1
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE Directorate B- Growth and Innovation Circular Economy and Industrial Leadership Unit
Minutes 2nd AHWG meeting for the revision of the EU GPP criteria for Food procurement and catering services
23rd February 2017 9:00-18:00h Albert Borschette Conference Centre, Room 1D
36 Rue Froissart, Brussels, Belgium
Minutes of the meeting
2
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
No Last Name First Name Organisation
1 BATES Eamonn Pack2go
2 BERGMANN Betina Municipality of Copenhagen
3 BERTRAND Gilles SPW
4 BOYANO LARRIBA Alicia Joint Research Centre
5 BRUNING Tamara City of Ghent
6 CASTELLINI Valentina Joint Research Centre
7 CLARK Alexandra Humane Society International
8 D'ANGELO Fabrizio European Economic and Social Committee
9 DEFRANCESCHI Peter ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability
10 DEGIORGIS Enrico DG ENV, European Commission
11 DIRVEN Liesbeth Veneca
12 DUQUET Jean-Paul European Aluminium Foil Association (EAFA)
13 ESPINOSA MARTINEZ Nieves Joint Research Centre,
14 FAURE Antoine ECOCERT SA
15 FOSSELARD Patricia European Federation of Bottled Waters
16 GALLAND Erika Sodexo
17 GAMA CALDAS Miguel Joint Research Centre,
18 HAAZE Jelmen IMACE/ESPOAG
19 HEIJMANS Isabelle European Institutions and other
20 HERNÁNDEZ Paola Mensa Civica
21 HIDAS Eszter WWF European Policy Office
22 HOULDER Graham Flexible Packaging Europe
23 IRVINE David European Vending Association
24 KAUKEWITSCH Robert DG ENV, European Commission
25 KROMP Bernhard Bioforschung
26 LEROUGE Jean Jacques Nestle
27 LOFRESE Silvia Serving Europe
28 LOPEZ Patricia FoodDrinkEurope
29 MALTAGLIATI Silvia DG RTD
30 MARIANI Maurizio Risteco
31 MARISCAL Camille European Economic and Social Committee
32 MEREDITH Stephen IFOAM Movements EU Group
33 MEUL Jackie COMPASS-GROUP
34 MOREAU Sloan Pack2go
35 PANAGIOTOPOULOS Nikolaos Ermis European Federation of Bottled Waters
36 PEACOCK Nina Food Service Europe
37 RIOU Gwendoline EUROPEN
38 RODRIGUEZ QUINTERO Rocio Joint Research Centre,
39 SCHEBESTA Hanna Wageningen University and Research
3
40 SCHNEIDER Cecile Conservation International
41
SCHULMEISTER-OLDENHOVE Anke WWF European Policy Office
42 SINIGAGLIA Alice Fair Trade Advocacy Office
43 SULZER Georg UG-Buero Dr. Sulzer
44 UITTERHOEVE Floor FNLI
45 VAN DER SLUIJS Inke Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil
46 VAN RANST Marijke BioForum Vlaanderen vzw
47 WACHHOLZ Carsten European Environmental Bureau
48 WETZEL Erwin European Vending Association
4
AGENDA
SCHEDULE
1.
Opening and welcome
a. Introduction to the EU Green Public Procurement
b. Timeline of the project
c. Revision of the scope and definition
d. LCC considerations
09:00 – 09:30
2.
EU GPP Criteria proposal for Food - Criteria set presentation and discussion - Organic food products - Integrated production - Environmentally responsible palm oil
09:30– 11:00
Break 11:00 – 11:15
3.
EU GPP Criteria proposal for Food - Criteria set presentation and discussion
(continuation) - Marine and aquaculture food products - Animal welfare - Fairly traded products
11:15 – 12:15
4.
EU GPP Criteria proposal for Catering Services - Criteria set presentation and discussion - Competences of the tenderer - Staff training 12:15 – 13:00
- Food procurement
- Promotion of vegetarian menus
Lunch break, followed by a coffee break 13:00 – 14:00
5.
- Avoidable food waste: prevention and redistribution - Other waste: prevention, sorting and disposal - Chemical products and consumable goods
14:00 – 16:30 - Energy and water consumption in the kitchens
- Purchase of new kitchen equipment - Food transportation
- Environmental management measures and practices
- Tap water for drinking
Break 16:30– 16:45
6.
EU GPP Criteria proposal for Vending machines – Criteria set presentation and discussion - Organic food products - Fairly traded products
- Environmentally responsible palm oil
- Smart controls
- Annual energy consumption
- GWP of refrigerants
- Reusable cups
16:45 – 17:45
7. Conclusion, next steps and meeting closure 17:45 – 18:00
5
Contents
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................................................. 2
AGENDA ......................................................................................................................................... 4
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 6
2. SUMMARY OF THE SCOPE AND LIFECYCLE COST ......................................................... 6
3. EU GPP CRITERIA SET FOR FOOD ........................................................................................ 7
3.1 Structure of the criteria. ..................................................................................................... 7
3.2 CRITERIA ON ORGANIC PRODUCTS .................................................................................... 7
3.3 CRITERIA ON INTEGRATED PRODUCTION. .......................................................................... 9
3.4 CRITERIA ON ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE PALM OIL. ............................................. 9
3.5 CRITERIA ON MARITIME AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS ................................................ 10
3.6 ANIMAL WELFARE ........................................................................................................... 10
3.7 FAIRLY TRADED PRODUCTS ............................................................................................. 11
3.8 OTHER CRITERIA: REMOVED PACKAGING AND SEASONAL PRODUCTS. ........................... 11
4. EU GPP CRITERIA SET FOR CATERING SERVICES ......................................................... 12
4.1 COMPETENCES OF THE TENDERER AND STAFF TRAINING. ............................................... 12
4.2 PROMOTION OF VEGETARIAN DISHES .............................................................................. 13
4.3 AVOIDABLE FOOD WASTE: PREVENTION AND REDISTRIBUTION ...................................... 13
4.4 OTHER WASTE: PREVENTION, SORTING AND DISPOSAL ................................................... 14
4.5 DISPOSABLE GOODS AND CHEMICAL PRODUCTS,............................................................ 15
4.6 ENERGY AND WATER CONSUMPTION IN THE KITCHEN .................................................... 15
4.7 FOOD TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................. 16
4.8 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND PRACTICES ........................................................ 16
4.9 PROVISION OF LOW IMPACTING WATER........................................................................... 16
5. EU GPP CRITERIA FOR VENDING MACHINES ................................................................. 17
6. ANY OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................... 17
7. CONCLUSIONS, NEXT STEPS AND MEETING CLOSURE ............................................... 17
6
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
The meeting opened with an introductory round table and brief presentation of the chairman of JRC followed by an introductory word by DG ENV. The aim of the GPP schemes, the timeline of the project and the next steps were presented. Written comments on the second draft of the technical report can be submitted throughout BATIS until the 24th March 2017. The third draft of the technical report is expected to be released before the summer break.
Some clarifications about the written consultation and the interservice consultation (ISC) carried out among the different services of the European Commission were given. The duration of these processes is difficult to foresee at this stage of the project and they can lead to significant delays in the release of the final criteria documents.
Stakeholders commented about the excessive length of the documents. So long documents are not useful for procurers who are missing the time to read them in detail. JRC explained that the final criteria document as well as the final technical report will be a shorter version, much more condensate, but that the intermediate documents include all the comments received and addressed by JRC for transparency reasons. These comments, that track the development of the revision of the criteria, will not be included in the final drafts.
Stakeholders welcome the efforts to incorporate their comments in the second draft of the technical report even if there are still some issues pending such as the difference between environmental performance and sustainability, a clear statement that public authorities should go beyond legal requirements and the assurance that the criteria are implementable in all Member States. According to stakeholders' opinion the core criteria should be kept simpler, addressing just the most relevant environmental areas, whereas the comprehensive criteria should be much more ambitious, addressing all the areas of concern.
An aspect of concern during the meeting was the barriers for the proper implementation of the criteria as well as the lack of guidance on how to weight the award criteria and the calculation of awarded points. Stakeholders suggested that the publication of tools like toolkits, guidelines, practical examples or setting up working groups that could help in this process. It was commented that DG ENV tries to help in the implementation of the GPP criteria, being however the Member States the ultimate responsible for that.
