase

for evaluation of life-cycle costings

(LCC)

to understand mechanisms for

appropriate monitoring and reporting

information on potential benefits of

GPP (environment., econom., social,

cultural)

how to integrate environmental/EE

considerations into tender procedures

sources of GPP criteria to usehow to verify environmental claims

made 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




55

- 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.

Figure 42: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS

...looking for innovative

solutions (public

procurement of

innovation)

...deciding for pre-

commercial procurement

...asking for leasing

possibilities

...focusing on

performance / functional

specifications

...monitoring contract

compliance and execution

...carrying out market

analysis

...using life-cycle costing

(LCC)

...calculating CO2 and

energy savings




56

- 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.

Figure 43: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED

electricity

office IT equipment

imaging equipment

electrical and electronic

equipment used in the

health care sector

transport/vehicles

infrastructure works

(motorways, bridges,

etc.)street lighting and traffic

signals

waste water

infrastructure

constructions/buildings

combined heat and

power

indoor lighting

water-based heaters

other (air conditioners,

catering services, food,

furniture, paper, print

service, none)




57

- 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/professionalism of the procurers in this field. The other substantial set of difficulties

includes all those regarding (lack of) 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.

Figure 44: MAIN DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GPP

USE OF GPP CRITERIA

PROCURERS

MARKET READINESS

LACK OF SUPPORT

LACK OF INFORMATION

ABOUT GPPPROVIDERS / SUPPLIERS

LEGISLATION /

ORGANISATION / POLICY

TRANINGS

BUDGET




58

Tabela 3: MAIN DIFFICULTY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GPP

1. USE OF GPP CRITERIA

in distinguishing the “green” criteria in procurement documentation; in the selection of “green”

criteria; evaluation criteria; lack of environmental criteria for all categories of goods and services;

too complicated; finding appropriate alternatives; sources of GPP criteria to use; complex

preparation of technical criteria; the only way to include green criteria is in the form of

improvements to the bid documents; ignorance of the GPP existence and its purpose; application

of criteria and compatibility with the actual public policy; GPP criteria may not offer all

companies equal conditions; to form the right criteria; technical environmental specifications;

technical specifications for vehicles are complicated; assessment of technical parameters; difficult

to set GPP requirements in small procurements; evaluation of LCA; preparation of technical

specification; assessment of the energy efficiency of products and services; inclusion of contract

clauses that guarantee implementation of GPP; positive results; criteria for paper product;

difficulties in verifying criteria; difficulties with monitoring; lack of technical information about

criteria

28

2. PROCURERS

elaboration of procurement documentation; lack of knowledge; lack of time for preparation of

specifications; lack of knowledge concerning legal requirements & possibilities; shortage of time;

staff resources for public procurement; lack of awareness; lack of skills; poor knowledge of GPP;

lack of references; awareness-raising of the involved stakeholders; knowledge and resources for

follow-up the contract execution; purchasers are often uncertain; it is easier to do nothing if it´s

not required by law; ... the urgency to define some green tenders; time consuming; insufficient

expert capacity; control of the contract results; tenders preparation; difficult to evaluate; complex

methodology of assessment; competition tenders; when defining the terms of the tender;

comparison and monitoring; avoid the change; the institute’s contractual activity itself (with little

impact in tenders likely to be green adapted); difficult to check compliance

33

3. MARKET READINESS

usually higher costs of “green” products; lack of mechanisms for the promotion of ecological

products and services; our costs increased with the implementation of GPP; availability of "green"

products; no suitable products; lack of supply; limitations for small offers and complex logistics;

no access to catalogues of green products/services; planning of available resources for

implementation; high specificity of the products to be procured, which hinders green

procurement; market engagement; lack of information about the "green" market; lack of

information about available green products/services on the market; operators’ skills; difficulties

in assessing environmental performance of some products

36

4. LACK OF SUPPORT

how to define requirements for contractors; lack of incentives; management should be persuaded

about the need for GPP; no technical support; no political support; lack of concrete leadership; no

support from the government; lack of national support for GPP implementation; lack of

monitoring system; need to support the development of green products and services; lack of

management support; policy weaknesses; instructions are not specific; lack of professional

technical support (2 times); lack of political support; lack of preparation, attitude and consistent

political leadership; lack of updated guidelines; lack of communication with all partners who are

involved in GPP

26

5. LACK OF INFORMATION ABOUT GPP

lack of information campaigns; lack of information about good practices; lack of information

about the benefits of GPP; lack of information and awareness; to promote the importance of GPP;

lack of promotion of good practices

26

6. PROVIDERS / SUPPLIERS

confidence of the supplier; lack of information about providers; lack of green providers (3 times);

