WORKSHOP EVALUATION

 

The evaluation forms of the respondents showed that in general every attendant was very enthusiastic about the International Enforcement Workshop. Over 90 % of the respondents thought it to be an excellent initiative.

The questions on the purpo­se and goals of the Work­shop were divided in three sub­categories: (1) the ap­propiateness of the purpose, (2) the success in achieving the purpose, and (3) the participants. Response was very fa­vourable ac­cording to the figures 1 to 3.

 

Over 90 % thought that the pur­pose of the Work­shop: the exchange of expe­riences (Figure 1, Exch. of Expe­­rien­ces) and experts (Ex­ch. of Ex­perts), the raise of the level of inte­rest in im­pro­­ving domes­tic and in­ter­­­na­tio­nal enfor­ce­ment (Raise Inte­rest) and the enhan­ce­ment of pros­pects of inter­natio­nal coop­erati­on (Int. Coop­era­tion) useful or very useful.

1Figure 1.   Appropiateness of the pur­pose.

 

Also over 90 % thought that the Wor­k­shop was suc­cess­ful or very suc­ces­sful in achieving this purpose (Fi­gu­re 2).

2Figure 2.   Success in achieving the Work­shop purpo­se.

 

The num­ber (Figure 3, Nr. of Indiv.), the level (Level of Indiv.) and the mix of ex­pertise (Mix of Exper­tise) of the partici­pants was consi­de­r­­ed mode­ra­tely to very suc­­­­ces­sful by more than 90 % of the at­ten­dants.

3Figure 3.   Information on participants.

 

Some atten­dants would like to have more people from the en­force­ment prac­tice an­d/or parti­cipa­tion of in­dus­try, scien­tific insti­tu­tions and envi­ron­mental mo­ve­­ments.

 

The number of countries (Nr. of Coun­tries) and orga­nizations (Orga­ni­za­tions) re­presen­ted was thou­ght to be moderately suc­ces­sful. The general re­mark was that more coun­tries (other EC coun­­tries, Eas­tern Euro­pe, Third World) and orga­ni­­zations should be invited, however the num­ber of participants should not grow signifi­cant­ly.

 

The questions on the speci­fic themes were divided into a question on the use­ful­ness of the theme and the mix of topics addres­sed. Over 90 % (strongly) agreed with the useful­ness of the themes, with hardly any differentiation be­tween the themes. The same respons was obtained for the mix of topics adressed; over 90 % found it (very) useful. The themes could obtain topics on case studies (mentioned frequently). Also there should be more opportu­nity for discussions, i.e. by fre­quently working in smaller groups. This point was also mentioned a number of times.

 

Remarks on specific the­mes were:

 

Theme 1:

!      Preferrably there should be parti­cipants of more European countries an Eastern Europe;

!      A description of the structure of EPA and European agencies should be given beforehand, followed by a description of strategies. This could be put in the Proceedings as wel.

 

Theme 2

!      Programs of other countries than the ones adressed would be valuable;

!      Information should be given on strategies not on lists of laws/acts. This theme should be made more practical.

 

Theme 3:

!      This theme should include atmospheric and water pollution.

 

Theme 4:

!      Initiate a separate conference on international enforcement;

!      The analogy with the reduction of chemical weapons was very much appre­ciated. Such analogies could also be useful for other themes;

!      This theme should get more attention and more time.

 

The availability of the Proceedings was also highly appreciated. Spea­kers should be encouraged to use slides instead of reading their paper. The option to become more specific on a particular theme, i.e. water pollution, criminal enforcement, more "bolts and nuts" was mentioned several times. The use of parallel sessions was mentioned.

 

Most participants think that an anual or biannual frequency of the Workshop, cumu­lating in a larger (global) conference every 2 or 3 years, would be useful, with a slight preference for a biannual frequency.

4Figure 4.   Information on Workshop Orga­nizati­on.

 

The last question regarded the organization of the Work­shop (Figure 4). In general the respondents found the different organi­zatio­nal items good to ex­cel­lent. Over 75 % thought the ac­comodation, locati­on, sche­dule, informati­on, ser­vice desk, and displays of the Workshop to be very good to ex­cellent. There were se­veral com­pli­ments on orga­nisati­on, workshop and he­lp­desk staff.

 

Other suggestions that re­sulted from the evaluation are:

 

!      Present the results of the Workshop to the parlement and EC;

!      Broad distribution of the Proceedings;

!      The Workshop could be repeated for the EC countries and Eastern Europe as a more locally oriented Workshop;

!      More attention to presentation of the results through the media or publishing a newsletter of some sort, i.e. through the channels of the EC publications;

!      In general there were several statements to broaden and extend the themes. This was said about all themes but especially frequently mentioned for theme 3 and 4;

!      One of the Eastern Europe participants stressed the value of the Workshop for his country;

!      Some respondents would like to have more attention for achieving results (agreements, conclusions). Note: this was not a goal of the Workshop.

 

We would like to thank the respondent who described the Workshop as a career highlight!