Greenstructure and Urban Planning

European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research -

COST Action C11

COST-C11

Greenstructures and Urban Planning

Ad Hoc Working Group

(Chairman, WG leaders, TC monitor)

Main points and decisions

Location: DG RTD, Brussels, BELGIUM

Date: 13 June 2003

Participants: B. Duhem, S. Pauleit, B. Oppermann, A.C. Werquin, B. Szulczenska

I. Samaras, J. Laravoire

1) General situation of COST

The decision has been taken to create an independant COST office in the European Science Foundation (ESF). ESF will be in contract with the European Commission to manage the COST activity from 2003 to 2006, as a Specific Support Action of FP 6.

This new organisation will be in operation in the last months of 2003, with a new budget.

Therefore it is secure not to programme any new meeting before 2004.

Due to the limitted existing transition period budget for 2003, the Rome meeting of MC and WGs must be postponed and planned in 2004.

2) Meeting in Warsaw

o The request for this meeting has been approved. See in annexe the agenda.

As for previous meetings, there will be:

- a management committee meeting (2 sessions)

- working groups meetings (3 sessions)

- a seminar on the Warsaw case

- a visiting trip

o Due to restricted budget and according to the rules of FP6, participations have been limited by the Commission at 2 persons maximum per country. This means that only members of the Management Committee or their substitutes will be able to participate. Others did not receive the official invitation sent by COST secretary on the 28th of May. The following persons are concerned by this restriction.

WG 1A: Signe Nyhuus, Olli Maijala, Sybrand Tjallingii

Carlo Blasi, Suzanne Guldager.

WG 2: Erik Plathe, Simone Tiedtke.

WG 1B: Jean-Marie Halleux, Gianni Scudo, Carmen Aalbers.

Unless this rule should only be applied to Warsaw, it is unconvenient for the Actions because this meeting will be important for the organisation of work until the end of the Action (December 2004). Unfortunately it seems almost impossible to overcome this rule but also the limitted availiable budget for our Action which has already been covered by the request of the Warsaw meeting. Each country will have to decide which participation is the best.

B. Duhem will send a message to all invited persons to ask for quick fax respond forms, in order to know if there is any solution for the non invited WG members (especially in WG 1A which has half of its members who are not MC delegates).

3) Structure for a final evalution report

o Explanations from I. Samaras:

- the administrative part of the report (meeting dates, participants, economic dimension…) will be included in the final evaluation report. This evaluation report will be done by a panel composed of: the scientific officer (I. Samaras), the monitor of the Action (J. Laravoire), the chairman (B. Duhem), an external evaluator. This report will include the results of a self evaluation forms which will be filled by all participants at the end of the Action. This exercise will start during the next year meetings.

- therefore the main work to do inside the Action is the Scientific report.

o After looking at the materials gathered in the Progress Report 2002, it is decided that the following contents will be proposed at the Management Committee during Warsaw meeting:

o chapter 1: general presentation and outputs of the COST C11

o chapter 2: challenges and examples Sheffield, Marseille, Breda, Munich, Milan, Warsaw, Rome, Oslo.

o chapter 3 : WG Synthesis :

ß Ecological issues

ß Human issues

ß Policies

o Annexe 1: Ecological case studies

o Annexe 2: Human issues

o Annexe 3: Planning systems and examples

Some materials are on the website and not in the Progress report. What to do with them ?

At least, the glossary part should be used in the general presentation.

4) Dissemination

o The scientific report can be printed and disseminated through the Commission system (OPCDE). This will be discussed later on, when ESF will have established its own rules. The proposal to the MC will include the idea that all the contents should be published in one book (300 pages) figures partly in colour partly in black and white.

Of course, it is always possible to choose another publisher.

o Another dissemination action is the final open seminar or conference. It is not obligatory but the "Greenstructure and urban planning" topic seems to be of high interest for such a conference.

This conference can be possibly partly funded by COST but has to be organised before the end of the Action. It could be organised in December 2004, but a decision has to be taken almost one year before (if possible in Warsaw, at least in Rome)

5) Work and meeting agendas

Considering the final report contents and the situation shown by Progress report 2002, the following planning for results and dissemination should be decided:

Warsaw, September 2003:

- decision on the contents

- WG synthesis: first step (in WG sessions)

- Chapter 2: decisions for what has to be improved (Sheffield, Breda), done (Milan), and will have to be done (Rome, Oslo).

- Editorial rules (numbers of pages, of figures and pictures, in colour or not).

Rome, February (to be confirmed) 2004:

- WG synthesis presentation to the MC meeting (and discussion in small groups)

- Chapter 2 approval

- Annexes pre-approval

- Editorial rules decisions.

Oslo, June (to be confirmed) 2004:

- WG synthesis final approval