2. SUMMARY OF THE SCOPE AND LIFECYCLE COST
This section covered the proposed texts describing the EU GPP product group scope and definitions. Firstly JRC presented the scope of the project as it was agreed during the last AHWG meeting and a list of definitions to be included in the criteria document. Secondly, a short summary of results from the lifecycle cost (LCC) considerations chapter included for the first time in the second technical report followed by the requests to the participants to provide cost-related data was presented. The detailed chapter can be found in the website:
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Food_Catering/stakeholders.html
as well as in the BATIS system.
7
Stakeholders commented that currently the LCC consideration section is missing the additional costs related to labour, the preparation of organic food, training of staff or purchase of EU Ecolabel products or the preparation of food to be donated or redistributed, and they offered to provide these data during the commenting period.
The calculations behind the estimated LCC were requested by the stakeholders. These calculations will allow them to identify the gaps of information and to provide the appropriate data to complete the chapter. Even if so, the stakeholders highlighted the importance of the collaboration with industry and government to better estimate the costs along the lifecycle of the catering services. Some case studies were offered to be submitted to illustrate this comment.
3. EU GPP CRITERIA SET FOR FOOD
It was proposed to hold discussions after each presentation of the different blocks of criteria and the following points were raised during the discussions:
3.1 STRUCTURE OF THE CRITERIA
Generally speaking stakeholders welcome the new wording of the criteria that gives flexibility to the procurers to adapt the criteria to their local conditions. The proposed criteria provide in the explanatory notes a range of values (percentages) for the core and comprehensive levels. However, it was pointed out that the procurement of merely food is very different from the procurement of food for the catering services. In the first case the menus are decided in the kitchen while in the second case, the menus are fixed by the procurer. These differences should be reflected in the criteria wording accordingly.
Some clarifications were provided about the relation between the technical specification (TS) criteria and the award criteria (AC) that deal with the same topic. It was reminded that the TS criteria are minimum requirements to be fulfilled by all the tenders whereas the AC recognize and award those characteristics of the products or the performance of the service that go beyond the minimum requirements. Therefore, the thresholds proposed in the explanatory notes of each criterion aim at setting the minimum requirements of the TS criteria while points should be awarded proportionally whenever the minimum requirements (values of the explanatory notes) are exceeded. A better wording stressing the relation between TS and AC will be proposed in the coming technical report.
Most of the thresholds suggested in the explanatory notes can be set up in mass or value. Stakeholders commented that in most of the cases the mass thresholds are more neutral than the values in cost and that these last thresholds should be revised.
3.2 CRITERIA ON ORGANIC PRODUCTS
Organic products criteria consist of TS criteria and AC both at core and comprehensive level. Two options for the criteria wording were proposed in the technical report. The first one proposed that a minimum percentage of the total purchase of food and drink products purchased complying with the EU organic product regulations. The second proposal included a list of products to be each of the listed food products 100% compliant with the
8
requirements. Regarding the type of criteria proposed, one stakeholder commented that organic product criteria should only be included as TS criteria, so that the tenders can be easily compared. This idea was not accepted by other participants.
Stakeholders commented that both wording options can be easily combined when drafting the tender by the public authorities and that a third option that focuses on the number of purchases per week should also be included.
Stakeholders pointed out the need of including guidance on the relative weight of this criterion in comparison to the other proposed criteria. This aspect is especially important when evaluating the AC and awarding the proportional points.
Regarding the ambition levels or thresholds proposed for the core and comprehensive criteria, stakeholders' opinion was significantly divided. Some stakeholders commented that the current general availability of organic products on the EU market comes from approximately 5% of the total area dedicated to agriculture and farming and that the thresholds suggested, even for the core level, are too high. This means that there will be some Member States that will face difficulties to comply with the minimum requirements at the core level. Additionally these high values might increase the overall environmental footprint to the food products (reference to the PEF study was made). Other stakeholders, however, highlighted that unfortunately the inclusion of organic products in the tenders is not a standard practice. This means that the proposed thresholds can be easily fulfilled and that no scarcity of organic products on the EU market is foreseen. They commented that surprisingly, it is easier to find suppliers of organic products when the minimum requirements are higher, because the organic suppliers try to distinguish from conventional suppliers offering large amounts and variety of products. These stakeholders commented that that GPP is a voluntary tool and should aim high to encourage the production of organic agriculture. The higher the demand, the higher the offer of products, in whichever country it is unaffordable the threshold proposed they might select another value more adapted to their markets. Moreover, stakeholders commented that some guidance should be published to prevent Member States with a large availability of organic products to draft tenders where the organic product criteria stay at core level.
