Adoption by COST officials of research projects, report of meeting on 7-8 March

五月 2, 2002

Brussels, 1 May 2002

147th meeting of the COST Senior Officials Committee held in Brussels on 7/8 March 2002. Summary of conclusions.European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research - COST Secretariat. Brussels, April 2002 (document COST 223/1/02 REV 1). Full text

10. APPROVAL OF MOUs

The Commission services provided delegations with an overview about the number of Actions approved in the past year and a general overview about action development. The Committee approved in principle the following new Actions:

(a) Agriculture and Biotechnology
COST 855: Animal Chlamydiosis and the Zoonotic Implications (German proposal)
COST 856: Ecological Aspects of Denitrification with Emphasis on Agriculture (German proposal)

(b) Forestry
COST E31: Management of Recovered Wood (Austrian proposal)

11. REQUESTS FROM NON-COST INSTITUTES FOR PARTICIPATION

The Committee agreed to the participation of the following non-COST institutes in the Actions listed below:

COST 3: Towards Mobile Broadband Networks
- Lucent Technologies, USA
- Communications Research Centre (Canada)

COST 852: Quality Legume-Based Forage Systems for Contrasting Environments - Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Pastoral and Veterinary Institute, Victoria, Australia

COST D20: Metal Compounds in the Treatment of Cancer and Viral Diseases - National Taras, Shevehenko, University of Kiev, Ukraine

12. REQUEST FOR PROLONGATION OR EXTENSION OF THE DURATION OF COST ACTIONS

The Committee endorsed the decision of the bureau to extend the duration of

- COST 621: Groundwater Management of Coastal Karstic Aquifers by six months, but decided to change the decision not to extend

- COST 622 Soil Resources of European Volcanic Systems, also by six months:

14. OTHER BUSINESS

- Appointment of the members of the Ad-hoc Group on Biomaterials

The Czech delegation expressed its disappointment that their candidate had not been selected for this Group. In respect to the geographical balance, this delegation raised the question of whether a balance had been achieved when, from 17 non-EU COST Member States, only Hungary is represented.

The Chair explained that the Bureau had sought to (a) ensure a wide participation of already existing Technical Committees and (b) to avoid duplication of competence. However, he would attempt to improve the nomination exercise in the future by better balancing discretion and transparency.

- Efficiency of the Senior Officials Committee

The Polish delegation suggested the cancellation of the December meeting of the CSO in order to transfer the savings achieved to Actions.

The Council Secretariat explained that the costs for the organisation of CSO-meeting were covered from the general budget of the Secretariat General of the Council. Potential savings could not be transferred to the exercise of the Framework Programme, but would simply remain in the budget of the Council's Secretariat General.

16. PREPARATION FOR SIGNATURES

The Committee was informed on this subject by a document dated 6 March 2002. In this respect, the Council Secretariat suggested further simplifications to the procedure.

Following this proposal, only the first five signatory Member States would continue to physically sign the Memorandum of Understanding via their ambassador or any other person mandated to this purpose. Starting from the sixth Member State joining a COST Action, all others would simply request their adhesion to the MoU in writing.

The Committee concluded to come back to the above suggestion at its next meeting.

Council register

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.