Meeting of the national GPP experts and informal...

Gorane Ibarra([email protected])

Brussels, 1st December 2010

Basque country approach

Meeting of the national GPP experts Meeting of the national GPP experts and informal AGand informal AG

Ecodiseño_IHOBE.ppt

ADAPTATIONS MADE AND MAIN CONCLUSIONS

Testing the methodology of the European Commission to

monitor green public procurement in the Basque

Country:


the three provincial capitals

the three provincial governments

the Department of Economy and Finance of the Basque Government

• a group of advanced public authorities• working with Ihobe, in Green Public Procurement,

since 2006

Testing the methodology of the European Commission to monitor green public procurement in the Basque Country

WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE TESTING?


In 2009

With a methodology to measure GPP based on the European Commission Methodology

Adapted to a smaller scale and context

With a small pilot group (7 public administrations)

Through an on-line questionnaire to compile all the necessary information


WHEN AND HOW WAS THE MONITORING CONDUCTED?


QUALITATIVE INDICATORS:

The Basque “Strategy for a gradual implementation of GPP” (similar to the “Flexible Framework” from the UK that includes, in a certain way, some of the general questions form the EC questionnaire)

Include some additional questions such as How often GPP is conducted? or Where and how are often environmental criteria introduced in your tender documents?(methodologies from other countries)


GENERAL FRAMEWORK ON THE MONITORING SYSTEM


QUANTITATIVE INDICATORS:

Only calculates indicators I, II and III*

The definitions of the different green levels for each product group is based not only on the EC methodology but also the Basque GPP manual**

* Indicator I: % GPP OF of total public procurement in terms of monetary valueIndicator II: % GPP of total public procurement in terms of number of contractIndicator III: CO2 impact of GPP

** The manual contains 15 product groups divided into three levels that were developed in line with the GPP-Toolkit but adapted to the Basque reality and market availability


GENERAL FRAMEWORK ON THE MONITORING SYSTEM


More general elements where included to have a better image of the reasons and resources used to implement GPP and the level of implementation in qualitative terms.

Answers for the product groups were always focused in a “specific product” and not in a “product type” to avoid subjective answers and to make it easier for practitioners to find the appropriate information to fill in the questionnaire.

Cost data was included to use real values.

Two different classification systems where set for the quantitative indicators related:

to the level of GPP (indicator I and II) and

for the CO2 impact of GPP (indicator III)


MODIFICATIONS TO THE EC METHODOLOGY:


For indicator I and II:

The definition of the 3 GPP levels for services in the EC method is too simple and only a couple of aspects are taken into account (due to the CO2 restriction).

A service can have many relevant green criteria (not only linked to CO2)

It would be unfair that an administration that complies with many criteria but doesn’t comply with one of the prioritised would “no green”.

A more flexible system that would allow a better characterisation of the GPP levels was defined for services in the Basque methodology that consist of:

defining a set of criteria both from the GPP-Toolkit and the Basque Manual;

giving to each criteria a different weigh (points); and

classifies contracts in one of the three GPP levels if they reach a certain amount of points. Thus, different administrations could have the same level of green even if they comply with different criteria.




For indicator III:

In the EC methodology even though indicator III keeps the difference between the three GPP levels actually, for most product groups it is not relevant because the CO2 factor for both the core and the comprehensive level is the same or because it is only provided for one of the two levels of green (only in 3 out of the 10 product groups the difference between GPP levels is made).

That means that in reality, indicator III is making mainly a distinction between green and no green contracts (according to a certain criterion) rather than a difference between levels of green.

Therefore, in the Basque methodology it is agreed to establish two separate classification systems and for CO2:

There is only 2 levels (green and no-green)

Base on the answers provided in the questionnaire but not on Indicator I

Only for relevant product groups




1. Difficulty to get administrations to complete the questionnaire due to the amount of time needed to obtain all the information

2. For the general qualitative questions, it is difficult to know up to what extend the answers are representative of the whole administration or only of the department that fills in the questionnaire

However:

The questions of this section allow to have a qualitative picture of the level of GPP which is useful both for IHOBE and the public administrations for the definition of strategies and tools to promote GPP in the region and internally.

Public administrations don’t have any problem answering those questions.


MAIN CONCLUSIONS:


3. Difficulties to compile all relevant information for some product groups when procurement is not centralised and data needs to be requested and provided by other departments or autonomous organisations

According to the pilot public authorities:

The best way (both in accuracy and time efficiency) to overcome that, is to have a template for each prioritised product group, that each department and entity should fill in during the awarding phase or short after it, in order to collect all relevant information.

It could then be compiled at the end of the year to provide accurate data from each administration.


MAIN CONCLUSIONS:


5. The indicators are based on the amount of expenditure, not taking into account other elements very important such as the reduction of consumption.

Therefore:

Indicators of the level of green contracts and procurement should be9independent, at least partially, from indicators of the environmental impact of GPP.

6. The assumption that the environmental criteria of the most important contract can be extrapolated to the rest of procurement activities is not accurate as the other tenders might be carried out by different departments without the same environmental priorities.


MAIN CONCLUSIONS:


7. The same occurs when considering only “product types”. The answer can be too general. That is why in the Basque methodology “specific products” were defined.

8. However that brings also problems of extrapolating results.9. The indicator III, focused only in CO2 emissions, should

consider other impacts.10. In both methodologies GPP is based on contracts and not

tenders.However:

If GPP is considered as an instrument to green the market and to achieve other environmental policies, the introduction of environmental criteria in tender documents, even if only as award criteria, has already an awareness raising effect, promoting the introduction of greener products and services in the market.


MAIN CONCLUSIONS:


Also in 2009

With the Basque Government Departments and Companies

Very simple “paper” questionnaire asking for:

Number of tenders and economic volume by type of tender (works, services, consultancy, supplies, etc.) during 2009

Number of tenders and economic volume from the above which include environmental criteria

Section in the tender (object, selection, specifications, award, contract clauses) and number of times green criteria are introduced in each section


THE OTHER METHODOLOGY TESTED IN 2009:


This information was be easily gathered because:

The Basque Government has a tender template that includes a table to show bidders where environmental and social criteria are included in the tender, which is filled in during the development of the tender documents.

It was based in the tender and not the awarded offer and no specific questions were asked

This methodology is too simple and doesn’t provide certain information. Therefore a system has to be developed that is both simple but can at the same time provide relevant information on GPP that can be communicated and shared.


THE OTHER METHODOLOGY TESTED IN 2009:


Gorane IbarraResponsible for Green Public Procurement of IHOBE

[email protected]


MORE INFORMATION, QUESTIONS, DOUBTS….

mailto:[email protected]

Meeting of the national GPP experts and informal...

Documents

Transcript of Meeting of the national GPP experts and informal...