Session 1: Welcome and presentations
|
| |
|
Agenda item 1: Welcome Address by Kerstin Cederlöf, Director Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Implementation and Enforcement Department Ms. Cederlöf welcomed all participants, and stressed IMPEL’s important role in providing feedback from the ground to policymakers and in promoting best practices. The acquiring of legal entity entailed many changes and new administration needs time to adapt, just as there is a need to include all members in decision making. The outcome of IMPEL’s work is essential for efficient legislation and effective implementation. Its successes in the past were based on the vision, competence, experience, trust and efforts of its members. The meeting noted the presentation. |
| |
|
Agenda item 1.1: Adoption of the agenda The meeting adopted the agenda. |
| |
|
Agenda item 1.2 Presentation by the Ministry of the Environment Susanne Gerland on behalf of Egon Abresparr, Director-General for Legal Affairs, Ministry of the Environment Ms. Gerland presented the Swedish system and the role of the Ministry of Environment within this system, as well as its organisation. The responsibilities of legal service encompass supervision, enforcement and inspection, which is one of the main duties and the reason of active involvement in IMPEL. Four environmental priorities of the Swedish Presidency were presented: Climate change, eco-efficient economy, biological diversity and marine environment. The meeting noted the presentation.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 1.3: Presentation by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Maria Ågren, Director-General, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) Ms. Ågren evoked the decision of the Swedish Parliament of 10 years ago to set new objectives to solve environmental problems till next generation. This resulted in 16 environmental objectives to be achieved before 2020. After 10 years with the Environmental Code, it is evident that there are always areas for improvement and cooperation with IMPEL is important in this respect. The meeting noted the presentation. |
| |
|
Agenda item 1.4: Presentation of the Swedish Inspection System , Ingela Hiltula, Head of Unit, Unit for Environmental Instruments, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Ms. Hiltula presented the Swedish inspection system and gave more details about the Environmental Code. The role of Swedish EPA in creating general guidelines for inspection planning was explained. The meeting noted the presentation. |
| |
|
Session 2: Report from IMPEL Extraordinary General Assembly
|
| |
|
Agenda items 2.1/2.2: Work Programme 2010, LIFE+ application, IMPEL Board Terry Shears said that the Extraordinary General Assembly organised by the IMPEL Secretary in Brussels successfully achieved its purpose of adopting the 16 projects for the AWP 2010, to be included in LIFE+ application. He thanked Lukrecija Kireta for doing the good job of submitting the LIFE+ 2010 on 27 November, even if the documents of some members, in particular the A6 forms, are still missing. It is important to send the remaining A6 forms as soon as possible, so as not to delay the consideration of the LIFE+ application by the European Commission. With apologies in case these countries have submitted the necessary documents in the meantime, the following members are kindly reminded to provide the missing A6 forms to the IMPEL Secretary: Belgium (IBGE, Flemish Government Department, General Operational Direction Wallonie), Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland (Dublin City Council), Italy (ISPRA), Spain (Environmental Inspection Authority of the Basque Government). The meeting noted the presentations
|
| |
Session 3: Overview of on-going projects and Cluster Progress Reports
|
| |
|
Agenda item 3.1: Cluster 1 progress report Isabel Santana, the Chair of Cluster 1, gave the overview of the last Cluster 1 meeting held in Brussels. In particular she addressed the developments regarding the Landfills project: The Project manager had apologised for not being present at the Cluster meeting, saying that the draft report was in progress. Peter Wessman from the European Commission provided input for this item of the agenda. A recent email from the project manager said that it would not be possible to finalise the project in 2009. The project was initiated by the EC because of gaps in implementation. Kick off was in January 2008 in Vienna, with participation of more than 20 countries, and the questionnaire was developed. In June 2009 a workshop was held in Milano after which the project came to a standstill due to various circumstances. The project manager asked the GA to discuss the request to finalise the project in June 2010 with a final workshop, whose costs would amount to 25.000,00 EUR. Talking about the future work of Cluster 1, Isabel Santana mentioned that the MAWP would be updated, and breakout sessions are foreseen during next Cluster meeting to discuss that. The next meeting was foreseen for 11/12 March in Vienna. The meeting in September could be hosted by Norway, subject to confirmation. During the discussion on the landfills project, it was clarified that the information on the project arrived after the LIFE+ application had been submitted and the budget for 2010 contains no financial provisions for this project. The maximum amount for 2010 has already been requested from the Commission and introducing a new project would imply redrafting the budget and resubmitting the LIFE+ application. It was decided that the progress report would be adopted as submitted, The GA could not grant funding for 2010 to the landfill project because that would affect the budget for other projects. LIFE+ application will not be amended. There are however two alternatives. Should there be any underspent money from other projects, it could be considered whether it could be allocated to this project. Other means of funding can be studied and contacts will be taken with Cion.