1 / 25

SARMa – Sustainable Aggregates Resource Management WP 4 workplan

SARMa – Sustainable Aggregates Resource Management WP 4 workplan Tamás Hámor – Ubaldo Cibin - Gábor Kovács Kick off meeting 15-17 June 2009 , Bologn a. MBFH - THE HUNGARIAN PARTNER. MBFH - THE HUNGARIAN PARTNER. MBFH - THE HUNGARIAN PARTNER. MBFH - THE HUNGARIAN PARTNER.

booth
Télécharger la présentation

SARMa – Sustainable Aggregates Resource Management WP 4 workplan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SARMa – Sustainable Aggregates Resource Management WP4 workplan Tamás Hámor – Ubaldo Cibin - Gábor Kovács Kick off meeting 15-17 June 2009, Bologna

  2. MBFH - THE HUNGARIAN PARTNER

  3. MBFH - THE HUNGARIAN PARTNER

  4. MBFH - THE HUNGARIAN PARTNER

  5. MBFH - THE HUNGARIAN PARTNER

  6. WP4 Regional and National level Activities Description WP will develop regional/national approachesto implementing SARM and SSM. It is the central thematic WP, where bottom-up best practices for resource efficiency and top-down strategic plans for transnational harmonization of policies and legislation intersect. Relevant regional/national legislation, regulations, procedures and bottlenecks will be studied. A framework for SARM will be created, discussed with interested and affected groups at workshops on multiple scales, and then serve as the basis for more effective management and implementation of legislation, inclusion of aggregates in land use planning, and harmonization of regulations. Planning for secure SSM will be based on regional/national studies that consider nature conservation, water resources and transportation, as well as a GIS of supply-relevant data. Plans and recommendations for SSM will reflect economic and strategic importance of the sector. Outputs of WP4 & 5 will be disseminated at regional/national workshops.

  7. Activity 4.1 • Description • Sustainable aggregate resource management (SARM): • review regional/national legislation and relevant EU Directives and documents on aggregates management, incl. implementation procedures and bottlenecks • b) create framework for SARM during synthesis • c) conduct workshops at multiple scales (see also WP1, 2, 5) • d) develop plan for harmonization of effective management & planning (seeAct.4.2c)) • e) create recommendations(see Act.4.2 d) and WP5) • Role of each partner • MBFH as WP lead will bring recognized expertise on legislation related to mining and quarrying; all other country project partners will provide information on national / regional legislation and management practices. All partners create common document on current best practices, participate in workshops, and assist with plan for more efficient aggregate management and creation of recommendations. • Geographical location • Each partner will do a case study for their country (AT, GR, HU, RO, IT ER, HR, BA, SP, AL, and SI) that will be supervised by MBFH.

  8. Qualitative and quantitative description of the outputs Act. 4.2

  9. Activity 4.2Description Planning for SSM: a) conduct case studies on planning for supply in 7 areas(see WP3) b) recommend design of GIS for aggregates, to support c) implementation plans for secure SSM for case study regions, d) create recommendations on integration of SSM into regional/national legislation, in development and land use planning, and for planning for supply, e) make regional maps for contiguous SEE nations Role of each partner Lead partner Italy ER will coordinate activity and share expertise on GIS. Other partners (METE, MUL, PELLA and IGME, MINGORP, FGG, ANPAR, Parma, TUC, and GeoZS) will do case studies. Appropriate partners will create 3 regional reports and 4 country reports. All partners will collaboratively develop Implementation plans, GIS, and recommendations. Selected partners will create maps. Geographical location Locations are important due to differences and similarities in current practices in managing aggregates and perspective on future supply. Case studies from different areas enrich the best practice manuals. (1) Trebbia River, Piacenza, IT, (2) Styria, AT.

  10. Qualitative and quantitative description of the results

  11. ACTIVITY 4.1 (LED BY MBFH) Task 1Review of EU Community legislation by: MBFH and MUL methodology: EUR-Lex desk-top study of the acquis, EC communications, MUL publications, CEN and international standards with relevance to aggregates management outputs: ca. 50 pages report deadline: December 2009

  12. ACTIVITY 4.1 • Task 1Review of EU Communitylegislation • Fieldscoveredwithregardtoaggregates: • Treaties • International conventions • Secondarysources of law (regulations, directives, decisions) • environment, waste, water, natureconservation • workershealth, technicalsafety, machinery, • chemicalsacquis • Rulings of CourtofJustice • EC communications, EP positions • CEN and internationalstandards

  13. ACTIVITY 4.1 Task 1Review of EU Community legislation

  14. ACTIVITY 4.1 • Task 2Analysis of national legislation • by: all (at least one partner from all participating countries) • methodology: • compilation of a questionnaire and guidance for the management legislation and practice (by September 2009) • review and correction of the questionnaire (by September 2009) • answers to the questionnaire (by December 2009) • analysis of the SEE legislation and practice (by June 2010) • outputs and deadlines: • - a ca. 10 pages standard questionnaire (by September 2009) • - 10 country (incl. regional) reports as answers to the questionnaire, ca. 30-50 pages each (by December 2009) • - database of competent authorities? (by May 2010) • - workshop on the discussion of the preliminary results (Split, February 2010) • - an analytical report on SEE legislation (by June 2010) • - a summary publication on EU and SEE legislation on aggregates in an international journal (submitted by August 2010, published by May 2011)