14




59

reliable suppliers; mercantilism; lack of competitiveness by local companies; lack of capacity of

contractors/suppliers; offer does not meet demand; negatively affecting competition due to more

advanced requirements; reliability; it reduces the number of tenders

7. LEGISLATION/ORGANISATION/POLICY

legal framework; bureaucratic process; national public recruitment legislation; problems with

legal adaptation of processes; lack of ordinances; lack of knowledge of the legislation in the field

of procurement; definition of an internal sustainable procurement strategy in the organization;

spread of green purchase within the organisation; low capacity in administration; as a public

company, we are forced to make use of a tender model drafted by the legal department of the

regional government

14

8. TRAININGS

lack of specialized trainings; lack of trainings; lack of training of purchases responsible; lack of

trainings for procurers; lack of specific capacity building processes for the staff in charge of

tenders

9

9. BUDGET

limited budgeting; budget constraints; financing shortage; the budget of public organisations;

insufficient funding

7




60

5. COMPARATIVE RESULTS

Similarities and differences between the 8 countries for the 4 main aspects:

National policy framework for GPP and the awareness of procurers per country

Based on the answers from 8 national partners we can see that in Bulgaria, Italy and Sweden they do

not have any mandatory provision (partially or fully) on GPP in place. We can confirm that in all 8

countries they adopted the national action plan on GPP. Clear national targets and timeframe for the

GPP uptake is missing only in Germany. We identify prioritised GPP products, services and works in

all countries except in Germany and Cyprus. According to the answers from national partners, we can

find some kind of policy document about GPP (other than NAP) in all countries except in Cyprus and

Italy. A political agreement about GPP implementation and assigned responsibilities on national level

are in place in all 8 participating countries. A constant promotion of potential benefits of GPP is

provided in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Latvia and Sweden. Such kind of activity on a national

level is missing in Slovenia and Spain. According to the answers a active monitoring and reporting

system on GPP is in place in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Latvia and in Slovenia, while in Germany, Spain

and Sweden we still miss such kind of system. Promotion and use of life cycle costing (LCC) is

provided in only 3 countries: Bulgaria, Germany and in Sweden.

Figure 45: GPP POLICY FRAMEWORK IN PLACE PER COUNTRY

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Bulgaria Cyprus Germany Italy Latvia Slovenia Spain Sweden




61

Majority of all respondents in 8 different countries confirmed that they are informed about the

national GPP policy or political agreement for the uptake of GPP in their country. We identified the

highest level of awareness in Latvia and Italy (100 % of respondents), while the lowest in Spain (59 %)

and in Sweden (53 %). The other countries are between these percentages.

Figure 46: AWARENESS ON A NATIONAL GPP POLICY OR POLITICAL AGREEMENT FOR THE UPTAKE

OF GPP PER COUNTRY

There is also a high awareness of respondents about the national GPP targets. Similar to the previous

question, we identified the highest level of awareness in Italy (100 %) and in Latvia (94 %) and the

lowest in Sweden (53 %) and in Spain (only 29 % of the respondents). The other countries are

between 80 and 90 %.

Figure 47: AWARENESS ON ANY NATIONAL TARGETS FOR THE UPTAKE OF GPP PER COUNTRY

86% 88% 82%100% 100%

92%

59% 53%

14% 12% 18%8%

41% 47%

no

yes

79% 82% 82%

100% 94%83%

29%

53%

21% 18% 18%6%

17%

71%

47%

no

yes




62

In general there is also a high familiarity of respondents in these 8 countries with priority GPP

products, services and works that are defined in the countries. We identified the highest level of

familiarity in Italy (91 %), Bulgaria (93 %) and Latvia (even 94 % of respondents), while the lowest in

Sweden (73 %), Cyprus (71 %) and especially in Spain (only 29 % of the respondents).

Figure 48: KNOWLEDGE ON ANY PRIORITY GPP PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND WORKS PER COUNTRY

We identified lower level of awareness about statistic reporting on GPP in participating 8 countries.

More or less half of all respondents are aware. The positive exemption countries are again Latvia (75

%) and Italy (82 %), while the “poor” countries in this question are Slovenia (42 %) and again Spain,

whit the lowest level of awareness (only 24 % of the respondents). The other countries are between

these percentages.