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 3.2: Cluster TFS progress report Edgar Freund, the Chair of Cluster TFS Steering Committee presented the report. In June, the strategic committee held a meeting to discuss the structure of the Cluster, the role of different actors, importance of steering committee and national contact points relations, as well as the method of choosing projects to start under the Cluster. A new more democratic structure will be proposed to the steering committee, aiming at achieving wider representation of countries in the SC and rotation of countries, not only the Chair. The proposal was that each country would send a representative and they would choose the SC. It is being discussed and the new structure will hopefully be adopted in Basel. The Steering Committee meeting in October discussed new projects and organisation of the Conference in Basel. The Cluster was represented at ECENA and Basel Convention Secretariat meetings, and both networks are interested in continuing cooperation. E-waste project will hold the last workshop in January 2010. EU Africa project took place last week. This exchange is important as it helps African countries which are burdened by problems arising in Europe. On future developments, it was said that the Steering Committee would send representatives to the Asian network on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste. Waste shipment training DVD will be ready in June 2010. The meeting adopted the report |
| |
|
Agenda item 3.3: Cluster 3 progress report Jan Teekens, the Chair of Cluster 3, presented the report. The last Cluster meeting was held in Brussels in September. It discussed the most important project events throughout the year in particular the workshop to discuss the preliminary results of the project “Practical application of better regulation principles in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental authorities” in Berlin. The report of this project was presented during the meeting. At the Cluster meeting there was a tour de table during which all participants gave an update on the Better Regulation initiatives in their countries. The update was also given by the European Commission, represented by Hans Lopatta. Cath Preston from SEPA outlined at the Cluster Meeting the first working version of a document combining the IMPEL and NEPA checklists. In this version questions were arranged in similar sections and some were merged. No new questions were added. It was generally agreed that there should be minimal changes to the combined checklist at this stage. The cluster discussed the ownership of the combined checklist. IMPEL and NEPA should have both logos on the top of the document. It should be encouraged that many different people can use it. A new name was suggested “Better Regulation Checklist”. Future progress should be made on presentation and facilitating future use by for example a web based tool Ed Mitchell from the UK confirmed at the meeting that the Better Regulation Interest Group of the NEPA Network at its last meeting adopted the joint checklist. In connection with this a discussion paper prepared by Louise Wolfenden was presented at the Cluster meeting but not yet fully discussed Key questions for discussion, raised in the document were: •How might IMPEL and the NEPA collaborate in using the joint checklist? •What would a joint work programme look like? •What areas of EU law would be priorities? •How do we decide which areas should be looked at? •Need for a flexible ToR to accommodate this approach! . The discussion will be continued at the next Cluster meeting. •The Cluster supported a ToR giving the Cluster the possibility to use the checklist in a timely manner through a shortened procedure. •The Cluster supported a ToR to compare common regulatory frameworks within Member States. The meeting adopted the report |
| |
|
Session 4: Reports on completed projects
|
| |
|
Agenda item 4.1: Comparison Programme on tariffs for environmental permits and inspection (IT) Alessandra Burali gave a presentation on behalf of Alfredo Pini, the project manager. The meeting adopted the report which will be published on the website. |
| |
|
Agenda item 4.2: Comparison Programme on permitting and inspection of IPPC pig farming installations (NL) John Visbeen, the project manager, started the presentation by showing a short film on joint inspection in Latvia. Speaking about the experience of managing an IMPEL project, he gave a recommendation to carry out all activities in first half of year to avoid problems with time schedule. The report was adopted and will be published on website. |
