1st Ad-Hoc Working Group (AHWG) meeting for the revision...

1st Ad-Hoc Working Group (AHWG) meeting

for the revision of the EU Green Public

Procurement criteria for Transport

23 November 2016

European Commission Joint Research Centre – Growth and Innovation

Edificio Expo, C/ Inca Garcilaso, 3

41092 Seville, SPAIN

Minutes of the meeting

Page 2 of 17

Contents Agenda ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

List of participants ................................................................................................................................... 5

Background information and scope proposal ......................................................................................... 6

Criteria proposal on Category 1 Purchase, lease or rental of cars, light commercial vehicels (LCVs) and

L-category vehicles .................................................................................................................................. 6

GHG emissions ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Technical options for reducing GHG emissions ................................................................................... 7

Air polluting emissions ........................................................................................................................ 8

Noise emission..................................................................................................................................... 8

Vehicle manufacturing ........................................................................................................................ 9

Electric vehicles (EV) battery ............................................................................................................... 9

Criteria proposal on Category 3 and 5 purchase or lease of buses and waste collection vehicles ....... 10

GHG emissions ................................................................................................................................... 10

Air polluting emissions ...................................................................................................................... 11

Technical options to reduce GHG emissions ..................................................................................... 11

Exhaust pipe location (buses) and auxiliary units (waste collection vehicles) .................................. 11

Noise emissions ................................................................................................................................. 12

Vehicle manufacturing ...................................................................................................................... 12

Electric vehicle batteries ................................................................................................................... 12

Criteria proposal on Category 2 Mobility services ................................................................................ 13

Optimized vehicle use ....................................................................................................................... 13

GHG emissions ................................................................................................................................... 13

Air polluting emissions ...................................................................................................................... 14

Other technical measures ................................................................................................................. 14

Combined mobility services .............................................................................................................. 14

Criteria proposal on Category 4 and 6 bus and waste collection services ............................................ 15

Optimised vehicle use ....................................................................................................................... 15

GHG emissions ................................................................................................................................... 15

Air pollutant emissions ...................................................................................................................... 15

Other technical measures ................................................................................................................. 15

New vehicles ...................................................................................................................................... 16

Integrated public transport systems (bus services) .......................................................................... 16

Route optimisation (waste collection services) ................................................................................ 16

Page 3 of 17

Criteria proposal on Category 7 Post, courier and moving services ..................................................... 17

Optimized vehicle use ....................................................................................................................... 17

GHG emissions ................................................................................................................................... 17

Air pollutant emissions ...................................................................................................................... 17

Conclusions and outlook – Wrap of the meeting .................................................................................. 17

Page 4 of 17

Agenda

Arrival and registration 09:15 - 09:30

Welcome and introduction Introduction to the objectives of the EU Green Public Procurement. Timeline.

09:30-10.00

Presentation of background information and preliminary report - Discussion

10:00-10:15

Criteria proposal on Category 1 purchase, lease or rental of cars, LCVs and L-category vehicles – Part 1: GHG emissions – Technical options to reduce GHG

10:15-11:00

Coffee break 11:00-11:15

Criteria proposal on Category 1 purchase, lease or rental of cars, LCVs and L-category vehicles – Part 2: Air polluting emissions - noise emissions – vehicle manufacturing – EV Battery

11:15-12:30

Criteria proposal on Category 3 and 5 purchase or lease of buses and waste collection vehicles Part 1 – GHG emissions – Air polluting emissions – technical options to reduce GHG

12.30 – 13.30

Lunch break 13:30-14:30

Criteria proposal on Category 3 and 5 purchase or lease of buses and waste collection vehicles Part 2: Exhaust gases - noise emissions – vehicle manufacturing – EV Battery

14:30-15:00

Criteria proposal on Category 2 Mobility services 15.00 – 16.00

Coffee break 16:00-16:15

Criteria proposal on Category 4 and 6 bus and waste collection services 16:15-17:15