Figure 49: AWARENESS ON ANY STATISTIC REPORTING ON GPP PER COUNTRY

93%

71%82%

91% 94%

75%

29%

73%

7%

29%18%

9% 6%

25%

71%

27%

no

yes

43%59%

45%

82%75%

42%

24%

47%

57%41%

55%

18%25%

58%

76%

53%

no

yes




63

In general there is a medium level of experience of respondents in the countries with support

activities for GPP, those that support easier, better and quicker implementation of GPP and which

are in place in each participating country. We see that the highest level of experience we have in

Sweden (80 %), Latvia (81 %) and Italy (91 %), while the country with the lowest level in this field is

once again Spain (only 29 % of the respondents). Other countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany and

Slovenia) have awareness level of about 50 %. Among them they all utilise the most different

websites.

Figure 50: AWARENESS ON ANY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES FOR GPP (I.E. HELP DESK, GUIDANCE,

TRAININGS, WEBSITE, ETC.) PER COUNTRY

Institutional national support activities for GPP per country

The most institutional national support activities for GPP are in place in Germany (23 out of 24)

where only a qualitative online green product catalogue is missing and in Sweden (17 out of 24)

where they still miss a regular newsletters about GPP, a real assessment of needs on GPP, specialized

publication about GPP, a specific working group for GPP, a green tender database, a market analysis

and an online green product catalogue. Slovenia has the least institutional support activities for GPP

(5 out of 24). Only a legal support from responsible authority, a GPP website, regular GPP training

events, a tender models and some kind of CO₂/energy saving calculator is in place. The most

common support activities in all participating countries is the legal support from an responsible

authority (only in Spain is still missing) a clear guidance and tools for GPP (only in Slovenia is still

missing) and pilot GPP projects (only in Slovenia is still missing), while the most rare or inactive GPP

support activities are a real assessment of needs (only in Germany in place), a qualitative national

market analysis (only in Germany in place) and a green tender database (only in Germany and in

Bulgaria in place).

50% 53% 55%

91%81%

58%

29%

80%

50% 47% 45%

9%19%

42%

71%

20%

no

yes




64

Figure 51: NATIONAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES PER COUNTRY

BG CY GE IT LV SI ES SE

Total

YES

legal support from responsib. authority YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES 7

GPP website NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES 6

technic./exp. support for GPP criteria YES YES YES NO NO NO NO YES 4

regular updating of GPP criteria YES YES YES YES NO NO NO YES 5

regular newsletters about GPP NO YES YES NO NO NO YES NO 3

real assessment of needs NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO 1

specialized publications about GPP NO NO YES YES NO NO YES NO 3

clear guidance and tools for GPP YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES 7

GPP webinars NO NO YES NO NO NO YES YES 3

platform for exchange of best practices NO NO YES NO NO NO YES YES 3

helpdesk for procurers YES NO YES NO NO NO NO YES 3

helpdesk for suppliers YES NO YES NO NO NO NO YES 3

regular GPP training events NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES 6

GPP networking and exchange events NO YES YES YES YES NO YES YES 6

specific working groups for GPP NO YES YES YES YES NO NO NO 4

tender models NO NO YES NO YES YES YES YES 5

green tender database YES NO YES NO NO NO NO NO 2

good practice exchange YES YES YES NO NO NO YES YES 5

pilot GPP projects YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES 7

market analysis NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO 1

online green products catalogue NO YES NO YES YES NO YES NO 4

CO₂/energy saving calculator YES YES YES NO NO YES YES YES 6

life cycle costing (LCC) guidance NO NO YES NO YES NO YES YES 4

cost/benefit analyses of GPP NO NO YES NO NO NO YES YES 3

TOTAL

10/14 11/13 23/1 10/14 10/14 5/19 15/9 17/7 101

41,7

%

45,8

%

95,8

%

41,7

%

41,7

%

20,8

%

62,5

%

70,8

% 52,6%


41,7% 45,8%

95,8%

41,7% 41,7%

20,8%

62,5%

70,8%




65

Information about organisation’s activities per country

We identified very different results (between countries) from the respondents about the GPP

strategy or action plan on GPP in place in their organisations. We observed on one hand a very high

level of existence of some kind of GPP strategy or action plan on GPP in the organisations in Germany

(64 %), Sweden (67 %), Italy (82 %) and Cyprus (88 %), while on the other hand a very low level in

Spain (35 %), Latvia (13 %) and especially in Slovenia (8 %) and in Bulgaria (only 7 % of the

respondents).

