green infrastructure 5th project meeting los dama! zurich · 11.2019 milano (tbc, coordination...

1

5th Project LOS_DAMA! meeting: Zurich - Date: 04.04.2018 – 06.04.2018

European Regional Development Fund

Green sustainability to share better living.Green sustainability to share better living.

5th Project Meeting LOS_DAMA! Zurich Proceedings Wednesday 4th April 2018 – Friday 6th April 2018

Green infrastructure for better living

2



Time Topic Speakers / Facilitation

Venue / remarks

09.00 Arrival and Coffee Amtshaus V Room AHV 501

09.30 Welcome and introduction Christine Bräm Jürgen Faiss

10.00 insight into external events

Retrospect on MoU

PIEM, TRENT, MUC, SIR,

Room AHV 501

10.30 WP T1

Analysis on local pilots

First toolbox introduction

Martina van Lierop TUM

Room AHV 501

13.15 Lunch Haus Hiltl

15.15 WP T2

Job Shadowing / MoU Implementation

Comprehensive landscape approaches

Corinna Jenal EKUT

Room AHV 501

17:00 Coffee Break

17.30 WP C

Newsletter

Communication products

Sarah Braccio PIEM

Room AHV 501

18.45 Introduction for Day 2 Jürgen Faiss AHV 501

19.30 Dinner Restaurant Schipfe

3



Insights into external events

Francecsa LaGreca, PIEM

Alessandro Betta, TRENT

Sylvia Pintarits, MUC

Philipp Vesely, SIR

Joint meeting of AlpES and LOS_DAMA!, Turin, in December 2017

Meeting with Comune di Verona, Verona in January 2018

EUSALP Ag 7 meeting San Michele in March 2018

Planned meeting with Alpbionet in June 2018

Retrospect on MoU Matthias Lampert (MUC)

Aim of the session Content and issues (5 sentences)

Retrospect on MoU: status and outlook

Aim of the session Method

Presentation, flip-chart and personal interviews

Summary Result and discussion (5 key points)

Retrospect The MoU is signed by Munich, Vienna, Trento, CM-Torino, Salzburg, Milano and Graz; Verona announced that it will sign. As supporters, the MoU was signed by Regione Piemonte, Provincia autonoma di Trento, SIR, UIRS; Cipra and StMUV will sign it Outlook Further signatories and supporters are to be acquired:

as signatories: CM di Milano, Bergamo, Torino, Innsbruck, Bern, Basel, Provincia di Bergamo, Belluno, Bolzano, Innsbruck, Klagenfurt, Zürich, Geneva, Nice Côte d’Azur, Chambéry Métropole, Grand Annecy, ...

as supporters: Landesrat Niederösterreich, Regione Lombardia, Gerasdorf? smaller Slowenian towns, EMM, Vorarlberg, EKUT,TUM, Ente di gestione delle Aree Protette del Po Torinese, …

It is proposed to perpetuate the network by regular meetings in the margins of the EUSALP annual conference (alternate lead management, suggestion for standard agenda and content by lp) and irregular meetings at other occasions (e. g. LOS_DAMA! final conference in 2019) The next EUSALP annual conferences will be:

20./21.11.2018 Innsbruck (tbc, coordination Sylvia with Tyrol presidency)

11.2019 Milano (tbc, coordination Cesare with Lombardy presidency)

Summary Contribution to LOS_DAMA!

The City Network is a mayor output of the project

Participants Target groups

all PPs

Work Package Outputs

T2 MoU

Experience Work distribution

LP will propose content and standard agenda for meetings

4



WP T1 Martina van Lierop / Christina Stockinger (TUM/VIE)


The session was divided into two parts. The first part focused on an analysis of the PAPs, in which each pilot region was analysed for their issues and a comparison between different pilot regions was made. The second part was to explain the toolbox structure and to enable discussions and (international) exchange on specific methods.


Part 1: Presentation of different facts, challenges and working methods within pilot regions and linked with theory from the review Part 2: General overview of the structure of the Toolbox Knowledge exchange regarding tools used in the local pilots through discussion groups of 4-5 persons. Each group discussed tools of the preliminary toolbox to get practical information on what will be necessary for the successful application of tools.


