Προηγούμενη σελίδα

Συνεδρίαση Συντονισμού 8 Σεπτεμβρίου 2006, Βρυξέλλες

ΗΜΕΡΗΣΙΑ ΔΙΑΤΑΞΗ

General Coordination

Meeting held on 8th September 2006, Brussels
Notes of the meeting
Draft
List of participants

List of decisions

1.0 Introductory session
1.1 Tour de table
The delegates present briefly introduced themselves stating which country they were from and which Member Organisation of the ACE they represent.  In some cases the issue of resources was raised in relation to the ability of Delegates to attend meetings and take part in Work Groups.
1.2 Purpose of the meeting
JFS reported that he was pleased to be present at this first General Coordination meeting as it is an essential element in the new working structure of the ACE.  He reported that the working structure continues to evolve as the organisation gets use to working with it.  He reported that he is aware that the new working structure is not yet entirely clear to all delegates and that the Executive Board is continuing to work on the detail of how the structure is managed and organised.
He then went on to recall the purpose of the meeting, which is to have a technical debate on the content of papers that are ready to go to the General Assembly for adoption.  He emphasised the fact that the work of the General Coordination meeting could lead to a need for further revisions to these papers and that this would need to be completed by the 20th of September as the final decision on whether the documents will go the Assembly rests with the Executive Board meeting who are meeting on the 29th and 30th September 2006.
The President then asked the Secretary General to chair the meeting on his behalf.
1.3 Elucidation of the ACE working structure
AS spoke about the organisational chart and the manner in which it has been evolving with special emphasis on the problems encountered with the strand on Procurement of architectural services. He repeated the message of JFS stating that the Executive Board will further review and fine-tune the chart and the exact nature of the Work Groups over the coming months.  Following this brief intervention there were a number of questions that clearly demonstrated that the work of the Executive Board in clarifying the structure is necessary.  In particular there will be a need to better demonstrate the overlaps that occur within the structure and to demonstrate how the coordination tasks are effectively addressing these overlaps.  In the debate it was stated that the political objectives of the ACE are crystal clear but that there was a recognised need for better communication between the Member Organisations and the ACE and between Member Organisations themselves so as to ensure more openness, transparency and understanding of the importance of the work that the ACE undertakes.
In the debate that ensued on communication the existence of the Forum tool on the ACE Web site was recalled and also the use of the powerful free Internet based service known as Skype (www.skype.com).  In summing up JFS reported that he would bring the concerns of the delegates to the debates in the Executive Board and that he is also convinced of the need for further clarity and better communication within the ACE.
2.0 Adoption of the Agenda
2.1 The agenda was adopted with no comments and with the agreement that if additional items occurred to delegates they may introduce them under appropriate headings.

3.0 Thematic Area 1 – Access to the Profession
PHS, Coordinator of Thematic Area 1 (TA1) explained his view of the work of TA1 to the meeting.  He reported that he wishes to develop an overview of the work so that there can be significant coherence between the Work Groups in this Thematic Area.  He presented a conceptual chart that highlighted his understanding of the education and training of an architect and which has led to the proposal for the formation of a new Work Group to examine the question of practical experience.  He reported that he believes this is necessary as there is a gap between the moment when a graduate lives a school of architecture and when that graduate is capable of establishing as an architect in independent practice.  In relation to the question of research he reported that he sees a need to address two particular questions, the first being what kind of research is required in the domain of architecture and the second is what is the relationship of the profession to the European programmes for research.
After this presentation there was a brief discussion in which the delegates agreed with the analysis of work in TA1 and with the importance of establishing the new Work Group.  The discussion clearly demonstrated that there is an appetite among the delegates to better understand the professional profile of the architect as currently practised in the EU and on the need to develop a policy of the ACE on access to the practice of the profession.
3.1. CPD Label
JPS, Chair of the WG Education, gave a brief explanation of the background to the work on the proposal to establish an ACE CPD Label.  He referred to the need to keep a strict line between a project that is too mandatory and heavy to administer and one that is too flexible and lightweight in administration.  He expressed the view that the current proposal strikes an appropriate balance and he explained that the proposal now consists of two documents: one a short formal agreement between Member Organisations and the second a longer explanatory memorandum including technical annexes and a draft business plan.  He finished his presentation by stating that he strongly believes it is very important to be aware that this project gives to the profession an ideal opportunity to demonstrate that it is pro-active and does not need to wait for directions from the authorities in order to establish quality control mechanisms for life long learning.
In the ensuing debate there was significant agreement on the importance and need for an ACE position on CPD.  All delegates that made an intervention, expressed support for CPD and for life long learning.  However a number of delegations expressed serious reservations about the proposal as tabled and in particular the BAK representative, the BAIK representative, the RIAI representative and the ARB representative stated that they would not be in a position to support this paper, as presented, at the General Assembly.  The reasons given referred to the need for further research and work particularly in relation to the business plan and in relation to a more coherent relationship to the work at UIA level.  In responding to these concerns JPS stated that he could not see that there was any conflict with the work of the UIA as that work is of a different nature.  Furthermore he refuted any suggestion that the ACE should seek to introduce mandatory or obligatory CPD as this would simply not be acceptable to the majority of Member Organisations.
In conclusion PHS reported that he would consider the arguments presented and make a recommendation to the Executive Board in due course.

