D2.7 Evaluation reports on implementationgreensproject.eu/.../09/D2.7_Evaluation-reports-on... · This project is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union

This project is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme

of the European Union under Grant Agreement

Task 2.4. Monitoring and evaluation program

EVALUATION REPORTS O

“INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS

Agreement No: 649860

Deliverable D2.7

August 2016



of the European Union under Grant Agreement 649860


EVALUATION REPORTS ON IMPLEMENTATION

OF WORK PACKAGE

“INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS ON GPP AND GOOD AND BAD PRACTICES”

Agreement No: 649860 — GreenS


1


N IMPLEMENTATION

BAD PRACTICES”



Contents

1. Introduction ................................

A. Importance and necessity of the evaluation

B. Content / project framework

2. Project GreenS ................................

3. The positioning of WP in the project and financial aspects

4. Methodology of the implementation

A. Questionnaires ................................

5. General aspects ................................

A. Comparison: planned and achieved deliverables

B. Comparison: planned and achieved results

C. Comparison: planned and achieved time framework

6. Success stories and added value




................................................................................................................................

Importance and necessity of the evaluation ................................................................

Content / project framework ................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

The positioning of WP in the project and financial aspects ................................

Methodology of the implementation ................................................................

................................................................................................

................................................................................................

Comparison: planned and achieved deliverables ................................................................

Comparison: planned and achieved results ................................................................

Comparison: planned and achieved time framework ................................................................

and added value ................................................................................................


2

............................................ 3

.................................................. 3

......................................... 3

.................................... 4

............................................................... 4

................................................................. 7

............................................................... 8

................................................................ 10

........................................ 10

................................................ 11

................................. 12

...................................... 13



1. Introduction

A. Importance and necessity of the evaluation

In almost all cases, evaluation is an integral and indispensable part, particularly as completion of the

project or a specific set of activities. It provides us with effective tools for obtaining answers and

comments regarding the quality of implementation

evaluation tool. Comments and recommendations for future work and activities in the area covered by

the evaluation are of key importance.

In our case, we conducted internal evaluation (the so

work packages leader. It could be conducted with the cooperation and assistance of external experts,

but in this case, we did not include them in the project team for the implementation of the evaluation.

The implementation of the evaluation itself requires a fairly high degree of self

objectivity. However, the internal evaluation has been made easier due to the knowledge of the

activities and projects that were being evaluated, as the evaluators were fully i

evaluated project. The evaluation process at the round table took place in the form of a dialogue of

identification of the work done, i.e. the activities carried out by each partner. The preliminary and the

intermediate aggregate results (th

the lead partner. Therefore, the ensuing round table discussion among the partners could also be

defined as Learning-by-doing.

B. Content / project framework

The aim of work package was to gather information regarding the good and bad methods and policies

for GPP implementation, market up

their results in order to identify the most innovative and eff

collect and highlight also practices, with bad and inefficient results.

Each partner has identified the practices on GPP concerning the purchase of energy efficient products

and services by institutional Bodies at

process and methodology implemented by procures (Institutional Bodies) in each country to purchase

“green” goods and services.

In addition, through the analysis of at

where and how the local authorities need support for green products and services (energy related).

In each country has been identified and analysed at least 10 “green” products and/or services. After

this phase, it was identified 7 main categories of products and services which feed the WP5. The

results from this WP are linked and preparatory the WP5 Pilot experimentations of G.PP.S and also will

be a valuable input to the Evaluation

GPP training.




Importance and necessity of the evaluation



comments regarding the quality of implementation, and also acts as an independent or mutual work


the evaluation are of key importance.

In our case, we conducted internal evaluation (the so-called self-evaluation) which is carried out by



on of the evaluation itself requires a fairly high degree of self


activities and projects that were being evaluated, as the evaluators were fully i



intermediate aggregate results (the responses available and received at the time) were presented by


framework


for GPP implementation, market up-take, legal frameworks, undertaken at EU level and to analyse

their results in order to identify the most innovative and efficient cases. On the other hand we have

collect and highlight also practices, with bad and inefficient results.


and services by institutional Bodies at national and local level. This action has given an overview on the


analysis of at least 15 SEAP´s in 7 partner country, the partners had to



identified 7 main categories of products and services which feed the WP5. The


be a valuable input to the Evaluation and Policy recommendations, but also to the d


3



, and also acts as an independent or mutual work


valuation) which is carried out by



on of the evaluation itself requires a fairly high degree of self-criticism and


activities and projects that were being evaluated, as the evaluators were fully informed of the



e responses available and received at the time) were presented by



take, legal frameworks, undertaken at EU level and to analyse

icient cases. On the other hand we have


national and local level. This action has given an overview on the


the partners had to found



identified 7 main categories of products and services which feed the WP5. The


but also to the development of



The main objective of this WP was to identify already undertaken good and bad examples of GPP

processes in each partner country in order to test the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the

practices. The objective was to share experiences and analyses from bad and good practices. The first

objective was to identify and analyse in each partner country at

purchase of energy efficient products and services provided by nation

The second was to identify and analyse the needs of local/regional authorities through the SEAP

developed in each country/region.

The bad practices was also address the lack of professional procurement training, the l

experience in implementing sustainable procurement practices and strategies, and the lack of sharing

and cooperation among procurers at different institutional levels.

2. Project GreenS

The work package “Institutional needs on GPP and Good and bad pr

frame of the GreenS project.

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

Research and Innovation programme Horizon 2020 project

innovative and sustainable institutional change

that main goal is to strengthen capacity of public authorities to successfully apply

Procurement (GPP) with priority, enhancing their ability

emissions and costs by applying innovative solutions on GPP.

3. The positioning of WP in the project and financial aspects

As can be seen from the table below, the distribution of work on work package that is being

in the context of the evaluation, 13,50% of the total available quota. This distribution is fairly

proportionate, if we taking into consideration the scope of work, activities and significance of the

results (basis) for other work packages as wel

public procurement (GPP).

Name of the WP

WP 1 - Project Management

WP 2 - Institutional needs on GPP and Good and bad practices






tive was to share experiences and analyses from bad and good practices. The first

objective was to identify and analyse in each partner country at least 10 practices

purchase of energy efficient products and services provided by national/regional and local

to identify and analyse the needs of local/regional authorities through the SEAP

developed in each country/region.

also address the lack of professional procurement training, the l


and cooperation among procurers at different institutional levels.

“Institutional needs on GPP and Good and bad practices” were implemented in the

strengthen capacity of public authorities to successfully

Innovation programme Horizon 2020 project “Green public procurement supporte

innovative and sustainable institutional change — GreenS” grant agreement number 649860 states

that main goal is to strengthen capacity of public authorities to successfully apply

(GPP) with priority, enhancing their ability and capacity to save energy, reduce CO2

emissions and costs by applying innovative solutions on GPP.

The positioning of WP in the project and financial aspects

As can be seen from the table below, the distribution of work on work package that is being



results (basis) for other work packages as well as for the national movement in the area of green

Person / Months

Project Management

Institutional needs on GPP and Good and bad practices


4



tive was to share experiences and analyses from bad and good practices. The first

least 10 practices on GPP, related with

al/regional and local authorities.

to identify and analyse the needs of local/regional authorities through the SEAP´s

also address the lack of professional procurement training, the lack of


actices” were implemented in the

strengthen capacity of public authorities to successfully European Union

“Green public procurement supporters for

grant agreement number 649860 states

that main goal is to strengthen capacity of public authorities to successfully apply Green Public

and capacity to save energy, reduce CO2

The positioning of WP in the project and financial aspects

As can be seen from the table below, the distribution of work on work package that is being addressed



movement in the area of green

Person / Months

31,69

27,97



WP 3 - Build-up G.PP.S and multilevel

WP 4 - Institutionalisation of GPP training

WP 5 - Pilot Experimentation of GPP’s

WP 6 - Evaluation and policy recommendations

WP 7 - Communication and Dissemination Activities

The graph below shows the percentage of engagement of partners on each work packages, based on

the total quantify of the defined work in the overall project.