Figure 52: EXISTANCE OF GPP STRATEGY OR ACTION PLAN ON GPP IN THE ORGANISATIONS PER

COUNTRY

More similar results between different countries we observed regarding the question of the

existence of managerial support for the implementation of GPP in the organisations. We identified

the highest level of existence in Cyprus (71 %) and especially in Bulgaria (86 %), while the lowest in

Slovenia (42 %) and especially in Spain (only 18 % of the respondents). The other countries

(Germany, Italy, Latvia and Sweden) are between 50 and 65 %.

7%

88%

64%

82%

13% 8%

35%

67%

93%

12%

36%

18%

88% 92%

65%

33%

no

yes




66

Figure 53: EXISTANCE OF MANAGERIAL SUPPORT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GPP PER COUNTRY

More positive practices we identified for the political support for the implementation of GPP in the

most countries. The shining examples with the highest level of political support are Sweden (87 %)

and Italy (91 %), while in Cyprus (47 %) and Spain (35 %) we observed much lower level of political

support for the implementation of GPP. The other countries (Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia and Slovenia)

are between 60 and 70 %.

Figure 54: EXISTANCE OF POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GPP PER COUNTRY

86%71%

55%64% 63%

42%

18%

53%

14%29%

45%36% 38%

58%

82%

47%

no

yes

71%

47%

73%

91%

63% 67%

35%

87%

29%

53%

27%

9%

38% 33%

65%

13%

no

yes




67

We observe a low level (in general) of market engagement activities (any kind) in the participating

countries. We identified more or less the same “high” level of this kind of activities in Cyprus,

Germany and Italy (64 %), while a very low level in Slovenia, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Slovenia (in general

less than 30 %).

Figure 55: EXISTANCE OF ANY KIND OF MARKET ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE ORGANISATIONS

PER COUNTRY

21%29%

64% 64% 63%

33%

18%

53%

79%71%

36% 36% 38%

67%

82%

47%

no

yes




68

We identified very different results between the 8 countries from the respondents about the

participation on any training seminars on GPP. We observed on one hand a very high level of

participation on a GPP training seminar of the respondents in Sweden (67 %), Slovenia (75 %), Latvia

(88 %) and Italy (91 %), while on the other hand a relatively low level of participation in Germany (55

%), Spain (47 %), Cyprus (13 %) and especially in Bulgaria (only 21 % of the respondents).

Figure 56: ATANDENCE ON ANY GPP TRAINING SEMINAR PER COUNTRY

21%

47%55%

91% 88%75%

47%

67%

79%

53%45%

9% 13%25%

53%

33%

no

yes




69

Nearly half of the procurers in all participating EU countries include GPP criteria in tender documents

by themselves. This number is the lowest in Spain (30 %) and the highest in Slovenia (56 %). The

other countries are between these percentages. Spain (40 %) and Cyprus (44 %) have the highest

level of help from other departments or experts. The lowest level of this kind of help we identified in

Slovenia (22 %) and in Latvia (19 %). The other countries are more or less on one third. Relatively

small number of procurers use help from some kind of external adviser. Bulgaria, Italy (25 %) and

Latvia (29 %) have the highest level of seeking help from a external adviser in the preparation of GPP

tender documents.

Figure 57: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS BY PROCURERS PER

COUNTRY

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 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




70

We also asked from the procurers in 8 different countries for the estimation of the GPP in the total

number of organisations procurements and found out that such figures can be proposed in the

highest level in Latvia (63 %). In all other countries less than a half of the procurers can found out

such figures. The lowest level we identified in Sweden (27 %), in Slovenia (25 %) and in Bulgaria (only

7 % of the respondents).

Figure 58: PERCENTAGE OF GPP IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PROCUREMENTS PER COUNTRY

7%

29%

45%36%

63%

25%

47%

27%

93%

71%

55%64%

38%

75%

53%

73%

Cannot estimate

Can astimate




71

GPP implementation per country

We observed relatively similar answers in the participating EU countries regarding the question

about the type of use of green or energy efficiency requirements in tenders. The highest number of

procurers in Slovenia, Latvia, Sweden, Italy and Cyprus state that these are nationally developed

criteria, while in Spain the highest number of procurers state that these are requirements from

environmental management systems and in Bulgaria and Germany their state that this are the

environmental technical standards. The lowest number of procurers in all countries stated that they

are using green criteria from other countries or using provision set in different EU sector legislation.