Some comments on the imports of organic products were raised during the meeting. Stakeholders commented that for example Denmark imports most of the organic products that are consumed and that the environmental impacts due to the transportation and refrigeration of the products should be considered in accordance with the PEF studies. However, it was also pointed out that there exists a single market and inside EU in general many products are imported regardless if they are organic or conventional products.
A stakeholder suggested excluding drink and beverages from the organic criterion, because of reduced availability on the market, as well as for fish and marine products.
Finally, stakeholders required further clarification on the structure of the criteria. The organic product criteria (option A) set minimum percentages of the total purchase while most of the other criteria included in the food procurement criteria set include minimum percentages of those products not complying with the organic product criteria. Further clarifications will be provided in the final criteria document.
9
3.3 CRITERIA ON INTEGRATED PRODUCTION.
Integrated production was the second criteria discussed in this block. The integrated production criteria were presented as a TS criterion at comprehensive level and AC at core and comprehensive levels.
Stakeholders commented the lack of harmonization at EU level in the definition of integrated production (IP), being a possible barrier for comparing the offers received. Some Member States lack on regulation on this field and others on the labelling rules -for example the label is not visible in the packaging what can also be seen as a barrier for verification purposes. The difficulties linked with the integration and verification aspects were raised by different stakeholders..
Regarding the ambition level, stakeholders commented that a closer relation to the organic products should be set up. An example would be to include the criterion on integrated production only if the organic products criterion does not reach 50% of the total purchases.
3.4 CRITERIA ON ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE PALM OIL.
The criteria on environmentally responsible palm oil have been included as AC at both core and comprehensive levels. Regarding these criteria stakeholders agreed on the need to avoid the promotion of palm oil over other kinds of vegetable oils while addressing the environmental impacts attributed to this commodity (if it is not grown in sustainable managed plantations).
According to some stakeholders, there are plenty of other vegetable oils with lower environmental impacts that can be used even if they are not so competitive in terms of costs and product characteristics for preparing food products in the industry. A comparison between the health properties of some vegetable oils was also commented. On the other hand, other stakeholders meant that at present there are not suitable alternatives that can be used in the food industry and therefore it is better to include minimum requirements on palm oil. Requiring the substitution of palm oil by other vegetable oils will shift the problem from EU countries to other countries as palm oil is widely consumed all over the world.
One stakeholder suggested the possibility of setting the palm oil criteria as selection criteria (SC) instead of as AC. In this way, suppliers will not get additionally points for the use of certified palm oil and this kind of oil will not be promoted over other vegetable oils. The lack of criteria on other vegetable oils was also mentioned.
Another stakeholder commented on the traceability system to be requested. Currently all the traceability systems are allowed being in the case of book and claim system impossible to track back the origin of the palm oil that will be eaten. According to this stakeholder, at least the segregation system should be in place.
Finally, the lack of label on the products covered by certification schemes was pointed out as a possible barrier for verifying the requirements. This fact makes verification time consuming and costly.
10
3.5 CRITERIA ON MARITIME AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS
JRC presented the criteria on maritime and aquaculture products. Additionally, it was commented that ongoing discussions are currently being held among Commission services which can lead to modifications in the criteria wording.
The first sub-criterion is based on a "fish to avoid list". The list of the MSC is proposed but any other equivalent lists can also be used. The reason behind is that fish species are very local being the characteristics of each spot what determines if a fish shall be included in the "fish to avoid list" or shall not.
The proposal of several lists to be used was welcome by the participants although this brought the following questions: what happens if there is a contradiction between the lists? Which list should be chosen? And how and who assess if a list is equivalent? The questions were replied by JRC explaining that only one list should be part of the criteria wording and that the public authorities should keep in mind that these lists are changing along the time since species can become overfished or in danger. The list to be chosen also depends whether it is the public authority who decides what to buy and when or if these decisions are left to the caterer.
The two other sub-criteria on fish products rely on private certification schemes and labels. Stakeholders commented that it would be better if the criteria to be complied with are listed in the criteria wording. However, it was pointed out that this would risk excluding some valid certification schemes.