There is a need for improvement in answering the questions of the PAP to make inputs more comparable and comprehensible. There is large interest to compare the PAPs to get more information on different ways of stakeholder involvement. Agreement that the focus of the Toolbox will be on the key points: Goal-setting/idea generation, planning and designing, implementation and Allrounders and not on analysis and evaluation processes. Insight that a good clear explanation of tools is necessary, though not easy to make.


The session was designed to improve the transnational learning, gain insights in other pilot projects and the task of conveying knowledge as well as getting practical information regarding tools which will be used by the partners.


Partners and Observers of LOS_DAMA!


Enhancement of the PAP and the Toolbox

Work Package Activity and deliverable

The session was dedicated to A.T1.1 (D.T1.1.5) and A.T.1.11.


Suggestions will be done by TUM to enhance the comparison of inputs of the PAP. A template will be developed by TUM and VIE to provide a framework for describing tools in a coherent and comprehensible way.

Experience Problems encountered

There are difficulties in answering the questions of the PAP in a clear and comprehensible way. There is a lack of time by some partners to provide inputs on time.

5



WP T2 Corinna Jenal (EKUT)


As part of WP T2 within the context of activity A.T2.3 updated information on the job-shadowing matches were given and the draft of the reporting template was introduce. Within Activity A.T2.2 an introduction to the understanding of landscape approaches was presented and displayed how to connect the understanding of landscape approaches within the job-shadowing activity and its reporting Aims of the session: Information on the Job-Shadowing matches and reporting template, introduction to landscape approaches


online-based word clouds


partners will submit the names of the not yet nominated participating persons as soon as they are known

the reporting template will be uploaded on basecamp under docs and files as well as in WP T2


The session was part of WP 2 in Preparation of A.T2.3 Job-Shadowing and documentation template within activity A.T2.2 mutual exchange and landscape approaches


The session was focused on the partners and observers of LOS_DAMA!.


The session was helpful to clarify the further roadmap regarding activity A.T2.3 Job-Shadowing and set-up the documentation template for activity A.T2.2


The session was part of the activity A.T2.3 Job-Shadowing and activity A.T2.2 landscape approaches and mutual exchange


SIR (Manuela Brückler) and EKUT (Corinna Jenal) provided an overview and documentation template for the activities A.T2.3 and A.T2.2

6



WP C Sarah Braccio (PIEM)


The WP C session concerned the presentation to LOS_DAMA! partners of last version of Corporate Design Manual of project. In some cases we proceeded with the discussion on a specific issue (e.g. to translate claim or not), in others, we have gathered feedback from partners to organize the next activities (e.g. Publications).


Presentation / Discussion


New Corporate Design Manual: We have presented the update of a manual with all graphic layouts of communication products.

Rules for using communication tools. We have presented some clarifications about the use of the headline (claim) “Green Infrastructure for better living”. The partners affirmed the need to translate the claim into local languages for communication products. The proposed solutions is that either the English version of the claim plus a translation is used, or only the English version is used with a clear reference to the local language written on the first page.

Newsletter We have presented the workflow, topics and timing of upcoming newsletters. We changed the topic of second newsletter from the WP T2 to the WP T4 to promote Autumn School activity.

Inform about events through our web site We have encouraged partners to use the events page on our web site to promote local project events

Publications: Vienna first ideas and layouts After discussing about production timeline of text contents, it was decided that: during the Vienna meeting graphic layouts for the publications will be proposed to choose from; we will work from October to December on drafts of the 3 publications indexes; based on contents of the 3 products and the conclusion of the technical-scientific activities by the partners, we will separate the other phases of implementation and finalization.


A.C.3 Publications D.C.3.1 "Discovering peri-urban Alpine landscapes: better cooperation for nature and culture" (including transnational map) D.C.3.2 Brochure/Compendium for further urban and regional authorities in five different languages D.C.3.3 Layout, translation and printing of public synthesis report (WP T4) D.C.3.5 Newsletter with city-region portraits

7



Thursday 05 April 2018


Venue / remarks

08.00 Meeting Landesmuseum

8:40 Welcome and overview Jürgen Faiss Ladina Koeppel

Bombachhalde

09.30 Guided walk in Limmatauen Peter Wolf Christian Wiskemann Roger Strebel Ladina Koeppel Sigrun Rohde Sonia Angelone Christine Bartholdi Jürgen Faiss

12.30 Lunch Parksaal ARA Glatt

14:00 Welcome Jürgen Faiss Kommandoraum

14.10 Key Note Speech on intercommunal open space development in CH

Angelus Eisinger

14.30

Input talks on open space development in Zurich and region

Peter Wolf Christian Wiskemann Ladina Koeppel Sigrun Rohde Jürgen Faiss

15.15 Coffee break Lobby ARA Glatt

15.35 Workshop on experiences in intercommunal, participatory and interdisciplinary planning processes

Sylvia Pintarits Martina van Lierop Aurore Meyfroidt Corinna Jenal Roger Strebel

Kommandoraum ARA Glatt

16.15 Presentation of the results and panel discussion

Sylvia Pintarits Martina van Lierop Aurore Meyfroidt Alessandro Betta Roger Strebel

16.45 Conclusion Angelus Eisinger

18.10 Apéro Coffee & Deeds

8



Workshop group 1 Corinna Jenal (EKUT)


Exchange of interested project partners with keynote Ladina Koeppel on inter-community cooperation with core cities on how to enable eye level of different municipalities towards the core city and how to overcome the core city Aims of the session: Discuss opportunities and barriers concerning cross-community open space development and the role of the core cities


Mind map


-) Barriers can be seen in individual goals and a lack of professional staff in the smaller municipalities -) Keypersons can be crucial link for successful cooperation -) Another promising factor is the use of the synergy effects of projects with a high financial project volume, as well as the integration of so-called 'green issues'


The session contributed to the transnational exchange of knowledge for project partners with similar problems


Corinna Jenal (EKUT). Ladina Koeppel (Stadt Bern), Renate Zuckerstätter-Semela (SUM), Matthias Lampert (MUC), Alessandro Betta (TRENT), Amedeo Manduzio (Comune di Milano), Peter Spörri (Hochbau Planungen Wallisellen)


WP T1 – local pilots / tools WP T2 – exchange between peers / practitioners network / comprehensive approaches


The input talk was done by the local expert Ladina Koeppel. EKUT (Corinna Jenal) led the discussion and brought the results together in a mind map.

9



Workshop group 2 Aurore Meyfroidt (UGA)


Further to the presentation of best practices from the project Agglopark Limmattal in Zürich, partners were invited to exchange upon methods and ways to address cross-border and cross-sectoral cooperation within a landscape project involving various stakeholders. Based on the Limmattal case, partners were more specifically asked to provide input on the role of the regional scale.


A group of 4 project partners worked in a workshop format around the project Limmattal, including a member of this regional project


Positive aspects : flexibility bringing adapted and interdisciplinary measures. Collaborative approach bringing more impact Negative aspects: stakeholders’ cooperation within Agglopark remains indicative. Not binding. Difficulties to combine project term / political term Questions raised : some stakeholders (also local) were not involved in the process. Yet they could provide expertise on the field. Lack of initial diagnosis. Role of Agglopark as a neutral platform bringing stakeholders together


Role of observer Exchange on best practices


Philipp Vesely (SIR), Christina Stockinger (VIE), Aurore Meyfroidt (UGA), Angela Taufer (TRENT), Peter Wolf (Regionale 2025), Lena Unger (Stadt Bern)


WP T1: linked to the PAPs and pilot activities aiming at fostering intermunicipal cooperation WP T3: local level governance through best practices around regional cooperation


Peter Wolf gave the expert input. Aurore Meyfroidt was facilitator.


The group was a bit too homogenous regarding planning cultures (VIE - SBG + Zürich)

10



Workshop Group 3 Franziska Drasdo (MUC), Martina van Lierop (TUM)


The aim of the session was to discuss “man and nature – interdisciplinary open space development”. The example of Werdhölzli, a wooden walkway through a natural protection area, was visited and reviewed.

Method used

Presentation, discussion in small groups collecting of insights based on a scheme using these categories: open questions (?) – positive observations (+) – negative observations (-) – remarkable observations (!)

Contents Result and discussion (5 key points)

? open questions: Does nature always need to be protected especially in urban areas? How to deal with “Environmentalists”? What degree of complexity is still feasible? What is the potential of peri-urban landscapes? How does a flexible landscape look like? - negative observations: people such as “Environmentalists“ intervene natural processes by feeding animals etc. As the space is limited, trade-offs are necessary and it is not possible to keep the highest standard for natural sights as well as offer recreation areas at the same sight. + positive observations: the wooden walkway through the former nature protection area is a great nature experience, people only rarely perceive. It has an educational value and people are able to develop a relation with the place so they care more about it. It is interesting that hard data are collected to monitor people´s recreation behaviour as well as the amount of species etc. ! remarkable observations: In urban environments people need to be included in natural environments, but a thoughtful design is needed to keep both. Partners such as WWF can be important drivers, because they know about the importance of people experiencing nature. The reveal of an urban and healthy lifestyle demands for flexible landscapes and planning processes. Urban areas sometimes have a higher biodiversity than their rural surroundings.


The Werdholzli in the Limmatauen is a great example of how a natural protection area can be preserved and made accessible for the public. The example gives great input for the local pilots on how to combine recreation and natural protection in a participatory planning process.

Particpants

Sergeja Praper (UIRS), Jürgen Faiss (GSZ Zurich), Martina van Lierop (TUM), Rieke Hansen (TUM), Franziska Drasdo (MUC), Susanne Karn (Hochschule Rapperswil)


WP T1 – local pilots / tools WP T2 – exchange between peers / practicioners network / comprehensive approaches

Role of WS lead/fac. Work distribution

Jürgen Faiss (expert input), Martina van Lierop (facilitation and presentation)

11



Workshop Group 4 Franziska Drasdo (MUC), Roger Strebel (Regionalplanung Zürich)


The aim of the session was to discuss “intercommuncal development of cultural landscapes” using the example of “Naturnetz Pfannenstil”.

Method used

Presentation, discussion in small groups collecting of insights based on a scheme using these categories: open questions (?) – positive observations (+) – negative observations (-) – remarkable observations (!)


? open questions: Especially from the City of Milano the question was raised, how to deal with water, because Milano has a huge problem with lack of water as a result of climate change (Waterways, surface water) - negative observations: the planning process as well as the content of the project “Naturnetz Pfannenstil” does not match the local pilots of all LOS_DAMA! because bottom-up processes like this can not be developed by administratives. Public institutions can only create prerequisites such as appreciating local stakeholders as project developers. + positive observations: A great advantage of the project was seen in the financial set, as it was co-financed by diverse stakeholders such as communities, federal state, federal government, foundations, associations, funds and individuals. The timeframe was not fixed in advance. The “Naturnetz Pfannenstil” was derived from a project and organized as a process. Political stability was an important prerequisite. Within the project farmers are the main stakeholders and project managers. ! remarkable observations: There were no quantitative goals on how much m² near-natural/ cultural landscape should be developed during the project. Furthermore the political level did not request such quantitative goals


Although the “Naturnetz Pfannenstil is quite a specific project which approach is not easily transferable it shows how one can cooperate with farmers. A project like this can only work with the farmers as main stakeholders (land owner or tenant). The inclusion of the political level and public authorities is crucial to built a cooperative and participative project.

Particpants

Barbara Goličnik Marušič (UIRS), Francesca La Greca (PIEM), Roger Strebel (Regionalplanung Zürich und Umgebung), Guillaume Tournaire (GAM), Cesare Salvetat (Comune di Milano) Lukas Meier (GSZ), Christian Wiskemann (Quadra Zürich GmbH)


WP T1 – local pilots / tools WP T2 – exchange between peers / practicioners network / comprehensive approaches

Role of WS lead/fac. Work distribution

Christian Wiskemann (expert input), Roger Strebel (facilitation and presentation)

12



Workshop Group 5 Sylvia Pintarits (MUC)


Feedback to Zurich and lessons learned about Zurich Werdinsel participation process

Method used

Presentation by participation process officer, discussion/peer review with LOS_DAMA partners in small groups collecting of insights based on a scheme using these categories: open questions – positive – negative – remarkable observations (? - + ! )


? how to include “underrepresented” groups, how to combine the applied top down/bottom up with other municipal/regional approaches on participation, would a participatory budget have changed the project, how did you evaluate – will there be a “proper” evaluation in the future? - only one event with the focus group – how about those outside?, distorting effects of online participation possible (strong online communities, groups not using internet, …), some decisions fixed before participation started (some allotment gardens had to be removed), only four pupils reached (is this a success with a difficult to reach group or not?) + involvement of citizens, very structured process, focus on main issues, set up of focus groups (but …), smooth process – politicians are satisfied with the project ! very short time span from start to implementation (positive for participation of citizens!), citizens’ complaints, social experts input, online survey used before setting up next steps, be aware of different cultural contexts (e.g. Zurich in GAM process would be different)


Approach/tools (O.T2.2 / O.T1.2): Well-structured set up/design and clear timeframe of the participation process. For preparing the approach experts identified the most important issues and the process focused on these issues. Overall duration of the process about half a year to implementation. Governance 1 (O.T2.2/O.T3.2):Political level appreciates the Green Zurich practise of participation since it seems that it works out and ensures a smooth implementation (“after ten years of experience politicians still ask to apply these kind of approaches”). Citizens in Zurich expect to be asked. New project – public park in Zurich; approach: start with a small, committed group and then open up to others. Participation officer Sigrun Rohde proposed not to start participation with an empty plan (as used in another stakeholder involvement processes presented), nevertheless involvement should start quite early, participants learn from each other. Governance 2 (O.T2.2/O.T3.2) :Transfer from local to regional level – how can a region like Piemont use the experiences of the local level/Zurich? Municipalities are the ones to invite citizens, however, the region might facilitate this process by inviting municipalities and introducing good examples they can apply. Transnational practitioners network (O.T.2.3). Meeting with Zurich experts enlarging and deepening the practitioners’ network

Particpants

Sigrun Rohde (ZURICH), Sylvia Pintarits (MUC), Maria Quarta and Sarah Braccio (PIEM), Emmanuel Roux (UGA), Stephan Pauleit (TUM)


WP T1 – local pilots / tools, WP T2 – exchange between peers / comprehensive approaches

Roles Work distribution

Sigrun Rohde (officer, expert input), Sylvia Pintarits (facilitation and presentation), discussants

13



Friday 06 April 2018


Venue / remarks

08.00 Arrival and Coffee Amtshaus V Room AHV 501

08.30 WP T3

EU-Policy documents review

Sergeja Praper

Room AHV 501

09:15 WP T3 - workshop

From issues to solutions: sharing our practices at local level

Alessandro Betta/ Aurore Meyfroidt

Room AHV 501

10:45 WP T3 Wrap Up WP T3 (CO)Leads Room AHV 501

11.00 WP T4 Introduction Rieke Hansen Room AHV 501

11.15 WP T4 parallel sessions

Autumn school

Shared knowledge base

Assessment framework

Rieke Hansen Martina van Lierop,

Room AHV 502 Room AHV 501

11.45 WP T4 Wrap-Up TUM/ UGA/ EKUT Room AHV 501

12.00 Lunch Rooftop Restaurant

13.30 WP M – Steering Group

Overview on finances

Mid-term evaluation

feedback session

Oleksii Tupikin Franziska Drasdo

15.00 Wrap-Up and Farewell Jürgen Faiss, MUC

14



WP T3 Sergeja Praper Gulič (UIRS)


Introduction to WP T3 session: Short overview of the structure of WP T3 (outputs, activities, timelines) and explaining the distribution of responsibilities for the workpackage and activities among partners (UIRS, Trento, MUC, UGA). Activity A.T3.1: Review of A.T3.1 related steps done so far, explaining the background and structure of items from the workplan (Analysis of policy documents, Defining the needs of users). Presenting the policy document analysis framework and one example of filled in form (EU Green Infrastructure Strategy).


Presentation, discussion in plenary.


Activity A.T3.1: During the plenary discussion there were proposals to supplement the document analysis framework by adding items: quantitative goals, timeframe for implementation and/or revision, language versions available. With reference to EU Green Infrastructure Strategy the proposal was to also include information about national strategies.


Introduction to WP T3 session: Oriented towards bringing the work package, its structure and organization to the attention of project partners, and towards creating an understanding of this, so that the partners’ engagement and contribution to the activities would be facilitated. Activity A.T3.1: All activities in A.T3.1 are oriented towards elaboration of policy recommendations for the European strategies.


LOS_DAMA! project partners


Introduction to WP T3 session: WP T3 in general Activity A.T3.1: O.T3.1


Introduction to WP T3 session: WP T3 in general Activity A.T3.1: A.T3.1

15



WP T3 Alessandro Betta (TRENT) / Aurore Meyfroidt (UGA))


The session was aimed at collecting policy instruments and insights on the decisional process that Los_Dama! PPs apply to enhance multifunctionality of peri-urban landscapes and implementation of GI strategies in their local pilot areas. Moreover, the goal has been to share knowledge on local practices related to processes and methods of action considering the different administrative structures of PPs. Results of the workshop were meant to evaluate potential synergies between PPs policies framework and organizational structures. Further evaluations will be developed as to give suggestions for the development of Ten-G EU strategy in the next years.


A case scenario has been presented and partners were asked to discuss related questions. The case scenario has been built upon a collection of issues among the partners (related to multi-functionality of open spaces, peri-urban areas, and decision-making processes).


FR/IT/SLO: general policies framework is focused on landscape as a general concept and are not taking into account specificity of GI framework

FR/IT/SLO: very complex relations on both ‘vertical’ (between local and regional scales) and ‘horizontal’ (between departments) cooperation. Questions were raised regarding landscape management schemes (often too complex to give effective answers to current challenges). Relations between policy development and governance issues are not always clear.

DE/AT/CH : regional strategies are not very specific and there is a dichotomy between landscape and spatial planning. It is unclear which stakeholders are legitimate to carry on GI policies and what relation they have with local/regional governments. Approaches to deal with GI are different and a “GI chief” would probably be needed. Lack of coordination between different municipalities around the concept.

DE/AT/CH: strong dependence on city councils, too many steps sometimes. Special decision-making arrangements for specific projects can result in lack of coordination

Differences between planning cultures seem to be confirmed regarding GI issues


16



The workshop contributed mainly to WP T3 activities. Collected informations will be shared and will contribute to WP T1; in particular to the PAP analysis through the presentation of GI related public policies. The session can also contribute to WP T2 outputs as part of the DT1.1.1 and OT2.2 or OT2.3 activities.


Los_Dama! PPs and practitioners. Territorial managing authorities will be further addressed through specific bilateral meetings and calls.


Outputs of the workshop (flip charts, schemes) will be combined in a structured chart and further analyzed combining the content analysis with stakeholders’ charts from PAPs. Outputs of the workshop and further work will also be compared with the outputs of PAPs analysis in cooperation with knowledge partners.


WP T3 // Activity AT3.2, Deliverable D.T3.2.1: Proceedings of transnational workshops on good governance in relation to peri-urban landscape and open space development.

Experience problems encountered

Due to the limited amount of time the discussion has been kept on the general level as there was no time to develop a more structured discussion on the framework. Part of the discussion in the IT/FR/SLO group has been dedicated to the definition and distinction between ‘landscape’ and ‘GI’; lacking of commonly accepted definitions is clearly an issue both for the specific case of the workshop and for further developments of the framework. The presentation of the fictive case study may have be confusing for the PPs since they all prefered to reflect upon the suggested questions than to raise concrete problems suggested by the case. The results seem a bit disconnected to multifunctionality issues since the PPs decided to focus upon methods and decision-making processes.

17



WP T4 Rieke Hansen (TUM)

Aim of the session Content and issues

The aim of the session was to dicuss the LOS_DAMA! Autumn School. The Autumn School is an interational and interdisciplinary event targeted at young professionals organised by TUM, EKUT and UGA in cooperation with MUC and SIR. The Autumn School will take place in Salzburg, Munich and Freising (TUM campus Weihenstephan) in September 2018. The programme and concept, promotion efforts and participant selections as well as multi-media documentation of the results were discussed.


Presentation in front of whole consortium; open discussion of details in smaller group

Summary Result and discussion

All partners were informed about the Autumn School aims and programme and received promotion material to be shared in the LOS_DAMA! project region. The organizing team and partners in Salzburg and Munich discussed programme details such as involvement of the local pilots, locations and accommodation as well as itinerary. It was decided that the results are published in a blog format that includes text, images and films.


This session contributed to the further organisation of Activity A.T4.3 the Autumn School by involving all partners in the promotion and advancing the programme.


Local public authorities (4) Regional public authorities (2) Higher education and research (5)


For WP T4 the session was helpful as it addressed Activity A.T4.3 the Autumn School


Activity A.T4.3 Autumn School: to a minor degree


The session was fully prepared by TUM (Rieke Hansen), yet documents on the Autumn School set-up and organisation (“call for participants” document, programme and budget, promotion material) has been discussed with EKUT and UGA as well as SIR and MUC. All project partners had been invited to vote on the Autumn School title. Based on comments and discussions as well as voting results, the documents were further developed by Rieke Hansen and Martina van Lierop for the meeting in Zurich.


There have been some issues with the question of eligibility of the Autumn School and itinerary details that could be solved through discussion among the partners.

18



WP M Franziska Drasdo (MUC), Oleksii Tupikin (blue!)


The aim of the session was to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the work done so far based on the Project Report. It should give a financial and contentwise overview of what is already achieved and what we have to keep an eye on in our further actions. The following topics were raised:

1) Previous expenditures and budget shifts 2) Next reporting 3) Specific objectives and their implementation 4) Target groups reached so far 5) Work Packages: deviations were named and activities/outputs we have to focus on now


The method was to hold a presentation for the financial part (blue!) and to prepare flip charts that were filled in during the report while discussing the topics for the content-related part (MUC).


1) Previous expenditures and budget shifts: We face a slight underspending so far: we spent 30% of our overall budget instead of 36%. 86 % of the planned costs were reported in RP1 and 83 % in RP2. This matches some delays in the content. Budget shifts were rarely used so far and up to 400.000 € can still be used.

2) Next reporting: For the next status report the description of deliverables and target groups is not necessary, but helpful so we advise to document them. The submission deadline is 27th July 2018.

3) specific objectives and their implementation: The 1st objective “Tapping into the potentials of periurban Alpine landscapes” was reached to a minor degree via PAPS, local pilots, and the first steps for the toolbox. The 2nd objective “Transnationalising cooperation for innovation and impact” was reached to a larger degree via the Metropolitan Alpine City Network, project meetings and local events that contributed to a network of experts and first steps for the Job shadowing. The 3rd objective “Setting up turntables between EU and local level” was reached to a larger degree via the EUSALP AG7cooperation, joint events and the declaration of the MoU and the Joint Declaration.

19



To further reach the specific objectives please deepen your networks and designate colleagues as ambassadors for LOS_DAMA! Results!

4) Target groups reached so far 6 out of 10 target groups were reached according to the AF requirements. Please make sure to reach these target groups through your local pilots, events and press releases: Interest Groups/NGOs (29 out of 40 reached), General Public (125.000 out of 300.000 reached), Sectorial agency (11 out of 25 reached), SME (11 out of 40 reached).

5) Work packages, Activities and Deliverables WP T1: MUC, GAM and SIR are behind schedule regarding their Local Pilot Implementation, VIE is ahead of schedule. Please ensure that you enhance your local pilot by peer-reviewing and exchanging with other PPs (A.T1.2). WP T2: Don´t forget to meet with other PP´s bilateral/ trilateral (A.T2.2 Transnational learning and exchange). Keep in mind to develop a binocular medium and a symbolic element (A.T2.4). WP T3: In order to analyze the needs of LOS_DAMA! Policy recommendation users, please contribute with your networks (e.g. EUSALP, UA, EUROCITIES...). Be aware that a stakeholder event about EU-policies will be launched in 2018 by UIRS. WP T4: The development of a shared knowledge base is behind schedule and will be done during summer 2018.


The session was part of the management (WP M) and contributed to LOS_DAMA! By ensuring a sound implementation of the project. The session aimed at all PP´s and gave hints for the following periods.


Sergeja Praper Gulič, Barbara Goličnik Marušič (UIRS), Christina Stockinger (VIE), Philipp Vesely (SIR) Alessandro Betta, Angela Taufer (TRENT), Rieke Hanse, Martina van Lierop (TUM), Linda Mertelmeyer Sylvia Pintarits, Matthias Lampert (MUC), Jürgen Faiss (ZURICH), Oleksii Tupikin (blue!)


A.M.2 Project Management: Steering, communication, monitoring, controlling and reporting, risk and quality management D.M.2.1: steering group meetings D.M.2.2 Quality control I D.M.2.3 Continuous “status-quo-database” for reality-check A.M.4 Financial management and controlling as well as validation of expenditure-


The preparation and conduction of the workshop was done by Franziska Drasdo, project Manager, and Oleksii Tupikin, Financial Consultant


PP´s still have uncertainties about budget shifts, especially between project partners. UIRS reported problems regarding the communication with the slovenian FLC, the JS and MA are already informed about it.

20



WP M Franziska Drasdo (MUC)


The aim of the session a mid-term evaluation regarding the overall satisfaction for LOS_DAMA!


Each PP was asked to answer the following questions: “What did you like about LOS_DAMA! so far?” “What are your wishes for the 2nd half?” The PP´s were give an unlimited number of Kinder surprise eggs to fill in their answers anonymously into the yellow box. They were collected and the feedback was evaluated afterwards.


“What did you like about LOS_DAMA! so far?”

to improve knowledge test new ways of cooperation in pilot areas great cities and venues,

interesting field trips International/European approach Kinder-Überrraschung action to financial and contentual project management great people/team to exchange and built a network regular meetings committed partners “What are your wishes for the 2nd half?”

useful results outputs PPs stay until the end of the meeting improved team spirit

more exchange Homepage link more insights into local pilots learn

about my tasks earlier higher reliability/ quick responses more interactive/creative sessions


The session contributed to LOS_DAMA! by evaluating the mood within the LOS_DAMA! team in a fun way at the end of the project meeting. Furthermore future needs of action were named to improve the project implementation during the 2nd half of the project.

Summary Unexpected experiences

After this session two partners reported that they liked the session with Kinder surprise eggs.


Sergeja Praper Gulič, Barbara Goličnik Marušič (UIRS), Christina Stockinger (VIE), Philipp Vesely (SIR) Alessandro Betta, Angela Taufer (TRENT), Rieke Hanse, Martina van Lierop (TUM), Linda Mertelmeyer Sylvia Pintarits, Matthias Lampert (MUC), Jürgen Faiss (ZURICH), Oleksii Tupikin (blue!)


A.M.2 Project Management: Steering, communication, monitoring, controlling and reporting, risk and quality management, D.M.2.2 Quality control I


The preparation was done by Franziska Drasdo, the content was delivered by all PP´s.

green infrastructure 5th project meeting los dama! zurich · 11.2019 milano (tbc, coordination...

Documents