Rapporteur : Susanna Azzali, ANIMATE

I. Presentations and Discussion

The objectives of the meeting were to:

1. consolidate the Good Practice (GP) report in air and water pollution management systems, version 4.1; to discuss the executive summary, the structure of the document, and conclusions and recommendations;
2. present peer reviews of the Good Practice document, versions 4.0 and 4.1 and to discuss these;
3. share and exchange information on good practices in air and water pollution management systems (DGXIII) with other similar experiences in DG XI and DGXII;
4. identify needs for dissemination activities in the IST-Environment Action (of the 5^th Framework Programme 1999-2002)

The list of participants is below in Annex 2. From the Expert Group, Mr. McGrogan, Mr. Pinter and Mr. Ribeiro da Costa were not present at the meeting. DG XIII was represented by Mr. W. Boch and Mr. J-J. Lauture.

Mr. Boch and Mr. Hodges, co-chairpersons of the ENWAP Expert Group, welcomed the participants, the co-author and the peer reviewers of the ENWAP document on the Good Practice (Mr. Frank Price, Mr. Konrad Zirm and Mrs. Elizabeth Jaskulke). The chairpersons introduced briefly the revised agenda (see Annex 1).

Mrs. Azzali presented the status of revision of the Good Practice document, version 4.1. The previous version (4.0) of the document was subjected to extensive reviews by the co-author and the two peer reviewers mentioned above, and substantial feedback was provided by the ENWAP experts. On this basis, version 4.1 of the document was further elaborated along the following lines:

• inclusion of an executive summary;
• subdivison into three main themes;
• ENWAP User Forum, background context;
• Identification of Good Practice through the application of telematics: results, obstacles, transferability, lessons learned and conclusions;
• Recommendations.
• Inclusion of 6 annexes.

The main points of the different chapters of the document were discussed and the following remarks were made:

• While the obstacles to implementation highlighted in the GP guide are often of similar nature in EU and CEE countries, their scale is not. This is most notably due to the financial resources available.
• How should the transfer of experiences be stimulated? By monitoring the transfer of results of projects as a process, in e.g. test sites, or by keeping track of information generated by possible users. Adjustment from the original system to a new application may involve considerable efforts, which may be more expensive than to develop the systems ex-novo. However, by studying the original systems, new projects can be helped to avoid pit-falls. The document could be used as a good practice vehicle for the transfer of know-how, through its wide distribution to a wider audience (especially in the CEE countries).
• The use of too many technical terms should be avoided in the main report.
• The executive summary (ES) should put more emphasis on the highlights of the good practices such as innovation, success stories, transferability. The tone of the ES should be more positive, attracting the reader to continue reading the document through its main part.
• The description of the projects (in Annex 4) should provide clear distinction between objectives and results. Results are also expressed more as functionalities and not with regard to the impact of the system.

Mr. K. Zirm presented his view of the document, v.4.1. He reviewed version 4.0 and noted many improvements in version 4.1. However, he noted that for the reader it is difficult to keep track of the projects because they are sliced into layers of information. The relationship between legal support and acceptance of the systems is very important. He put emphasis on the lessons learned by the systems developed, more than by the research results. The transferability issue for a system should be more developed, since at present it provides insufficient information for a realistic assessment of innovative product opportunities and ideas. The lifetime of a developed software is rather short and its transfer and implementation may imply some supporting problems.

Mrs. E. Jaskulke presented her overview on the document v.4.1. She, as Mr. Zirm, reviewed version 4.0 and part of 4.1. The following remarks were provided:

• technical jargon should be avoided;
• information on the consortium for each project should be provided;
• the chapter on the conclusions and recommendations should be closely linked. The following table indicates an example of such a linkage:

It is important to draw conclusions and recommendations for different types of users acting in different scales of ‘environment’. The standardization of data is crucial for data acquisition.

Mr. F. Price presented his view on the ES which he drafted. He stressed that the target audience for the document should be defined more precisely. In addition to what already had been said concerning the lessons learned and conclusions he pointed out:

• Systems should be designed for users' perspectives and less on the basis of technocratic considerations;
• Political commitment is important;
• The subject of sustainable development deserves more attention. Examples of different projects should be given which have led to wider participation, better resource management and sustainable economic and environmental growth. The link also with the FP5 Programme should be indicated.

After lunch, Mrs. S. Pauli, from DG XI, provided information on a new initiative started in November 1998. This consists of developing a database on good practices in urban management and sustainability (UMS). The objective is to facilitate the exchange of experience and the dissemination of information between cities. The database will help in raising awareness to actions leading to improved urban management. The database contains case studies presented in standard formats in English to facilitate information collection and analysis. The case studies focus on integrated approaches linking environmental, economic, social and institutional issues. They also include multi-purpose measures and sectoral actions undertaken within a strategic framework at the local level. The database covers a wide range of good practice cases and urban pilot projects in urban management and sustainability, e.g. urban environment and quality of life, Agenda 21 processes, integrated urban management, job creation and urban regeneration, social inclusion and equality, cities and regional development. The database has been developed within the framework of the planned Integrated Commission Database Network, which will incorporate other relevant European Commission databases. Many projects in the environment telematics sector could be included in the UMS database. It was agreed that the project officer responsible for the database may contact the ENWAP coordinators regarding the submission of information according to the standard forms. The database is available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/urban

Mrs. P. Mollet presented briefly the draft agenda of the first conference and workshop organized by the CAPE (Coordinated Action for Pan-European Transport and Environmental Telematics Implementation support) project. The conference will take place in Munich on the 21-22 June 1999 and will focus on environment telematics. The cooperation of CAPE with the ENWAP Expert Group foresees that ENWAP experts will be involved as chairpersons during the Munich conference as well as to present the results of the good practice exercise. The draft agenda still needs to be finalized in the coming weeks.