| |
|
Agenda item 4.3: INSPECTCEM environmental inspection guidelines for the cement industry (IT) Riccardo Quaggiato presented the report which was adopted and will be published on the website. The Chair of the meeting reminded all participants to promote the results of IMPEL project reports nationally. |
| |
|
Agenda item 4.4: Developing a new IMPEL Review Initiative (IRI ) Scheme (UK) Will Fawcett presented the report and pointed out there is growing interest by countries to host the next IRIs. The report was adopted and will be published on the website. |
| |
|
Agenda item 4.5: Session 4: Reports on completed projects Practical Application of Better Regulation Principles in Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Environmental Inspection Authorities (UK) Louise Wolfenden, the Project Manager, presented the report, which was adopted and will be published on the website. |
| |
|
Agenda item 4.6: Reporting to the public about compliance monitoring of environmental permits (FIN) Markku Hietamaki presented the report which was adopted and will be published on the website. |
| |
|
Agenda item 4.7: Session 4: Reports on completed projects Doing The Right Things III: implementation of the step by step guidance book on planning of environmental inspections – phase II (NL) Tony Liebregts presented the report which was adopted and will be published on the website. |
| |
|
Agenda item 4.8: IRI Portugal (PT) Isabel Santana presented the report. In talking about the implementation of the results, she said it had been presented to all inspectors, and conclusions and recommendations should be readily implemented , as the support from high management has already been secured. Other members of the IRI team pointed out that even if this IRI was planned as the new questionnaire was being developed, which made it more difficult, it was a personally rewarding learning experience and the IRI scheme can be recommended to everyone. The report was adopted and will be published on the website. |
| |
|
Agenda item 4.9: Presentation of outcome from the Sibiu Conference on Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Legislation. Working Together – For a Better Environment, 23rd – 25th September 2009. Mihaela Beu presented the report of the Conference, now also available in printed form, and asked everyone to disseminate conclusions and report. In a discussion following some items from the report, it was said that it would be too early for this GA to discuss the creation of Cluster on Climate change. On the issue of (non) participation of members of European Parliament at the Conference, raised by Finland, IMPEL Chair Gerard Wolters said that the report contains a number of ideas for future work, but it is still fresh and there will be opportunity to discuss it in the future. The new Parliament has been elected and IMPEL would like to explore closer contacts with them, especially with ENV Committee. This will be discussed at the next Board meeting. Several presentations to ENV Com took place in the past but more work should be done on this. |
| |
|
Agenda item 4.10: IMPEL – TFS Enforcement Action II, Enforcement of EU Waste Shipment Regulation (NL) The report was adopted and will be published on the website. The European Commission thinks this work is very important and useful and hopes that projects will be continued. The EC would like IMPEL to consider similar work in landfills area. |
| |
|
Session 5: Organisational matters |
| |
|
Agenda item 5.1: Overview by IMPEL Secretariat As an introduction to the overview of the Secretariat, Terry Shears said that IMPEL as legal entity is obviously running more and more efficiently, as shown by the number of new projects and initiatives presented at this GA. From the point of view of the Secretariat, moving from the Commission-hosted and serviced office to an independent Secretariat meant a big change and the new secretary started her assignment on 1 May in the non-equipped office which she had to set up by getting telephone and internet and arranging for a number of things. Lukrecija Kireta gave the overview of the past 6 months, which had focused mainly on equipping the office and reimbursements. Equipping the office and the meeting room was a long process which should be finalised by the end of the year. Everyone is encouraged to send posters to decorate the meeting room. Reimbursements were perceived as discouraging from participating in projects very early and they met with several difficulties: the late start (2 months after the Secretary started her assignment) due to the bank formalities, the long time it took for the projects to send documents to the Secretariat, completing the files with all necessary information by contacting participants proved to be slow and difficult. By the end of November, 85% of all received files were reimbursed. All remaining documents should be sent to the Secretariat no later than 15 December so that all the payments can be made before the end of the financial year. In the future, reimbursements will be replaced with direct payments, which should facilitate organisation and participation in projects. Close contacts have been maintained with ECENA network, whose meetings were attended and the presentation was given on IMPEL activities. Visiting IMPEL projects represented a valuable learning opportunity and Project Managers are thanked for welcoming the Secretary to their project activities. Work is ongoing on: -reimbursements, which should be finalised by the end of the year -buying the remaining equipment for the office, which should be finalised by the end of the year. -working with the accountant on closing the accounts for 2009 -preparing the documents for the auditor’s review. -preparing the financial report for the EC to be submitted by the end of March The meeting noted the presentation. |