  15. ACTIVITY 4.1 Task 2Analysis of national (regional) legislation General: Major legislative and regulatory bodies System of law, relevant acts/decrees Mineral policy documents Minerals inventories systems? Licensing schemes: Step-wise flow charts (incl. authorities, processing times, fees?) Major barriers/indicators: Absolute barriers (Natura 2000) Relative barriers: Expected time til operation Number of authorities involved Licensing fees til operation Royalty for aggregates Sanctions for illegal mining Cross-cutting issues (the digest): Embedding into spatial development (level/way of mineral res. protection) Mining waste context C&D waste policy Power plant fly ash, and slag? Quasi-legal alternatives of mining Financial incentives Worm-eye & eagle-eye views (citizen/company/authority/state perspectives) Scaling issues (local/county/regional/state/federal) Conflict field mapping Moderator practices (public hearing) Acquisition of the social credit card

  16. GRAPHIC SUMMARY CHARTS ARE WELCOME

  17. GRAPHIC FLOW CHARTS ARE WELCOME + alternatives: „landscape management” „recreational lake” „harbour”, „subway” illegal mining

  18. ACTIVITY 4.1 • Task 3Synthesis of best practices, a SEE (and EU) harmonization initiative • by: selected partners • methodology: • strong reliance on inputs from WP3 and Action 4.2 of WP4 • iterative elaboration of recommendation on integration of SSM into regional/national legislation, in development & land use planning, and for minerals management • iterative elaboration of a framework on SARM of different levels • Outputs and deadlines: • ca. 40-60 page recommendation document on harmonization initiative of SARM based on best practice case examples with possible solution scenarios on significantly differing deviant(?) national regulatory and policy regimes • (December 2010) • ca. 40-60 page framework scheme on SSM mix and planning based on best practice case examples and pan-SEE synthesis of statistical and GIS analysis • (December 2010) • (or shall these two be treated in one synthesis report?, see WP5)

  19. LET’S WORK!

  20. SARMa – Sustainable Aggregates Resource Management WP4.2 workplan Contribution of Ubaldo Cibin – Emilia-Romagna Region (ER) Kick off meeting 15-17 June 2009, Bologna

  21. Action 4.2Description Planning for SSM: a) conduct case studies on planning for supply in 7 areas, b) recommend design of GIS for aggregates, to support c) implementation plans for secure SSM for case study regions, d) create recommendations on integration of SSM into regional/national legislation, in development and land use planning, and for planning for supply, e) make regional maps for contiguous SEE nations Role of each partner Lead partner Italy ER will coordinate activity and share expertise on GIS. Other partners (METE, MUL, PELLA and IGME, MINGORP, FGG, ANPAR, Parma, TUC, and GeoZS) will do case studies. Appropriate partners will create 3 regional reports and 4 country reports. All partners will collaboratively develop Implementation plans, GIS, and recommendations. Selected partners will create maps. Geographical location Locations are important due to differences and similarities in current practices in managing aggregates and perspective on future supply. Case studies from different areas enrich the best practice manuals. (1) Trebbia River, Piacenza, IT, (2) Styria, AT.

  22. ACTION 4.2 (led by ER) • Task 1conduct case studieson planning for supply in seven areas (3 regional, 4 national), in particular with regard to nature conservation, water resources defense and transportation, then their evaluation • by: METE, MUL, PELLA, IGME, MINGORP, FGG, ANPAR, ER, Parma, TUC, GeoZS • case studies. • Open problems: Collect a list of all case studies. • methodology: • (all) Definition, development, and reporting of all case studies. • (action leader) development of a comparative questionnaire of case studies. • (all) answer the questionnaire • (action leader) synthesis of the collected practices, to define a common minimum requirements for planning of SSM. • (all, coordinated by Action Leader) comparison of results among all SARMa partners. Definition of the actions required to fulfill the minimum requirements. • outputs and deadlines: • common, interoperable methodology adopted • Reports on case studies development • Knowledge base on planning of SSM

  23. ACTION 4.2 (led by ER) • Task 2recommend design of GIS for aggregates. Developing recommendations for creation of Geographic-Information-System (GIS) in management of aggregates in term of resources availability and exploitation, use, transportation types and routes among supply sources and demand locations and recommendations for comprehensive aggregate information infrastructure • by: all • methodology: • (all) creation of a local GIS • (Action Leader) collection of all available GIS schemas. • (?-Slovenia) mapping of contiguous SEE nations: analysis and development of a common cartography. • (Action Leader) Synthesis, reporting, and recommendation on best GIS practices. • outputs and deadlines: • definition of similarities and peculiarities of methodology adopted on GIS • regional/national maps, maps for contiguous SEE nations • new advanced tools to improve knowledge management: SARM, SSM and GIS

  24. ACTION 4.2 (led by ER) • Task 3implementation plans for secure SSM for case study regions, create recommendations on integration of SSM. Preparation of improvements of plans for a sustainable supply mix (primary, secondary; domestic, imported) for the case study regions, which would reflect importance of aggregates in the economy and their essential nature for economic and infrastructure development. Plans would include recommendations on how to integrate SSM into development and land use planning • by: all • methodology: • (Action Leader) Acquiring the results of tasks 1 & 2. • (Action Leader) Development of a best practices document including minimum requirements for planning of SSM, expertise on GIS development, acquired experience on transnational mapping, knowledge base on difficulties to achieve minimum requirements. • (All) Discussion and improvement of the best practices draft document • Outputs and deadlines: • Recommendations on implementation of (EU) legislation for development and land use planners

More Related