EFG Anual Report by Antártida Soluciones

FÉDÉRATION EUROPÉENNE DES GÉOLOGUES EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF GEOLOGISTS FEDERACIÓN EUROPEA DE GEÓLOGOS

EFG ANNUAL REPORT REPORT OF ACTIVITIES 2011

This report has been edited by the European Federation of Geologists (EFG). 漏 Copyright 2012 The European Federation of Geologists. All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No responsibility is assumed by the Publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence, or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Part of the pictures have kindly been provided by M贸nica Sousa, APG, Portugal. EFG Office C/O Geological Survey of Belgium Rue Jenner 13 B-1000 Brussels

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 NEWS FROM THE EFG BOARD 4 1.1 Nomination of Officers at the EFG Council in Budapest 2011 4 1.2 Composition of the Board for 2011/2012 4 1.3 Board activities 5 2 EFG EVENTS 16 2.1 Geotrainet Final Conference 16 2.2 Workshop “Geology at different education levels in Europe” 17 2.3 EFG Council meeting, 19 2.3 GEOTRAINET+ meeting, 20 3 PROJECT ACTIVITIES 22 3.1 Geotrainet project 22 3.2 EuroAges project 23 3.3 Terrafirma project 24 3.4 Pangeo project 25 4 PANELS OF EXPERTS 28 4.1 Geothermal Energy 28 4.2 CO2 Geological Storage 28 4.3 Hydrogeology 29 4.4 Natural Hazards and Climate Change 29 4.5 Soil Protection and Geological Heritage 30 4.6 Resources and Reserves - Oil and Gas 30 4.7 Resources and Reserves - Minerals and their sustainable Use 31 4.8 EFG Relation with other European WG 31 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

PARTICIPATION IN EUROPEAN CONSULTATIONS 32 EC Discussion paper “Raw materials for a modern society” 32 Public consultation on possible Innovation Partnership on Raw materials 34 Public consultation, DG Internal Market, « Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive » 39 Green Paper, “Modernising the Professional Qualifications Directive” 44

6 EFG COMMUNICATION 50 6.1 Electronic version of the European Geologist Magazine 50 6.2 GeoNews 50 6.3 EFG Facebook account 51 6.4 Web statistics 51 7 STATISTICS 54 7.1 EurGeol Title Statistics 2011 54 7.2 National Membership Associations 57 8 MEDAL OF MERIT 58 9 REGISTRATION AUTHORITY REPORT 60 10 FINANCIAL REPORT 62

NEWS FROM THE EFG BOARD

1.1 Nomination of Officers at the EFG Council in Budapest 2011 Since 21 June 2011, EFG has a new EU-Delegate, Eva Hartai from Hungary. Eva Hartai is an associate professor at the Institute of Mineralogy and Geology of the University of Miskolc. She is also the president of the Educational Section of the Hungarian Geological Society and a representative of the Society in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

1.2 Composition of the Board for 2011/2012 President Ruth Allington, UK efg.president@eurogeologists.eu VicePresident

Nieves Sánchez, Spain efg.vicepresident@eurogeologists.eu

Secretary General

Elisabeth Däcker, Sweden efg.secretarygeneral@eurogeologists.eu

Treasurer

Léonard Luzieux, Switzerland efg.treasurer@eurogeologists.eu

EU Delegate Éva Hartai, Hungary efg.eudelegate@eurogeologists

1.3 Board activities PRESIDENT

Ruth Allington (Geological Society of London, United Kingdom)

Overview – the state of EFG As reported following these personal reflections on the state of EFG in 2011, the presidential programme was full and varied during the year and I am immensely grateful to my colleagues on the Board, our Brussels office staff, the EFG officials, the Past Presidents and others on the Council who contribute to the running and development of the EFG for all their hard work and support. I was honoured to be re-elected for a further term of 2 years at the Council meeting in May 2011 and I am delighted to be able to continue to serve the EFG in this capacity at a time when the EFG is increasing its visibility and influence in a number of areas. 2011 saw consolidation of the hard work done by our staff and Board members in 2009 and 2010 (and before) on streamlining and improving our internal governance and particularly our financial management and control. 2011 was also the year in which two major projects (GEOTRAINET and EuroAges) were completed. The centralisation of day to day financial and other administration in our office in Brussels has freed up the volunteer members of the Board to concentrate on developing and delivering EFG’s strategic objectives.

The President is the chief executive officer of the Federation responsible for planning, organising, directing and coordinating all activities of the Federation to ensure that the objectives of the Federation are met, and that specific strategies and plans approved by the Council are implemented. The President shall discharge these responsibilities by: (i) Representing the EFG in all international forums. (ii) Making contacts and developing relationships with other organisations and institutions related to the Earth Sciences in Europe and elsewhere in the World. (iii) Acting as chief spokesperson of the EFG to the public, the press, legislative bodies, the geological community at large and governments of individual states of Europe and elsewhere in the World. (iv) Appointing EFG representatives to civic, professional and governmental organisations as may be required to execute the business and affairs of the EFG and/or to ensure maximum visibility for the EFG. (v) Coordinating the design of the external communications programme of the EFG. (vi) Signing, on behalf of the EFG, all contracts established between the EFG and European Union institutions or other legal entities [N5, 4.3]. (vii) With the Treasurer, supervising all financial transactions of the Federation [N6]. (viii) Coordinating annual reporting and preparation of strategic plans for consideration by the Council of EFG. (ix) Coordinating all the activities of the Board, including ensuring that work is distributed effectively and that all necessary information is available to Board members. (x) Recommending to Council for the appointment of chairs of Panels of Experts.

As the Treasurer reports, the EFG’s real financial position is not only better understood and more clearly and accurately reported (in a timely fashion) than ever before, but we have also built up a modest surplus in recent years as a result of prudent financial management and contributions to office and staff costs from the project work (particularly GEOTRAINET). This modest surplus provides us with a ‘buffer’ to ease the transition to fully covering our core budget from member association fees, EurGeol registration and renewal fees and other regular income streams (some yet to be developed). It also presents us with an opportunity to invest in particular internal projects and resources that will help the Federation to deliver its programme more effectively in future as well as leading to sustainable growth and development. An example of the sort of investment that will make a big difference to our ability to deliver

EFG Annual Report 2011

our programme of activity is the purchase of up to date desktop publishing and design software to allow production and editing of the magazine and other publications of EFG in-house. In addition to its routine business (receiving reports and making important decisions requiring Council approval), the Council set aside time at its meetings in 2010 and 2011 to work on articulating more clearly its mission, vision and values as background to taking a more structured approach to strategic planning in the future. The tangible result of this is some text (still in draft, but representing an emerging consensus) which articulates the mission, vision and values of our organisation. Consensus text describing the mission, vision and values of EFG arising from discussion in Council meetings in 2011 The EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF GEOLOGISTS (EFG) is a not-for-profit organisation instituted to represent the professions of geology in Europe, especially to the European Union and its various organisations. EFG contributes to protection of the environment, public safety and responsible exploitation of natural resources. This is achieved by promoting excellence in the application of geoscience, by supporting research and teaching that underpins it, and also creating public awareness of the importance of geoscience to society. Public safety, sustainable development, responsible use of natural resources, wealth creation and effective prediction, prevention and mitigation of natural hazards are best served by educated and appropriately trained professional geologists working transparently with other professionals and communicating effectively with the public.

in which this remit will be achieved, and 5 main groupings of activity have been proposed: • • • • •

EU Policies and Environment Education and Outreach Free Movement and Professional Titles Professionalism and Ethics Members

In my programme of work in the past year, I have found the background of these high level discussions and the emerging consensus immensely helpful, especially in preparing and delivering presentations in a number of arenas that introduce the EFG, its benefits and perspectives, perhaps for the first time. I am writing this in April 2012, during what is shaping up to be an even more exciting and stimulating year for me as President of EFG than 2011. I began this overview with thanks to EFG colleagues and friends but I want to end with special thanks to my fellow Board members, who put in so much effort and enthusiasm to the running of EFG and the discharge of their duties, on an entirely voluntary basis. It is a great pleasure to work with them. I also want to thank Isabel Fernandez, our Brussels Office Manager whose energy, enthusiasm, commitment and good humour is apparently boundless and without whom (ably supported by her assistant, Anita Stein) the EFG would be a pale shadow of the organisation it is today.

EFG encourages professional development by promoting training and Continuing Professional Development and offers validation (certification) through its internationally recognised title of European Geologist (EurGeol).

Work is underway by the Registration Authority to consider how such text might be incorporated as a preamble to the Objects in our Statutes, which is the document to which third parties are likely to refer in order to discover what EFG is, what it does, and why. The Registration Authority has also been asked to recommend amendments and re-ordering of the detailed list of ways

Report on activities

•

This is a report on the President’s activities in addition to routine attendance at and chairing Board and Council meetings.

International Representation Toronto, Canada, 26-27th February 2011. Participated as an invited guest in a workshop organised by Geoscientists Canada– “Internationally Trained Geoscientists Project”. • The workshop involved the Canadian Geoscience Standards Board and Geoscience Admissions Officers responsible for licensing and/ or registering geoscience professionals in the provinces and territories of Canada. • The President made a presentation about EFG, provided information about the EurGeol awards process, and participated in discussions about the opportunities and challenges relating to potential harmonisation of procedures across Canadian provinces and territories. Bloomingdale Illinois, USA, 9-14 September 2011. President represented EFG at AIPG’s executive meetings (9-10th Sept) and at the annual meeting immediately following. • The President made an EFG presentation at the AIPG executive meeting and contributed to discussions. • Presentation for EFG at the technical meeting (jointly authored by Isabel Fernandez) entitled “The roles and responsibilities of professional geoscientists in delivering and adding value to sustainable construction, mining, energy and natural hazard mitigation projects”. • She also attended informal planning sessions with representatives of AIPG and Geoscientists Canada for 4IPGC (also members of 4IPGC Technical Programme Committee. • This was an excellent networking opportunity with North American colleagues and it was valuable to share experience of strategic planning and effective governance as well as ideas connecting geoscience more effectively with the public. London, 31 October - 3 November. President, represented EFG during 4 days of CRIRSCO activities in London.

• •

•

The President was a keynote speaker at a workshop on 31st October organised by CRIRSCO (with support from ICMM and MinSouth): “Competency in International Minerals Reporting”. Presentation entitled: “Competent person concepts in European countries and mobility of technical professionals between member states”. She attended the half day open session of the CRIRSCO annual general meeting on 1st November. The President also participated in two half-day workshops on Thursday 3rd November: “International minerals reporting and globalisation” and “Reporting standards implementation and regulation”. She was co-opted to be on a PERC working group to assist Turkey in developing a CRIRSCO compliant reporting code (initial meeting with Turkish observer delegation on 2nd November). The President had informal discussions with the Chairman of UNECE about the relationship between the high level UN Framework Classification and project and company specific CRIRSCO reporting codes. Actions were agreed to clarify this relationship more clearly given significant mis-information and confusion.

EU and international consultations In relation to EU and international consultations, the President: • Paid close attention to announcements and initiatives concerning raw materials issues (A Bowden, the co-ordinator of the PE on solid minerals took the lead on this). Assisted in drafting and ‘sign off’ of consultation responses. • Represented EFG on the PERC committee including developing proposals for next steps • Contributed to EFG response to important consultation on proposals arising from revision to Canadian NI43-101 (significant behind the scenes discussions with representatives of CRIRSCO members). • Provided responses to JORC and SAMREC/ SAMVAL concerning renewal of ROPO status. • Participated in the preparation of the consultation response on the Professional Qualifications Directive and ‘signed off’ the final version. • Conferences and meetings • Stockholm, Sweden - 18th and 19th January

EFG Annual Report 2011

• • •

•

2011. The President represented EFG as an invited speaker at the conference: GIS in Mining. The President made a presentation about the importance of GIS as a tool for the professional geologist and chaired sessions. London, UK - 25th and 26th January 2011. The President represented EFG as an invited speaker at the Global Mining Forum. The President made a presentation on the PERC code and the Competent Person concept, and was the facilitator for two expert panel discussions. There were a number of informal discussions with individuals about the Competent Person concept and the value of EurGeol.

Brussels, Belgium, 27 January 2011. The President represented EFG at the GEOTRAINET final conference and chaired an introductory session. On 28th January she chaired the GEOTRAINET final Partners’ meeting, also in Brussels. Paris, France, 21 February 2011. The President represented the EFG at the IUGS 50th birthday meeting at UNESCO. This was the first meeting attended by the EFG as an Associated Member of IUGS. Brussels, Belgium, 29 March 2011. The President and Brussels Office Director participated in EuroGeoSurveys’ workshop session and evening reception to celebrate the 30th anniversary of EGS. • The President made a presentation about EFG focusing on its strategic planning process.. • Brussels, Belgium - 13th April 2011. The President attended the Minerals Foundation dinner debate at the European Parliament as a representative of EFG. • Ljubljana, Slovenia, 22-23rd September 2011: President represented the EFG at the final conference of the SARMa project (sustainable aggregate resources management in SE European countries). • The President made an invited contribution at the conference: “The quarry design process as an essential framework for sustainable planning and operation of aggregates quarries”. This also stressed professional qualifications and competent person. • She also participated in discussions about next steps following completion of the project and indicated how EFG might be able to support.

Wrocław, Poland, 20-21 October 2011. President represented the EFG at the conference “Sustainable Production and consumption of mineral resources – integrating the EU's social agenda and resource efficiency” • Presented a paper “The roles and responsibilities of professional geoscientists in ensuring sustainable mineral production”. • Participated as a member of an expert panel in a discussion of the final communiqué Brussels, 14 October 2011. President attended an open meeting on the future of GEOTRAINET. • The President chaired a session at the meeting to discuss next steps for the GEOTRAINET training, which attracted around 35 participants from more than 10 European countries. • It was decided to set up a separate NGO organisation jointly founded by EGEC and EFG with objectives to further the work of GEOTRAINET (this is reported in more detail later in this annual report).

Support to Member and potential Member Associations •

• •

•

Whilst in Ljubljana, in September 2011, the President made an invited presentation to members of the Slovenian Geological Society about the EFG generally and the title EurGeol in particular and participated in a question and answer session and discussion with members. Whilst in Wrocław in October 2011, the President had informal discussions with Polish delegates about progress with re-joining the Federation. She also had a meeting with an employer (gold mining) of Romanian geologists interested in supporting the Romanian NA to join EFG so that the new mine could have ‘home grown’ CRIRSCO compliant Competent Persons via EurGeol and the PERC Reporting Standard. There was follow up email correspondence the chairman of the Registration Authority is following up. There was correspondence during the year with the Bulgarian Geological Society with reference to membership. This culminated in their acceptance as an observer member at the November Council meeting and an application for full membership will be put to the vote at the May 2012 Council meeting.

Collaboration with other geoscience organisations June - December 2011: Collaboration with partner organisations AIPG (USA), Geoscientists Canada, and AGI (Australia) to plan the technical programme for the 4th International Professional Geology Conference, Vancouver, 22-24 January 2012 • The President (with Brussels Office Director and Vice President) was a member of the 4IPGC Technical Programme Committee. • The committee met electronically as required (6 meetings between June and December), email correspondence and one informal face to face meeting in Chicago) May - December 2011: Preparation and submission of a successful proposal for a seminar at the 34th IGC in Brisbane, Australia, August 2012 – “Strengthening communication between fundamental and applied geosciences and between geoscientists and public”. The seminar has been organised and will be presented in collaboration with the American Geological Institute (“AGI”), American Institute of Professional Geologists (“AIPG”), Australian Institute of Geoscientists (“AIG”), Geoscientists Canada, and International Union of Geological Sciences. ("IUGS"). • The symposium will discuss the benefits to be gained from a better understanding between geological communities including: o incorporation of more relevant and informed education in applied geology and professional skills at university level; o an improvement of industry competitiveness through more rapid conversion of research fin-

dings to applied technologies and methodologies; o clear pathways and assessment criteria for geoscience graduates seeking to attain Professional Qualifications and their employers and mentors; and o design of research projects and allocation of research funding based on a better appreciation of societal needs. Vienna, 22-23 May 2011. President represented EFG at the EAGE (European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers) annual President’s dinner and congress. • This was an informal networking opportunity to build on and strengthen links between EFG and EAGE commenced through meetings in Brussels involving the whole Board earlier in the year, and the participation of the President of EAGE in EuroAges workshop in Budapest. • EFG and EAGE discussed the mutual benefits of collaboration between EFG and EAGE – members of EAGE potentially interested in access to EurGeol professional qualification, Members of EFG NAs potentially interested in training and CPD opportunities through EAGE’s established programme Brussels, 14 October 2011. Meeting of President and Brussels Office Director with Michiel Dusar, Director of Belgian Geological Survey. • This was a meeting to discuss the future of the European House of Geosciences vision following an EGS decision not to pursue the matter.