| |
|
Agenda item: 5.2/5.3: Update of IMPEL business plan and Financial issues Terry Shears gave presented the overview of the business plan. For 2009, an addendum was requested and approved by the Commission, allowing for some surplus money from projects to be spent on consultants. For 2010, the consultants are already included in the LIFE+ application and the budget, so this should not be necessary. The underspending of the 2009 budget is due to overestimated normative prices for hotels and flight tickets, but also to the discrepancy between the number of participants foreseen in the ToR and the number of people that actually participated and claimed reimbursements. New financial procedures were adopted by the Board in October and will be fully applicable as of 1 January 2010. Their main feature is that reimbursements are replaced with direct payments and exceptions should be notified in advance to the IMPEL Secretary. Financial management of projects will be essential under the new procedures. The expected benefits are more financial certainty and the possibility to reallocate the money that the projects didn’t spend, as all payments will be made before or shortly after the project activity takes place. There will be less administrative work for Project Managers and participants. In answer to the questions, the following points were clarified: -The rules for reallocating the money are as follows: Up to 20% of each budget line can be reallocated without the need for an addendum. Everything above this threshold requires written approval from the Commission and the modification of the contract. -The money coming from membership fees and contributions left at the end of the year can be transferred to the next year and will be used to cover running costs of the network while waiting for the first instalment of the grant. -IMPEL only gets from the Commission 70% of the money spent in 2009 in an eligible way. The goal at the moment is to spend a sufficient amount to avoid returning some of the money already received to the Commission. -Although it is administratively difficult to channel the money through LIFE+, this is very useful for IMPEL’s application as only the contributions channelled through IMPEL budget count as IMPEL’s co-financing of 30%, on the basis of which we get 70% from the Commission. |
| |
|
Agenda item 5.4: IMPEL rules: update, amendments and interpretations The Board presented its view on the comments on the IMPEL internal and financial rules, as circulated before the GA. The recommendation of the Board in the documentation were agreed upon. The suggestions by the Board in its document on the internal rules were all adopted by the meeting. In particular this means that: -The duration of the contract for the IMPEL Secretary will not be specified in the Rules, as more flexibility is needed. -On the issue of the budget and the business plan, the solution adopted is the one presented by the Board in the document circulated before the GA. -Financial procedures will not be incorporated in the rules but will remain a separate document, to allow for more flexibility to facilitate amendments.. -In 2010, there will be 2 GAs. The arrangement for 2011 and later will be discussed during 2010. The agreed changes in the internal rules as suggested in the Board’s document will be circulated after the GA. With regard to the Financial procedures it was agreed that a new text with some clarifications based on the comments submitted would be circulated. |
| |
|
Agenda item 5.5: Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Commission and IMPEL Gerard Wolters informed the meeting about the ceremony of signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between IMPEL and the Commission, which took place on 15 September at the premises of DG Environment. The Commission was represented by Director General Karl Falkenberg and IMPEL by its Chair Gerard Wolters. Other participants were: Pia Bucella, Julio Garcia Burgues, Anna Karamat on behalf of the Commission and Terry Shears, Jan Teekens and Lukrecija Kireta on behalf of IMPEL. It was agreed that more meetings would follow during which the future collaboration would be discussed and reviewed. Hans Lopatta was thanked for all the help in arranging for the meeting. The meeting noted the presentation.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 5.6: Website presentation and IMPEL Communication Strategy Jan Teekens gave an update of the work on the IMPEL Communication strategy and Rob Kramers presented the new IMPEL website on which work is ongoing and it should be operational starting from mid-January. The meeting noted the presentation |
| |
|