Regarding the level of ambition, concerns were expressed on the zero values included in the explanatory notes for the core criteria. It was also pointed out that the exemption of organic food products from these criteria is almost negligible as only some inland fishes are farmed in accordance to the organic regulation. Some stakeholders also proposed to include a list of products (citing those species that are widely available on the market, i.e. salmon) in the criteria wording instead of a percentage. Finally, stakeholders commented that it should be specified if the limits in mass (% in mass) refer to frozen or fresh fish as the weight due to the frozen water content can make a significant difference. Most of the fish consumed in the catering services is frozen, even if there are procurers that only work with fresh fish.
The verification of the criteria is proposed to be based on the invoices of the purchase and the certificates from private schemes. Stakeholders commented that an invoice might not be enough for verification purposes and that the certifications are costly.
Also, a point was made that reference to labels must always be made in a way that is compliant with article 43 of the Public Procurement directive.
3.6 ANIMAL WELFARE
JRC presented the wording of the criteria and the verification proposed.
One stakeholder asked why the TS criteria only deals with the production and label of eggs and not with other meat products. Additionally, a remark that the TS criteria do not apply when there are shortage on the EU market due to unexpected circumstances (eg bird flu) should also be added. Further clarifications of the requirements proposed in this criteria wording were also requested, such as examples on what means "stress of animals".
11
Regarding the level of ambition some stakeholders commented that lower limits shall be included as it is very difficult to comply with the proposed ones.
The verification through third party certifications raised concerns about it costs on top of the cost of the organic meat that was considered as quite expensive already.
3.7 FAIRLY TRADED PRODUCTS
JRC presented the wording of the criteria and the verification proposed.
One stakeholder commented the differences between the sustainability labels and the fair trade schemes, which mainly ensure that fair prices are paid to farmers. More clarity regarding the schemes and the definition of fairly traded products should be added and if possible in accordance with an EU harmonized standard. DG ENV commented that the definition is currently been discussed in other DGs and that the outcome of this discussion will be communicated.
Regarding the levels of ambition, some stakeholders expressed the opinion that higher levels should be proposed, such as 50-100%. As an example, some stakeholders commented that they require 100% of the coffee and chocolate as organic and fairly traded products because they are mainly produced outside EU but also for other products such as sugar that is produced in EU.
Finally, some comments dealt with the differences between the type of criteria to be included in a GPP scheme and those to be included in a sustainable public procurement (SPP) scheme. It was reminded that right now there are no guidelines to elaborate a SPP criteria set although the EU committed to the Sustainability goals of the EU Agenda and therefore some guidance on how to aligned GPP schemes with these targets are expected to come in the future.
3.8 OTHER CRITERIA: REMOVED PACKAGING AND SEASONAL PRODUCTS.
European organization of packaging as well as other stakeholders supported the removal of the criterion on packaging. Several examples were provided of the environmental benefits achieved by this removal. In the school canteens individual cheese portions can serve to avoid food waste, to reach nutritional purposes (adequate food portion served) or to cover the needs of students with special diets because of health or religion reasons. In those cases, it was considered as unavoidable to have single use packaging.
Additionally, it was commented that setting up requirements on packaging is difficult as for example packaging with recycled content cannot be used in direct contact with food (primary packaging).
Regarding the removal of the seasonal products, some stakeholders commented that they were surprised by this change and requested to be re-introduced as TS criteria. They commented that the criterion favours the diversity and the creativity of the chefs as well as the pocket of the caterers. The seasonal products are generally speaking cheaper and with a higher quality that those grown out of season, as an example they commented the lack of nutritional value in some products out of season such as the lycopene in the earlier harvested tomatoes. They also commented that the variety of the diet will not be affected
12
by these criteria as the frozen products can complement the locally and seasonally bought products.
A high topic of discussion was the definition of seasonal products to be used if the criterion is reintroduced. Some stakeholders commented that they understand seasonal product as the product that is grown in season and served in the same region, but how large is a region, or if the EU can be considered as a single region, are questions that should be still answered. The public authorities that experienced this criterion on seasonal products checked the menu planning against the local calendars, even if there are several local calendars (i.e. Belgium, Spain, etc.) needed to verify the compliance. Additionally, it was commented that this requirement is very different in food procurement from catering service procurement. For example, strawberries grown in season can be purchased all over the year (depending on the part of the world in which they were grown) while the procurer can require by means of menu planning that strawberries shall be purchased and served in June. In this second example, the procurer adapts purchase to each month, choosing different products depending on the seasons.