The afternoon session continued by consolidating the final remarks on the Good Practice document v.4.1. Mr. F. Price collected the following remarks of the EG, in 5 main categories:

• Include financial project information only if accurate and if it indicates the cost of the projects (Costs included in Table 1, Annex 5 to be better explained);
• Clearer explanations of project objectives/problems to be addressed – include in Executive Summary and main report;
• Clearer project summaries in main report;
• Include www and keywords in Table 1;
• Annex 4 summaries to include key outcomes, including transferability, keywords at the heading, www and cities involved;
• Table 1 of Annex 5 to be moved to the main report, Table 2 of Annex 6 to stay in the Annex;
• Report should be viable without Annexes;
• Better linkage of main report to Annexes (through cross references);
• Use of more diagrams/illustrations in main report;
• Section 3.6.5 should include www references;
• Include www address on report inside cover;
• Reference to projects being research and not implementation of known science/legislation/policies;
• Check and tighten text and symbols in boxes;
• Include a section on the importance of telematics in environment resource management;
• Change order of Annexes as below;
1 to become 5
2 to become 4
3 to become 3
4 to become 2
5 to become 1
6 to become 6

• Reorder Annex 3 and include Community document text verbatim.

• Include real impacts/results in the project summaries in Annex 4 (taken from Good Practice (GP) question forms);
• Section 2.2 – include analysis of what represents a "good practice" and stress the need for promotion of good practice;
• Include reasons for project selection;
• Section 3.2 rework to increase accessibility;
• Show extent to which projects are innovative and valuable.

• Include more information in each project summary;
• Incorporate GP question form;
• Describe problems encantered due to different legislation (regional/national);
• Hierarchy of transferability and use of a common software system.

• Demonstrate linkages of conclusions and recommendations;
• Conclusions and recommendations in same section;
• Recommendations shown as text boxes associated with conclusions.

• Environment managers > Decision makers > NGO's/Public > others

The last part of the meeting focused on possible new actions for the ENWAP group in the 5^th Framework Programme, 1999-2002. Considering that the 7^th ENWAP meeting was the last one in the context of the 4^th Framework Programme, new actions have to be initiated by the members of the ENWAP group to pursue the conclusions and recommendations drawn from the ENWAP activities so far. Mr. W. Boch outlined briefly the importance of the identification of requirements for dissemination activities in the IST-Environment Action (5^th Framework Programme 1998-2002). ENWAP future actions should carefully consider the description of the support measures of the IST Environment action and the experts, participating in the group, are invited to submit proposals and suggestions. The call mechanism is a rolling type which allows the presentation of proposals up to the 15^th September 1999.

The meeting closed at 17.30.

10.30 Welcome to the meeting and approval of the proposed agenda

10.35 The Good Practice in air and water pollution management systems, Document v.4.1: status of revision

11.30 Feedback on the Good Practice document v.4.0: Peer review

12.30 Document v.4.1 :Executive Summary

13.00 ------------------ LUNCH ------------------

14.00 Database on Good Practice in Urban Management and Sustainability

14.30 Cape User Forum & Technical Workshop, 21-22 June 1999, Munich

16.30 Conclusions and agreement on actions

17.00 Ideas for future dissemination activities in IST

(interest of EUROCITIES, POLIS, REC)

17.30 Close

• Susanna Azzali, ARTTIC, Belgium
• Wolfgang Boch, European Commission, DG XIII, Belgium
• Maria Kazmukova, Prague City Development Authority, Czech Republic
• Nick Hodges, Leicester City Council, UK
• Jean-Jacques Lauture, European Commission, DG XIII, Belgium
• Petra Mollet, POLIS, Belgium
• Nigel Robson, ARTTIC, Belgium
• George Ritter, Munich Department of Environment City, Munich
• Ivica Ruzic, Center for Marine & Environmental Research of the Rudjer Boskovic Institute, Croatia
• Pavla Stancikova, DANIS System Manager, Slovakia
• Jerome Simpson, REC, Hungary
• Zoran Stojic, Ekonova, Slovenia

• Mrs. Susann Pauli, European Commission – DGXI-D3 TRMF 1/60
• Dr. Konrad L. Zirm, Head IT-Department, Federal Environment Agency Ltd., Austria
• Frank Price, Environmental Protection Manager, UK
• Mrs. Elisabeth Jaskulke, Cellule Ile de France, Lyonnaise des Eaux, France