3.2 ISF  - Project for Information Exchange System.
PHS, Chair of the Work Group on Registration, introduced the proposed system stating that the work was started on the basis of the Qualifications Directive and has arisen out of the strong need for a coherent framework between the Qualifications Directive and the proposed Directive on Services in the Internal Market.  He also reported on the direct link between this work and the Commission work on an informatics tool known as the Internal Market Information system.  He posed the question about how to deal with national requirements and whether or not the ISF could be adapted to contain a series of sections each section destined for use by a different audience.
In the discussion that ensued after the presentation there was consistent support for the work as presented.  It was acknowledged that the project needed to differentiate between information required by Directives and information submitted on a voluntary basis.  Once this is clear and properly structured the delegates support the proposal.
In summing up the debate PHS stated that if there are sets of information available then the structure of the ISF must be able to contain references to those sets of information.  He intends to recommend to the Executive Board that this proposed paper be put for adoption at the General Assembly.

3.3. Qualifications Directive
TOM, Chair of the new Work Group on the Transposition of the Qualifications Directive, presented the background to the establishment of the Work Group and to the work it has carried out during the holiday period of July and August.  He gave a detailed presentation of the content of the Directive explaining briefly the content of each Article.  This presentation gave delegates a deeper understanding of the potential implications of the transposition and therefore a better understanding of the tabled paper on transposition objectives.  He finished his presentation by briefly outlining the contents of the circulated paper and on the need for Member Organisation to properly and fully understand the serious potential implications of incomplete or inaccurate transposition of the various requirements of the Directive.
In the ensuing discussion during which the work was commended very few comments were made other than a number of short comments on the role of competent authorities and on the idea that if a country requires two years professional practice experience of its own nationals then migrants should also be required to have the equivalent experience.
In summing up TOM requested that he be kept informed of what is happening at national level as a result of the issuing of the advice prepared by his Work Group.  He identified the fact that the time frame is short as a lot of work on transposition is occurring at the present time and so he urged Member Organisations to immediately contact their national authorities with a view to setting up a meeting to discuss the concerns raised in the ACE paper.
In conclusion PHS thanked TOM for his hard work and stated that the Executive Board would be recommended to adopt and circulate the document.

4.0 Thematic Area 2 – Practice of the profession
In making some introductory remarks JW, Coordinator of Thematic Area 2 (TA2) referred to a meeting that had been held with DG Competition on the 7th of September.  He reported that the meeting was not helpful in that it brought no clarifications, but most useful in that it clearly demonstrated that the Commission were adopting a hard line stance in relation to competition issues and that it would not engage in substantial debate on issues surrounding competition.  In particular the Commission representatives said that no reference could be made to the meeting in the future that would state the position of the Commission in any way and that no guidance would be given to the ACE.  The overall assessment of the meeting was that it was worthwhile to have the meeting prior to starting in-depth work on sensitive issues such as cost information systems and it was agreed that, despite the Commission’s explicit statement to the contrary, a note should be sent recording the ACE understanding of the meeting so that a defence in the future can be proposed that the ACE had sought clarification from the Commission to ensure more legal certainty prior to taking actions but that the clarification and advice was not forthcoming.

4.1. Competition issues – Guidance paper
WH, Chair of the Work group on Competition issues, reported on the work of the past six years which has led to the document that was tabled.  He gave a presentation that highlighted the structure and content of the paper and he expressed concern that the recent attitude of the Commission now demonstrates that it has no interest in arguments about the economic impact of the profession and the greater good of society.  Its only interest is the rigorous application of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty.
At the end of the presentation of the paper WH expressed the view that issues surrounding multi-disciplinarity is a topic for the future and it is for this reason that the paper simply highlights the questions that need to be considered.
Following the presentation JW reported that the document should remain a live document that can be adapted over time but whose guidance remains pertinent to the evolving situation.  In a brief discussion that ensued it was agreed that the document, as a guidance paper, was a useful product and that the arguments relating to the public interest could be strengthened in the document.  A further comment was that there is not enough on the issue of quality and that this could be added.
Following these comments it was decided to open a Forum on the ACE Web site with a deadline of Monday 18th September following which a final set of revisions would be made before going to the Executive Board for final decision.