At the grapf below, we show the realation between the reallocation of quantity of work between

partners. It is quite proportional distribution, where dominate LEA Pomurje, who is leader of work

package and responsible for the overall preparation of the bases of the work package.

23%

10%

WP 1 - Project Management

WP 3 - Build-up G.PP.S and

multilevel cooperation

WP 5 - Pilot Experimentation of

GPP’s

WP 7 - Communication and

Dissemination Activities




up G.PP.S and multilevel cooperation

Institutionalisation of GPP training

Pilot Experimentation of GPP’s

Evaluation and policy recommendations

Communication and Dissemination Activities

percentage of engagement of partners on each work packages, based on

the total quantify of the defined work in the overall project.


portional distribution, where dominate LEA Pomurje, who is leader of work


Share of the work by WPs

16%

13%

15%

12%

11%

WP 1 - Project Management WP 2 - Institutional needs on GPP and

Good and bad practices

WP 3 - Build-up G.PP.S and WP 4 - Institutionalisation of GPP

training

WP 5 - Pilot Experimentation of WP 6 - Evaluation and policy recommendations

WP 7 - Communication and

Dissemination Activities


5

32,04

25,84

46,34

20,36

22,98

percentage of engagement of partners on each work packages, based on


portional distribution, where dominate LEA Pomurje, who is leader of work


WP 2 - Institutional needs on GPP and

WP 6 - Evaluation and policy recommendations



As we converted the percent of the work, which is located in the table above, is defined by

on the month," into categories of expenditures / expenses in

dominate LEA Pomurje, who is the leader of the work package and responsible for the overall

preparation of the bases of the work package. It also ha

NENET.

Among the other partners are losing balance due to the disproportionate cost categories, namely

items € / person / month, which are dependent on national criteria, the economic situation of each

country as well as the regulation of individual countries and the partners that fall due after the

national jurisdiction.

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

LE

A P

om

urje -

WP

leade

r

ALE

SS

CO

NE

NE

T

-

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

LE

A P

om

urj

e -

WP

lea

de

r

ALE

SS

CO

NE

NE

T




the percent of the work, which is located in the table above, is defined by

on the month," into categories of expenditures / expenses in €, the image is almost similar. Here


preparation of the bases of the work package. It also has a relatively high proportion of work partner


€ / person / month, which are dependent on national criteria, the economic situation of each


Cyrp

us E

ne

rgy

Agen

cy

Reg

ione

Cala

bria

Agenc

ia

Pro

vin

cia

l de la

En

erg

ía C

ádiz

ICLE

I E

UR

O

FA

MP

Rig

as

Pla

nosanas

Regio

ns

Sk

upnost o

bčin

Slo

venije

BS

RA

EM

RIG

AS

DO

ME

Depart

men

t of

Environm

ent

Share of the work by partners in the WPs

Person / Months

Cy

rpu

s E

ne

rgy

Ag

en

cy

Reg

ion

e

Cala

bri

a

Ag

en

cia

Pro

vin

cia

l de

la

En

erg

ía C

ád

iz

ICL

EI

EU

RO

FA

MP

Rig

as

Pla

no

san

as

Reg

ion

s

Sk

upn

os

t o

bč

in

Slo

ve

nije

BS

RA

EM

RIG

AS

DO

ME

Dep

art

men

t o

f

Share of the cost in € by partners in the WPs


6

the percent of the work, which is located in the table above, is defined by the "man

€, the image is almost similar. Here


s a relatively high proportion of work partner


€ / person / month, which are dependent on national criteria, the economic situation of each


NA

MR

B

Dep

art

men

t o

f

En

viro

nm

en

t

NA

MR

B



4. Methodology of the implementation

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

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

based on two main different online surveys that was submitte

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 anal

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

acted 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 had to ensure that our results are as

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

there had been no intention to obtain qualitative statistically representative sample in terms of what is

the level of GPP uptake in all eight countries as this has not been at all the purpose of the required

tasks. Rather the attention has been on obtaining the quality data. The main purpose of this exercise

was to get information about GPP uptake, what public procurers purchase and how they do it;

consequently more targeted public procurers from the local, regional and national level has be

needed.