Agenda item 5.7: Organisational Matters Lukrecija Kireta gave a presentation about the results of the Questionnaire on how to enhance active participation of IMPEL members. The questionnaire was suggested during the GA in Prague. It was circulated by the Secretariat and replies from 19 countries had been received. It is difficult to say whether the views expressed represent the predominant view of all IMPEL members, but it can be a good basis for discussion. The presentation will be circulated after the meeting so that it can be used for internal discussions. Likewise, the proposals from the Questionnaire, especially the ones related to MAWP, will be discussed at the next Board meeting. The meeting took note of outcome of the survey with appreciation. Its recommendations will be further discussed in the 3 clusters and the Board will look into more general issues. |
| |
|
Agenda item 5.8: New members The GA formally approved the membership of ARPA Lombardia and welcomed the new member. Francesco Bafundi, the representative of ARPA Lombardia briefly addressed the meeting, underlying the importance to them of becoming a member of IMPEL. The meeting also welcomed Iceland as guest of the IMPEL General Assembly meeting in Stockholm. Kristin Árnadóttir, the representative of Icelandic EPA thanked the Board for the invitation and expressed hope that the formal request for membership would be addressed to IMPEL soon. |
| |
|
Session 6: Projects included in the LIFE+ application 2010
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.1 : IMPEL Review Initiative (IRI) on the Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for the Environment and Spatial planning (IRSEP) The Chair informed the meeting that Slovenia was prevented from attending the meeting but asked the meeting to note that the following countries had expressed interest to participate in the project and the project team can be considered as completed: UK, Belgium, Portugal, Germany, Romania, Croatia, as well as two “observers”: IMPEL Secretary and FYRO Macedonia. Austria and Latvia also said they were interested. ARPA Lombardia also expressed interest and said they are thinking about hosting an IRI. They could consider participating in the IRI Romania instead of IRI Slovenia. It was decided that the information would be forwarded to Tatjana Bernik, the National Coordinator of Slovenia.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.2: IMPEL Review Initiative (IRI) on the National Environmental Guard of Romania and the Regional Commisariat Cluj The following countries expressed interest: Finland, the Netherlands, the UK, Hungary Terry Shears observed that experience shows more than one rapporteur is needed on an IRI, and suggested that Project Managers should consider having 2 rapporteurs on the project team.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.3: Support of the new IRI The following countries expressed interest: Portugal, Germany, Romania, France, Sweden.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.4: Resolution of environmental conflicts by neighbourhood dialogue (part 4) The following countries expressed interest: The Netherlands, Slovenia, France, Austria, the UK
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.5: Energy Efficiency in permitting and inspections The following countries expressed interest: The UK, Turkey, Italy, Sweden, Croatia, Czech Republic.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.6: Development of an easy and flexible risk assessment tool as a part of the planning of environmental inspection linked to European environmental law and the RMCEI (“EasyTool”) The following countries expressed interest: France, Croatia, Portugal, Czech Republic, FYRO Macedonia, Romania, the UK (EPA and SEPA), Turkey, the Netherlands, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Sweden. The following participants said they would participate only in the workshop: Finland, Estonia, the European Commission (subject to internal consultation), Cyprus. Romania observed that most countries started developing risk-based approach and perhaps the project could start with comparison.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.7: Comparison Programme on the implementation and enforcement of Air Quality standards in relation to industrial air emissions (PIAQ) Czech Republic said they would like to participate as co-lead. Other countries also expressed interest: Italy (ARPA Lombardia), Spain, Poland, Cyprus, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Finland, FYRO Macedonia, Portugal.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.8: Linking the implementation of the Water Framework Directive to the implementation of the IPPC Directive. Phase 1, 2010 The following countries expressed interest: Czech Republic, France, Croatia, Portugal, FYRO Macedonia, Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, the UK, Turkey, Latvia, Italy, Cyprus, Poland, Hungary, Spain, Sweden.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.9: Preparations for the IMPEL Conference 2012 in the year 2010 As there are 2 candidates to host the next IMPEL Conference, it was decided that the Board would consider these proposals and make recommendation to the next GA. The following countries expressed interest in participating in the Preparatory Committee for the next IMPEL Conference: Czech Republic, France, Germany, Romania, the UK, Malta, the Netherlands (including the Dutch provinces), Latvia, Poland, Turkey, Italy.