Criteria proposal on Category 7 Post, courier and moving services 17:15-17:45

Conclusions and outlook - Wrap of the meeting 17:45-18:00

Close of the WG meeting 18:00

Page 5 of 17

List of participants

First name Last name Affiliation

Greg Archer Transport&Environment

Adrien Bouteille Renault SAS

Nieves Espinosa European Commission – JRC

Vicente Franco European Commission - DG ENV (per video link)

Miguel Gama Caldas European Commission – JRC

Volker Hasenberg Daimler AG

Joerg Hetterich BMW Group (per video link)

Robert Kaukewitsch European Commission - DG ENV

Vincent Lamare SAFRA

Yoann Le Petit Transport&Environment

José Luis Masegosa Carrillo Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism (SPAIN)

Hans Moons European Commission - JRC

Ester Niclos Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (SPAIN)

Antonios Nikas Single Public Procurement Authority Greece

Eduardo Pilkington EMT Madrid

Patrizia Pistochini ENEA

Rocío Rodríguez Quintero European Commission - JRC

Jos Streng City of Rotterdam

Marzia Traverso European Commission - JRC

Susanne Wrighton Forschungsgesellschaft Mobilität and EU Cyclologistics

Page 6 of 17

Background information and scope proposal JRC presented a summary of the background information and the scope proposal which consists of

seven different categories of vehicles and services. Compared with the existing GPP criteria from

2012, two new service categories are proposed: mobility services and postal, courier and moving

services.

Stakeholder feedback

There was a general agreement on the scope proposal; however, the stakeholders suggested a

clearer distinction between buses and coaches. A stakeholder proposed to include cargo bikes as part

of the definitions within the mobility services, since they can be used to transport people carrying

packages, luggage, etc.

There was a general comment that the core criteria should address the most important aspects,

namely greenhouse gas emissionsand air pollutants, and the minor criteria should be moved to the

comprehensive set.

Criteria proposal on Category 1 Purchase, lease or rental of cars, light

commercial vehicels (LCVs) and L-category vehicles

GHG emissions JRC presented the criteria proposal for GHG limit values.


Some stakeholders recommended the use of Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test Procedures

WLTP values to set the CO2 thresholds (based on the current NEDC) since WLTP is to replace the New

European Driving Cycle (NEDC) after September 2017. The European Commission reminded

participants of the transitional period where both values will coexist (NEDC values will either be

modelled or measured in parallel); hence, the limits based on NEDC will still be valid until 2021.

Another stakeholder explained the experience using electric vehicles in urban areas, indicating that

most of the fleet purchased is used within the city. In their opinion, electric vehicles can operate

easily within urban areas, and therefore it would be an option to purchase just zero emission

vehicles.

Regarding the two options proposed, Option 1 based on type-approval CO2 emissions (tank-to-wheel;

TTW) and Option 2 based on well-to-wheel (WTW) CO2 metric, the stakeholders agreed that most

policies are based on a TTW metric, and this will remain unchanged in the long term. Therefore

Option 1 was the preferred option, particularly as there is controversy around some of the WTW

factors.

Concerning the values proposed for vans, a stakeholder indicated that they were overly generous.

The stakeholder explained that many vans were already available with lower emissions, as many

small vans are below 100 g/km, mid-size vans below 115 g/km and large vans below 155 g/km (based

on UK data). For the comprehensive criteria, the same stakeholder indicated that 50 g/km was too

high, and could lead to the purchase of vehicles that perform very poorly in real driving conditions. It

Page 7 of 17

was suggested to decrease the limit below 50 g/km or introduce a tier of 35 g/km in 2021, as is done

with the CO2 values in the core level.

There was a comment on the withdrawal of the criterion on alternative fuels. The stakeholder

suggested that the criterion should be kept and the definition of alternative fuels should be aligned

with Article 2 of the Alternative Fuels Directive. As currently drafted, alternative fuels only include

renewable energy sources. This proposal would expand the definition to natural gas and liquefied

petrol gases. However another stakeholder expressed disagreement with this proposal, indicating

that a technology-neutral approach based on low CO2 emissions is much more appropriate than

specifying the fuels. It was also stressed that natural gas and liquefied petrol gases are fossil fuels.

