SUSTAINABLE AGGREGATES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SARMa PROJECT STATUS END OF JUNE 2010

Project till the end of June 2010 Approved costs from March 11, 2009 PROJECT START MAY 1, 2009 Kick off meeting – Bologna June 2009 Project meeting – Split February 2010 Project structure Work plan Implementation Potential bottlenecks

Main time framework Bologna – Split Preparation WP 3 questionnaires Split – Bucharest WP 3 drafts WP 4 questionnaires WP 5 plan Bucharest – Pella WP 3 outputs WP 4 drafts - outputs WP 5 work - outputs Pella – Ljubljana Finalizing outputs Project impacts – results Extensive promotion

WP 2 Communication a)Website b)Promotion c)Representation d)Crisis management (?)

WP 2 Communication WP leader is should include activity leaders Tasks: –Creating SARMa project leaflet and posters –Creating uniform project image (reports in particular) SWOT analysis of the WP 2.

WP 3 Local level a)Questionniares sent out and recieved.. b)Confusion between questionniares and outputs c)Plan what next prepared not implemented d)Crisis management (?)

WP 3 Local level Detail plan to speed up the work of WP 3 It is important that each action is directly linked to (appointed) partner. Work within WP 3 at the moment is not on time. SWOT analysis of the WP 3; especially in areas that you feel there is not enough support from other partners.

WP 4 Regional/national level a)Prepared questionnaires for a)WP 4.1 (management) – sent out; deadline expired b)WP 4.2 (supply) – sent out, deadline in July 2010 Plan what next …

WP 4 Regional/national level Detail plan who, what when… is needed. SWOT analysis of the WP 4

WP 5 Transnational level a)Dormant – planning stage b)Detail plan till Bucharest – October 2010

WP 5 ANTAG model is not part of SARMa –there is not enough data, –there is not enough time – SARMa ends in one year, –there is no human capacity to carry out the ANTAG modeling / fine tuning. Detail plan of WP 5 activities (timeframe, partners in charge,…), or maybe before send out the draft.

Project partners (14) 1.ERDF: GeoZS - Geological survey of Slovenia, SI 2.ERDF: MUL - University of Leoben, AT 3.ERDF: PELLA – Prefectural Authority of Pella, GR 4.ERDF: IGME - Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration, GR 5.ERDF: TUC – Technical University of Crete, GR 6.ERDF: MBFH – Hungarian Office for Mining and Geology, HU 7.ERDF: ER – Emilia-Romagna Region - Environment, Soil and Coast Defense Department, IT 8.ERDF: ANPAR – National Association Producers of Recycled Aggregates, IT 9.ERDF: PARMA – Parma Province - Territorial Planning Service, IT 10.ERDF: IGR – National Institute for Research-Development in domain of Geology, Geophysics, Geochemistry and Remote Sensing, RO 11.ERDF: FGG – University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geology and Geophysics, RO 12.IPA: MGK10 – Herzeg – Bosnia Canton Government – Ministry of Economy, BiH 13.IPA: RGF – University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mining and Geology, SRB % partner: METE – Ministry of Economy, Trade and Energy, AL (Albanian Geological Survey) 15.10% Partner: MINGORP – Ministry of Economy, Labor and Entrepreneurship, Energy and Mining Directorate, HR (Croatian Geological Survey

PROJECT: Sustainable Aggregate Resource Management

I am looking forward to open debate & agreed upon conclusions