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.10: European Waste Enforcement Actions / Joint inspections of waste shipments part II The following countries expressed interest: Poland, FYRO Macedonia, Germany, Finland, the UK, Slovenia, Turkey, Poland, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, France, Croatia, Austria, Estonia.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.11: IMPEL TFS Conference 2010 All IMPEL member countries are expected to attend.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.12: IMPEL – TFS National Contact Points (NCP) Exchange Days The following countries expressed interest: Italy, Turkey, FYRO Macedonia, Portugal, Croatia, Sweden, Poland, the UK, Austria, Finland, Germany, Belgium. |
| |
|
Agenda item 6.13: IMPEL TFS – African collaboration follow up For the workshops in Europe there will be 5 TFS participants The following countries expressed interest: Sweden, Spain, the UK. Portugal reminded the meeting that it would be good to include other African countries, as mentioned during the Extraordinary General Assembly in Brussels.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.14: Cooperation and Awareness Raising to prevent Illegal Traffic in Wastes to non-OECD countries in Asia Countries had already expressed interest in the project and it is completed.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.15: Multiple Use of the IMPEL checklist in 2010 It was pointed out that the feedback is awaited from the Commission about the schedule and that the Better Regulation Interest Group of the NEPA agreed upon joint IMPEL/NEPA check lists last week.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 6.16: Common regulatory framework- Comparison project The following countries expressed interest: France, Malta, Cluster 1, Sweden, Spain, Finland, Germany, Austria. The EC would also consider participating. |
| |
Session 7: Cooperation with other organisations and networks |
| |
|
Agenda items 7.1 – 7.2: Update on EU Activities
|
| |
|
Hans Lopatta gave an update on the review of the Seveso Directive as well as on other Commission activities of interest for IMPEL. The Chairs of Clusters 1 and 3 will contact the desk officer at the Commision to discuss how IMPEL can contibute to the SEVESO review. A Consultant will carry out a study and the experts might contact IMPEL for information. Some interviews might take place in which case contacts will be made in January and inputs would be appreciated by February or March. The report was completed on the study on feasibility of Waste agency in October. The Commission is looking into that now internally. The 6th EAP is relevant until 2012. The external consultant will start working in 2010 on its assessment. Together with the report on the state of environment in Europe, the Commission will evaluate the impact of 6th EAP. Until the results of this evaluation are available, it will not be decided upon whether the 6th EAP will be replaced by the 7th EAP or something else. The document on Commission’s priorities has been published on the website for public consultation. The Board consider whether IMPEL should give inputs, perhaps in consultation with Clusters. The Commission would be grateful if IMPEL would indicate potential areas of incoherent provisions in environmental legislation. It could be a basis for a future project. Climate Change directorate will become a DG by summer 2010. The meeting noted the presentation.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 7.3: Update on INECE Terry Shears gave a presentation on INECE activities. The meeting noted the presentation.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 7.4: Update on ECENA Josipa Blazevic Perusic gave a presentation on behalf of ECENA network. She pointed out that the 4th Plenary meeting in Brussels was actually the last ECENA meeting, as a tender was launched for RENA (Regional environmental network for accession). Gerard Wolters said the meeting wishes RENA all success and hopes to continue cooperation. The meeting noted the presentation.
|
| |
|
Agenda item: 7.5: Update on REPIN Written report was submitted. The meeting noted the report.
|
| |
|
Agenda item: 7.6: Update of activities by GreenForce Martin Baranyai gave a presentation on the GreenForce network.The meeting noted the presentation.
|
| |
|
Agenda item 7.7: Update by OECD Written report was submitted. The meeting noted the report. |
| |
|
Agenda item 7.8: ECHA Gisela Holzgraefe gave a presentation on Forum REACH. The meeting noted the presentation.
|
| |
|
Session 8: Miscellaneous Activities | ||
|
Agenda item 8.1: Summary Conclusions Summary Conclusions were presented and adopted. They are annexed as a separate document to these minutes of the meeting. | ||
|
Agenda item 8.2: Next General Assembly Maria Colmenares gave a presentation on Madrid, which will host the next General Assembly from 15 to 16 April 2010. Alternative hotels will be provided to offer a range of prices for the participants. Closing of the meeting The IMPEL Chair Gerard Wolters expressed thankfulness to the Swedish host and colleagues for the excellent organization of the meeting and their warm hospitality.
| ||