Finally, clearer definitions of the size classes of cars were requested: small covers A and B segments,

etc.

Technical options for reducing GHG emissions JRC presented the proposal on technical options for reducing GHG emissions, consisting of the

following criteria:

Vehicle-specific eco-driving information

Gear shift indicators (GSI)

Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS)

Energy consumption displays

Low viscosity lubricants

Vehicle tyres – rolling resistance

Speed limiter

Traffic information and route optimisation


Traffic information and route optimisation

One stakeholder pointed out the potential issues that might be derived from the data collection

systems in police services and other special services, since the vehicles could be tracked down. It was

suggested that these systems could be required as technical specifications just in those situations

where the benefits are proven. It was also recommended to limit the number of award criteria,

which could take the focus off the most relevant criteria.

A stakeholder indicated that traffic information systems that are fitted to cars are rather expensive,

and they were not the only way of providing traffic and route information (e.g. satnavs, mobiles etc.)

so the need of a criterion on these embedded systems was not clear.

Vehicle specific eco-driving information

There was general agreement on the criteria for eco-driving information, which should be

complemented with the monitoring of the driving performance, meaning how the driver applies the

eco-driving information in real practice. A stakeholder indicated that in the near future vehicles will

be much more autonomous, and there will be no need for such systems.

Page 8 of 17

Level of complexity

There were comments indicating that the criteria set were too complex, and particularly excessive

for the core level. It was recommended that the core level should just include the CO2 emissions and

air pollutant emissions of the vehicle, while more complete criteria could be suitable for the

comprehensive level.

Lubricants and tyres

In line with the comments in the previous point, the requirements on lubricants and tyres were

considered too specific and it was recommended to be part of a separate category of maintenance

services. JRC replied that it could be incorporated as criteria for maintenance within the service

categories proposed.

Other criteria

A stakeholder suggested introducing a requirement on eco-mode, which was a common system in

many vehicles.

Air polluting emissions JRC the criteria proposed related to air polluting emissions, consisting of the following criteria:

Air polluting emissions

Improved air polluting emissions performance

Zero tailpipe emissions


With regards of the conformity factors proposed, a stakeholder recommended a further reduction of

the tier for January 2019, to 1.3. It was also suggested to apply an absolute limit value for NOx

emissions of 60 mg/km, which is feasible for both diesel and petrol cars, and underpins the

technology neutrality. This approach should be also the rule for the particulate number (PN) limit: a

specific limit value on PN should replace the proposal on gasoline direct injection (GDI) filters for

petrol cars, in a way that the filter is needed to meet the limit value. There was a general acceptance

of the value proposed for the comprehensive level.

A stakeholder suggested a dynamic approach that enables continuous improvement over the

contract period (particularly for long term contracts). The supplier may commit to achieve a target,

for example, zero-emissions, along the contract duration. JRC replied that it would feasible for

service contracts; however, the criterion could propose different tiers, as for the CO2 emission

criterion.

Noise emission JRC presented the criteria proposed related to noise emission, consisting of requirements on vehicles

and tyres.


There was a general agreement on setting the requirements on tyres within the maintenance service,

as for lubricants. However, it was acknowledged that this may be difficult if procurers have their own

Page 9 of 17

maintenance services (in-house), and also when maintenance services are provided by a separate

contract.

A stakeholder repeated the previous comment on keeping the core criteria set as simple as possible,

therefore, it was suggested to retain the criterion on noise, both vehicle and tyres, at comprehensive

level. The requirement on tyre noise should be award criteria instead of technical specification.

Vehicle manufacturing JRC presented the criteria proposed related to vehicle manufacturing.


Some stakeholders suggested using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to better evaluate the

impacts derived from the manufacture phase. However, there were comments that opposed to the

use of LCA because no standardised set of impact category is available and so the comparison of the

different offers was not possible.