In addition, a number of steps were

set that would allow making relevant evaluation. The main objective with this exercise was to see how

the GPP implementation is taken on and

to reveal the later data we would need to have some thousands of respondents in each country!

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

otherwise too poor information with such small sample could be received. Therefore, all responsible

NPs have been asked to find and make contacts with

national/regional/local level (or personnel that are responsible

already implementing and are familiar with GPP. These could be either a managerial staff (director of

procurement or other unit, official working at the ministry /region responsible for GPP etc.) or

procurers themselves.




Methodology of the implementation


essentially draws on the findings of a comprehensive data collection exercise

different online surveys that was submitted to public authorities at different levels

of government in each GreenS country.


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



interviews with public authorities during the questionnaire process.

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

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



been on obtaining the quality data. The main purpose of this exercise


consequently more targeted public procurers from the local, regional and national level has be

In addition, a number of steps were taken in order to avoid sampling errors and to obtain reliable data


the GPP implementation is taken on and not the rate of the GPP up-take at the national level; in order


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


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




7


essentially draws on the findings of a comprehensive data collection exercise

d to public authorities at different levels


ysis, we have entirely relied on



interviews with public authorities during the questionnaire process.

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

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



been on obtaining the quality data. The main purpose of this exercise


consequently more targeted public procurers from the local, regional and national level has been

taken in order to avoid sampling errors and to obtain reliable data


take at the national level; in order


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


at least 10 public authorities at

for GPP implementation) that are





A. Questionnaires

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.

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

table forms.

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

For obtaining required information we prepared two (2) on

procurers and one for national partners (NPs). The first

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

1. The first questionnaire (Q1

procurement behaviours of public authorities in eigh

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 ar






The results have been aimed to analyse and map the status of the


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

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

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.

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



other countries public procurers got language support from project’s institutional bodies.


what and how much they purchase, and what difficulties they are facing, we were collecting mainly


8



The results have been aimed to analyse and map the status of the


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

line questionnaires (Q); one for public

questionnaire was focusing more on practices,

was designed in order to collect data on the

t respective countries. The questionnaire in



other countries public procurers got language support from project’s institutional bodies.


e 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 questionnaire was structured as follows:

- A general section contained questions on the type of public sector and the level of awareness

of national activities in relation of GPP and which existing support at national level they use.

- The section about organisations’ level

respondent’s activities regarding GPP, estimated level of GPP uptake, etc.

- Third section focused on GPP implementation by procurers. The questions that were directed

at the respondents asked about what type and h

possible innovative solutions in green/energy efficient procurement, what energy efficient

products/services/works they have purchased recently, what support they would need, what

are the main difficulties in appl

The survey was carried out from

received, more than 14 envisaged per

2. The second questionnaire (Q2

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 na

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 as

exists in these countries. Hence, with the questions for NPs we expected to gather up

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

knowledgeable about the state of art

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 publ

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 w

between November and December

country.

3. The third questionnaire

in the area of the energy related SEAPs.

Finally, with approach that we have chosen we believe that, overall, the result and the evaluation of

survey is robust.






as structured as follows:

A general section contained questions on the type of public sector and the level of awareness


The section about organisations’ level proposed questions about organisations’ and


Third section focused on GPP implementation by procurers. The questions that were directed

at the respondents asked about what type and how they use criteria, how often they apply



are the main difficulties in applying GPP in their opinion etc.

from November 2015 till April 2016. Overall, 114 questionnaires

envisaged per each country.

