Revision Report 6 of the Strategic Plan 2005-2009

1. Revision Report 6 of theStrategic Plan 2005-2009 Michel Egger, Paris 14.09.2007

2. Purpose This report is: FOR DECISION • A review of the Strategic Plan 2005-2009 at its midterm • A request for decisions by the GB members on the next steps to take Revision Report 6

3. Status Quo • The first Strategic Plan (SP1) was approved by CEDR’s GB in Bergen, Norway on 12.05.2005 SP1: • Outlines the priorities CEDR has set and the way MS want their employees to work on CEDR’s activities • Underlines the added value created by CEDR • Minimises the duplication of work done by other institutions Revision Report 6

4. Definition of the Issue The Revision Report questions the: • Structure • Content • Time schedule • Resources • Form for developing SP1 • Strategic Plan ad hoc Group • Dissemination of results • 2nd SP Revision Report 6

5. Opportunities of the Report The Revision Report is a good opportunity to: • Put forward ideas on how to strengthen CEDR • To enable the Directors of Roads to observe the progress of the work at midterm • To inform the Directors of Roads of the need for more commitment Revision Report 6

6. The Annexes Annexe 1: Status report of each task & states when it will be finished Annexe 2: Lists TG & PG meeting + participants Annexe 3: Updated Quality Assurance & Risk Management scheme Revision Report 6

7. Structure in which the SP is carried forward The EB – The EB members agreed that: • There should be more opportunities & time to exchange information • The TD set up has proved to be consistent • TD workshops are too short. Inventive solutions are underway to organise them differently • The “burden” on the TDCs needs to be shared on some form of rotation basis Revision Report 6

8. Structure in which the SP is carried forward The 3 TDs commented on by the TDCs: TD Management: • In spite of initial steering/membership drawbacks the activities are running well. Increased commitment is needed to complete the tasks. TD Construction • Commitment & membership for dealing with the tasks will have to be increased if the set targets are to be met Revision Report 6

9. Structure in which the SP is carried forward The 3 TDs commented on by the TDCs: TD Operation: • Workshops on some issues have been very constructive • A large proportion of the work falls on a few • Task groups have begun to use CEDR funded consultants, so enlarging the roles some are able to play in CEDR’s activities Revision Report 6

10. Structure in which the SP is carried forward The TGs and PGs:  Is participation • Adequate to means and resources • Proportionate to the country’s size & economy • Is there sufficient commitment at the head of the NRA? Revision Report 6

11. Structure in which the SP is carried forward Reporting to the EB and GB: Final reports structured to initiate discussion consist of: 1/ A factual & ‘neutral’ report from the TG or PG 2/ A separate report that sets out the consequences, sensitive options & policy recommendations  = The added value from the EB  The GB members present the final reports Revision Report 6

12. Structure in which the SP is carried forward Financial Resources: To obtain financial help from CEDR: • The requirement is discussed within the TD • The TDC writes a formal request & provides an audit of the situation to the Sec. Gen & Chair. • Sec. Gen. & Chair may allocate up to 100’000€ if sufficient contribution already made by TD • > 100’000, the request goes to the GB • Contract between consultant & CEDR Revision Report 6

13. SP2 – Suggestions from the Strategic ad hoc Group SP2 will reflect the NRAs present & future challenges: 1/ Content – The priority tasks shall be: • Future focused & aligned with NRAs changes • Client orientated / in collaboration with other stakeholders • Aware of rehabilitation needs & innovative funding • Developed to ensure the effective use of roads • Aware of a future lack of skilled engineers Revision Report 6

14. SP2 – Suggestions from the Strategic ad hoc Group 2/ Structure – SP2 shall: • Review the structure & working methods • Improve the nomination process/implication • Move from communication to knowledge management • Improve dissemination of results • Ensure quality control of outputs Revision Report 6

15. Proposal / Recommendation The EB recommends GB members to: • Leave the content of the 25 priority tasks of SP1 as planned but adapt SP2 to the NRA’s needs • Keep the initial time schedule and monitor deviations in the QA scheme • Keep early 2009 as deadline for SP1 deliverables • Maintain the present structure: 3 TDs, 3 TGs, 5 PGs • Decide to develop SP2 2009-2013 • Set aside a GB brainstorming session in 2008 Revision Report 6

16. Proposal / Recommendation (cont) The EB recommends GB members to: • Change the TDCs now (finish SP1, start SP2) • Elect new members for the Strategic ad hoc Group • Adapt the ToR of the Strategic ad hoc Group • Elect the chair of the next Strategic ad hoc Group • Commit themselves and their personnel to actively support CEDR’s activities Revision Report 6

17. Concluding Remarks • CEDR has the merit to exist and can from there make progress • CEDR is most grateful for the work & resources put into the organisation so far • The SP with its interlinked 25 priorities is a philosophy driven top down & based on commitment • The benefit of CEDR is reflected in Europe in more efficient NRAs, improved & safer transport and a more harmonious relationship with all concerned Revision Report 6

18. REQUEST FOR DECISION The GB is requested to: • discuss, amend or approve the proposals made in this paper and thus • contribute to make sure that CEDR will continue to flourish Revision Report 6

19. SP2 – Time schedule EB Rome Nov 07  Launch SP2 EB Austria Feb 08  Proposal evaluated GB Slovenia Apr 08  Brain storm: topics/struct. EB ? Jun/Sep 08  Finalise proposal SP2 GB Athens Oct 08  Approval SP2 EB ? Nov/Dec  Implement SP2 Revision Report 6