Figure 59: “TYPE” OF USE OF GREEN/ENERGY EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS IN TENDERS PER

COUNTRY

EU GPP criteria

Nationally

developed

criteria

Green criteria

from other

countries

Criteria from

Ecolabels

Environmental

technical

standards

Criteria from

any

appropriately

certified or

labelled …

Requirements

from

environmental

management

systems

Provisions set

in different EU

sector

legislation

Other

Bulgaria Cyprus Germany Italy

Latvia Slovenia Spain Sweden




72

We observed very similar answers in all participating countries regarding the question about stages

of the procurement process in which the procurers usually include the green/energy efficient criteria.

We identified that in all 8 countries this is in the technical specifications, followed by “in the contract

performance clauses” and “in the requirements for technical/professional ability of tenderer. We

identified the lowest level of including the green/energy efficient criteria in all countries in “all stages

of GPP process”.

Figure 60: STAGES OF INCLUSION OF GREEN/ENERGY EFFICIENT CRITERIA IN THE PROCUREMENT

PROCESS PER COUNTRY

When

defining the

subject

matter of the

contract

In the

requirements

for

technical/pro

fessional

ability of the

tenderer

In the

technical

specifications

In the award

criteria

In the

contract

performance

clauses

In all stages

of GPP

process





73

According to the answers from the procurers in the last 3 years in Cyprus and Germany (also in Italy)

most frequently they prepared GPP contract for office IT equipment. The procurers in Slovenia and

Sweden they mostly prepared GPP contract for product group: transport/vehicles. In Latvia we

identified street lighting/traffic signals and construction/buildings as the two most frequent product

groups. Also in Bulgaria we see that the most frequent product groups are construction/buildings

and office IT equipment. In Spain we see a very similar share of all energy efficient

product/service/work groups.

Figure 61: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED PER COUNTRY

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 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 Electronic Equipment

used in the Health Care Sector

Transport/vehicles

Infrastructure works (motorways,

bridges, etc.)





Indoor lighting

Water-based Heaters

Other




74

During the procurement process they are very often looking for innovative solutions (public

procurement of innovation) the procurers in Cyprus, Bulgaria, Germany and Italy. We identified the

lowest level regarding this question in Latvia and Slovenia.

Figure 62: ... LOOKING FOR INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS (PUBLIC PROCUREMENT OF INNOVATION) PER

COUNTRY

Regarding the answers about the decision on pre-commercial procurement during the procurement

process, we see relatively high number by the procurers in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Germany and Sweden.

On the other hand we identified a similar low level regarding this question in Italy, Spain, Latvia and

Slovenia.

Figure 63: ... DECIDING FOR PRE-COMMERCIAL PROCUREMENT PER COUNTRY

21%12% 9%

18% 24%7%

21% 35% 36%27%

19% 25%

12%

20%

14%

35%

18%27%

31%33% 12% 27%

36%

12%36% 18%

44% 33%

18%

27%

7% 6% 9% 6% 8%

35%20%


21%9% 6% 7%

7%

24% 9%

9% 6% 8%

20%

36%29% 36%

36% 44% 42%

12%

13%

29%41%

9%

45% 31% 25%

24%

40%

7% 6%

36%

9%19% 25%

59%

20%





75

Positive answers regarding the question about asking for leasing possibilities during the procurement

process are very rare. But sometimes the procurers in Germany, Bulgaria and Sweden they are asking

for it. Regarding this question the answer “never” is the highest in Slovenia, Latvia and Cyprus.

Figure 64: ... ASKING FOR LEASING POSSIBILITIES PER COUNTRY

More often than asking for leasing possibilities the procurers in all 8 countries are focusing on the

performance/functional specifications during the procurement process. We see similar answers in all

countries. The exceptions are Spain where we have the highest number of answer: “almost always”

and Latvia where we see answer “sometimes” as the most frequent.

Figure 65: ... FOCUSING ON PERFORMANCE/FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS PER COUNTRY

12%9%

9% 13% 12%20%

43%24%

55%

18% 13%25%

29%

40%

14%

24%

18%

45%

31%

8%

24%

20%

36% 41%

9%

27%44%

67%

35%20%


36% 29%18%

27%

6%

41%

13%

21% 29%36%

27%

19%

58%

12%

33%

29%35%

27%36%

50%

33%

12%40%

14%6%

18%9%

19%

12%

7%6% 8%

24%

7%





76


the procurers in Bulgaria. More than a half of the respondents in Spain almost always are monitoring

contract compliance and execution during the procurement process. In Sweden we observe the

lowest level of this activity.