EFG Annual Report 2011

VICEPRESIDENT The Vice President is the deputy chief executive of the EFG, responsible for supporting the President at all times and substituting for the President when required. The Vice President shall discharge these responsibilities by: (i) Supporting the President in all tasks assigned by the President. (ii) Preparing and presenting a written report for every Council meeting describingthe activities of the VP in the relevant period [N8, 3.14]. (iii) Taking all necessary steps to ensure smooth and efficient hand over to a successor following elections.

Nieves Sánchez (Ilustre Colegio Oficial de Geologos, Spain) Conferences and meetings During 2011, the Vice-President took on the role of organising the EFGInternationalWorkshoponthe Management of Natural Hazards to be held 10th and 11th of May 2012, and the EFG council meeting which will happen immediately following the workshop and associated field trip. These meetings will take place in Tenerife (Canary Islands). Support to Member and potential Member Associations Against a background of reported exclusion of geologists from mining and quarrying related employment in some of the countries of the EFG, the Vice-President has taken the lead in collecting and collating data on mining and relevant employment regulations. This work is still in progress, and the principle that it raises (namely that competent and qualified geoscientists should not be excluded from undertaking work for which they are uniquely qualified) was included in the EFG’s response to the 2011 consultation on the Professional Qualifications Directive. EFG strategy The Vice-President led one of the working groups of Council which worked throughout the year (and particularly at the Council meetings) on examining Vision, Mission and Values of EFG as the foundation for strategic planning.

Collaboration with other geoscience and general science organisations The Vice-President took the lead in a meeting with the President and officials of the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers onBrussels 4th of March 2011. This initial meeting with EAGE was very productive and led to the identification of a number of positive areas for collaboration: • The president of EAGE (Davide Calcagni) participated as an invited speaker in the Budapest workshop in May 2011 “Geology at different education levels in Europe”, with the presentation “Challenging the professional education - The EAGE way”. • The EAGE runs many conferences and training courses and is currently developing astructured CPD system, which is of interest to EFG as a source of training opportunities for the members of the EFG National Associations. The members of EFG’s National Associations could also provide a source of teachers and trainers to support this programme, especially in relation to the shallow sub-surface, where EAGE is less strong than in the oil and gas arena. • In addition to its head office in Utrecht, the EAGE also has offices in Dubai, Moscow, and Kuala-Lumpur. This more international network is of interest to EFG, especially the possibility to form alliances with organisations representing professional geoscientists in Asia. June-December 2011: The Vice-President was the Board member responsible as the principal point of contact for EFG in its role as a Partner in planning the January 2012 4th International Professional Geology Conference (IPGC) in Vancouver (Canada). This included:

• •

•

Attending Technical Programme Committee meetings on-line with representatives of the other associations in the organizing partnership. Reviewing abstracts and working with the Brussels Office staff to contact and inform speakers and to make sure speaker information was received on time. Preparation of a paper for presentation at the conference:”The Role of the Geological Surveys and Professional Bodies in the Civil Protection”.

Mobility of geoscience professionals and the Professional Qualifications Directive The Vice-President has taken a special interest during the year in the Professional Qualifications Directive, and how it presents opportunities for the mobility of professional geoscientists within Europe. In addition to contributing to EFG’s consultation response on the Directive and sharing with EFG

analysis undertaken in Spain. The Vice-President has been in contact with the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). This organisation has developed a Good Practice database, a QA Clearinghouse and a Professional Qualification in QA. The Vice-President has been keeping the Board and Council informed on this matter. The Vice-President participated with other members of the Board to multidisciplinary meeting in Brussels (4th of March of 2011), organized by the EFG Office Director. The meeting was attended by representatives of European societies for Physics and Chemistry as well as a facilitator from the European Science Foundation. The purpose of the meeting was to initiate discussions about a common vision about the future development of professional careers from the industry point of view, in accordance with the academic and research institutions.

SECRETARY GENERAL The Secretary General is responsible for all administrative support and maintenance of official Federation records. The Secretary General shall discharge these responsibilities by:

Elisabeth Däcker (Swedish Association of Scientists - Geology Section, Sweden) Council and Board meetings During 2011 the Board had three Board Meetings, in March, July and September. The September Meeting was an Internet meeting, and the other two were held at the office in Brussels. Two Formal Council Meetings were held, one in May in Budapest and the winter meeting in November in Brussels. For all the meetings agendas were prepared by the Secretary General (with the support of the EFG

(i) Issuing notices of and agendas for meetings of Council, the Board and Extraordinary General Meetings in accordance with the timetables set out in the Regulations. (ii) Maintaining records related to: European Geologists (NLB and ILB), National Association Members, and Council Members and provide all necessary membership information to the treasurer for the purpose of preparing invoices. (iii) Coordinating annual reporting by member associations. (iv) Preparing and presenting a written report for every Council meeting, including [N8, 3.14]: • European Geologists elected by the EFG Licensed Bodies during • the relevant period • Applications for membership of the EFG • Changes in membership status of any National Association • Activities of SG in the relevant period. (v) Performing all other duties defined in Regulations or assigned by the President. (vi) Taking all necessary steps to ensure smooth and efficient hand over to a successor following elections.

Office) before the meetings and minutes were taken during the meetings and circulated to the Board for comment and correction before distribution. Communication, documentation and administration were ongoing during the year, to send and receive information to all Council Members.

EFG Annual Report 2011

Election of Officers 2011 The officers whose terms lapsed at the May 2011 meeting were the President and the EU Delegate. The Secretary General was a member ofthe Supervisory Committee for the election. The President had stated that she was willing to stand for a further 2 year term, and her nomination had been received in due time and confirmed as valid by the Supervisory Committee. No valid nomination had been received for the position of EU-Delegate before the meeting but a call for nominations following the meeting led to the election (by electronic vote) of Eva Hartai of Hungary to this position in June 2011. Electronic votes There were two electronic votes organised by the Secretary General in 2011 before the May Council meeting. One was to approve the award of the Medal of Merit so that it could be awarded at the Council

TREASURER

Léonard Luzieux (Swiss Association of Geologists, Switzerland) Council and Board meetings With the completion of implementation of updated accounting systems and financial management procedures in 2010, the Board and the Council of the EFG got a sharper picture of the financial situation of the Fe-

meeting and the other was in relation to proposed amendments to Regulation N7, concerning changes with procedures for election of Board members. Council members approved the amended version of regulation N7 after the electronic vote by email, and the upcoming election proceeded in order with the new regulation N7. There was a further electronic vote following the May Council meeting to fill the Board post of EU Delegate, which was vacant in May, there having been no valid nominations at the time of the meeting. European Geologists The maintenance of records of European Geologist elections and annual invoicing and calls for CPD records for those elected via the International Licensed body was undertaken by the EFG Office staff in Brussels, under the supervision of the Secretary General.

The Treasurer is the chief financial officer of the Federation responsible for ensuring that all aspects of financial management and planning are properly carried out. The Treasurer shall discharge these responsibilities by: (i) Preparing the EFG annual budget. A draft budget for the forthcoming year shall be agreed by the Board and then presented to a formal Council Meeting for approval. (ii) Taking responsibility for all financial aspects of strategic plans that may be prepared by the Board for presentation to Council. (iii) Ensuring that all money due to the EFG is paid without delay into the appropriate EFG bank account. (iv) Supervising meticulous maintenance of the EFG’s management accounts through appropriate book keeping and routine reporting procedures. (v) Reporting at each Council and Board meeting in written form a statement of the financial situation, including debts, of the EFG up to the end of the quarter preceding the meeting. (vi) Monitoring the EFG budget and ensuring that it conforms as closely as possible to the estimates approved by Council, and reporting performance against the budget at each Board meeting. If significant variance from an approved budget is identified as having occurred or is predicted to occur, preparing revised budgets and associated justifications for consideration and approval by Council. (vii) Preparing an annual Statement of Accounts, including an Income and Expenditure Account and a Balance Sheet (“Financial Statements”) and presenting the Financial Statements to Council at a formal Council meeting for approval. These financial statements must be presented in a format that meets the requirements of Council and all appropriate external bodies. (viii) Ensuring that the Financial Statements have been subject to checking and auditing before being presented for approval including: • Checking and agreement by the Board • Checking by Council members appointed by Council to undertake • this task (the “Commissaires”) • External auditing by an appropriately qualified person or company (when determined by Council that external auditing must be carried out). (ix) Ensuring that complete information is made available to internal checkers and external auditors promptly and in formats that allow for efficient discharge of their duties. (x) Completing and presenting checked/audited Financial Statements to a formal meeting of the Council for approval promptly following the financial year end and in any event within the following financial year. (xi) Answering all reasonable questions of checkers or auditors, where necessary referring to the Board for assistance. (xii) Take all necessary steps to ensure smooth and efficient hand over to a successor following elections.

deration, as well as its future needs. A noticeable feature which came out of the picture was the necessity for the Federation to create and diversify income streams, which is needed to ensure the sustainability of the Federation and at the same time support its growth. Working in this direction, the office started reshaping the sponsoring and advertising systems in 2011 – offering the present and future partners of the Federation a diversified choice of platforms and products (magazine, website) with better visibility. Further initiatives are in the pipeline and will be debated by the council in 2012. The EFG showed a healthy financial balance at the end of 2011 (see financial accounts summary on page 62-65) with few debtors and a healthy level of liquid assets. This will offer the council in 2012

EU-DELEGATE

Éva Hartai (Hungarian Geological Society, Hungary) The EU Delegate was elected to the position in June 2011 and spent the first 6 months in the role familiarising herself with ongoing activities and overseeing the completion of the transition of European Geologist Magazine from print and electronic publication to electronic publication only. On 27-28 July the EU Delegate took part in the PanGeo project meeting in Ljubljana. She attended as a substitute for David Norbury who officially

some flexibility in developing options to enlarge the quantity and quality of services the EFG has to offer. The present sound financial situation reflects the hard work achieved by the office team and the Board, but also the thrust and commitment of the member associations in the EFG as a reliable and continuously growing organisation. The solid reputation of the EFG among external organisation as a professional and reliable partner is partly shown by the number and variety of projects in which the Federation has participated (as partner or coordinator) in the past and the enthusiasm of other organisations to include EFG in project partnerships in the future. Looking forward to another exciting and fruitful year !

The Delegate for European Union Matters (EU Delegate) is responsible for overseeing all matters of European Union business that are relevant to the geologicalprofession and are identified and reported to Council. The EU Delegate shall discharge theseresponsibilities by: (i) Checking that issues relevant to the geological profession that are identified bythe Council are communicated to the relevant officials within the EuropeanUnion. (ii) Acting in the capacity of line manager for the Director of the EFG Office,including conducting an annual appraisal interview, being available to theDirector to hear any concerns or suggestions regarding employment andensuring that the Board reviews the Director’s salary and conditions at leastannually. (iii) Coordinating all EFG external communications, including electroniccommunications and chairing the editorial Board of European GeologistMagazine (“EGM”). (iv) Providing to the Treasurer all necessary information on income andexpenditure and budget forecasts relating to EGM. (v) Coordinating all the activities of the Panels of Experts. (vi) Preparing and presenting written reports for every Council meeting on EGM, and activities in European Institutions. (vii) Taking all necessary steps to ensure smooth and efficient hand over to a successor following elections.

represents the EFG in the project, but this provided an excellent introduction to this important project. The basic aim of the PanGeo project is to provide free access to geohazard information for most of the largest cities in Europe. There were about 18 participants in the meeting. The participants went through the workpackages of the project. The recent

EFG Annual Report 2011

state of each was presented by the leader of the given workpackage. The EFG is involved in WP09 (Promotion and Dissemination). The future actions were also declared. On 14-16 September the EU Delegate represented the EFG at the 17th Meeting of the Association of European Geological Societies in Belgrade. The title of the meeting was “Geology in Digital Age”. There were eight sessions plus a poster session in the conference. Representing the EFG, and the EU Delegate made a presentation on the EuroAges project, in the session Geoinformation in Europe. The audience was quite interested in the project and the president of the Slovanian Geological Society expressed their intention to take part in the continuation of the project. She had short discussions during the meeting about the EFG’s activities with Corina Ionescu, head of Geology Department, Babes-Bolyai University, Romania; Timotej Verbovsek, president of the Slovanian Geological Society; Nenad Banjac, president of the Serbian Geological Society organizer of MAEGS 17; and Ian Lambert, president of the Organizing Committee of the 12th International Geological Congress, Brisbane, Australia. On 2nd December the EU Delegate took part in the ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education) seminar in Brussels. The seminar focuses on issues related

to internationalisation of quality assurance, jointly organized by the global network of QA agencies. She was invited to present the EuroAges project in the frame of the recent European development of the EU-funded «Quality Labels» and their specific contribution to quality assurance at the European level. The presentations by the invited speakers were followed by a discussion and the audience showed high interest in the learning outcomes and accreditation criteria related to higher education. In December 2011 (and early January 2012), the EU Delegate worked on the EXPLORES project proposal (submitted on 12 January 2012). The EXPLORES project develops cooperation between higher education institutes, research institutions and the industry with a long-term vision for sustainable mineral supply in Europe. In the project there are 9 full-network participants and 14 associated partners, mostly from Europe but also from South Africa and India. EFG is an Associate Partner in the project. The coordination of the project is at University of Miskolc. In the frame of the project 15 PhD- and post-doctoral level networked research and training programmes will be carried out in three years, structured around two main research themes: • •

ECOMINE - environmental concerns related to mineral extraction FUTUREMINE - future mineral exploration and extraction technologies

EFG Annual Report 2011

EFG EVENTS

2.1

GEOTRAINET Final Conference

Venue: Royal Academy of Sciences, Brussels, 27 January 2011. concerning the future certification of GSHP installers with regards to the Directive on Renewable Energy Resources 2009/28/EC as well as different approaches to the implementation of this Directive in the respective Member States. This session was closured by a proposal of certification for GEOTRAINET provided by the partner company AIT/Arsenal.

First session, Conference Room, Royal Belgian Academy of Sciences, Brussels.

This conference not only closured one week full of activities dedicated to the GEOTRAINET project, having started with the organization of the last of eight training courses for drillers and designers of Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHP) at the beginning of the week, but was also the last highlight of this two-year project that will come to an end in February 2011. The conference was attended by representatives from fourteen European countries and included delegates from both public and private sector, notably representatives from the European Institutions that support the project financially through the European Commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Intelligent Energy Programme.

The third session evaluated finally in a very comprehensive way the outcomes of the project and presented visions for future continuation of GEOTRAINET. Due to the high appreciation of the project by participants, partners and officials, diverse recommendations and suggestions were given how to pursue GEOTRAINET after the end of the project in February. In the future GEOTRAINET will definitively have its own live, independently from the associated partners who created and shaped the projects during more than two years and who expressed the hope that the outcome of the project will stay an important instrument contributing both to the implementation of the RES Directive and supporting the market of geothermal energy, in particular by increasing the expertise of professionals in this sector.

During the first session of the conference were presented the overall results of the project that turned out to be very satisfactory for the delegates of the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme. Some of these achievements are notably the development of curricula for designers and drillers of GSHP, the publication of a manual for designers and the launching of an e-learning platform for the sector. The second part of the conference presented clearly all elements to be taken into consideration

Reception at the Marble Hall, Royal Belgian Academy of Sciences, Brussels.

2.2 Workshop “Geology at different education levels in Europe” Venue: Danubius Hotel Arena, Budapest, 19 May 2011. Introduced by János Haas, President of the Hungarian Geological Society, this workshop assembled about 50 professionals from 14 different countries coming mostly from the educational and academic sector but also from international associations like the AGI (American Geological Institute), the EAGE (European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers) or the IGEO (International Geoscience Education Organisation) for a high-level exchange on the topic of geology-education in Europe. The programme of the workshop was divided into four main sessions covering the different education levels relevant to geology.

Conference participants.

In the first session on geology in the secondary education level a comparison could be drawn between the efforts made in countries like Hungary, Portugal and England to promote geology among highschool students. Gábor Varjasi explained the benefits of the education policy of the Hungarian MOL group that introduced programmes like the online Natural Science Competition “Junior Freshhh” and the Mester-M award that acknowledges the work of secondary school natural sciences teachers. Éva Hartai from the University of Miskolc and Hungarian Geological Society pointed out the discrepancy between the lack of education in geology in Hungary and the interst of young people for this subject. The University of Miskolc and the Hungary Geological Society reacted by

developing an annual Earth Sciences Conference since 2007 for pupils between 14 and 18 years. This event simulates real scientific conference conditions accompanied by the submission of abstracts and oral presentations. Carlos Almeida from Portugal emphasized the role of the educational reform in Portugal that took place after the end of the dictatorship and introduced a shift from a traditionally elitist role of geology towards public teaching in schools. The Portuguese Geological Association (APG) plays an important role in supporting teachers and schools in this way. In England (Stuart Smallwood) geology is part of the national curriculum for secondary school students and aspects of it can be learned via the Biology, Chemistry and Physics classes or even as a subject on its own in some schools. Nevertheless, geology stays a small subject and the country lacks of specialized teachers and the possibility to do field excursions with students. The session on higher education in geology firstly presented study conditions in England where an integrated Master’s degree compliant with the Bologna process can be obtained after four years of studies and offers an interesting alternative to the traditional route of starting the MSc studies after the Bachelor’s degree (David Manning). The second talk in this session pointed out the opportunities given by the development of a Masters-level programme in paleontology jointly proposed by the universities of Copenhagen and Lund (David Harper). The session was closed by a presentation on the impacts of the EU funded EuroAges programme that developed within the project duration from January 2009 to 2011 an important series of reference documents like a mapping of the structure of geology study-programmes across Europe, the existing qualification framework and a range of learning outcomes for geology careers. These instruments intend to form a minimum common reference in all EFG member countries and can be helpful in communications with

EFG Annual Report 2011

universities (Isabel Fernandez). The third session on geology in the postgraduate level hosted a series of talks presented by different organisations. Davide Calcagni from the EAGE pointed out in which way his association via the organization of activities focalized on students and young professionals and a specific Education Programme intends to be the link between universities and the professional environment. Péter Szűcs (University of Miskolc) presented the studying conditions at his faculty of Earth Science and Engineering where specific English accredited programmes are developed in order to attract foreign students. The creation of postgraduate programmes in fields like geothermal energy, hydrogeology or thermal water management that are all very relevant for the Hungarian geology scene is also supposed to increase the number of students. David Norbury (Chair EFG Registration Authority) gave a talk on the learning outcomes necessary for the awarding of the EurGeol title that have been identified in the context of the EuroAges programme and will shortly result in the update of the awarding criteria of the professional title. Finally a last session on geology at the public level presented a series of talks on very varied subjects such as the role of the American Geological Institute (AGI) that not only provides information services to its more than 120000 affiliated geoscientists but also contributes to the education in geosciences and intends especially to increase the public awareness on the importance of geosciences for the society’s welfare (Patrick Leahy). Roberto Greco explained the functioning of the IGEO that promotes the education in geosciences on a global level and distinguishes itself by the organization of the Earth Learning Idea Project that proposes activity ideas for earth science teachers and of the Earth Science Olympiad held annually since 2007. Nieves Sanchez, the vice-president of the EFG pointed out in her talk the role of the geological societies in the context of an increasing globalised awareness of natural hazards. Geological societies will need to play an important role in educating the public and contributing to the civil protection. Finally, Imre Szarvas presented the Bükk

Poster session.

National Park as an example of the rising popularity of geoparks. The poster session of the workshop offered some very precious insights into the promotion of geology in Hungary (GeoExpo 2010, Geology Education in the Novohrad-Nograd Geopark, Vasarhelyi Pal technical highschool and hostel, the only institution teaching geology at this level) and the participants were particularly amazed by the possibilities of teaching geology at the kindergarten level. In her introduction to the very lively discussion following the presentations, the EFG president and chair of the afternoon session, Ruth Allington, emphasized the diversity of the subjects brought up and the high level quality of the talks. The overall statement was that in Europe geology still plays a minority role in all levels of education as well as in the public awareness. The outlook is nevertheless rather positive given factors as the EuroAges programme that has provided significant tools for harmonizing the European higher education in geology, opportunities offered by new online communication tools, the increase of mobility, the development of international and interactive competitions like the Earth Science Olympiad, the role that geological societies can play in the prevention and analysis of natural hazards, etc. In this regard inspiration can be found in the American Geological Society’s activities that focuses not only on educating its own geoscientists but also the public and the politicians particularly by its “dramatically needs” paper. The Portuguese geological association offers also a positive example on how to approach the public institutions in order to raise awareness on the importance of teaching geology subjects in the secondary school education system. The abstracts of the presentations can be found in European Geologist Magazine 31, May 2011.

2.3 EFG Council meeting Venue: Geological Institute of Hungary, Budapest, 21-22 May 2011. The 61st EFG Council Meeting was hold at the Geological Institute of Hungary (14, Stefánia str. 1143 Budapest, www.mafi.hu). The very well organized fieldtrip to the Balaton Highland National Park, which accompanied this event, was scheduled on 20 May. Highlights of this trip were a stop at Tihany in the Balaton Uplands, the walk to the ‘Sea of Stones’ in the surroundings of the village Szentbékkalla and finally the visit of the Szigliget fortress with the view on the Tapolca Basin. The field trip was completed by a typical Hungarian vine test at the Szaszi cellar. Excursion to Szentbékkalla, Sea of Stones.

EFG Council meeting

EFG Board

EFG Council dinner and wine test

EFG Annual Report 2011

2.4 GEOTRAINET+ meeting Venue: EFG, C/O Geological Service of Belgium, Rue Jenner 13, 1000 Brussels Representatives from 10 different countries gathered on 14 October 2011 to discuss the future of the Geotrainet project that officially closed in February 2011 but is currently seeking a continuation particularly with a view to supporting the implementation of the EC’s Renewable Energy Directive. In consideration of the planned growth of the Renewable Energy share to 20% until 2020, Commission representative Adina Georgescu presented during the first session of the meeting the current status of the European-wide implementation of this directive that requires MS to ensure that certification and qualification schemes for equipment installers are available by the end of 2012 in the sectors of biomass, solar, shallow geothermal and heat pumps. After a brief presentation of the principal Geotrainet project outcomes by Isabel Fernandez Fuentes and the resulting training frames for designers and drillers of shallow geothermal (www. geotrainet.eu), the afternoon session tackled different options for the future of the Project. EGEC President Burkhard Sanner introduced a proposal on the structure of a future Geotrainet Education Committee and Training Board that would be chaired by a European Education Committee (EEC) maintaining the quality standards of the training programme on an international level and managing all Geotrainet documents. The different National Training Boards (NTB) would be in charge of implementing the international quality standards on national level with respect to specific national conditions. Finally, the National Training Institutes shall be responsible of putting the training schemes into practice. Financially, this education structure should mainly be maintained by course fees, but sponsorships as well as public funds could complete the budget for a start. As an example of an education board established on national level, Javier Urchueguia from the University of Valencia, Spain, presented

Geoplat, a platform aiming to provide a framework for developing sustainable strategies for the promotion of geothermal energy. In Spain, the need for implementing education and certification schemes is vital because so far every engineer is authorized to sign geothermal project reports without specific training background. Based on the Geotrainet schedule, the training road map of Geoplat was approved in May 2011. The specificity of this project in distinction with Geotrainet is that the road map splits between designers (NTI’s: Universities, training centers and companies) and drillers (NTI’s Regional training centers, institutes) but on the contrary education and certification schemes are merged. Finally, Gundula Tschernigg from AIT, Austria, presented an exhaustive proposal for a European certification framework aiming at increasing the confidence of customers and identifying competent specialists, who can design and install faultless and efficient GSHP systems. The aims of such a European Certification Board would be to certify trained installers, trainers active in the Geotrainet activities and to maintain the quality of established standards. Some of the requirements addressed to this Certification Board are the need to maintain a close collaboration with the European Training Board, to ensure the continuation of the training activities accompanied by a continuous update of the programme. The participants of the Geotrainet+ meeting gave unanimously a very positive feedback on the ideas and inputs delivered and it was decided to organize a kick-off meeting in March 2012 until which the new bases that is status and regulations of a new international non-profit association as well as a list of delegations per country shall already be defined.

EFG Annual Report 2011

PROJECT ACTIVITIES

3.1 GEOTRAINET Project

Programme area: Intelligent Energy – Europe (IEE). Key action Renewable energy heating/cooling (RES-H/C) (ALTENER). Coordinator: European Federation of Geologists Website: www.geotrainet.eu Duration: 09/2008 – 02/2011 Budget: € 952.004 (EU contribution: 75%) Contract number: IEE/07/581/S12.499061 The project GEOTRAINET, “Geo-Education for a sustainable geothermal heating and cooling market”, is a European Initiative for Training and Education of Designers and Drillers of Geothermal Heat Pumps.

October in Brussels (see press release above), in order to bring together interested parties to discuss how to capitalise upon the efforts of the Geotrainet project in training drillers and designers of shallow geothermal systems.

The GEOTRAINET project, supported by the European Commission’s IEE programme (Altener), aimed to develop a European-wide educational programme as an important step towards the certification of geothermal installations. The vision of the GEOTRAINET project was that the training and certification programs will be recognised all over Europe and provide benchmark standards for consistent voluntary further education in the field of shallow geothermal in all participating countries.

Based in the positive feedback on the ideas and input delivered during the workshop 14th October, it was decided to organize a kick-off meeting in March 2012. Before this date we need to work in the registration of Geotrainet as international non-profit association and the list of delegations per country. A draft list of Delegates has been elaborated. The delegates will receive a questionnaire to be filled in with details of their associations and indicators of GSHP training situation in their countries.

The official activities of this project have come to an end, but the time is ripe to capitalise on the results and knowledge harnessed by this project. To this end, EGEC and the European Federation of Geologists hosted a workshop on the 14th of

3.2

EuroAges Project: Outcome publication

The project EURO-AGES, “European Accredited Geological Study Programmes”, for the Development of Europe-Wide Quality Standards and Criteria for the Assessment of Higher Education Programmes in Geology.

Programme area: Life Long Learning Programme, Education and Culture DG Key action European Qualifications Framework Website: www.euro-ages.eu Duration: 01/2009 – 01/2011 Budget: € 264.935 (EU contribution: 75%) Contract number: EACEA/16/08 Over the past two years, the partners in the EUROAGES project have worked towards developing a European qualification framework for geology, in the first and second cycles defined by the Bologna process, based on learning outcomes rather than input factors (course curricula). The objectives of the work are to increase transparency of Earth Sciences qualifications across Europe and therefore to facilitate improved academic and professional mobility across Europe. To this purpose it was supported by the European Commission. The EuroAges project finished at the end of January 2011 after two year of project activities. The main activities from May 2010 to the end of the project were related to the preparation of the deliverables and reports requested to EFG, dissemination activity, participation in partners meeting, and participation and presentation of the deliverables in the EuroAges Final Conference. Dissemination Dissemination activities have been undertaken by the Board and the Office, through presentations in various events. However, the main activity of dissemination was the monographic on Higher Education in Geology, EuroAges, presented in the last European Geologists Magazine, EGM 30 (http://www.eurogeologists.eu/index. php?page=841). The monograph presents the most relevant outcome of the project like: project

overview, mapping the European geological qualification, learning outcomes and skill levels for qualification as a professional geologist. The publication includes also some articles about the education in different countries, experiences on collaboration between universities and industry to create professional geologists and perspectives from employers. EuroAges Final Report The main deliverable of the project is a document on “Qualification Framework and Accreditation Criteria for Geology Study-Programmes in Europe” (http://www.euro-ages.eu/media/Qualification_ Framework_and_Accreditation_Criteria.pdf). The document contents: • Programme Outcomes for Accreditation - Learning Outcomes for First Cycle Degree Programmes - Learning Outcomes for Second Cycle Degree Programmes • Guidelines for Programme Assessment and Programme Accreditation • Procedures for Programme Assessment and Programme Accreditation • Recommended Template for Publication of Results • Appeal Mechanism

EFG Annual Report 2011

3.3 Terrafirma Project

There is a set of potential new worldwide users of the Service Portfolio proposed by Terrafirma. This group of users is presented through segmentation into themes according to the motivation behind their use of the Terrafirma service portfolio. Each of the Core User Group is described by typical end users from this segment and a detailed description of the theme’s needs. An assessment framework is used by defining user needs from four main pillars, namely driving forces, vulnerability of land use, risk assessment and measures. Where policy constraints on the segment exist, these have also been briefly identified. The themes in Terrafirma 3 are: Hydrogeology: • Sub-theme: Groundwater management • Sub-theme: Abandoned / inactive Mines • Sub-theme: Mountainous areas Tectonics: • Sub-theme: Crustal block boundaries • Sub-theme: Vulnerability maps Flood: • Sub-theme: Flood plain PSI standard/wide area • Sub-theme: Flood plain subsidence mapping • Sub-theme: Flood defence monitoring • Sub theme: Flood advanced subsidence modelling Wide Area mapping: • Sub-theme: Provide widely acceptable and interpretable subsidence maps • Sub-theme: Scalable and compatible with other products

Terrafirma has enrolled 51 user organisations during Stages 1 and 2. A full list of Terrafirma partners containing information on SLA numbers, organisation type and contact details, is defined in the final report of TF2. With sustainability in mind and the great success of the landslide themed services of TF2 in engaging users and incorporation of the landslide service providers in other projects (SAFER, DORIS), it was decided to further develop the service offering into the thematic lines of hydrogeology, tectonics and flood risk. In this way the TF services can address user needs more directly and hopefully strengthen the case in each field for the continuation of its services. The TF extension project focuses on thematically organised interpreted services as its basic service offering with additional modelling services. The project will re-engage nearly all users previously involved with the project and will engage new users via the SLA mechanism for thematic service delivery. In Terrafirma 3, user needs are derived from 4 themes, resulting in a Thematic User Group. The themes are: • Representing hydrogeology (managed by UNIFI) • Representing tectonics (managed by INGV) • Representing floods (managed by TNO) • Representing wide area mapping (managed by DLR) In the Terrafirma 2 Final report, the end users for ground motion were divided into local, regional, national and international users. Local authorities can be cities or municipalities. Regional authorities can be small industry, provinces and water boards. National end users are industry and national governmental departments. International users can be international task forces, river catchment agencies, EU, NGO´s, or large industry alliances. When ground motion is causing a potential or actual problem for end users, they are in need of spatially and temporally ‘continuous’ data of three types: historical, real time, and forecasted data.

We define the three main needs of these types:

These were:

1. Historical. The need for more and spatially distributed data for a better estimation in the short term and long term risk (and effect) studies, geological research, and for input into forecasting studies. 2. Real time. There is a general need for more data to be used in early warning systems. 3. Forecast data. In order to improve simulations or forecasts, historical as well as real time data is needed to improve the forecasting algorithms.

• Public Sector Agencies, Civil Protection, as well as federal, regional and local authorities • Structural and Civil Engineering in infrastructure provision and maintenance (such as road, rail, utilities) • Industrial organisations in mining, extraction and insurance • The public – Society at large

It is a shared opinion within the Terrafirma consortium that the information from PS-InSAR belongs to the historical data type that in some cases can also be used to improve a subsidence model for forecasting.

• Informing the EFG Members and Groups of Experts about the status and activities of Terrafirma • Informing our contacts about the role of this technology in our age • Trying to do this often enough so that professional persons become familiar and comfortable with the technology, and so use it.

The user needs can be divided into several categories: • Operational (e.g. monitoring dike conditions), to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies (do measures work?). • Scientific (e.g. learning from spatial and temporal patterns and improving knowledge about dominant processes). • Strategic (longer term policy making with respect to global change).

The actual EFG input to the project can be summarized as follows:

Further details are available in European Geologist Magazine 31, May 2011.

One of the key EFG roles is to prepare training material to enable technical and professional people to sell the project products to the end users. The issue here is that these end users are often no scientists, let alone geoscientists, and so the approach to inform them of why they need such products needs to be differently presented. It is relevant to note that this training will have wider application to EFG members than just in the current projects. Terrafirma has a broad user base including geological surveys, engineering companies, universities and pan European user federations. In Terrafirma 2, three key user segments were identified as together providing most of the users likely to benefit from the service portfolio.

EFG Annual Report 2011

3.4 PanGeo Project

www.pangeoproject.eu Background • Urban geohazard risk is increasing with population. • Decision-makers have limited access to geohazard information. • PanGeo address local, national and international policies on the risks posed by geohazards. • PanGeo will provide access to new and free information on geohazards. • PanGeo is fully INSPIRE compliant. • PanGeo supports SAFER, GEOLAND and GEO. Overview • PanGeo will establish an INSPIRE-compliant, free, online geohazard information service for the 52 largest towns of the EU27. • PanGeo will add value to the Urban Atlas by assigning geohazard attributes. • Expose services directly to Local Authority and Survey users. • Further exploit capabilities of SAR interferometry for measurements of terrainmotion. • All 27 EU Geological Surveys in project. Aims of PanGeo PanGeo is aiming to take a step in developing the ‘missing geological link’ for GMES by initiating a pan-European geological service which will derive and standardise geohazard information across an initial subset of the Urban Atlas towns across Europe. It is hoped that eventually PanGeo will be fully incorporated into OneGeology Europe. The objective of PanGeo is to enable free and open access to geohazard information in support of GMES. This will be achieved by the development of a validated Ground Stability Layer for 52 of the towns listed in the GMES

Land Theme’s Urban Atlas. The datasets will be made discoverable, accessible and useable via the distributed INSPIRE-compliant portal as built and demonstrated by OneGeology Europe (www. onegeology-europe.eu). The key users of PanGeo are anticipated as: • Local authority planners and regulators who are concerned with managing development risk. • National geological surveys and geoscience institutes who are obliged to collect geohazard data for public benefit. • Policy-makers concerned with assessing and comparing European geological risk, much as the Urban Atlas data is used to compare the landcover/use status of European towns. • The public. PanGeo information will represent hazard and exposure components that contribute towards any future analysis of risk, thereby adding value to the Urban Atlas data. The integration and interpretation, plus a validation of key features observed, will be made by the corresponding national geological survey for the towns concerned. Outline of the PanGeo Service For each PanGeo town, areas of ground instability will be indicated by attributed vector polygons held within the Ground Stability Layer. The polygon will be further supported by a detailed Geohazard Summary document describing the interpretation of the geological reasons for the discovered motions. Users of the PanGeo portal will be able to navigate to the town of interest and upon clicking on a Ground Stability Polygon the Geohazard Summary information associated with that polygon will be presented. The Ground Stability Layer and Urban Atlas information will be presented in the portal in such a way that users can make informed decisions about which land use classes in their towns are affected by ground stability issues. The Ground Stability Layer will map all the areas of a given town that are affected by ground instability, which can be caused by a number of natural and anthropogenic processes or phenomena, e.g. compressible ground, shrink-

swell clays, ground dissolution, collapsible ground, landslides, soil creep, tectonic movements, underground construction works, fluid extraction or injection, etc. The areas of mapped ground instability can fall into two categories: 1. Observed motion includes all types of direct or indirect observation/measurement of ground motion. 2. Potential motion includes all areas that the geologists, using the available geological and auxiliary data, have identified as having the potential for ground motion. Observed and potential motion will be clearly distinguished by the Ground Stability Layer attributes. Ground instability is mapped using a variety of input datasets including existing geological data and PSI (Persistent Scatterer Interferometry) data. The PanGeo interpretation is not based on PSI data alone. The input datasets may differ from one PanGeo city to the other. However, four main classes of information sources are identified: 1. Motion observed by PSI. 2. Motion observed with other types of deformation measurement devices and techniques. These data are held by the Surveys. 3. Motion observedfrom geology field campaigns, e.g. refer to mass movements, measurements of active faulting and neotectonics, indirect evidences from building damage, etc. These data are held by the Geological Survey (GS). 4. Potential motion derived from geological & auxiliary data held by the Surveys. There is no minimum mapping unit for PanGeo, however the PanGeo mapping scale aims to be 1:10 000. The size of the area for which PanGeo data will be produced is largely down to the geological survey responsible. The minimum area covered by the Ground Stability Layer is defined by the extent of the PSI data.The maximum possible area covered by the Ground Stability Layer is defined by the coverage of the Urban Atlas data for the town in question.It is possible that theactual area covered by the Ground Stability layer will fall somewhere between the extent of the PSI and the Urban Atlas. If so the interpreter should ensure that the area covered conforms to a logical administration boundaries; this will ensure the usefulness of the product to the local authorities.

The Ground Stability Layer polygons are attributed. Attributes are compliant with the Natural Risk Zones data specification of INSPIRE and will be used in the portal to provide a summary of the geohazard.More detailed geological information will be given in the Geohazard Summary. The Geohazard Summary will be linked to the polygon via the attributes, which will make it discoverable in the portal, but the Geohazard Summary will also be written as a standalone document. The interpretation of each Ground Stability polygon will be assigned a measure of confidence within the polygon attributes and Geohazard Summary. This measure of confidence will be on a simple three-level scale of Low, Medium High or External depending on the number of datasets used in the interpretation and the confidence that the geologist feels is appropriate. The towns to be processed are listed below: Country

Partner Survey

LUZ 1

LUZ 2

Austria

Salzburg

Vienna

Belgium

Brussels

Liege

Bulgaria

Sofia

Varna

Cyprus

Lefkosia

N/A

Czech Republic

Prague

Ostrava

Denmark

Copenhagen Aalborg

Estonia

Tallinn

Tartu

Finland

Helsinki

Turku

France

Lyon

Toulouse

Germany

Berlin

Hannover

Greece

Athens

Larissa

Hungary

Budapest

Miskolc

Ireland

Cork

Dublin

Italy

Palermo

Rome

Latvia

Riga

Liepaja

Lithuania

Vilnius

Kaunas

Luxâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;bourg

Luxembourg

N/A

Valetta

Malta

Netherlands Amsterdam

Rotterdam

Poland

NowySacz

Warsaw

Gozo

Portugal

Lisbon

Faro

Romania

Bucurest

Cluj-Napoca

Slovakia

Kosice

Presov

Slovenia

Ljubljana

Maribor

Spain

Zaragoza

Murcia

Sweden

Stockholm

GĂśteborg

Stoke

London

Existing Terrafirma results

EFG Annual Report 2011

PANELS OF EXPERTS

4.1

PANEL OF EXPERTS ON GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

Coordinator Number of experts Countries

Current activity

European WG

Gareth Ll. Jones, conodate@mac.com 24 From EFG Members: Hungary, Germany, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Greece, Ireland, Belgium, Sweden, Spain, Serbia and Italy. No EFG members: Denmark GEOTRAINET project, www.geotrainet.eu The vision of the GEOTRAINET project is that the training and certification programmes will be recognised recognized all over Europe and provide benchmark standards for consistent voluntary further education in the field of shallow geothermal field in all participating countries. The training is essential for people interested in becoming shallow geothermal accredited designers and drillers. EFG supports this training as activities for Continual Professional Development of Geologists in Europe. European Technology Platform on Renewable Heating & Cooling: Geothermal Panel EFG is chairman on the working group on training activity. EFG is represented by Isabel Fernandez Fuentes, EFG Office Director

4.2 PANEL OF EXPERTS ON CO2 GEOLOGICAL STORAGE

Coordinator Number of experts Countries

Current activity

European WG

Kris Piessen, Kris.Piessens@naturalsciences.be 10 From EFG Members: Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Spain, Sweden and UK Following the increasing activities in the field of CCS, it is necessary to strengthen EFGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s expert group. We therefore call upon EFG members that are actively working on CCS, or planning to extend their activities to this field. During the kick-off meeting, that was organised on 18 May 2010, new actions were proposed for the next year. These include: - Create an internet guide of existing e-courses relevant to the geological storage of CO2 - Develop an e-learning program to be hosted on the EFG website. - Expand the PE CO2 - Continue the involvement in ZEP-TFT European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ZEP) www.zero-emissionsplatform.eu. ZEP is the main advisory group for the EU on CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS). EFG is member of the Task Force Technology (TTech). TTech counts different subgroups that are dedicated to capture technologies, transport and storage. EFG make sure that storage aspects are well considered. EFG is represented by Kris Piessen, EFG PE Coordinator.

4.3

PANEL OF EXPERTS ON HYDROGEOLOGY

Coordinator Number of experts Countries

Current activity European WG

Carlo E. Bravi, carloenrico.bravi@fastwebnet.it 24 From EFG Members: Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Russian, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. Currently not active EFG PE on Hydrogeology has worked in the European Commission, DG Environment, Working Group on Groundwater (WG C) on the preparation of Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) guidance on the definition of what constitutes an input to groundwater and how their impacts should be assessed.

4.4 PANEL OF EXPERTS ON NATURAL HAZARDS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Coordinator Number of experts Countries

Current activity

European WG

Andy Gibson, Andy.Gibson@port.ac.uk 43 From EFG Members: Belgium, Czech R, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Russian, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom No EFG Countries: Norway, Bulgaria, Hong Kong Disaster Reducing Risk in Developing Countries: the Development Directorate-General of the European Commission recently closed its public consultation for the preparation of a Commission Communication on an EU Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Countries. Proposals reviewing the EU Civil Protection regulation framework: the Directorate-General of Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection, ECHO, (Civil Protection Policy, Prevention, Preparedness and Disaster Risk Reduction), has invited EFG to the 1st stakeholder consultation meeting on the preparation of legislation proposals reviewing the EU Civil Protection regulation framework, Brussels, 6 April 2011 Climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation: European Research project, CLIMSAVE is a pan-European project that is developing a user-friendly, interactive web-based tool that will allow stakeholders to assess climate change impacts and vulnerabilities for a range of sectors, including agriculture, forests, biodiversity, coasts, water resources and urban development. WG on Disaster Reducing Risk in Developing Countries, DG Development: EFG is represented by Andy Gibson and Marino Trimboli Civil protection, stakeholder consultation: Andy Gibson and Isabel Fernandez Research project CLIMSAVE: EFG is represented by Marino Trimboli UNESCO platform Global Platform for Disaster Risks Reduction Europea, UNISDR: Marino Trimboli and Isabel Fernandez.

EFG Annual Report 2011

4.5

PANEL OF EXPERTS ON SOIL PROTECTION AND GEOLOGICAL HERITAGE

Coordinator Number of experts Countries

Current activity

European WG

Hanneke Van der Ancker, juan.GenL@inter.nl.net 15 Countries represented in the panel: EFG Members: United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Greece, Iceland, Slovakia, Spain, Italy, Slovenia and Russian. No EFG Members: Denmark. The Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection consists of a Communication from the Commission to the other European Institutions, a proposal for a framework Directive (a European law), and an Impact Assessment. The proposal for a framework Directive (COM(2006) 232) sets out common principles for protecting soils across the EU. Within this common framework, the EU Member States will be in a position to decide how best to protect soil and how use it in a sustainable way on their own territory. Land Degradation and Desertification www.europarl.europa.eu/ activities/committees/studies/download.do March 2009 Liaison with Technical Committee on Soil Characterization, CEN/ TC 345, since September 2010.

4.6 PANEL OF EXPERTS ON RESOURCES AND RESERVES - OIL AND GAS

Coordinator Number of experts Countries Current activity

European WG

No Coordinator 10 Countries represented in the panel: Hungary, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Serbia, Switzerland and Russia. Not active in the last year Past activities: - Maintain the position of the EFG in the UN expert group of Security of Fossil Fuel Supply. - Re-assess the opportunities, ways and means of enhancing indigenous contribution to the oil and gas supply of member countries of EFG. - EFG assists oil companies in implementing their tasks in the field of demonstrating their social responsibility. - Establishing licensing procedure and system for certified petroleum reserve evaluators initiated by AAPG. - EFG Office sends information about the European legislative process on Energy and Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources. UN expert group of Security of Fossil Fuel Supply.

4.7 PANEL OF EXPERTS ON RESOURCES AND RESERVES â&#x20AC;&#x201C; MINERALS AND THEIR SUSTAINABLE USE

Coordinator Number of experts Countries

Current activity

European WG

4.8

Andy Bowden, andybowden@allthatglisters.ie 24 Countries represented in the panel: EFG Members: Belgium, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom, No EFG Members: Bulgaria, New Zealand. European Commission proposes new strategy to address EU critical needs for Raw Materials, EU Raw Materials Initiative. Nonenergy raw materials are vital inputs for the EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economy, and are particularly crucial for the development of modern environmentally friendly technologies. EFG PE promotes the use of the PERC code as a tool to align reserves and resources definitions in Europe, which is only one element that will improve the knowledge base for which the European Commission is calling. Maintain the position of the EFG in the UNECE Expert Group on Resource Classification (EGRC). Raw Materials Supply Group, stakeholder group from DG Enterprise, EFG is represented by Andy Bowden. UNECE Expert Group on Resource Classification (EGRC), EFG is represented by Andy Bowden Committee for Mineral Reserves, International Reporting Standards. CRISRCO, EFG is represented by Grigoriy Malukhi.

EFG RELATION WITH OTHER EUROPEAN WG

European WG

Liaison with the Technical Committee Geotechnical Investigation and Testing, CEN/TC 341. EFG has the status of liaison with this TC since December 2002 International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher, INQAAHE.

EFG Annual Report 2011

PARTICIPATION IN EUROPEAN CONSULTATIONS

5.1 EC Discussion paper “Raw materials for a modern society” 15th January 2011 The European Commission proposes a new strategy to address EU critical needs for Raw Materials, EU Raw Materials Initiative. On 2 February 2011 the European Commission adopted its final communication Com(2011) 25 final «Tackling the challenges in commodity markets and on raw materials» EFG has participated in the consultation on the discussion paper “Raw materials for a Modern Society”. Ref. Ares(2010)965067 – 17/12/2010; 15 January 2011:

Introduction The European Federation of Geologists (EFG) is a federation of more than 25 European geological societies and associations which exists to: • • • •

Represent the geological profession in Europe; Safeguard and promote the interests of the geological profession in Europe (and elsewhere in the World); Promote best technical, scientific and ethical practice in the application of geology generally (EurGeol); and Promote responsible use of the Earth‟s resources and sustainable use of land.

The EFG maintains a number of Panels of Experts (PE) to fulfil the EFG mission. They provide contributions to the development of European Policies that are relevant to geologists and to which the professional practice of geology is relevant. This consultation response has been written by the EFG Panel of Experts on Resources and Reserves – Minerals and Their Sustainable Use (“Minerals PE”).

exploration for, and discovery of, new sources of nonenergy materials. Industrial minerals and aggregates are mainly exploited through open pits or quarries and as a consequence can and should form part of spatial planning, which must be underpinned by sound regional and national geological maps and databases. Metallic minerals, including Rare Earth Elements will, however, commonly be found deep underground and will only be identified through systematic exploration, using modern geochemical and geophysical methods in conjunction with geological models. Their location can only be predicted within very broad geological terrains. If Europe wishes to be less vulnerable to commodity shortages, it must become partly self-sufficient by supplying some of its strategic raw materials from indigenous resource development. For instance, Europe consumes approximately 20-25% of global copper and zinc production but only 2.5% of global metallic mineral exploration expenditure is spent in Europe – clearly a strategic imbalance. Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Portugal and Spain are presently the target for most of the exploration expenditure financed by local and international exploration and mining companies. Exploration within these countries over the past 50 years has been successful, which clearly demonstrates that modern exploration methods provide an effective tool to locate new mineral deposits. But exploration within a large number of European countries is at a minimum mainly because of inadequate internal mining and exploration policies. So, what needs to be done? In our opinion, the following are priority matters: •

Recognise the fact that mineral resources can only be worked where they exist and can only be exploited if they are discovered through exploration („resources are where you find them‟). Europe must decide if it wants security of supply or not and whether that security is going to be achieved through development of indigenous resources. It then needs to state this as a policy and take the necessary consequential actions to stimulate exploration and exploitation.

•

Recognise the fact that the objective of exploration

Comments on the discussion paper The EFG Minerals PE agrees with the first bullet point in the discussion paper. Europe needs to ensure a secure supply of non-energy materials. However, from then on the paper appears to ignore the very methods that may alleviate that situation –

•

is to gain legal title to an economic resource. If an • Recognise that the location of resource critical raw materials 11 Defining exploration company cannot be assured of getting developments cannot be predicted prior to legal title it will spend its money elsewhere. Thus discovery and that it involves the temporary use exploration permitting with a presumed right to of land. Therefore, in areas open for exploration, 1. INTRODUCTION mine, if a discovery is made, is an essential premineral resource development should normally be requisite. Enact that legislation. The EFG is aware given priority over other sectors. Raw materials are essential for the efficient functioning of Europe’s economy. that presently the EU does not have competence However, whereas the importance of oil and gas has often been highlighted, the over resource development. However, issues of • If it is agreed that development of the EU‟s essential role of non-energy materials such as minerals and metals has not received raw material supply are an EU matter. Therefore, own resources is a potentially favorable way to equal attention. a clear statement of what is required of member add the supply of additional raw materials, the states should be forthcoming from the EU. establishment of the legal/fiscal framework to Yet industrial minerals are indispensable for a wide range exploration of downstream industries. encourage is needed. Irish, Spanish, usually not aware that feldspar Portuguese, is used in the production of television Decide Most wherepeople the EU are is going to permit exploration Swedish or Finish mining/exploration anda distinction computer between screens,Industrial car headlamps, silica is as used in products and make Minerals/ and soda lawsbottles; could be used models. Exploration itself such as tableware, ornaments and wall and floor tiles; while speciality talc can Construction Materials and Metallic Minerals. does not require public funding be butused it does require to improve the performance of biological treatment plants. The definition of where companies can or cannotwastewater an enabling political and regulatory context. Mining explore is not difficult, and can be achieved on a and exploration companies are continuously realso spatial essential to modern industrial activity as in well as to the and infrastructure regionalMetals basis are through planning informed investing exploration the EU need only and products used assessment in daily-life. For copper and aluminium are used in cables by strategic environmental and instance, clear create the right conditions. transport electrical power over great policiesthat relating to safeguarding minerals and distances to the most remote locations, and zinc protects the steel infrastructure under all weather conditions. that the meeting national targets developed with securitythat of supports • Thethem EFG Minerals PE recognises Moreover, high tech metals are indispensable ingredients for the development supply in mind. On a site specific basis, the essential suggestions in the discussion paperof regarding technologically sophisticated products. Modern cars, flat-screen televisions, mobile etc are balance between environmental protection and recycling and increasing efficiencies phones and countless other products rely on a range of materials, such as antimony, commercial and practical considerations can be laudable, and should be encouraged, but they do cobalt, tantalum, tungsten Thethesame of high-tech achieved in thelithium, context of excellence in mineand and molybdenum. not solve basicgroup problem; there will continue metals are also fundamental to new environmentally friendly products, with cars however quarry design tested rigorously through established to be a need for primaryelectric production, requiring lithium and neodymium, car catalysts platinum, solar panels requiring indium, environmental assessment methodologies. All this successful recycling and increased efficiency. gallium, selenium tellurium, energy needs to be backed up byand regulatory regimes forefficient high-speed trains requiring cobalt and samarium, and new fuel-efficient aircraft monitoring and compliance that recognise therhenium alloys. need for minerals (of all types) and the political To continue dialogue on this matter with the EFG All these minerals and metals are present everywhere in the fabriccontact of society and community engagement that seeks to reMinerals PE, please Andytoday Bowden, establish an understanding, throughout society, of andybowden@allthatglisters.ie Figure 1: Everyday’s uses of minerals and metals. Source: Peer R. Neeb, 2006. the importance of minerals to the sustainability of EFG Panel of Experts on Resources and Reserves European economies. Minerals and Their Sustainable Use.

ALUMINIUM STEEL, TITANIUM

Environmental liming Limestone: LIMESTONE DOLOMITE

CONCRETE ROOFTILES BRICKS FROM CLAY AND OLIVINE

CONCRETE LIMESTONE/CEMENT SAND/GRAVEL

Ice cream: TITANIUM DIOXIDE

Glas: FELDSPAR NEPHELINE SYENITE QUARTZ

ROOFING SLATE A/S CONCRETE

Porcelain: LIMESTONE NEPHELINE SYENITE DOLOMITE Paint: LIMESTONE TALC,KAOLIN TITANIUM FROM ILMENITE/RUTILE

Tiles: ANORTHOSITE FELDSPAR

A/S CONCRETE

Car/train: IRON ALUMINIUM LEAD,COPPER ZINC MAGNESIUM SAND

LARVIKITE

NATURAL STONE

Light bulb: QUARTZ

QUARTZ PC: COPPER

Pencil: GRAPHITE CLAY

SCHIST

IRON HEMATITE

LIGHTWEIGHT FILLER LECA CONCRETE SLEEPERS FROM LIMESTONE/ CEMENT SAND/GRAVEL

Floor: MARBLE ROCKWOOL LECA/CLAY SAND

Paper: LIMESTONE DOLOMITE TITANIUM TALC KAOLIN

CONCRETE- LIMESTONE/CEMENT SAND/GRAVEL

LECA SAND/GRAVEL AGGREGATE

WEIGHT FILLER

GRANITE

AGGREGATE

AGGREGATE SAND/GRAVEL SAND/GRAVEL

TILL

BEDROCK

TIGHT WEIGHT FILLER

Paintwork: LIMESTONE TALC MICA TITANIUM DIOXIDE FROM ILMENITE RUTILE

s A/S

eral

Min

Rubber: DOLOMITE LIMESTONE TALC GRAPHITE AGGREGATE

}

WEARING COVER (ASPHALT, AGGREGATE COURSE OR GRAVEL) BASE COURSE

AGGREGATE

BASE

OR LECA

SAND/GRAVEL

OR FINE AGGREGATE

TILL

FILTERLAYER BASEMENT

BEDROCK

Peer R. Neeb 2010

Fig.1 – Everyday’s use of minerals and metals. Source: Peer R. Neeb, 2006. In: Critical raw materials for the EU, Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials, 2010, p.11 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-materials/files/docs/report-b_en.pdf

EFG Annual Report 2011

5.2 Public consultation on possible Innovation Partnership on Raw materials 20 June 2011 Background information Who are you? I am replying on behalf of an organisation In the interests of transparency, organizations are invited to register in the “Register of Interest Representatives”. This is important in the context of the publication of the results. Responses from organisations not registered will be published separately. • Registered organization If you are a registered organisation, please indicate the name and address of your organisation and your Register ID number. • European Federation of Geologists, EFG Rue Jenner 13, 1000 Brussels, Belgium The ID number of European Federation of Geologists is: 97706556032-41 To which of the following categories does your organisation belong? • Non-governmental organisation (NGO), civil society, charity What is your organisation’s main activity? • Other Please specify • Professional organization: The EFG is a professional body of geologists working in Europe. It represents the best interests of its members and enhances the profession of Geology within Europe In which area are you mostly interested? • Mining

Please provide your details (Mr/Mrs, Name, Job title, e-mail address and telephone number) where we can contact you? • Andy Bowden, Co-ordinater EFG Expert Panel on Minerals Email: andybowden@allthatglisters.ie; • Isabel Fernandez Fuentes, EFG Executive Director Email: isabel.fernandez@eurogeologists.eu Have you submitted or do you intend to submit a separate written response to this consultation? • Yes Please explain • The EFG submitted a response to the discussion document in February.

Introductory questions With regard to overall objectives of the Innovation Partnership, do you have any further suggestions/ comments? • The European Federation of Geologists (EFG) endorses the EU Commission’s opinion that Europe needs to ensure a secure supply of nonenergy materials. At present Europe is extremely vulnerable to commodity shortages and faces a future where there will be even greater competition for those commodities. Although ‘increasing efficiencies’ and ‘re-cycling’ are laudable and should be encouraged, they will not solve the basic problem. It is the EFG’s belief that the only way to reduce the vulnerability is to explore for and discover new deposits of minerals within Europe. The EU needs to encourage Exploration and Mining throughout Europe. •

Please specify • Land Where are you/is your organisation based? • Belgium

Contact details If need be, can we contact you by e-mail to obtain further information about your submission? • Yes

•

Recognise the fact that mineral resources can only be worked where they exist and can only be exploited if they are discovered through exploration (‘resources are where you find them’). Europe must decide if it wants security of supply or not and whether that security is going to be achieved through development of indigenous resources. It then needs to state this as a policy and take the necessary consequential actions to stimulate exploration and exploitation. Recognise the fact that the objective of exploration is to gain legal title to an economic resource. If an exploration company cannot be assured of getting legal title it will spend its money elsewhere. Thus exploration permitting with a presumed right to

•

mine, if a discovery is made, is an essential prerequisite. Enact that legislation. The EFG is aware that presently the EU does not have competence over resource development. However, issues of raw material supply are an EU matter. Therefore, a clear statement of what is required of member states should be forthcoming from the EU. Decide where the EU is going to permit exploration and make a distinction between Industrial Minerals/ Construction Materials and Metallic Minerals. The definition of where companies can or cannot explore is not difficult, and can be achieved on a regional basis through spatial planning informed by strategic environmental assessment and clear policies relating to safeguarding minerals and meeting national targets developed with security of supply in mind. On a site specific basis, the essential balance between environmental protection and commercial and practical considerations can be achieved in the context of excellence in mine and quarry design tested rigorously through established environmental assessment methodologies. All this needs to be backed up by regulatory regimes for monitoring and compliance that recognise the need for minerals (of all types) and the political and community engagement that seeks to reestablish an understanding, throughout society, of the importance of minerals to the sustainability of European economies. Recognise that the location of resource developments cannot be predicted prior to discovery and that it involves the temporary use of land. Therefore, in areas open for exploration, mineral resource development should normally be given priority over other sectors. If it is agreed that development of the EU’s own resources is a potentially favourable way to add the supply of additional raw materials, the establishment of the legal/fiscal framework to encourage exploration is needed. Irish, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish or Finish mining/exploration laws could be used as models. Exploration itself does not require public funding but it does require an enabling political and regulatory context. Mining and exploration companies are continuously re-investing in exploration and the EU need only create the right conditions.

With regard to the societal challenge the Innovation Partnership will endeavour to tackle, do you have any further suggestions/comments? • The EU has already harmonised rules and regulations regarding the Environment. It should now endeavour to harmonise the rules and regulations regarding exploration and mining, subject of course to the rules and regulations regarding the environment. There are large parts

of Europe where exploration does not take place simply due to the inadequacy of the internal exploration and mining policies of the member countries. Where the rules are clearly stated and applied, modern mining is environmentally friendly and the EU should help in disseminating this fact. Currently much of Europe has a NIMBY approach to mineral resources believing that it can rely on third world sources forever. The EU needs to change this attitude. With regard to the potential economic benefits the Innovation Partnership could bring, do you have any further suggestions/comments? • Generally, mining is profitable and brings considerable economic benefit to the locality, the country and if in Europe to Europe as a whole. Given the right legislative framework that will allow exploration the cost of exploration will be provided by the industry and private investment. The EU needs only to provide that legislative framework. With regard to the EU added value of the Innovation Partnership, do you have any further suggestions/ comments? • As has been noted above, mining is generally profitable and that profit will partly accrue to the local economy. In addition mining within Europe will reduce the need to import raw materials thereby helping with the European trade balance. With regard to the main obstacles to be addressed by the Innovation Partnership, do you have any further suggestions/comments? • The main obstacle in developing an EU policy that encourages exploration and mining is that these issues are presently the preserve of National governments. With regard to the scope for simplification and streamlining of existing instruments, do you have any further suggestions/comments? • A common EU policy regarding the resources industry, particularly exploration, should be modelled on those countries where exploration is currently carried out, i.e. Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Spain and Portugal.

Concrete targets How do you evaluate the importance of each of the following concrete targets to be achieved by 2020? •

Standardised statistical instruments for resource and reserves (land and marine) 5

EFG Annual Report 2011

• •

• • • •

A 3-D geological map in place covering the major areas of high potential for deposits. 3 A dynamic modelling system relating trends in supply and demand with economical exploitable reserves and a full lifecycle analysis available in Europe. 3 Ten innovative pilot actions (e.g. demonstration plants) for raw materials extraction and processing and use in products, collection and recycling. 3 Substitutes for at least three key applications of critical and/or environmentally impacting raw materials proposed to be commercially viable. 3 A European virtual institute on Education and Training Interlinking the national and regional centres of excellence. 3 A raw material dialogue at international level based on concrete structures of cooperation with major partners / regions. 5

Please add any further comments • With regard to the statistical instrument for resources and reserves, the EFG has supported and sponsored the Pan European Reserves and Resources Reporting Code, the PERC Code. Although conceived to be used by the resources industry when reporting for financial purposes, e.g. to stock exchanges, the PERC Code could be adopted by the EU. The PERC Code is uniquely designed for Europe but it is compatible with CRIRSCO, the JORC Code and the Canadian NI 43-101. Are there any other concrete targets/deliverables important to your organisation? • Harmonisation of EU resource policy which encourages exploration and mineral development throughout Europe. Do you have any specific suggestion for some of the ten innovative pilot actions (e.g. demonstration plants) for raw materials extraction, processing and use in products, collection and recycling? • As noted above, the ‘innovative’ pilot plant actions are very laudable and they may help but they will not tackle the huge shortages in raw materials. One of the targets of the Innovation Partnership is to find substitutes for at least three key applications of critical and/or environmentally impacting raw materials proposed to be commercially viable. Which of the areas for substitution do you consider most important? • Again it is the EFG’s view that finding substitutes for critical raw materials is to be encouraged. Cheaper substitutes for the very high value metals used in minor quantities, e.g. the REE and PGE metals, would be economically and socially beneficial.

However, substitutes for the other raw material used in much larger quantities would simply shift the shortage. Do you have any other suggestions related to these concrete targets?

Key components/ Work packages The Commission has identified five Work packages around which the concrete work of the Innovation Partnership could be organised. Work package 1 - Developing new innovative technologies and solutions for sustainable raw materials supply. Do you agree with the proposed components of this Work Package? • Yes Please specify • The EFG agrees with the proposed components of the work package. However, developing exploration technologies is very laudable but totally pointless unless exploration companies are allowed to use them. Without a Europe-wide and straightforward system of granting exploration licences, exploration will remain confined to those countries that have such a system. Do you have any comments/additional suggestions on this Work Package? • The EFG represents Professional Geologists in Europe many of whom are currently working in the field of mineral exploration and mining. The EFG offers its help and advice on any project initiated by the EU in those fields. Which of the above topics do you consider as a priority? • It is the EFG’s contention that changing the legislative framework throughout Europe to enable and encourage exploration and mining should be the priority but of the above topics the first two would appear to be of most potential use. Work package 2 - Developing new innovative materials by design and solutions for the substitution of critical materials. Do you agree with the proposed components of this Work Package? • Yes

Please specify • Substitutes are only of use if they are less expensive and in greater supply that the raw material they are replacing. Developing technologies that do not use rare, expensive or hazardous materials is of equal merit. Do you have any comments/additional suggestions on this Work Package? Which of the above topics do you consider as a priority? • The priority should be given to critical raw materials that are not produced in Europe e.g. REEs and PGEs. Work package 3 - Improving Europe’s raw materials regulatory framework, knowledge and infrastructure base. Do you agree with the proposed components of this Work Package? • Yes Please specify Do you have any comments/additional suggestions on this Work Package? Which of the above topics do you consider as a priority? • The EFG believes that the third, fourth and fifth bullet points; identification of best practice in defining minerals policy etc; identification of best practice in terms of land-use planning for minerals etc; and identifying different instruments in order to facilitate the process for authorisation of exploration etc., are the priorities. These are the first steps in establishing a Europe-wide resources legislative framework that would enable and encourage exploration and mining whilst protecting the environment. Work package 4 - Improving the regulatory framework via promotion of excellence and promoting recycling through public procurement and private initiatives. Do you agree with the proposed components of this Work Package? • Yes Please specify • Promotion of excellence via Competent Persons: EUROPEAN GEOLOGIST PROFESSIONAL TITLE A professional title means that the person

who holds it has achieved suitable academic training, and a level of professional experience, skill and competence to perform tasks within their professional practice. It also means that the geologist undertakes continuing education and training, demonstrating commitment to stay up to date and informed within the sphere of their professional work. The professional title provides a quality mark to demonstrate to clients, regulators and the general public that the individual is competent to provide geological advice, and allows employers to offer competitive commercial services. To adapt to the current and future challenges within the geo-political framework of the European Union, it is necessary that geologists achieve, and can demonstrate, a high degree of professional experience to be able to respond to the demands of Society in practicing their profession. Do you have any comments/additional suggestions on this Work Package? Which of the above topics do you consider as a priority? • Improve the profitability of, and reduce the cost of recycling etc. is a priority. Making a profit on an activity is the best way to ensure that it carried out. Work package 5 - International framework – horizontal approach Do you agree with the proposed components of this Work Package? • Yes Please specify • The title of European Geologist is a professional title created by the European Federation of Geologists and which recognises the ability to deliver a high quality of services within the practice of geology. The training and experience underlying the title are being harmonised. This will mean that the title will be recognisable in all European countries and so act as a passport to professional practice in Europe, thereby encouraging free movement of professionals. There are mutual recognition agreements in place such that the EurGeol title is recognised by the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) and the Canadian Council of Professional Geologists (CCPG). On a practical level, European Geologists are recognised by the mineral reporting authorities in Australia, Canada, South Africa and London as professionals accredited to sign reports on mineral reserves and resources within their area of

EFG Annual Report 2011

expertise and in the valuation of mining companies quoted on the Stock Exchanges. Do you have any comments/additional suggestions on this Work Package? Which of the above topics do you consider as a priority? • The first and fourth bullet point, geology and improving the geological knowledge base and Policy dialogue/cooperation etc. are priorities.

General questions Do you think Small and Medium Sized companies are well represented in this Innovation Partnership (is enough attention paid to their needs)? • Do not have enough information to reply at this stage How could the EU Innovation Partnership on raw materials increase active involvement of Small and Medium Sized companies? • The EU could commission a television programme demonstrating the use of raw materials within Europe and where they come from. The general public tends to be unaware of just how much of what is in everyday use comes out of the ground

i.e. is mined or quarried. This would demonstrate just how vulnerable Europe is to shortages and competition for raw materials. How could the EU Innovation Partnership on raw materials increase active involvement of citizens and civil society? Do you know any other sources of data that the Commission should take into account when designing and implementing its Innovation Partnership? Are there any studies/results you would like to bring the attention of the Commission? What are your organisations’ main issues concerning raw materials that you would like to draw to the attention of the Commission? • The EFG represents Professional Geologists working in Europe many of whom work within the resource industry. The EFG offers its expertise to the Commission and the Innovation Partnership. What do you consider to be the most important elements of the good functioning and success of the Innovation Partnership on raw materials (e.g. flexibility, pragmatism, interdisciplinarity…)? • They are all important.

Fig.2 – Defining ‘critical’ raw materials, DG Enterprise and Industry, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-materials/critical/index_en.htm

5.3 Public consultation, DG Internal Market, «Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive» The 7th of January 2011, European Commission, DG Internal Market, launched a Public Consultation on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive. The public consultation aims at gathering stakeholders’ views on a modernisation of the Professional Qualifications Directive (Directive 2005/36/EC).

Response by Geologists

European

Federation

The aspirations of a single market require that professionals are able to practice in other Member States. It has long been recognised that restrictive regulations of professional qualifications limit mobility of professionals. Today qualified professionals still find that national requirements to prove the status of their qualification in a Member State where they wish to work tend to exclude citizens from the Single Market. This is a key concern as markets in Europe are increasingly competing for qualified professionals: the labour force will decline just as demand for qualified professionals is projected to rise. This public consultation by DG Internal Market and Services is a step in preparation for the Commission Green Paper that is intended to be published alongside the final evaluation report in the autumn of 2011. This consultation document focuses on three major challenges to consider for the future. • • •

simplification for individual citizens integrating professions into the Single Market, and injecting confidence into the system

Question 1: Do you have any suggestions for further improving citizen’s access to information on the recognition processes for their professional qualification in another Member State? • The European Federation of Geologists (EFG) represents the professional bodies in 22 countries across Europe with a total membership of approximately 50000 geologists. The EFG has been providing information on recognition processes in different countries for over 30 years mainly through operating the European Geologist title which is open to all professionally qualified geologists across Europe. • For the profession of geology, the existing regulatory framework varies from one country to another. Geology is only regulated in Spain, Italy, Greece and Poland.There appears to be no

appetite within other Member States to extend regulation of the geological profession. The focus of recognition processes should be on the competence of the individual to carry out the appropriate professional tasks.123 This may be based on a combination of training (academic subjects) and professional experience; neither of these should be specified to the exclusion of the other.4 It is essential that competence should be expressed in terms of BOTH academic training and professional experience, and that this experience must be relevant to the competence claimed. Ideally competence and experience should be demonstrated by the individual practitioner through the award of a professional title appropriate to the professional discipline which is recognised across Europe. In the geological profession, this is the title of European Geologist (EurGeol).5 •

It would be of assistance if pan European professional bodies were to be formally identified as the appropriate sources of information to provide information to citizens on the points of contact with national professional bodies in Member States other than their own. In addition the European professional body should be able to

1 Example 1 - in Spain for professionals operating in mining, there is a conflict between the Mining Law (Article 117 of Law 22/1973) which is restricted to academic qualifications in engineering, and the European Directive 2006/123 and Spanish Law (Article 3 of 17/2009) which are based on professional qualifications and competence. 2 Example 2 - in UK the Quarries Regulations 1999 requires that CGeol or CEng qualifications must be held by individuals who are appointed as competent ‘Geotechnical Specialists’ to undertake geotechnical assessments required by the Regulations designed to ensure a safe working place. In addition to professional qualifications, Geotechnical Specialists must have a minimum level of relevant experience. 3 Example 3 – Similarly in Ireland, geological reports will only be accepted from professionally certified geologists (EurGeol, PGeo, CGeol, CPG, etc.) by the Irish Stock Exchange, the Exploration and Mining Division of the DCENR, and are preferred by the Environmental Protection Agency. 4 For most international stock exchanges professionals signing off reports on mineral reserves or resources are required to be Competent Persons as set by the Reporting Codes used by international Stock Exchanges. The definition of Competent Person in the CRIRSCO family of codes (e.g. the Pan European Reporting Code (PERC)) lists acceptable professional titles for Competent Persons acceptable under that code 5 The EFG professional title of EurGeol is based on the four pillars of Academic Qualification, Professional Experience, Code of Ethics and Continuing Professional Development. The relevant field(s) of competence of the individual should be part of the information provided.

EFG Annual Report 2011

•

assist in identifying the relevant procedures. The role of national or European professional bodies needs to be enhanced in all subject areas to provide this information and guidance in the context of the profession itself. In some cases, it is not clear how many separate professional areas should be represented by the pan European professional bodies which, under the suggested model, would provide a European Point of Single contact for the citizen. This is because many professions merge laterally into other professions (for instance, in the geosciences, geochemists sit on an ill-defined boundary between geology and chemistry). We therefore suggest that a centrally-held register is set up identifying all the pan European professional bodies and ensuring that the overlaps that would need to be made clear to citizens are identified.

Question 2: Do you have any suggestions for the simplification of the current recognition procedures? If so, please provide suggestions with supporting evidence. • Geology is a global profession, in which travel and practice across national borders is the norm, but in some jurisdictions there are restrictions on working. • The role of a European professional body for any discipline should be to establish mutual recognition of professional qualifications based on common professional standards. These standards should be sufficiently broadly defined to provide a benchmark for mutual recognition of qualifications which is compatible with national procedures. • The EFG has been operating systems of mutual recognition for over 30 years through open discussion on the routes to recognition, and therefore understanding and respect for slightly different practices in different Member States. • In the absence of a European professional body, Member States and professional associations at a national level should commit to common standards of professional qualification and ways of establishing equivalence. • Examples of systems exist in North America where standards for professional practice in geology are established centrally, with licence to practice operating at the level of states in the USA and provinces in Canada. These systems do not, of themselves, promote mobility between states or jurisdictions. However work is underway in Canada at the moment to harmonise procedures and standards for licensure and registration of geologists to establish a framework for mutual recognition and mobility between provinces. There is scope to develop a harmonised European

•

system that learns from experience gained in North America and succeeds in enhancing mobility. We have not included in our response any specific suggestions for simplification of the current recognition procedures. Simplification is not necessarily the issuehere, rather ensuring that, for each profession, there is agreement between states and within the profession itself, as to the benchmark standards and appropriate assessment procedures which are to be applied. Based on such agreements, a framework can be set in place for setting and monitoring benchmark standards and applying the assessment procedures, leading to mutual recognition of qualifications and licences to practise or registrations. The current procedures tend to be either country specific, absent or ad hoc depending on the state and the profession. EFG, with its links to similar organisations in North America (where similar challenges to mobility exist and progress is being been made towards genuine mutual recognition and mobility of professionals), and against the background of its work on learning outcomes for professional geologists (EuroAges) is well placed to contribute to the building of appropriate frameworks for improving and establishing pan European recognition procedures for geology and related professional disciplines. EFG experience and progress to date may also be of assistance in working with other representative professional organisations towards establishing frameworks for setting standards and applying assessment procedures to ensure recognition of equivalence between Member States and appropriate to each profession.

Question 3: Should the Code of Conduct become enforceable? Is there a need to amend the contents of the Code of Conduct? Please specify and provide the reasons for your suggestions. • The Code of Conduct should not be enforceable until it is more widely known and better understood. • The process by which professional qualifications are recognised needs to be simple and transparent, with adoption of a common Code of Conduct. • There is confusion between the ‘Code of Conduct’ as described in the Consultation Paper and codes that govern the practices of individual professionals. • This confusion of terminology needs to be clarified. The adoption of behavioural codes for individual professional bodies is to be encouraged as it underpins mutual recognition of professionalism. • The mobility of professionals would be enhanced by greater coherence between codes of professional practice from one Member State to another.

Question 4: Do you have any experience of compensation measures? Do you consider that they could have a deterrent effect, for example as regards the three years duration of an adaptation period? • We have no experience of compensation methods within the profession of geology. • We consider that such measures could be a deterrent to mobility within our profession. Question 5: Do you support the idea of developing Europe-wide codes of conduct on aptitude tests or adaptation periods? • We are not in favour of aptitude tests, and the concerns lying behind the question would be better addressed by mutual recognition of professional competence between individual professional bodies within the different European Member States. Question 6: Do you see a need to include the caselaw on “partial access” into the Directive? Under what conditions could a professional who received «partial access» acquire full access? • We favour a simpler route based on the mutual recognition by Member States of professional competence (for example, Chartered Geologist in the UK which is recognised by the Institute of Geologists of Ireland, and vice versa). Question 7: Do you consider it important to facilitate mobility for graduates who are not yet fully qualified professionals and who seek access to a remunerated traineeship or supervised practice in another Member State? Do you have any suggestions? Please be specific in your reasons. • Mobility of graduate trainees has a part to play in the professional development of an individual, broadening their experience and developing their essential skills. • The graduate trainee (i.e. the person not yet professionally certified) working in professional practice should have their degree transcript which meets the learning outcomes for C1 and C2 degrees as set out in the EuroAges report (http:// www.euro-ages.eu/pages/final-results.php) • The graduate trainee should also be able to demonstrate their commitment to structured programme of Continuing Professional Development (CPD), that would include planning, action and reflection leading to the proof of competences required at 4CD (professional certification). • It is desirable to recognise benchmarks in the development of an individual’s career that lead to certification. This could be achieved as in the

UK through the accreditation of university taught programmes within the Bologna framework, and there may be other pathways. Question 8: How should the home Member State proceed in case the professional wishes to return after a supervised practice in another Member State? Please be specific in your reasons. • All professional experience gained is valid for assessment of career development, regardless of geographic location of that experience. Potentially, in the case of geology much professional experience can be gained in other countries, inside and outside Europe. • Acquisition of relevant professional experience gained through supervised practice in another Member State is to be encouraged; it should not be a bar to progress towards professional certification. • National professional bodies may have a role in monitoring and supervising this aspect of development of experience. • We recognise that difficulties can arise with assessing the significance and value of experience gained in one Member State in the context of the requirements in another. Successful establishment of pan European professional learning outcomes (see Questions 7 and 10) and mutual understanding of similarities and differences in different Member States (through pan European professional bodies – see Questions 1 and 2) would facilitate this process. Question 9: To which extent has the requirement of two years of professional experience become a barrier to accessing a profession where mobility across many Member States in Europe is vital? Please be specific in your reasons. • We are not aware of any countries applying a two year barrier in geology Question 10: How could the concept of «regulated education» be better used in the interest of consumers? If such education is not specifically geared to a given profession could a minimum list of relevant competences attested by a home Member State be a way forward? • Accreditation of degree programmes that prepare for entry to the profession of geology is already undertaken uniquely in the UK. Extension of this concept to more Member States will make it easier for other states to assess the learning outcomes that have been achieved. • The EUROAGES project has produced a common framework for developing learning outcomes within the curriculum, and their assessment.

EFG Annual Report 2011

•

Widespread adoption of the recommended approach in all Member States would be helpful to the profession.

Question 11: What are your views about the objectives of a European professional card? Should such a card speed up the recognition process? Should it increase transparency for consumers and employers? Should it enhance confidence and forge closer cooperation between a home and a host Member State? • A professional card that documents mutual recognition of competence would be a major step forward in promoting mobility, as long as it is recognised by Member States. • The card should constitute, for the host state, an attestation of recognised professional competences acquired by the card holder in his/ her originating state. Question 12: Do you agree with the proposed features of the card? • The proposed features are acceptable, subject to the following points. • In addition the card should show the name and contact details (postal and electronic) of the awarding professional association (at national and/ or European level). • The most important aspect is to establish a system where professionals in any state, and including the public, can readily verify the current professional status of the card holder, at any time. Question 13: What information would be essential on the card? How could a timely update of such information be organised? • Critical information is the name, title holder, reference number, photograph of the professional and the web address for any member of the public to verify the holder’s current professional status. • The card should carry an expiry date, after which it is no longer valid. • Contact details (postal and electronic) of the registration body. Question 14: Do you think that the title professional card is appropriate? Would the title professional passport, with its connotation of mobility, be more appropriate? • We have no strong feelings about the name of the card Question 15: What are your views about introducing the concept of a European curriculum – a kind of 28th regime applicable in addition to national requirements? What conditions could be foreseen for its development? • The overriding principle is that universities are able to develop their curricula in accordance with

the requirements of their students, as long as they are consistent with the learning outcomes as summarised in the EuroAges report (http:// www.euro-ages.eu/pages/final-results.php), which represents academic practise across Europe. Question 16: To what extent is there a risk of fragmenting markets through excessive numbers of regulated professions? Please give illustrative examples for sectors which get more and more fragmented. • In the context of the profession of geology, the risk of market fragmentation is low. • Inter-professional communication and collaboration should be encouraged by the Commission to reduce the risks of any market fragmentation. • Such communication and collaboration would also provide a useful forum for discussion and resolution of mobility issues in general. Question 17: Should lighter regimes for professionals be developed who accompany consumers to another Member State? • It is normal practice for professional advisers to accompany their clients (consumers) when their business activities take them into other Member States. • Problems can arise when the consumer tries to use the advice given by a professional visiting a host state. The advice of a visiting professional is often not acceptable within the regulatory regime of the host state. This is one of the biggest obstacles to the freedom to trade and the transfer of ideas. Its resolution will be difficult, as individual states have developed and will continue to develop technical and managerial approaches, guidance and regulations that reflect and respond to the state’s particular technical and commercial conditions. The national annexes and guidance for Eurocodes are an example of particular • regulatory requirements that a visiting professional will need to understand and • implement. Question 18: How could the current declaration regime be simplified, in order to reduce unnecessary burdens? Is it necessary to require a declaration where the essential part of the services is provided online without declaration? Is it necessary to clarify the terms “temporary or occasional” or should the conditions for professionals to seek recognition of qualifications on a permanent basis be simplified? • The availability of a card, as proposed, would simplify matters and remove the need for declaration. Question 19: Is there a need for retaining a pro-forma

registration system? • We see no need to retain such a system; its retention would require justification.

be made at a much earlier stage? Please be specific in your reasons. • Not applicable

Question 20: Should Member States reduce the current scope for prior checks of qualifications and accordingly the scope for derogating from the declaration regime? • The availability of a professional card/ passport should obviate the need for prior checks. • The requirement of prior checks is an obstacle to mobility. • The role of the European professional association, such as the EFG is important in providing a route for mutual recognition of qualifications even between Member States where regulation is or is not a factor.

Question 25: Do you see a need for modernising this regime on automatic recognition, notably the list of activities listed in Annex IV? • Not applicable

Question 21: Does the current minimum training harmonisation offer a real access to the profession, in particular for nurses, midwives and pharmacists? • Not applicable Question 22: Do you see a need to modernise the minimum training requirements? Should these requirements also include a limited set of competences? If so what kind of competences should be considered? • The minimum training requirements should be set in the form of learning outcomes/ competences, as has been outlined in the EuroAges project (http:// www.euro-ages.eu/pages/final-results.php) and embedded within local customs and established practice, regulation and statute. • Prescription of minimum training requirements across Europe is desirable – a ‘one size fits all’ solution is not available at present, and it will take several years to develop these. However, this should be the aim. Question 23: Should a Member State be obliged to be more transparent and to provide more information to the other Member States about future qualifications which benefit from automatic recognition? • Not applicable

Question 26: Do you see a need for shortening the number of years of professional experience necessary to qualify for automatic recognition? • Not applicable Question 27: Do you see a need for taking more account of continuing professional development at EU level? If yes, how could this need be reflected in the Directive? • All Member States should be encouraged to adopt CPD as a key element of professional development of the individual, and for the monitoring thereof. • The Directive should encourage the adoption of CPD based on a consistent process that might include a list of criteria and specific outcomes. Question 28: Would the extension of IMI to the professions outside the scope of the Services Directive create more confidence between Member States? Should the extension of the mandatory use of IMI include a proactive alert mechanism for cases where such a mechanism currently does not apply, notably health professions? • Not applicable Question 29: In which cases should an alert obligation be triggered? • Not applicable Question 30: Have you encountered any major problems with the current language regime as foreseen in the Directive? • No

Question 24: Should the current scheme for notifying new diplomas be overhauled? Should such notifications

EFG Annual Report 2011

5.4

Response to Green Paper, “Modernising the Professional Qualifications Directive”

Brussels, 22.6.2011 COM(2011) 367 final

for completion of the recognition process is the maximum that should be permitted. •

Question 1: Do you have any comments on the respective roles of the competent authorities in the Member State of departure and the receiving Member State? • The EFG agrees with the proposal that all procedures for verification of training and experience should be followed by the relevant professional association acting as the ‘competent authority’ in the State of departure. However, for this approach to work, and for mutual trust, appropriate licensing of competent bodies and audit procedures need to be instituted. • This needs to include procedures for complaint, sanction and improvement in order to maintain practice in line with the aspirations set out in the green paper, and as incorporated into the modernised directive. Question 2: Do you agree that a professional card could have the following effects, depending on the card holder’s objectives? a) The card holder moves on a temporary basis (temporary mobility): - Option 1: the card would make any declaration which Member States can currently require under Article 7 of the Directive redundant. - Option 2: the declaration regime is maintained but the card could be presented in place of any accompanying documents. b) The card holder seeks automatic recognition of his qualifications: presentation of the card would accelerate the recognition procedure (receiving Member State should take a decision within two weeks instead of three months). c) The card holder seeks recognition of his qualifications which are not subject to automatic recognition (the general system): presentation of the card would accelerate the recognition procedure (receiving Member State would have to take a decision within one month instead of four months). • a) The EFG considers that a properly operated and supported Professional Card system should make the requirements of Article redundant. • b) There is no reason why a properly operated and trusted Professional Card system should not allow recognition of qualifications within a two week period within the receiving member state. • c) in the general system, a one month period

•

The EFG believes that the professional card must provide an added value for professionals and citizens, customers, consumers and users of services. The European professional card should be a tool to simplify the current processes of recognition, but in any case, without altering the current automatic recognition mechanisms which have proven effective. The EFG also believes strongly that, as outlined in the Green Paper, European professional card could take advantage of fast communication technologies of the XXI century to create a mechanism that would provide specific effects and as part of a directive on modernized professional qualifications. The use and benefit of the latest technologies in the process of recognition should be given greater priority, because it will be simplified through the procedures, promote transparency and increase confidence in the systems, while reducing both costs and time. The EFG believes that, in addition to the professional and personal identifying data the card must report whether the profession is regulated in the Member State of establishment. In case of exercising of the freedom to provide services the card must confirm that the professional is legally established in the Member State of origin and if the profession is not regulated, confirming that the professional meets certain conditions. In addition the EFG would invite European Commission to include reference to the e-certificate or certified mail, which would give the home competent authority electronically to the professional who requested it for delivery to the receiving competent authority. This electronic certificate would be easy to use if the competent authorities were obliged to publish an online list of qualified professionals in every field that could be a list of public access when possible. The electronic certificate and listing on-line are fully compatible with the existence of the professional card. The role and responsibilities of professional organizations held in the context of recognition of qualifications is well marked and is found through the many occasions when these are mentioned in the Directive 2005/36.

Question 3: Do you agree that there would be important advantages to inserting the principle of

partial access and specific criteria for its application into the Directive? (Please provide specific reasons for any derogation from the principle.) • The EFG agrees that partial access is an important concept – for instance, in geology there are a number of different areas of competence which are dealt with in national laws on mining and mineral reserves, for example. Given partial access, a visiting professional would be expected to conform to the profession’s Code of Ethics in which no professional should work outside their area of competence. • Failure to accord with this principle should result in a complaint being lodged with the competent authority in the state of departure, followed by appropriate disciplinary procedures. Question 4: Do you support lowering the current threshold of two-thirds of the Member States to onethird (i.e. nine out of twenty seven Member States) as a condition for the creation of a common platform? Do you agree on the need for an Internal Market test (based on the proportionality principle) to ensure a common platform does not constitute a barrier for service providers from non-participating Member States? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) • Experience of years of practice has demonstrated that development of professional common platforms is achievable and beneficial; these platforms can from appropriate bases for the recognition of qualifications as currently performed under the general system, and so can approach the automatic recognition system intended for certain professions. We understand that the European institutions, under the auspices and guarantees of the Directive, must support and promote development of these platforms, in order to move towards the concept of «European professions» with the ensuing benefits of effective mobility. • Being able to perform all the formalities relating to online recognition seems a basic right of European citizens today. The safety line can be sufficiently secured, and reduction of time and costs will be considerable. • The EFG supports the proposal to lower the threshold for creation of a common platform to one-third of member states. • The EFG agrees that common platforms should be subject to internal testing to ensure that they do indeed provide a means for greater mobility. • Geology is a good example of a common platform potentially providing enhanced mobility by permitting international clients to use their preferred geological advisers in whichever country their project (e.g. construction site, geological

hazard, exploration project, mine or mineral reserve) exists. Question 5: Do you know any regulated professions where EU citizens might effectively face such situations? Please explain the profession, the qualifications and for which reasons these situations would not be justifiable. • We are not aware of any such situations Question 6: Would you support an obligation for Member States to ensure that information on the competent authorities and the required documents for the recognition of professional qualifications is available through a central on line access point in each Member State? Would you support an obligation to enable online completion of recognition procedures for all professionals? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach). • The EFG is content for the information on recognition and mobility to be available through a central portal. • However, the actual operation of the system should be left to the national and European professional associations which currently operate the procedures for verification of training and experience. • Whether the completion of recognition procedures is made on line or not is not the key issue. Whilst we accept that this is a useful aspiration, it is more important to establish availability of information, robust procedures and knowledge of how and where to post the required information. This system then overlaps into the operation of the professional card. Question 7: Do you agree that the requirement of two years’ professional experience in the case of a professional coming from a non-regulating Member State should be lifted in case of consumers crossing borders and not choosing a local professional in the host Member State? Should the host Member State still be entitled to require a prior declaration in this case? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) • The EFG agrees that the two year rule should be lifted. If a consumer wishes to use a professional in a receiving state, it is a matter for the consumer to decide the origin of that professional, and they may feel more comfortable using their normal advisors. • The professional acting in this way in a regulated state will need to be aware of the national requirements within the professional regulation, and to operate in accordance with their Code of Conduct and therefore, in particular, be obliged to act only within their area of expertise.

EFG Annual Report 2011

•

The host member state should only be able to require a declaration if the professional wishes to sign off a report in an area which is covered by national law; possible examples could include environmental assessment, mining safety or mineral reserves reports.

Question 8: Do you agree that the notion of «regulated education and training» could encompass all training recognised by a Member State which is relevant to a profession and not only the training which is explicitly geared towards a specific profession? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) • It is certainly the case that the training requirements today have to become more flexible and so the EFG supports the approach of relaxing this restrictive requirement. • The holding of a professional qualification or title, as evidenced by the professional card, should demonstrate that the professional has undergone appropriate (coverage and duration) training for the professional practice. • Maintenance of the professional qualification behind the professional card should also include a requirement for life long learning to ensure that the professional remains properly up to date within their area of competence. Question 9: Would you support the deletion of the classification outlined in Article 11 (including Annex II)? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach). • The EFG would support the deletion of the classification in Article 11 (the EQF classification) and to replace this with THAT BASED ON LEARNING OUTCOMES. • This is the finding of the EuroAges project for geology completed in 2011 (http://www.euro-ages. eu/pages/final-results.php). Question 10: If Article 11 of the Directive is deleted, should the four steps outlined above be implemented in a modernised Directive? If you do not support the implementation of all four steps, would any of them be acceptable to you? (Please give specific arguments for or against all or each of the steps.) • The EFG would fully support implementation of these four steps. • The harmonisation and implementation of learning outcome based assessment of a professional’s training should lead to better understanding of their competence, and so the need for compensation measures reduces markedly or falls away completely. Question 11: Would you support extending the

benefits of the Directive to graduates from academic training who wish to complete a period of remunerated supervised practical experience in the profession abroad? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) • The training of geological professionals requires them to be mobile and visit as many geological and technical environments as possible, and this involves working in different countries while they are still learning. • Making this mobility as straightforward as possible is to be strongly encouraged. Question 12: Which of the two options for the introduction of an alert mechanism for health professionals within the IMI system do you prefer? Option 1: Extending the alert mechanism as foreseen under the Services Directive to all professionals, including health professionals? The initiating Member State would decide to which other Member States the alert should be addressed.) Option 2: Introducing the wider and more rigorous alert obligation for Member States to immediately alert all other Member States if a health professional is no longer allowed to practise due to a disciplinary sanction? The initiating Member State would be obliged to address each alert to all other Member States.) • Not relevant to the geological profession Question 13: Which of the two options outlines above do you prefer? Option 1: Clarifying the existing rules in the Code of Conduct; Option 2: Amending the Directive itself with regard to health professionals having direct contact with patients and benefiting from automatic recognition. • Not relevant to the geological profession Question 14: Would you support a three-phase approach to modernisation of the minimum training requirements under the Directive consisting of the following phases: - the first phase to review the foundations, notably the minimum training periods, and preparing the institutional framework for further adaptations, as part of the modernisation of the Directive in 2011-2012; - the second phase (2013-2014) to build on the reviewed foundations, including, where necessary, the revision of training subjects and initial work on adding competences using the new institutional framework; and - the third phase (post-2014) to address the issue of ECTS credits using the new institutional framework? • Not relevant to the geological profession • However, it is noted that the proposed Steps 2 and 3 are very much in accordance with the current

moves within geology towards outcome based education and defined professional competencies which are together used to assess an individual’s professional experience before award of the professional title. Question 15: Once professionals seek establishment in a Member State other than that in which they acquired their qualifications, they should demonstrate to the host Member State that they have the right to exercise their profession in the home Member State. This principle applies in the case of temporary mobility. Should it be extended to cases where a professional wishes to establish himself? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.)Is there a need for the Directive to address the question of continuing professional development more extensively? • Not relevant to the geological profession • However, it is noted that the annual reporting of CPD is a mandatory requirement for the European Geologist title and in the professional associations within member states which are licensed to award this title. • Omission of this reporting results in the professional being struck from the register, and so losing the automatic recognition that goes with the title. Question 16: Would you support clarifying the minimum training requirements for doctors, nurses and midwives to state that the conditions relating to the minimum years of training and the minimum hours of training apply cumulatively? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) • Not relevant to the geological profession Question 17: Do you agree that Member States should make notifications as soon as a new program of education and training is approved? Would you support an obligation for Member States to submit a report to the Commission on the compliance of each programme of education and training leading to the acquisition of a title notified to the Commission with the Directive? Should Member States designate a national compliance function for this purpose? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) • The EFG agrees that member states should make early notifications of training course changes. • This is important to enable employers and professional bodies to identify the acceptable and non-acceptable courses that form part of the professional training taken into account in the award of the professional title. • However, it should also be possible for professionals to achieve accreditation of their training and experience from any appropriate course of training, with the assessment of their

training and experience taken as a whole. Question 18: Do you agree that the threshold of the minimum number of Member States where the medical speciality exists should be lowered from twofifths to one-third? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) • Not relevant to the geological profession Question 19: Do you agree that the modernisation of the Directive could be an opportunity for Member States for granting partial exemptions if part of the training has been already completed in the context of another specialist training programme? If yes, are there any conditions that should be fulfilled in order to benefit from a partial exemption? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) • Not relevant to the geological profession Question 20: Which of the options outlined above do you prefer? Option 1: Maintaining the requirement of ten years of general school education Option 2: Increasing the requirement of ten years to twelve years of general school education • Not relevant to the geological profession Question 21: Do you agree that the list of pharmacists’ activities should be expanded? Do you support the suggestion to add the requirement of six months training, as outlined above? Do you support the deletion of Article 21(4) of the Directive? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) • Not relevant to the geological profession Question 22: Which of the two options outlined above do you prefer? Option 1: Maintaining the current requirement of at least four years academic training? Option 2: Complementing the current requirement of a minimum four-year academic training by a requirement of two years of professional practice. As an alternative option, architects would also qualify for automatic recognition after completing a five-year academic programme, complemented by at least one year of professional practice. • Not relevant to the geological profession Question 23: Which of the following options do you prefer? Option 1: Immediate modernisation through replacing the ISIC classification of 1958 by the ISIC classification of 2008? Option 2: Immediate modernisation through replacing Annex IV by the common vocabulary used in the area

EFG Annual Report 2011

of public procurement? Option 3: Immediate modernisation through replacing Annex IV by the ISCO nomenclature as last revised by 2008? Option 4: Modernisation in two phases: confirming in a modernised Directive that automatic recognition continues to apply for activities related to crafts, trade and industry activities. The related activities continue to be as set out in Annex IV until 2014, date by which a new list of activities should be established by a delegated act. The list of activities should be based on one of the classifications presented under options 1, 2 or 3.

â&#x20AC;˘ No response to this question at this time. Question 24: Do you consider it necessary to make adjustments to the treatment of EU citizens holding third country qualifications under the Directive, for example by reducing the three years rule in Article 3 (3)? Would you welcome such adjustment also for third country nationals, including those falling under the European Neighbourhood Policy, who benefit from an equal treatment clause under relevant European legislation? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) â&#x20AC;˘ No response to this question at this time.

EFG Annual Report 2011

6 COMMUNICATION 6.1

Electronic version of the European Geologist Magazine

Since issue 30 of the European Geologist the magazine can be read online. This improvement of our website has been realised thanks to the work of Jorge Garcia who with the help of the programme Issue quickly allowed us to publish the new issue in December 2010. In the future the online version will permit to save the printing costs of the magazine and thanks to electronic communications an even larger public can be reached for its distribution.

Fig.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; European Geologist Magazine Online

6.2 GeoNews A lot of time has been dedicated to the creation of a new format of GeoNews that is disseminated since November directly by email and not anymore via a link directing the recipient to the website of EFG. This way of sending the GeoNews seems to be more efficient as the recipients can directly view the most important news without being obliged to go first to the EFG website. Since the November Council Meeting further improvements have been done thanks to the YMLP (Your mailing list provider) programme that permits to design free of charge a newsletter format and to compose rather quickly each monthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s news.

6.3 EFG Facebook account Since April 2011 the EFG has its own Facebook account. In total this page has now been visited almost 6000 times since the creation of the account and each month 200 to 500 persons view the GeoNews via Facebook. This additional Internet presence of EFG can become an interactive forum for communication allowing members and sympathisers to exchange news and information relevant to the geological profession at this place.

Fig.2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; EFG Facebook Page

6.4 Web statistics The graphs below compare the results between Google Analytics survey and Advanced Web Statistics. Since the website is updated and managed from the EFG Office in Brussels (2008), the number of visitors has substantially increased from 500 to 2000 visitors per month (Advanced Web Statistics). Since this considerable increase in 2008, the number of visitors is remaining stable with more or less 2000 visitors per month. The figures vary slightly according to the organisation of events that increase temporarily the visitor numbers.

EFG Annual Report 2011

The number of visitors registered by Google Analytics is always slightly inferior to the one registered by the Advanced Web Statistics but the tendencies remain the same. This stability of visitors to the EFG website could be an opportunity for revising the content and the design of the page and to fix new objectives and challenges for the coming years. The current ‘Top Ten’ list of visiting countries is the following: Belgium, Great Britain, Germany, United States, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Ivory Coast, Greece and Spain.

Advanced Web Statistics Unique visitors 2011: Updated 23 December 2011

Fig.3 – Unique visitors 2011 according to Google Analytics

Fig.4 – Visitors statistics 2011 according to Advanced Webstatistics

____________________ Unique visitors Number of client hosts (IP address) who came to visit the site (and who viewed at least one page). This data refers to the number of different physical persons who had reached the site. Number of visits A new visit is defined as each new incoming visitor (viewing or browsing a page) who was not connected to your site during last 60 min. Pages Number of times a page of the site is viewed (Sum for all visitors for all visits). This piece of data differs from «hits» in that it counts only HTML pages as opposed to images and other files. Hits Number of times a page, image, file of the site is viewed or downloaded by someone. This piece of data is provided, as reference only, since the number of «pages» viewed is often preferred for marketing purposes. Bandwidth This piece of information refers to the amount of data downloaded by all pages, images and files within your site. Most popular pages Furthermore, Google Analytics also offers the possibility to analyse which pages of the website are the most consulted ones. Right after the homepage, the most popular ones are the EurGeol area, the job opportunities and the magazine. In total, since the beginning of this year the online magazine has been consulted 1637 times (1 January 18 November 2011) and the most important number of visits have been reached in February and in May after the publication of the last issue.

Fig.5 – Most popular web pages

EFG Annual Report 2011

7 STATISTICS 7.1

EurGeol Title Statistics 2011

The statistics are based on the last available data at the end of 2011.

a. Statistics per countries

Fig.6 – Distribution of EurGeol title

The EurGeol title has gained acceptance amongst geologists particularly in the United Kingdom and Ireland (Figure One). This is partly as a result of the fact that both the UK and Irish national associations are licensed to award the title. The Spanish association is also licensed and has begun the process of awarding the title to suitably qualified geologists registered through them.

Statistics per years

• New number of title holders between 1993 and 2011: 963 • Current total number of European Geologists: 738 • Number of lapsed European Geologists: 225, which includes: - Those who retired or resigned - Those former title holders struck off during 2011 for failure to pay annual registration fee or submit acceptable CPD records.

Fig.7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Trend of the EurGeol Title between 1993 and 2011

Fig.8 - Number of new members, lapsed and retired European Geologists per years

EFG Annual Report 2011

Licensed body statistics

These statistics reflect the distribution of EurGeol titles per Licensed Body from 2009 to 2011 as well as the annual evolution of the different Licensed Bodies.

Acronyms of the Licensed Bodies: GSL - Geological Society of London ICOG - Illustre Colegio Oficial de Geologos IGI - Institute of Geologists of Ireland ILB - International Licensed Body CHGEOL: Swiss Association of Geology

Fig.9-11 - Number of members per Licensed Body

Fig.12 - Annual evolution of EurGeol title number per Licensed Body

7.2 National Membership Associations

Fig.13 - National Association members per country

Members

Comparison: National Association members EurGeol title holders 38000 36000 34000 32000 30000 28000 26000 24000 22000 20000

760 740 720 700 680 660 640 620 600 580 2007

2008

2009

2010

NA members EurGeol

2011

Fig.14 - Comparison National Association members â&#x20AC;&#x201C; EurGeol title holders

EFG Annual Report 2011

MEDAL OF MERIT

Christer Åkerman attended his first council meeting as Swedish delegate in June 1992 in Salamanca. Since then he has attended over 30 council meetings turning in an exemplary attendance record. This diligence underlines every aspect of this most professional of professionals. It might be worth mentioning that on the second occasion that the EFG meeting was held in Sweden (in 1997) the EFG Council was received by the Major of Stockholm in the same place were the Nobel prizes are awarded. This notable event was organized by Gunnar and Christer. It was during that meeting that they had the good idea of serving Spanish red wine in the dinner which crystallised into a brilliant idea of organizing a wine contest. This event has become a standard at EFG meetings and the many contests since then have contributed greatly to internal communication within council. The Spanish particularly thank Christer for this contribution to their ego in the wine contests (often, though not always, won by Spanish wines). He is also a travelling geologist and has visited many parts of the world, usually leaving his family behind. There is the old saying that the best geologist has seen the most rocks, and on this basis Christer must certainly rank among the best geologists. We must not forget his contributions to the profession of geology, both in his home country and in Europe more generally. Within Sweden, he has fought throughout his career to raise the profile of geology, playing a leading role in the Academy of Sciences (geology branch) and in the organisation of Geology Days. In Europe, he has led by example in practising his subject to the highest standards both technically and professionally. In both of these areas he has continuously striven to promote the importance of the professional title and CPD – without which we, as professionals, would not be able to face the public. Christer was President of the EFG from 2002 to 2005 and his term as president was characterized by his flair in running meetings to time, to the Agenda (approximately) and in particular his

prudent way of doing things. His enthusiasm (yes even for meetings) is an example to us all, and we have all benefitted when he was providing both his guidance and wit at Council and PP’S Meetings. Christer has done Trojan work over the years on behalf of the EFG. One of his greatest qualities was his ability to “smooth troubled waters” which we know is not always easy when so many Countries are trying to put forward their views, and often in a foreign language. He is a “Great Diplomat” and has superb natural skills in dealing with people from so many “Cultures”. On top of all this he is a man who always displays the personal attributes of good humour (actually much of his humour is really corny!), a gay outlook on life (in the old fashioned sense) and a deep sincerity in all his personal relationships and dealings. He is always fun to work with, to such an extent that he leads us all through more work than we thought we were actually doing – the mark of a professional colleague and leader. He has lived his life at the EFG meetings in accordance with the old jungle sayings: • All weekends are wonderful days, (is that why we hold our meetings at weekends?) or • I don’t see a problem now , but I am sure that everything will be solved somehow … and his often terrible jokes. So in order to Finnish off without Russian you, I will just Czech that we have covered everything and Croatia (create) a toast to congratulate Christer on the well deserved presentation of the EFG’s highest award, the Medal of Merit. With thanks to Gareth J, John C, Manuel R, Gunnar H, Richard F and others.

EFG Annual Report 2011

REGISTRATION AUTHORITY REPORT

Notes on regulation amendments in 2011 N2 Subscriptions and Fees for Members of EFG Clarification of status of members resident outside Europe 4.10. Members of the National Association who are not European Geologists and who are resident outside Europe are not to be counted in calculating the subscription European Geologist fees from Licensed Bodies (revised clause) 4.14. In addition to paying the Member Fees annually National Licensed Bodies shall pay to the EFG the annual subscription for every European Geologist within its membership. The annual fee for each European Geologist set by Council is collected by the Licensed Bodies (regulation E7) who may retain 15% of the fee to cover their collection and handling costs. Any National Licensed Body which has >30% of their members holding the European Geologist title may retain an additional 0.15% of the annual fee for every 1% over 30% of European Geologist as members.

N6 Financial Management Preparation and internal Audit of Annual EFG Accounts 4.29 At the summer council meeting during the relevant reporting year, Council will determine whether the formal audit of the annual accounts is to be by external auditor or by internal commissaires (see 4.31). 4.30 If external audit is to be carried out, the prepared accounts will be reviewed by the internal commissaires before submission to the auditor. 4.31 Council will elect three internal commissaires to serve for one year. None of the commissaires shall be serving Officers of the EFG. 4.32 Where Council determines that the accounts should be audited by an external auditor, the auditor shall be proposed by the Treasurer and shall be subject to approval by Council.

N8 Council Meetings 3.5 Other activities should be arranged on the days preceding or following the Council Meeting, including educational activities such as workshops, conferences, and field excursions as well as meetings of Working Groups and Panels of Experts in order to take advantage of the presence of individuals who are also attending the Council Meeting. However, these other activities shall not form a part of the Council Meeting. Amendment on availability of papers before Council meetings at 2 weeks rather than 4 weeks 3.26 In order for a member to exercise their voting rights at a meeting, the annual fee shall have been received by the Treasurer at least 4 weeks before the meeting. The Treasurer shall write to each member in default before the meeting advising them of their loss of voting rights as they no longer meet the requirement for membership according to the Statutes. Until such time as the annual fee remains unpaid, the member can attend meetings only as an Observer. Insertion of new clause on veto or deferral if vote is called for on issue that is considered by one member to differ from tabled papers. 3.29 If any vote in Council is considered by any member to differ significantly from the position given in the papers presented before the meeting a deferral of the vote can be called for. The deferral is to allow the member association to consider the matter and obtain a mandate for their vote. The timing and mechanism of the vote after the agreed deferral period shall be agreed by Council.

N9 The Board Job Descriptions for Board Officers have been added at the end of the regulation. Relevant clauses from the Statutes are included for ease of reference and maintenance in the future. Added requirement for annual reporting to Council meetings by Treasurer on debts

E1 Criteria for award of title of European Geologist 4.11 New clause on Reinstatement A European Geologist whose title has been lapsed due to failure to pay the annual fee or by being removed for whatever reason from the register of European Geologists and who wishes to apply for revalidation shall submit a request for reinstatement to the relevant National Vetting Committee or Licensed Body and provide the following information. •

•

Where status has lapsed for less than two years the request for reinstatement should comprise statements as to the reasons for the lapse and the reasons for now seeking reinstatement. The request will provide details of the relevant professional experience and continuing professional development during the lapsed period and will be reviewed by the National Vetting Committee. The request for reinstatement should be accompanied by a reapplication fee of the annual member fees that would have been paid if no lapse had occurred. The National Vetting Committee shall confirm that the applicant remains as a member of their National Association. Where status has lapsed for between 2 and 5 years, in addition to the process above a formal interview or reinstatement meeting must be held between the applicant and two members of the National Vetting Committee. If the details are deemed satisfactory, the applicant will be recommended to the relevant Licensed Body for reinstatement. If the committee is not satisfied with the details provi-

•

• •

ded, the applicant will be required to submit a completely fresh application for validation. Where status has lapsed for over 5 years no re-instatement is allowed and a completely new application for European Geologist must be submitted and a full professional interview carried out. E1 4.2 added requirement that EurGeol applicant must be ‘and must remain’ a member of their National Association Reduction of number of sponsors required by applicants from 3 to 2 – in E1 Annex A and in E2 4.5

G5 Awards clauses) •

•

Committee

(additional

Council shall appoint an Awards Committee to manage the awards process. This committee will normally consist of the immediate past President, one other Council member and the Secretary General. The Awards Committee should send a reminder to all members seeking nominations in January each year, and should review any nominations received before making any recommendation(s) to Council.

G6 Document retention and Disposal This is a newly drafted regulation to provide guidance to the EFG on these matters. The proposed document was accepted into practice.

EFG Annual Report 2011

new

FINANCIAL REPORT

EFG Financial statements Notes

Final 2011

2011 Budget

2011 Actualized

Final 2010

Comments

Description

Assets A) Accounts receivable from associated for endowment fund B) Fixed assets I. Intangible assets Start-up and expansion costs Accumulated depreciation II. Tangible assets Other assets Accumulated depreciation III. Financial assets Other assets

C) Current assets I. Stock II. Accounts receivable from customers

29.743 €

Invoice to issue

- € 29.743 €

32.016 € 11.228 € - €

- €

43.244 €

III. Financial assets other than fixed assets IV. Liquid assets

70.934 €

General EFG liquid assets

108.158 €

Temporar liquid assets from Geotrainet project

155.256 € 263.415 €

€

70.934 €

293.158 €

€

114.178 €

D) Prepayments and accrued income Discounts on loans Others Total assets ( A+B+C+D)

Liabilities A) Net equity I. Endowment fund VIII. Retained earnings (loss) carry forward

79.218 €

68.328 €

Adjustment to retained earnings (Geotrainet account) IX. Profit (loss) for the year

32.506 € 111.724 €

10.890 € -

€

79.218 €

B) Provision for risks

C) Employees' leaving indemnity D) Accounts Payables 21

155.256 €

186 €

Invoice to be received from suppliers

Accounts payable to suppliers

1.080 €

2.364 €

Taxes, renumeration, sociale security, provision holiday

25.098 €

32.411 €

EFG Annual Report 2011

EFG Financial statements Notes

Final 2011

2011 Budget

2011 Actualized

Final 2010

Comments

Description 181.435 €

€

34.961 €

Total (B+C+D+E)

181.435 €

€

34.961 €

Total net equity and liabilities (A+B+C+D+E)

293.159 €

€

114.179 €

E) Accrued liabilities and deferred income Loan interests Other accrued liabilities and deferred income

1€ -

0€

Profit and loss account

A) Revenues Fees

Fee payment still missing for Greece, Slovakia and Slovenia

Fees from National Associations

54.598 €

54.600 €

54.601 €

Fees from Eur Geol Title

3.432 €

3.000 €

3.074 €

Fees from Eur Geol Title - NLB

11.100 €

10.000 €

11.098 €

9.932 €

- €

1.009 €

8.847 €

8.000 €

15.909 €

77.977 €

75.600 €

76.698 €

84.523 €

19.902 €

22.647 €

19.902 €

Initial payment less than previously 15.280 € estimated - overall project budget remains the same

Contribution Terrafirma Project

42.600 €

30.600 €

42.600 €

44.845 €

Overall project budget same but execution faster than expected

Contribution Geotrainet Project

270.069 €

40.000 €

68.805 €

17.310 €

Figure actualised with regard to latest projections

Fees from Eur Geol Title - NLB sweep up Revenues from Eur Geol Magazine

Invoices already prepared - will be sent in Nov 2011

Invoices have ben sent. Due date for payment 19.10.2011

Other fees Other revenues

Contribution PanGeo

- €

Donations & Sponsorship

Contribution Euroages Project

4.240 €

1.000 €

Other revenues

661 € 337.472 €

71.600 €

132.307 €

82.352 €

415.448 €

147.200 €

209.005 €

166.876 €

Total revenues (A)

4.917 €

B) Expenses Office equipment

- €

300 €

728 €

Office Bruxelles running expenses

1.225 €

3.000 €

848 €

Office Bruxelles Travelling expenses

1.556 €

1.500 €

2.046 €

9.336 €

7.500 €

8.000 €

5.263 €

13.725 €

11.576 €

Invoice of EUR6913 to be received in 2011. 19.762 € Overall project budget same but execution slower than expected

Eur Geol Magazine expenses PanGeo Project work done

Printing of extra copies

Terra Firma Project work done

35.806 €

27.075 €

36.165 €

Invoice of EUR7000 and EUR 21665 to be 25.208 € received in 2011. Overall project budget same but execution faster than expected

Geotrainet Project Expenses (excluding staff costs - these are included in the total staff costs below)

222.432 €

10.000 €

23.263 €

15.886 €

Figure actualised with regard to latest projections

EFG Financial statements Notes

Final 2011

2011 Budget

2011 Actualized

Final 2010

Comments

Description

Euroages Project Expenses

2.080 €

5.000 €

6.221 €

Activities connected with EU

1.595 €

1.500 €

120 €

Conference Costs

1.043 €

1.500 €

22.381 €

20.000 €

11.814 €

Officials travel expenses Accountants & Professional Fees accounts Web Costs

3.637 €

3.500 €

5.026 €

55 €

1.500 €

1.538 €

Other costs

89 €

500 €

810 €

306.498 €

82.875 €

117.304 €

90.007 €

Personnel costs a) salaries and wages

44.252 €

32.000 €

34.000 €

47.121 € Salary adjustment June 2011

b) social contributions

24.062 €

26.880 €

28.560 €

15.131 € Salary adjustment June 2011

1.000 €

c) employees' leaving indemnity c) employees' bonus

2 2

e) provisions for holidays

302 €

932 € 69.246 €

2.290 € 59.880 €

63.560 €

64.844 €

Depreciation and value adjustments b) depreciation of tangible assets c) other value adjustments d) provision for bad debt Accruals to provisions for liabilities and charges Miscellaneous running costs : loss from account receivable

6.898 €

Total expenses (B) Difference between revenues and expenses (A-B)

890 €

382.642 €

142.755 €

180.864 €

155.742 €

32.807 €

4.445 €

28.141 €

11.134 €

C) Financial income and costs Other financial income : - Interest

91 €

48 €

392 €

292 €

392 €

292 €

Interest and other financial costs: - Bank charges - Interest paid Total financial income and costs

301 €

244 €

Result before taxes Taxes on the income for the year Profit (loss) of the year

32.506 €

10.890 €

EFG Annual Report 2011