However, it was also pointed out that requiring the purchase of local produced products may not be compliant with EU internal market requirements.
4. EU GPP CRITERIA SET FOR CATERING SERVICES
4.1 COMPETENCES OF THE TENDERER AND STAFF TRAINING.
JRC presented both criteria, which are closely related. The competences of the tenderers criterion were proposed as a selection criterion (SC) while the staff training was proposed as a contract performance clause (CPC).
The stakeholders commented that in some tender documents those criteria are included as TS, AC, CPC or as a combination of the three. It depends on the baseline. If the criterion is included as a SC there are no incentives to improve and the public authority excludes those companies that do not have experience. Other stakeholders thought that SC is appropriate as it tests or checks the experience of the tenders.
A general agreement was reached on the removal of method statements on "preparation of tasty vegetarian dishes" because it is very subjective. If the purpose is to check the taste and quality of the veggie dishes, stakeholders proposed to require test meals or the inclusion of a veggie day and customer satisfaction surveys. It was recalled that additional requirements imply additional paperwork.
Stakeholders required that the staff training should be provided onsite and that the staff training duration should also be part of an AC. In this way, further or more detail staff training will be rewarded. Other stakeholders emphasised the importance of the theoretical training, especially when dealing with ready-prepared food. Additionally, they commented that a clear distinction between the mandatory staff training (based on food safety) and the environmental staff training of this criterion should be done.
13
4.2 PROMOTION OF VEGETARIAN DISHES
JRC presented the wording of the criteria and requested further ideas to be included in the list.
The stakeholders welcome the idea of the criterion aiming at increasing the consumption of vegetables and pointed out several aspects that will help to make clearer this target and its implementation. A stakeholder suggested that in order to support the need of changing consumers' habits to integrate such a criterion into AC rather than TS.
Stakeholders suggested that the portions of proteins, vegetables and starch should be done following the health recommendations and remarked the following aspects regarding the criteria wording:
- the exclusion of red meat can lead to an undesired higher consumption of poultry. This tendency has been observed in EU in the last years.
- the "promotion of vegetarian dishes" should be changed by "promotion of plant-based dishes", at least for the comprehensive level. In this sense, a higher consumption of dairy products or eggs (considered as possible ingredients in a vegetarian diet) can be prevented
- the proposal of cheaper prices for the vegetarian dishes should not be included. The profit gained by the caterer due to the increase of vegetables should be required to be dedicated to increase the quality of the food served. However, other stakeholders clarified that this measure can be understood as "no other meat dishes" can be cheaper that the vegetarian options or that the "dish of the day" that usually have a cheaper price cannot be a meat dish.
- other ideas provided by the stakeholders were the inclusion everyday of a vegetarian option and a weekly veggie day in the menu planning.
- a link between this criterion and the food waste criterion should be strengthened, as well as with a criterion on monitoring measures. The menu planning should help in the food waste reduction or food waste prevention of the catering service.
4.3 AVOIDABLE FOOD WASTE: PREVENTION AND REDISTRIBUTION
The inclusion of a sub-criterion on food waste prevention was welcome by the stakeholders.
It was highlighted that priority should be given to the prevention of the food waste sub-criterion over the food donation sub-criterion and that the list of measures included in the presented wording were considered as standard practices instead of as best practices. Stakeholders suggested that the prevention of food waste should be TS criterion and food redistribution as AC, so that the food is not produced in excess. The inclusion of a sub-criterion dealing with food redistribution was welcomed by the participants, although it was recommended to align the definition of "food donation" with that to be released by the EU Food waste platform (http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions/eu-platform_en). Data on the quality of the meals and their size need to be collected, e.g. through a feedback mechanism to be put in place, to be aware of the potential improvement in the food waste prevention. Drinks should also be considered in the total food waste generated.
14
The indicator for checking the progress in the food waste reduction was also commented, even if further discussions were hold in the criteria TS 8. Some stakeholders commented that it would make more sense to focus on total waste generated (food waste plus packaging waste) while others considered that it would be preferable to keep them separated. Stakeholders agreed that is mainly a responsibility of the Contracting Authority to make possible and organise how to donate food waste, rather than of the contractor.