With regards to the award criterion on recycled materials, a stakeholder raised the possibility to

include a minimum percentage of recycled materials. JRC replied that there were no percentages in

the proposal because it was aimed at promoting and communicating the efforts to use less impacting

material by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).

Another comment pointed out the verification issues that the criterion could raise. OEMs were asked

about the data available and the possible verification means for the criterion on recycled materials.

Electric vehicles (EV) battery JRC presented the criteria proposed related to EV battery.


A stakeholder indicated that for the battery lease, the warranty should be expressed just in months,

not in mileage, which is just suitable for battery purchase. A car manufacturer clarified that the

batteries used in their cars are replaced when the capacity is below 75%..

A stakeholder questioned how battery weight and volume were considered. In response, other

stakeholders explained that there are already incentives for reducing weight, as this would help to

increase the range, and therefore a criterion on weight would not bring any added value. In addition,

such measures could be counterproductive since small batteries would be promoted, reducing the

utility for EVs and increasing the opportunity window of plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs). Another

comment indicated that the only valid parameter would be the energy density per kg, but it could

complicate the criterion.

A stakeholder questioned the need of a criterion on the reuse of the battery: when a battery

becomes unsuitable for a vehicle, it is still potentially useful for stationary storage, meaning it is an

asset that can be sold. This will evolve naturally towards a market for second hand batteries, and

therefore, rewarding suppliers for offering take-back systems was not necessary.

Page 10 of 17

Criteria proposal on Category 3 and 5 purchase or lease of buses and

waste collection vehicles

GHG emissions JRC presented the criteria proposed related to GHG emissions.


Stakeholders agreed that Option 1 based on a technology-neutral approach would be the preferable

one, to ensure the level playing field and the CO2 savings.

Vecto was regarded as the better option to measure CO2 emissions; however, the timing to

implement Vecto could hinder the feasibility of Option 1 for the current revision of the GPP criteria.

A stakeholder explained that LowCVP test is good, but was designed for London and so it was not

clear how broadly applicable it would be.

Regarding the baseline vehicle, Euro VI vehicle was the preferred one, since the EURO VI will have

been in place enough time by 2018 to become a representative market reference. The stakeholders

also advised to set the threshold against one single test method to measure the fuel consumption.

However, Vecto tool would take quite long to be implemented and to generate the necessary data to

come up with thresholds. JRC explained that Standardised On-Road Test cycles (SORT) is a test

method quite accepted among public transport operators within the International Association of

Public Transport (also known as UITP), and it could provide representative data to come up with valid

thresholds.

Another comment recommended Option 2 since it is very easy to implement, though not technology-

neutral. However, the stakeholder highlighted that the fuel could not be specified for buses able to

run on biodiesel or biogas, since it was beyond the bus manufacturer responsibility. The same

stakeholder recommended limiting Option 2 to hybrid, electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles,

recognising that this solution is not ideal, but pretty much the best one at the moment. This was

supported by another comment advocating the promotion of zero emission vehicles in the cities, due

the air quality issues derived from diesel vehicles.

The stakeholders highlighted the need to better distinguish urban city buses from long distance

coaches. It was acknowledged that there are many different types of buses tailored to specific

purposes, and there are not benchmarks for all of them. The same comment applied to waste

collection vehicles, whose fuel is consumed not only for driving the vehicle, but largely for lifting the

container and compressing the waste. A stakeholder recommended a very simple criterion based on

g CO2/km that could be third party verified. JRC replied that the advantage of Option 1 is that the

thresholds are expressed as GHG reductions compared to an equivalent diesel vehicle, which

minimise the problems of benchmarking. JRC recognised that it is not possible to produce thresholds

for each type of bus, as these are very different and made for specific users.

In general, it was acknowledged that the GHG emission criterion for heavy duty vehicles is a difficult

matter, and one stakeholder recommended a dedicated meeting for this criterion.

Page 11 of 17

Air polluting emissions JRC presented the proposed criteria for air pollutant emissions.