4.2. Health and Safety
AJ presented on behalf of J. Graby, Chairman of the ACE WGH&S, the circulated document entitled “Designing for Safety in Construction”, stating that it has arisen from the ACE involvement in the European Construction Safety Forum and that the document is based on an Irish document with the same title.  He emphasised that the work has been carried out in conjunction with the European Federation of Consulting Engineering Associations (EFCA) and that it addresses the role of the designer whether or not the designer is acting as coordinator for Health and Safety.  It will be presented at the upcoming Health and Safety event in the European Economic and Social Committee building on the 21st of September.
As no comments were made following the presentation the document will be presented as an ACE-EFCA document.

4.3. Interactive tool on Public Procurement
WH reported on behalf of HG. Brunnert and T. Maibaum, Chairs, that the Work Group responsible for this tool is to meet again on the 23rd and the 24th of September to finish the work on the tool.  As the document is not in its final form there was no particular discussion on the item.
AS referred a note received from G. Pendl, Chairman of the Debate Work Group on Architectural (Design) Competitions, who recalled that Paula Huotelin had been charged by the previous Executive Board to work out the Terms of Reference for Design & Build, which had been accepted.  He suggested that this should serve as the basis for future work in this area. 
In the same note G. Pendl also recommended that the expertise available in the “old” Procurement Work Group should be used in the new structure as it is a very valuable asset.
However there was a brief discussion about the way the activities of the ACE on procurement issues is to be structured and there were some general comments about some of the procedures to be considered such as Design and Build and Public Private Partnerships.  In the discussion JK requested that his Work Group on Public Procurement be moved to Debate Work Groups in the organisational chart and he stated the need to make an analysis of the experiences in Member States of Public Private Partnerships and Design and Build before the work of the Group can really get underway.
IM also expressed concern about the Terms of Reference for her Work Group stating that her understanding of the task is not properly explained in the latest version of the Terms of Reference.  She expressed concern that there is too much of an overlap with the work of the group under the Chairmanship of PB.  Her concerns were taken into account and it was agreed that they would be resolved.
In answer to a question as to whether or not the Sector Study, recently launched by the ACE, will continue the meeting was informed that the Executive Board will debate this issue at its next meeting.

5.0 Thematic Area 3 – Architecture and Society
OD briefly introduced Thematic Area 3 (TA3) reporting that there was no paper arising from the Work Groups in TA3 for the upcoming General Assembly but that some information needs to be delivered to the meeting.  In particular he referred to memo 236/06 of the ACE Secretariat that highlights opportunities for the profession arising out of the recent revised Cohesion Policy of the EU.  He reported that he has decided the document should be circulated to all Member Organisation for their reaction and comments prior to the holding of a debate in the Executive Board on the issues.

5.1. ACE position on Green papers on Energy efficiency
JOL, Chair of the WG Environment and Sustainable Architecture, reported on the different Green Papers on energy that have been circulated by the European Commission in recent times.  He reported that the current Green Paper on a community strategy for a secure and sustainable supply of energy does not contain elements of central importance to the policies of the ACE but that it is an opportunity to make some general comments such as the need for integrated action on energy efficiency.  He judged the matter to be non controversial and reported that he would prepare a statement for submission before the deadline of the 24th of September.

Following this there was a brief discussion about various national measures being taken in several Member States that arise out of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and other concerns.  In particular there seems to be a shift, in several Member States, towards the requirement of energy audits and the incorporation of energy efficiency or energy producing measures at the planning application stage of projects.  It was agreed that these trends must be monitored.

In an ongoing general discussion it was noted that the ACE has expressed serious concern about the weak provisions of the recent Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment and that the only ally left to the ACE for an integrated view of urban issues and the environment is the Parliamentary Intergroup on Housing and Urban issues.
6.0 Internal Affairs
6.1. Review of coordination procedures
AS asked the delegates present to express their views on the usefulness of the general Coordination meeting.  All delegates expressed, without exception, their view that the meeting was useful and efficient.  Several delegates said that they had gained a deeper insight into the breath of issues and importance of topics with which the ACE deals and many expressed the view that one meeting per year is not enough.
In conclusion AS agreed that there is certainly scope for a second General Coordination meeting within each year and he thanked the delegates present for their positive assessment of the meeting.
There being no other business and as the timing of General Coordination meetings is tied to the annual calendar which as not yet been agreed for 2007 it was not possible to set a date for the next meeting.

End of notes

Αρχή σελίδας