Experiences about the implementation of this sub-criterion were also provided. For example, a programme was launched in October 2015 to collect sandwiches and to donate them. However, it was highlighted that the possibility for food donation does not only depends on the caterer but also on the infrastructure and legal liabilities in the municipality where the service is going to be provided. There are logistic and health barriers that prevent this practice such as the selection of the redistribution institution (charity organization, etc.), the existence of food banks or an entity that collects and manages the donated food, the maintenance of the cold/heat chains with the right equipment or kitchen tools or the decision of which food is going to be donated. All these aspects cannot fall only on the shoulders of the caterers.
Another stakeholder commented that Brussels developed in 2011 guidance for food donation. However, it was not easily implemented. Some of the burdens were that there are too much food to be donated and that there is no a clear allocation of the responsibilities. A clause indicating clearly who has the responsibility of the donated food was required to be included in the criteria wording. Finally, two more experiences were commented by the stakeholders. The first one happened in a small city where there was a lot of food surplus, and where the redistribution of the food was a task of the public authority and not of catering company. It was proposed that the donor should be the public authority since the owner of the food surplus is not the catering company. The second one occurred in Vienna. A guideline for donating food from ecoevents was developed. According to these guidelines, the participants to the events are provided with thermal boxes so that they can keep there the left-overs.
A rewording of this sub-criterion was required by the stakeholders. For example, the title should read "Food redistribution" or "Food donation" instead of "food waste redistribution" as it is not yet classified as waste.
4.4 OTHER WASTE: PREVENTION, SORTING AND DISPOSAL
Stakeholder highlighted the contradictions between the waste prevention measures suggested in the criteria wording and the rationale provided for the removal of the packaging criteria. As an example they commented that single-unit packaging was recognized as a way of preserving food for longer time and that however, the avoidance of single unit packaging was suggested as a possible measure to reduce or prevent the waste generation. Concerns about the returnable bottles or the refilling of bottles were also raised due to the need of further equipment in the kitchen and hygienic reasons.
A common agreement was reached regarding the inclusion of a clause such as "without compromising health and hygiene requirements" when a waste prevention plan is required in the GPP criterion.
15
Regarding the sorting out into waste streams, it should be kept in mind that there are different practices in different Member States. For example, in The Netherlands it is easier to collect biopackaging together with organic fraction while in other Member States the biopackaging cannot be collected. Finally, stakeholders commented that the communication with the consumers should be done without getting them bored with too many of messages.
It was pointed out that private initiatives are working on definitions and protocols for waste prevention throughout a platform. The protocols include measurements of the waste generation in all the stages of the chain: production, consumption, serving, etc.
In terms of waste there are legal requirements so more options should be given, so better an AC to recognize an effort.
4.5 DISPOSABLE GOODS AND CHEMICAL PRODUCTS,
Stakeholders commented that in the current criterion wording the disposable items do not include gloves or other items used for cleaning. Some of them also opposed to the general ban for using disposable items because the use of washable items increases the amount of detergent to be used and therefore a reduction of chemical products used cannot be achieved.
An exemption for big events such as Olympic Games, winter games, other sport events, festivals, carnivals, etc. should be granted. In those occasions the use of reusable items is impossible due to the management requirements and the amount of items used. However, it was recognized that in those events, the disposable items should comply with some environmental requirements such as being made of compostable or biodegradable materials.
Regarding the AC and the requirement of automatic dosage systems or dispensers, stakeholders commented that the provision of automatic dosage system in professional dishwashers should be included as a TS criterion because most of them have it. The same requirement was made concerning the dosage systems of hand soaps.
4.6 ENERGY AND WATER CONSUMPTION IN THE KITCHEN
The stakeholders commented that the origin of the energy and/or fuel used in the kitchens was not included in the previous TR and questioned the possibility of including a sub-criterion dealing with the origin of the energy. This idea was not welcome by other participants since there is already a GPP criteria set on electricity and because the contract of the utilities is usually not in the hands of the tenders.
It was commented that the provision of written procedures for energy and water savings in the kitchen can also be challenging as there are plenty of occasions where the owner of the equipment is not the tender but the public authority.
16
4.7 FOOD TRANSPORTATION
One stakeholder commented that the food transportation should be focused on the efficiency of the transport and that a suitable indicator could be the number of delivered meals per km. This indicator seems to be more appropriate that the EURO tier that the vehicles have to fulfil. This idea was supported by other stakeholders who commented that 10 bags of potatoes could be transported in 10 electric vehicles fulfilling the proposed requirements but not being efficient.
It is important to require a transportation plan. There are several ways for reducing CO2 emissions and it should be checked how to award procurers.
4.8 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT AND PRACTICES
Two new indicators were suggested by the stakeholders. The first one is aiming to measure the satisfaction of the public authority with the tender (business to business, B2B) and the second one is dealing with the satisfaction of the clients with the catering service company (business to customer, B2C). These indicators were introduced in the Italian tenders after the strike of "the panino". During that strike most of the children decided to suddenly drop the catering services. This caused significant economic losses to the caterers as they should keep providing the service but the number of meals decreased drastically.
Regarding the proposed indicator, it was commented that the amount of vegetable grams per meal are usually fixed in the contract as well as the amount of meat. Additionally it is difficult to measure the amount of vegetables in a mixed meal.
Monitoring and recording the indicators twice a year was considered excessive by some participants and it was proposed that both activities should be carried out by the collectors of the waste or those that perform the waste management. Finally, this stakeholder commented that additional energy and water meters are needed to know the energy and water consumption of the kitchen.
Finally a stakeholder commented that a part on how the contractor intends to improve his environmental performance is missing.
4.9 PROVISION OF LOW IMPACTING WATER
A general agreement on the need of removing the following sentence "bought-in bottled water shall be avoided when possible" from the tap water criterion was reached.
Several stakeholders commented that this sentence is discriminatory. Stakeholders supported the availability of tap water but not the ban of in-bought bottled water because it is not fully justified from an LCA perspective. It was also pointed out that the rationale included in the technical report refers to purified water and the purification systems that are widely used in USA but not in EU. Some examples where the use of bottled water is needed are the hospitals, nurseries or locations with poor tap water quality.
Other comments regarding the packaging used in the bottled water and their effects on the environment were briefly commented.
17
5. EU GPP CRITERIA FOR VENDING MACHINES
All the criteria dealing with vending machines were presented together by the JRC. Several points were commented afterwards:
- the energy consumption of the vending machines is pretty well standardised. The new machines are usually equipped with smart control to switch off/on automatically. There can be some health risks if the vending machines have perishable products, but this is written in the contract for renting the vending machine.
- the requirements of high energy efficiency for the vending machines was welcome as approximately 80% of those are rented.
- vending machines that allow for reusable cups are very rare. Most of the vending machines provide disposable cups when the beverage is selected. This is slightly different for coffee machines so they should be separated from the rest. Other stakeholders that this requirement is appropriated and it should not be removed.
- disposable cups bring some benefits in terms of public health and safety for the consumers. Providing disposal cups there are no risks of contamination if the cup is polluted. The tenderer has the liability on the products that are supplied. However, other stakeholders highlighted that in the 90's the use of reusable cups was the normal practice and that at present it is the case many office buildings.
- some requirements on the materials the disposable cups are made of could be introduced, e.g. being made of recyclable materials, being made of compostable materials
- split views on the requirements on organic products and fairly trade products were presented. Some stakeholders commented that organic products such as coffee or cocoa are very rare in vending machines while other commented that in their tenders it is required 100% organic and fairly trade products.
6. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Some stakeholders questioned why their comments on requiring GMO free food were rejected. In Austria the GMO food is a hot topic and they are even developing a law against the GMO food. Information about this news was requested by the JRC as they were informed that GMO products enter into the EU market mainly for feed and that there are strict regulations for the labelling of GMO products.
7. CONCLUSIONS, NEXT STEPS AND MEETING CLOSURE
JRC and DG ENV thanked the participants for their constructive and valuable contributions and closed the meeting.
The next steps for JRC will be to analyse all the comments to be received (during the meeting and written feedback) until the 24th March 2017 and incorporate them into a new technical report that will include an updated criteria proposal and be sent for written consultation.
18
Stakeholders registered in BATIS system will be informed of the release of the updated technical report in due course.