Figure 66: ... MONITORING CONTRACT COMPLIANCE AND EXECUTION PER COUNTRY

A very important question is related to the market analysis. During the procurement process the

procurers in Italy, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Cyprus are most active in carrying out a market analysis. But

also in other countries they are in carrying out a market analysis at least sometimes.

Figure 67: … CARRYING OUT MARKET ANALYSIS PER COUNTRY

50%

24% 27%18% 13%

25%

53%

43%

29% 18% 36%

25%

33%

20%

35%

27%

27%

38%

17%18%

47%

7%6%

27%18%

6%17%

6% 20%

6%19%

8%24%

13%


36%

12% 9% 9% 6% 8%

29%20%

29%

9%

45%

25%33%

12%

7%

21%24%

36%

18%

25%17% 18% 40%

36% 24%36%

27%44% 33%

12%

20%

7% 12% 9% 8%

29%13%





77

One fourth of the respondents in Slovenia answered that they almost always use life-cycle costing

(LCC) during the procurement process. We see that also the procurers in Bulgaria, Cyprus and

Germany are active on LCC during the procurement process at least sometimes. We noticed a

relatively low activity in Latvia.

Figure 68: … USING LIFE-CYCLE COSTING (LCC) PER COUNTRY

Almost one third of the procurers in Bulgaria always calculating CO₂ and energy saving during the

procurement process, which is the highest share among all participating countries. But also in Cyprus,

Germany, Slovenia and Italy we see that at least sometimes the procurers use some kind of CO₂ or

energy saving calculators. In Spain we noticed the highest number of procurers who answered that

they never use such kind of tools.

Figure 69: … CALCULATING CO₂ AND ENERGY SAVINGS PER COUNTRY

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%


29% 24%9% 9% 17% 18%

14%6%

27% 27%

13%

17%6%

20%

21%

24%

36%27%

31%

33%

18%

53%

21%

24%

18%18%

44%

25%27%

14%24%

9%18% 13% 8%

59%





78

On the basis of the additional questions for national partners the main difficulties for procurers in the

implementation process of GPP seems to be: lack of knowledge about GPP policy and GPP criteria

(especially in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Slovenia and Spain). Huge difficulty seems to be also the market

readiness and the information about green market (in all participating countries). They also claim

about lack of trainings and support activities ((in all participating countries) and higher prices of

green services/products etc (in Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia, Slovenia and Spain).

Based on the answers from the procurers in 8 different EU countries the most respondents are

seeking for the following 3 support for the GPP implementation in the future: information on market

availability (especially in Slovenia, Italy, Germany, Spain and Cyprus), sources of GPP criteria to use

(especially in Germany, Bulgaria and Cyprus) and for evaluation of life cycle costing – LCC (especially

in Italy, Sweden and Germany). We identified no answers that some of the procurers do not need

any support on the implementation of GPP. Relatively low number of procurers stated that they need

support to understand mechanisms for appropriate monitoring and reporting (especially in Spain,

Slovenia, Germany or in Sweden), support to understand environmental aspects in relation to

purchase (in Sweden, Italy, Slovenia or in Bulgaria and support for running pilot project on GPP (in

Germany, Italy, Sweden or in Bulgaria).

Figure 70: NEEDS FOR FUTURE SUPPORT FOR THE GPP IMPLEMENTATION PER COUNTRY

Information on market

availability of …Professional technical

support

To understand

environmental aspects …

For evaluation of life-cycle

costings (LCC)

To understand

mechanisms for …

Information on potential

benefits of GPP …

How to integrate

environmental/energy …

Sources of GPP criteria to

useHow to verify

environmental claims …

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

Do not know!





79

V. ABSTRACT OF MAIN GOOD AND BAD (POOR) GPP

PRACTICES

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.

Key findings are listed below.

Good and bad GPP practices at the national level

Good practices

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.

Bad practices

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.




80

Good and bad GPP practices at the organisational level

Good practices

1. A good example is clearly 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.

Bad practices

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.

Good and bad GPP practices at the level of GPP implementation

Good practices

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.

Bad practices

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.




81

Final general observations

- While national institutional bodies are reporting of numerous varieties of support activities

and more than half of public procurers are aware of their existence, they still do not use

them sufficiently; they mostly only use websites with GPP content. This clearly indicates the

need to develop a comprehensive range of active support and cooperation with public

procurers at national level.

- Public procurers positioned inclusion of green/energy-related criteria when defining the

subject matter of the contract only in the second place. However, choosing the “green” title

makes it easier for tenderers to quickly recognise what is wanted and to express the

message that the environmental performance of the product or service will be an important

part of the contract.

- The second most used source for green/energy-related criteria are environmental technical

standards. This possibly indicates that there are not enough GPP developed, and that very

likely the existing criteria are not being promoted sufficiently among public procurers.

- It is interesting to observe that public procurers have declared that they have more political

than managerial support for the GPP implementation.

- It is interesting to learn that the opinions of national partners on how to improve the

uptake of GPP are quite consistent with the responses of public procurers on what they see

as the main difficulties for the implementation of GPP. Among the most often cited solutions

are additional support and more information for public procurers on successful GPP

implementation.

- Public procurers would need more information on market availability of

products/services/works for evaluation of life-cycle costing, on sources of GPP criteria to

use, and on supplementary professional technical support and professional training

seminars.

- According to public procurers, among the main obstacles for improved implementation of

GPP are: lack of professionalism of procurers (lack of knowledge, skills, expertise, awareness,

time, etc.); lack of knowledge about using GPP criteria and sources of criteria; and

insufficient market readiness (lack of availability of green products, higher costs, etc.).

In general, the results of the survey indicate that there is a kind of lack of interconnections

between the GPP policies and the actions performed at the national level, and the real

practice and GPP employment among public sector officials responsible for procurement. On

the one hand, it seems that despite all efforts to convey national GPP policy, information is

not reaching the main target, and on the other hand, it seems that the national GPP support

activities are being accepted for the sake of the GPP policy itself. In order to achieve greater




82

uptake of GPP, much effort is therefore still needed to support public procurers /authorities

in further GPP implementation.

Finally, two other, not least important aspects in relation to GPP implementation have to be

mentioned in highlighting the results of the survey. The first one is the absence of clear and

encouraging legal framework for GPP enforcement, or even comprehensive

(straightforward) GPP definition. The second one concerns the entire area of supply. This

includes the often inadequate offer of green/energy efficient products/services/works in the

market, as well as the often under-informed suppliers/providers. This only proves the

necessity to better inform the market of new (or additional) requirements and expectations

of public procurers and public authorities, and to do so well in advance to give the suppliers

sufficient time to prepare for green or even innovative solutions.

Comparison matrix data in Excel form (including open questions) are available in Annex

Comparative matrix and in report Expanded list of good and bad practices on GPP, where the

results of good and bad practices per country are presented.




83

VI. INDEX OF FIGURES

Figure 1: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN BULGARIA ......................... 12

Figure 2: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN BULGARIA ................................................... 13

Figure 3: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN BULGARIA.................................................. 13

Figure 4: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN BULGARIA .................................................................. 14

Figure 5: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN CYPRUS ............................. 16

Figure 6: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN CYPRUS....................................................... 17

Figure 7: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN CYPRUS ..................................................... 17

Figure 8: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN CYPRUS ...................................................................... 18

Figure 9: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN GERMANY ......................... 20

Figure 10: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN GERMANY................................................. 21

Figure 11: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN GERMANY................................................ 21

Figure 12: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN GERMANY ................................................................ 22

Figure 13: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN ITALY ............................... 24

Figure 14: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN ITALY ........................................................ 25

Figure 15: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN ITALY ....................................................... 25

Figure 16: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN ITALY ....................................................................... 26

Figure 17: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN LATVIA ............................ 28

Figure 18: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN LATVIA ...................................................... 29

Figure 19: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN LATVIA ..................................................... 29

Figure 20: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN LATVIA ..................................................................... 30

Figure 21: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN SLOVENIA........................ 32

Figure 22: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN SLOVENIA ................................................. 33

Figure 23: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN SLOVENIA ................................................ 33

Figure 24: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN SLOVENIA ................................................................ 34

Figure 25: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN SPAIN .............................. 36

Figure 26: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN SPAIN ....................................................... 37

Figure 27: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN SPAIN ...................................................... 37

Figure 28: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN SPAIN....................................................................... 38

Figure 29: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS IN SWEDEN ......................... 40

Figure 30: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED IN SWEDEN ................................................... 41

Figure 31: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS IN SWEDEN .................................................. 41

Figure 32: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IN SWEDEN .................................................................. 42

Figure 33: NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR GPP ....................................................................... 44

Figure 34: INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................ 45

Figure 35: IMPROVEMENT OF GPP UPTAKE ....................................................................................... 46

Figure 36: GPP AT ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL ...................................................................................... 48

Figure 37: USE OF SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................ 49

Figure 38: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS ............................................ 50

Figure 39: SOURCES OF GREEN CRITERIA USED ................................................................................. 51