A stakeholder questioned how this criterion would work out, since many technologies allowed by the

criterion on GHG emissions are not zero emissions, while the criterion requires an electric drivetrain.

JRC replied that the criterion was aimed at awarding points to those technologies that were zero

emissions, among the ones compliant with to the technical specification on GHG emissions. JRC also

recognised that this criterion could be applicable only to urban areas to better link it to the air quality

issues.

Another stakeholder clarified that the criterion aimed to encourage plug-in hybrids and electric

vehicles, but that the threshold of 2.5 km is obsolete and no longer relevant. It was recommended to

specify the zero-emissions technologies that would get points, instead of a zero emission range.

Technical options to reduce GHG emissions JRC presented the proposed criteria for technical options to reduce GHG emissions, consisting of the

following criteria:

Low viscosity lubricants

Vehicle tyres – rolling resistance

Tyre Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS)

Air conditioning


A stakeholder recommended to keep this criterion only as comprehensive, to reduce the complexity,

as mentioned in other criteria. Another comment however argued that if Vecto was not mature

enough to be used as the basis of a GHG emissions criterion, these ones would be good fall-back

options. This argument was considered valid, however, electric, hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles

should be promoted.

Exhaust pipe location (buses) and auxiliary units (waste collection vehicles) JRC presented the proposed criteria for Exhaust pipe location (buses) and auxiliary units (waste

collection vehicles).


To the question whether the requirement on exhaust pipe location was necessary, a stakeholder

replied that there are still buses not compliant with this criterion.

Regarding the award criterion on electrification of auxiliary units, its importance was underlined not

only for air polluting emissions but also for noise emissions.

Page 12 of 17

Noise emissions JRC presented the proposed criteria for noise emissions.


In line with the comments received for category 1, tyre criteria were recommended to be part of the

maintenance service. With respect to vehicle noise, it was suggested to be set only as comprehensive

criterion.

Vehicle manufacturing JRC presented the proposed criteria for vehicle manufacturing.


A stakeholder stressed that the manufacturing phase for buses is less important than for cars, so it

was not seen as necessary. In the case of electric buses, the stakeholder indicated that, even though

the production stage is more important than for conventional buses, the benefits outweigh this

drawback. It was underlined that the level of development of this technology could not afford

additional barriers in the way: when electric buses become more common, such criteria might be

more relevant.

Electric vehicle batteries JRC presented the criteria proposed related to EV battery.


A stakeholder from the automotive industry explained about the battery factory where models for

the second life of batteries are being developed. This factory is working on products not only for the

mobility sector, but also in the stationary sector. The stakeholder offered to share relevant

information for the criterion on reuse of batteries, since there are some technical changes that might

be needed to adapt the battery from vehicles to stationary purposes.

As mentioned in the category 1, it was stressed that there is an emerging market for second hand

batteries to be reused in energy storage, which can then be used to balance electricity grids. Due to

this rising demand, there is no need to require manufacturers to take back the batteries.

Regarding the warranty terms, a stakeholder indicated that some Chinese manufacturers are offering

good warranties, which might not be appropriate for EU companies.

JRC would welcome any information for the definition of the warranty criteria.

Page 13 of 17

Criteria proposal on Category 2 Mobility services

Optimized vehicle use JRC presented the proposed criteria for optimized vehicle use.


There were some doubts about the scope of the criterion and the definition of 'mobility service'. JRC

explained that 'mobility service' included services such as car sharing, taxi services, and any mobility

service that could be purchased by a public authority.

Some stakeholders asked whether the training would apply to the public authority staff driving the

cars, in those cases where the service does not include a driver (e.g. car sharing). JRC clarified that

the criteria on training for drivers would apply only on those cases where the service includes a

driver (e.g. taxi services). In reply to this information, a stakeholder recommended the training of the

users to be incorporated as part of after-sales services. JRC explained that there is a criterion within

the category 1 – technical options to reduce GHG Emission, which addresses eco-driving information

for users.

There were also doubts whether the selection criteria would apply to the all the mobility service staff

or only to the staff working for the service purchased. According to the legal framework set by the

Public Procurement Directives, the selection criteria must be related to the service contracted.

JRC also clarified a doubt about the training of management staff: management staff is in charge of

the emissions reduction plan, the monitoring, implementing measures for reducing emissions etc.,

and therefore they would require a specific training on these matters. In the case of services without

drivers, only the training for management staff would apply.

Many stakeholders recommended that the criteria should include the monitoring of the driving

performance of drivers. One of them suggested requiring the same systems that are very common in

professional heavy duty vehicles fleets. On the other hand, another stakeholder indicated that the

overall performance monitoring should be sufficient, since it would cover the driving performance as

well: it was preferred to give the provider more leeway to choose the most appropriate measures for

each business model.

It was also acknowledged that the substitution of vehicle purchases by mobility services entailed an

environmental benefit itself, and therefore it should be encouraged over the purchase or lease. Too

many additional criteria would create a barrier for the development of these services.

A stakeholder agreed on the duration of training and there was a suggestion to replace the

management staff training by experience on these topics.

GHG emissions JRC presented the proposed criteria for GHG emissions.


A stakeholder suggested enabling providers to improve the fleet composition with zero emission

technologies over the contract period, applying a dynamic approach. The provider could set a target

to achieve over the contract period, for example, a zero emissions fleet. There could be a minimum

requirement as starting point to be improved along the contract duration.

Page 14 of 17

Another comment stressed that these criteria were under the responsibility of various players, since

the technologies need a minimum charging and parking infrastructure to operate. JRC agreed with

this comment, but clarified that it was out of the scope of GPP criteria. It was also required to set the

requirements in line with the option chosen for category 1 (TTW vs WTW).

Another stakeholder pointed out that the criteria should be on the fleet used for the service that

constitutes the subject matter. It was not possible to influence the entire fleet of the operator. This

would entail some problems for those requirements on percentages of the fleet, since it could not be

ensured that the vehicles within those percentages are to be the ones providing the service.

The stakeholders came back to the thought that mobility services provide an environmental benefit

by themselves, and therefore it should be encouraged over the purchase and lease.

Air polluting emissions JRC presented the proposed criteria for air polluting emissions.


In reply to a question about what 'maximum age of the fleet' would mean, JRC answered that all

vehicles of the fleet should be no older than 4 years. In response, the stakeholder highlighted that

the equivalent in percentage would be 100% Euro 6, and added that the option on percentage was

more suitable.

Many stakeholders recommended setting different tiers and percentages depending on the size of

the fleet and the business model. The criteria proposal was too ambitious for small fleets and

therefore it could be a serious hurdle for SMEs.

A stakeholder indicated that most professional fleets are replaced every 4 years so there is no added

value in those cases.

The issue related to the subject matter was raised again: it would be difficult setting requirements on

the whole fleet.

Other technical measures JRC presented the proposed criteria for technical measures, consisting of the following criteria:

Technical options to reduce GHG

Noise emissions

Vehicle manufacturing

EV Battery


There was a general agreement to drop these criteria to lower the complexity of the criteria set.

Combined mobility services JRC presented the proposed criteria for combined mobility services.

A stakeholder suggested including cargo bikes in the list of non-motorised vehicles, since they were

also used by passengers carrying luggage or packages.

Page 15 of 17

The stakeholders supported this criterion to promote the modal shift, which might entail significant

GHG savings.

A stakeholder recommended including this criterion only at comprehensive level, while another one

proposed a technical specification in those cities where combined mobility services are very common

and there are sufficient operators.

A stakeholder indicated the criterion could be further challenged by reducing the travels and

applying a need assessment. In line with this thought, it was suggested to organise a teleconference

for the next AHWG rather than a physical meeting.

Criteria proposal on Category 4 and 6 bus and waste collection

services

Optimised vehicle use JRC presented the proposed criteria for optimised vehicle use.