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



section contained questions on the national status of GPP (policy frameworks), estimated level of GPP


public procurers for easier, better and quicker implementation of GPP in order to as

exists in these countries. Hence, with the questions for NPs we expected to gather up


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


country in the final report of WP2. National partners also made comparison with the publ


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

mber 2015. Overall, 8 questionnaires have been received, 1 per each

3. The third questionnaire was directed to the local authorities to assess their needs for GP

in the area of the energy related SEAPs.



9



A general section contained questions on the type of public sector and the level of awareness


proposed questions about organisations’ and


Third section focused on GPP implementation by procurers. The questions that were directed

ow they use criteria, how often they apply



questionnaires have been

weighed up broadly the institutional /



tional status of GPP (policy frameworks), estimated level of GPP


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


of the GPP in their respective countries and also we need reliable


country in the final report of WP2. National partners also made comparison with the published data in


online/HTML format. The survey was carried out

. Overall, 8 questionnaires have been received, 1 per each

was directed to the local authorities to assess their needs for GPP




5. General aspects

A. Comparison: planned and

In the frame of work package 2

D 2.1 Template and methodology for recording and collection of good and bad practices

D 2.2 Inventory/recording process

D 2.3 1 Expanded list of good and bad practices

D 2.4 1 Prepared comparative analysis of different GPP practices

D 2.5 1 Identification/evaluation roundtable meeting

D 2.6 1 summary report on the needs

D 2.7 Evaluation reports on implementation

During the project implementation and in the joint cooperati

deliverables have been realised:

D 2.1 Template and methodology for recording and collection of good and bad practices

D 2.2 Inventory/recording process

D 2.3 1 Expanded list of good and bad practices

D 2.4 1 Prepared comparative analysis of different GPP practices

D 2.5 1 Identification/evaluation roundtable meeting

D 2.6 1 summary report on the needs

D 2.7 Evaluation reports on implementation

D 2.8 Recommendations to the covenant of Mayors office




planned and achieved deliverables

the following deliverables have been planned:

Template and methodology for recording and collection of good and bad practices

Inventory/recording process

1 Expanded list of good and bad practices

1 Prepared comparative analysis of different GPP practices

1 Identification/evaluation roundtable meeting

1 summary report on the needs

Evaluation reports on implementation

During the project implementation and in the joint cooperation of all project partners the following

deliverables have been realised:


Inventory/recording process

1 Expanded list of good and bad practices

1 Prepared comparative analysis of different GPP practices

1 Identification/evaluation roundtable meeting

1 summary report on the needs

Evaluation reports on implementation

he covenant of Mayors office


10


on of all project partners the following




During the finalisation of the work in the frame of WP2, we had a discussion with our project officer

and our lead partner about the results

added value of the work package:

According to the collected and analyzed needs in the frame of Task 2.3 of the public procurers,

recorded at the level of the organizations involved in the context of the report, they could be

appropriately positioned in the so

very poorly (actually, almost never) incorporated into the SEAP preparation and implementation

process. The fact is that the GPP tool can help public procurers to significantly contribute to the

realization of the objectives in line with

are identical in their objectives, at the level of commitment.

report, we prepared a document with Recommendations / Proposals to the Covenant of Mayors

Office.

B. Comparison: planned and achieved results

In this section we bring together all the

and work done in the work package.

The questionnaires where the most important document during

the graph bellow, that the planned final results are achieved or even exceeded

numbers of respondents.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

The first

questionnaire (Q1

public procurers)

80




g the finalisation of the work in the frame of WP2, we had a discussion with our project officer

about the results. We agreed that we will prepare a additional deliverable, as a

added value of the work package:

ed and analyzed needs in the frame of Task 2.3 of the public procurers,


appropriately positioned in the so-called “Action Plan”. As can be seen from the report,



realization of the objectives in line with SEAP, so it makes sense to coordinate these two tools, which

are identical in their objectives, at the level of commitment. Consequently, as the key findings of the


Comparison: planned and achieved results

bring together all the planned and achieved results to give an overview of the

and work done in the work package.

