| DAY 1 – Tuesday, 6 December 2011 |
|
|
| Setting the scene: The identification of hazardous activities |
PDF |
PDF |
| The Convention in Uzbekistan: The implementation of the Convention in Uzbekistan – Representative from the Ministry of Emergency Situations |
PDF |
PDF |
| SESSION I – The identification of hazardous activities under the Convention |
|
|
| The identification of hazardous activities in the framework of the Industrial Accidents Convention – Ms. Virginia Fusé, Secretariat of the Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents |
PDF |
PDF |
| Identification of hazardous activities in Uzbekistan: Legal framework for collecting, processing and maintaining information on hazardous activities and experiences from the country – Representative from State inspectorate for industrial safety |
PDF |
PDF |
| The Italian approach to the identification of hazardous activities under the Convention – Mr. Giorgio Mattiello (Italy) |
PDF |
PDF |
| The Serbian approach to the identification of hazardous activities under the Convention – Ms. Suzana Milutinovic (Serbia) |
PDF |
PDF |
| Discussion on possible ways forward for collecting, processing and maintaining information on hazardous activities – Ms. Tamara Mitrofanenko, Moderator |
PDF |
PDF |
| SESSION II – Annex I to the Convention as an instrument to identify hazardous activities |
|
|
| Annex I of the Convention and its application for the identification of hazardous activities – Mr. Giorgio Mattiello |
PDF |
PDF |
| Annex I of the Convention and Annex I of the Seveso II Directive: Two harmonized approaches for the same aim – Ms. Suzana Milutinovic |
PDF |
PDF |
| Case study – Case study on identification of hazardous activities using Annex I – Mr. Giorgio Mattiello |
PDF |
PDF |
| SESSION III – Location criteria for the identification of hazardous activities – Application of scenarios, risk assessment and location criteria |
|
|
| Location criteria for activities involving substance that may be released in to water paths and air path in case of accidents – Ms. Suzana Milutinovic |
PDF |
PDF |
| DAY 2 – Wednesday, 7 December 2011 |
|
|
| Continuation of SESSION III |
|
|
| Case study on “worst-case scenario” – Mr. Giorgio Mattiello (Italy) |
PDF |
PDF |
| The way forward for Uzbekistan– Ms. Tamara Mitrofanenko, Moderator |
PDF |
PDF |
| SESSION IV – Follow-up to the workshop on indicators and criteria |
|
|
| Summary of the main outcomes from the workshop on indicators and criteria – Ms. Virginia Fusé |
PDF |
PDF |
| Example of a self-assessment of a country –Ms. Suzana Milutinovic |
PDF |
PDF |
| The advantage of using indicators and criteria for the preparation of project proposals – Mr. Giorgio Mattiello |
PDF |
PDF |
| The essential elements of a project proposal – Ms. Virginia Fusé |
PDF |
PDF |
| Results – Update from Uzbekistan after the participation to the workshop on indicators and criteria Representative from the Ministry of Emergency Situations |
PDF |
PDF |