84

Figure 40: INCLUSION OF GREEN CRITERIA IN PROCUREMENT STAGES.............................................. 52

Figure 41: NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 54

Figure 42: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN GPP PROCESS ..................................................................... 55

Figure 43: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED ...................................................................... 56

Figure 44: MAIN DIFFICULTIES REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GPP...................................... 57

Figure 45: GPP POLICY FRAMEWORK IN PLACE PER COUNTRY ........................................................... 60

Figure 46: AWARENESS ON A NATIONAL GPP POLICY OR POLITICAL AGREEMENT FOR THE UPTAKE OF

GPP PER COUNTRY ............................................................................................................................ 61

Figure 47: AWARENESS ON ANY NATIONAL TARGETS FOR THE UPTAKE OF GPP PER COUNTRY ......... 61

Figure 48: KNOWLEDGE ON ANY PRIORITY GPP PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND WORKS PER COUNTRY ... 62

Figure 49: AWARENESS ON ANY STATISTIC REPORTING ON GPP PER COUNTRY ................................. 62

Figure 50: AWARENESS ON ANY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES FOR GPP (I.E. HELP DESK, GUIDANCE,

TRAININGS, WEBSITE, ETC.) PER COUNTRY ........................................................................................ 63

Figure 51: NATIONAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES PER COUNTRY ................................................................ 64

Figure 52: EXISTANCE OF GPP STRATEGY OR ACTION PLAN ON GPP IN THE ORGANISATIONS PER

COUNTRY .......................................................................................................................................... 65

Figure 53: EXISTANCE OF MANAGERIAL SUPPORT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GPP PER COUNTRY

......................................................................................................................................................... 66

Figure 54: EXISTANCE OF POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GPP PER COUNTRY ... 66

Figure 55: EXISTANCE OF ANY KIND OF MARKET ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE ORGANISATIONS

PER COUNTRY ................................................................................................................................... 67

Figure 56: ATANDENCE ON ANY GPP TRAINING SEMINAR PER COUNTRY .......................................... 68

Figure 57: WAY OF INCLUDING GPP CRITERIA IN TENDER DOCUMENTS BY PROCURERS PER COUNTRY

......................................................................................................................................................... 69

Figure 58: PERCENTAGE OF GPP IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PROCUREMENTS PER COUNTRY ........... 70

Figure 59: “TYPE” OF USE OF GREEN/ENERGY EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS IN TENDERS PER COUNTRY

......................................................................................................................................................... 71

Figure 60: STAGES OF INCLUSION OF GREEN/ENERGY EFFICIENT CRITERIA IN THE PROCUREMENT

PROCESS PER COUNTRY .................................................................................................................... 72

Figure 61: ENERGY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PURCHASED PER COUNTRY ............................................... 73

Figure 62: ... LOOKING FOR INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS (PUBLIC PROCUREMENT OF INNOVATION) PER

COUNTRY .......................................................................................................................................... 74

Figure 63: ... DECIDING FOR PRE-COMMERCIAL PROCUREMENT PER COUNTRY ................................ 74

Figure 64: ... ASKING FOR LEASING POSSIBILITIES PER COUNTRY ....................................................... 75

Figure 65: ... FOCUSING ON PERFORMANCE/FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS PER COUNTRY ............... 75

Figure 66: ... MONITORING CONTRACT COMPLIANCE AND EXECUTION PER COUNTRY ...................... 76

Figure 67: … CARRYING OUT MARKET ANALYSIS PER COUNTRY ......................................................... 76

Figure 68: … USING LIFE-CYCLE COSTING (LCC) PER COUNTRY ........................................................... 77

Figure 69: … CALCULATING CO₂ AND ENERGY SAVINGS PER COUNTRY .............................................. 77

Figure 70: NEEDS FOR FUTURE SUPPORT FOR THE GPP IMPLEMENTATION PER COUNTRY ................ 78




85

VII. INDEX OF TABLES

Tabela 1: IMPROVEMENT OF GPP UPTAKE ........................................................................................ 47

Tabela 2: USE OF SUPPORT ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 49

Tabela 3: MAIN DIFFICULTY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GPP ...................................................... 58




86

Task LEADER:

Local Energy Agency Pomurje (SLOVENIA)

Involved PARTNERS:

The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily

reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are

responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

Documents

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF %˛FFERENT GPP PRACTICESgreensproject.eu/wp-content/.../D2.4_Report-on-comparative-analysis-of... · This project is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme