Comments on the Workshop
The workshop in general was positive, especially:
· to share views and experiences with different country
representatives and resource persons;
· to identify regional problems
regarding WE based on country reports;
· to suggest
solutions for the identified problems.
The recommended points need to be complemented with follow-up and actions.
Evaluation (1)
1) Relevance of objectives:
The objectives have been achieved. However, on the original objectives,
sharing of information and data within the countries was not stressed, yet it is
important.
2) Relevance of the field visit:
It is appreciated that participants were
taken on a trip. However, the objectives of the tour should have been stated and
discussions should have been made about the tour. Also, there was no clear
explanation about what was happening at the first stop (illegal charcoal making
on escarpment forest along the Rift Valley).
3) Complementarity of
national delegates:
If financial resources were adequate two delegates per
country should have been invited, one from the supply and one from the demand
side.
4) Availability of workshop materials:
Excellent publications
were provided.
5) Selection of venue/hotel:
The venue was excellent.
Administrative arrangements were also good.
6) Resource persons:
The resource persons were experienced.
7) Overall:
The workshop has come at the right time because the prices of petroleum products are going up. The workshop has been very useful in stressing the importance of wood energy in the overall economy of the respective countries.
(R.F.E. Mumba, Malawi)
Evaluation (2)
Very good |
Good |
Reasonable |
Poor | ||
1) |
Motivation |
|
 |
|
|
2) |
Objectives |
|
|
|
|
3) |
Results |
|
|
|
|
4) |
Conclusions |
|
|
|
|
5) |
Expectations |
|
|
|
|
6) |
Accommodation |
|
|
|
|
7) |
Papers presented |
|
|
|
|
8) |
Country reports |
|
|
|
|
9) |
Parallel papers |
|
|
|
|
10) |
Field trip |
|
|
|
|
11) |
Group work |
|
|
|
|
(P. D. Mangue, Mozambique)