The questionnaires where the most important document during the gathering process. We can see in

the planned final results are achieved or even exceeded

The first

questionnaire (Q1 –

public procurers)

The second

questionnaire (Q2 –

national partners)

The third

questionnaire

(SEAP´s)

8

105114

8

108

Planned result Achieved result


11

g the finalisation of the work in the frame of WP2, we had a discussion with our project officer

We agreed that we will prepare a additional deliverable, as a

ed and analyzed needs in the frame of Task 2.3 of the public procurers,


called “Action Plan”. As can be seen from the report, the GPP tool is



EAP, so it makes sense to coordinate these two tools, which

Consequently, as the key findings of the


to give an overview of the efforts

gathering process. We can see in

the planned final results are achieved or even exceeded – regarding the

C. Comparison: planned and achieved time

As can be seen from the tabel below, there are some delays in the implementation of the related problems/delays with certain

estimate that the delay itself is not as important as the results. The results were good



of the European Union under Grant Agreement 649860 12

Comparison: planned and achieved time framework

As can be seen from the tabel below, there are some delays in the implementation of the related problems/delays with certain

estimate that the delay itself is not as important as the results. The results were good quaility and with them we exceeded the planned minimum targets.


As can be seen from the tabel below, there are some delays in the implementation of the related problems/delays with certain partners. At the end we

quaility and with them we exceeded the planned minimum targets.



6. Success stories and added value

In general we can say that the implementation of the work package is took place as expected. There

were a deviation from the initia

results.

We also need to highlight the number of participants / submitted questionnaires, which is larger than

the initial plan.

As an added value of the project and specific of thi

D 2.8 Recommendations to the covenant of M

Belgium. In this document we give the following recommendations / proposals to the Covenant of

Mayors Office:

1. To include “GPP - Green public procurement” within the first amendments to the Covenant of

Mayors for Climate & Energy / SECAPs (Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans) as

the important section for

2. To actualize “SECAP Template” and other parts of the SEAP Guidebook:

� Part I - "The SEAP process, step

� Part II - "Baseline Emission Inventory"

� Part III - "Technical measures for energy efficiency and renewable en

with a separate section of “GPP

SEAP goals – the provided reduction of CO2 emissions

3. To actualize “Reporting Guidelines on SEAP and Monitoring” and all other necessary document

for implementation and monitoring whit a new section “GPP




and added value


were a deviation from the initial plan, but it was finally all done and delay did not effect on the final


added value of the project and specific of this Work package was prepared additional deliverable

to the covenant of Mayors office, (CoMo), 63-67 Rue d’Arlon, 1040 Brussels,

we give the following recommendations / proposals to the Covenant of

Green public procurement” within the first amendments to the Covenant of

Mayors for Climate & Energy / SECAPs (Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans) as

the important section for the CO2 sawing with widespread impact.

To actualize “SECAP Template” and other parts of the SEAP Guidebook:

"The SEAP process, step-by-step towards the -20 % target by 2020"

"Baseline Emission Inventory"

"Technical measures for energy efficiency and renewable en

a separate section of “GPP - Green public procurement” which will also contribute to the

the provided reduction of CO2 emissions

To actualize “Reporting Guidelines on SEAP and Monitoring” and all other necessary document

ntation and monitoring whit a new section “GPP - Green public procurement”.


13


l plan, but it was finally all done and delay did not effect on the final


s Work package was prepared additional deliverable

67 Rue d’Arlon, 1040 Brussels,

we give the following recommendations / proposals to the Covenant of

Green public procurement” within the first amendments to the Covenant of

Mayors for Climate & Energy / SECAPs (Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plans) as one of

20 % target by 2020"

"Technical measures for energy efficiency and renewable energy"

Green public procurement” which will also contribute to the

To actualize “Reporting Guidelines on SEAP and Monitoring” and all other necessary document

Green public procurement”.



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 o

European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the

information contained therein.




Local Energy Agency Pomurje (SLOVENIA)

The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion o



14

The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the


Documents

D2.7 Evaluation reports on implementationgreensproject.eu/.../09/D2.7_Evaluation-reports-on... · This project is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union