A stakeholder indicated that for waste collection, there were logistics measures which should be in

the contract. JRC replied that there is a criterion on route optimisation to be discussed later on.



A stakeholder indicated that there is a certain amount of natural gas engine trucks, and therefore a

threshold of CO2 emissions would be preferable.

The difficulties to set criteria that would suit all situations throughout Europe was underlined (small

towns compared to large cities).

A stakeholder explained the experience with waste collection fleets, and how it is a subject of

discussion as to whether these services should be outsourced. The stakeholder would like to know

how to maintain the same level of control if services were bought instead of vehicles.

Air pollutant emissions JRC presented the proposed criteria for air pollutant emissions.


No comments

Other technical measures JRC presented the proposed criteria for technical measures, consisting of the following criteria:

Technical options to reduce GHG

Noise emissions

Page 16 of 17

Vehicle manufacturing

EV Battery


The stakeholders raised same comments as for the Mobility services

New vehicles JRC presented the proposed criteria for new vehicles.


The stakeholders recommended making clear that this criterion applies to replacements, meaning

that any change in the fleet composition should entail an improvement.

Integrated public transport systems (bus services) JRC presented the proposed criteria for integrated public transport systems for bus services.


A stakeholder argued that the criterion is too specific for the many different situations of public

transport services. If local procurers have mobility platforms, then they should put requirements in

the tender that the bus operator should contribute to it. Therefore, it would depend on local

circumstances, and there was no need of GPP criteria. The stakeholder supported the idea of keeping

the focus on the important issues that can be applied everywhere as far as possible. As for mobility

services, public transport services already lead to an environmental benefit.

It was acknowledged that there were some measures related to modal shift that were out of the

reach of public procurement.

Route optimisation (waste collection services) JRC presented the proposed criteria for route optimisation for waste collection services.


A stakeholder questioned the need of such criterion since any waste collection service will optimise

the route, to minimise the fuel use and staff time. However, some stakeholders argued that these

systems had a saving potential and were not a standard practice.

It was highlighted that from the local authority perspective, the systems to monitor the filling level in

bins were very helpful, but they could conflict with the citizens' interest to have space available in

the bins for them to dispose their waste, and to have the waste collected within a certain frequency.

A stakeholder showed interest to know about waste collection services and common practices in

other cities, and informed about a Polis conference in Rotterdam where waste collection services

would be discussed. The stakeholder offered to ask the participants of that conference to comment

on the draft criteria.

Page 17 of 17

Criteria proposal on Category 7 Post, courier and moving services

Optimized vehicle use JRC presented the proposed criteria for optimized vehicle use.


It was concluded that the same comments apply as shared for other product groups.



A stakeholder supported the promotion of cycle-logistics, and also recommended to make clear that

cycle-logistics are not excluded of the core criteria set. The stakeholder agreed with the proposal at

comprehensive level, and advocated for all postal and courier deliveries to be zero emission in 2025,

unless not feasible. It was also explained that big companies like DHL and UPS include cargo bikes as

feasible and cost competitive solutions, and GPP could be a driver to increase the penetration of

cycle-logistics in the urban delivery market.

A stakeholder suggested having different contracts for different types of deliveries, so cycle-logistics

could be required for small and light weight goods.

Another stakeholder however indicated cargo bikes may not take less public space than trucks for

transporting the same freight volume. It was argued that some operators are using cycle-logistics

where appropriate, so there is no need to impose it on them.

Air pollutant emissions JRC presented the proposed criteria for air polluting emissions.


A stakeholder recommended setting the zero emissions capability as a requirement in urban areas.

It is concluded that the same comments apply as shared for other service categories.

Conclusions and outlook – Wrap of the meeting JRC explained the next steps:

o The presentation to be made available on Batis.

o The minutes to be circulated within 2 weeks.

o Comments can be made by Batis until 23 January.

JRC thanked all participants for their contributions.

Date post:	20-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

1st Ad-Hoc Working Group (AHWG) meeting for the revision...

Documents