State-of-The-Art and Applications of 3D Imaging Sensors in Industry, Cultural Heritage, Medicine, and Criminal Investigation

3D imaging sensors for the acquisition of three dimensional (3D) shapes have created, in recent years, a considerable degree of interest for a number of applications. The miniaturization and integration of the optical and electronic components used to build them have played a crucial role in the achievement of compactness, robustness and flexibility of the sensors. Today, several 3D sensors are available on the market, even in combination with other sensors in a “sensor fusion” approach. An importance equal to that of physical miniaturization has the portability of the measurements, via suitable interfaces, into software environments designed for their elaboration, e.g., CAD-CAM systems, virtual renders, and rapid prototyping tools. In this paper, following an overview of the state-of-art of 3D imaging sensors, a number of significant examples of their use are presented, with particular reference to industry, heritage, medicine, and criminal investigation applications

Report on SHAFE policies, strategies and funding

The objective of Working Group (WG) 4 of the COST Action NET4Age-Friendly is to examine existing policies, advocacy, and funding opportunities and to build up relations with policy makers and funding organisations. Also, to synthesize and improve existing knowledge and models to develop from effective business and evaluation models, as well as to guarantee quality and education, proper dissemination and ensure the future of the Action. The Working Group further aims to enable capacity building to improve interdisciplinary participation, to promote knowledge exchange and to foster a cross-European interdisciplinary research capacity, to improve cooperation and co-creation with cross-sectors stakeholders and to introduce and educate students SHAFE implementation and sustainability (CB01, CB03, CB04, CB05). To enable the achievement of the objectives of Working Group 4, the Leader of the Working Group, the Chair and Vice-Chair, in close cooperation with the Science Communication Coordinator, developed a template (see annex 1) to map the current state of SHAFE policies, funding opportunities and networking in the COST member countries of the Action. On invitation, the Working Group lead received contributions from 37 countries, in a total of 85 Action members. The contributions provide an overview of the diversity of SHAFE policies and opportunities in Europe and beyond. These were not edited or revised and are a result of the main areas of expertise and knowledge of the contributors; thus, gaps in areas or content are possible and these shall be further explored in the following works and reports of this WG. But this preliminary mapping is of huge importance to proceed with the WG activities. In the following chapters, an introduction on the need of SHAFE policies is presented, followed by a summary of the main approaches to be pursued for the next period of work. The deliverable finishes with the opportunities of capacity building, networking and funding that will be relevant to undertake within the frame of Working Group 4 and the total COST Action. The total of country contributions is presented in the annex of this deliverable

EU and WTO Regulatory Approaches to Renewable Energy Subsidies: Negative and Positive Integration

This paper compares how the EU and the WTO have grappled with balancing the negative (trade-distortive) and positive (climate change-mitigation) effects of renewable energy (RE) subsidies. It first shows that, although both subsidy control regimes share some basic tenets of negative integration (i.e. prohibiting trade-distortive RE subsidies), EU State aid law is comparatively more constraining on governments’ space to support green energy in both substantive and procedural/institutional terms. It then argues that the more negative integration is strictly framed and implemented, the greater the need for positive integration (i.e., sheltering trade-distortive but climate-friendly RE subsidies under certain conditions). This, in turn, goes a long way in explaining why the EU’s regulatory model is also distinct for having progressively established a set of common rules on permissible “good” RE subsidies. With this in mind, the paper assesses the extent to which the absence of a comparable positive integration dimension in the WTO legal framework exposes RE subsidies to the risk of WTO-illegality. It finally argues that while comparing the two regimes may be useful from a theoretical standpoint, a transposition of the EU’s positive integration approach to the WTO is not desirable for a variety of legal, political and institutional reasons