Terms of Reference for a Mandate of a COST Domain Committee in the Field of Earth System Science and Environmental Management (extract)

October 4, 2006

Brussels, 03 Oct 2006

Full text of Document 285/06
Suite of documents 285/06

Delegations will find attached the "Terms of Reference for a mandate of a COST Domain Committee in the field of Earth System Science and Environmental Management" as approved by the CSO at its 164th meeting on 29/30 March 2006, and the domain descriptor, as approved by the CSO at its 165th meeting on /28 June 2006 (in Annex 1).

1 This document replaces previous version as set out in doc. COST 240/06.


1. The COST Domain Committee in the field of Earth System Science and Environmental Management, hereinafter referred to as "the DC"1, is established by the COST Committee of Senior Officials (CSO) for a period of four years as of 1 June 2006.

2. At the end of this period, and on receipt of a report by the DC, the CSO shall decide whether to extend the mandate of the DC for an additional period of time and, in that case, review these Terms of Reference.

3. The CSO may at any time amend these Terms of Reference or terminate the mandate of this DC.

4. The DC will adopt its Rules of Procedure on the basis of the model set out in doc. COST 236/06 or in any new document amending or replacing it.

5. The DC is responsible for general oversight of COST activities within its domain, including the development of strategic initiatives, and, in particular, for the quality assurance of new Action proposals, for monitoring progress of ongoing Actions and for evaluating completed Actions.

6. Within the framework of the COST Continuous Open Call and the two stage submission process, the DC will assess proposals for new COST Actions assigned to its domain. This assessment will be in accordance with the "Guidelines for Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation of COST Actions" in the Vademecum ( http:///www.cost.esf.org/index.php?id=38) . The DC will be responsible for the assessment and selection of preliminary proposals and for implementing quality control, through external peer review, of full proposals and for making recommendations for new Actions to the CSO.


[Public Info Net automatically generates links to Council Register documents where an appropriately formatted document number is given. However, the document may not be available for public use and/or it may not be loaded on the Council Register yet.]

Council Register

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns