Participant Feedback and Involvement

The Munich event was attended by 89 environment and IST experts. Excepting project staff, EU (European Union) countries constituted 54 percent of participants, while 46 percent were from Central and East European (CEE) countries. All EU Accession Countries were represented except Latvia. 13 EU countries were represented among them, Portugal and Spain, Greece, UK, and Finland. Excepting speakers, 51 participants attended based on professional interest. The table below shows stakeholder representation for both CEE and EU countries.

	CEE	EU	TOTAL (%)
Independent Local Self-Government	15	15	37.5
State Administration	12	6	22.5
Research Institutes and Academia	4	10	17.5
Business	2	12	17.5
NGO	4	-	5
TOTAL	37	43	100

Concerning participant reaction to the event (collected through a questionnaire survey completed by 25 delegates), 77 percent had a "good" overall impression, while 8 percent felt the event was "very good." 61.5 percent claimed to have basic telematic experience, 15.4 percent claimed to have none.

Sixty-nine percent of participants felt the content of the meeting was "good," while 23 percent felt it was "very good." Conference services were deemed to be good/very good.

Among delegates' objectives for the event, 61.5 percent found it "important" or "very important" to hear about future EU plans in the IST field. Similarly, 70 percent of participants attended the event for the opportunity to meet (potential) project partners, and to forge new links outside of their existing projects. This shows that the "networking" element of the event was both important and successful (nearly all participants mentioned the event was "useful"). The third key objective (cited by all participants as of primary or secondary importance) was to obtain information on other programmes and topics. The majority of participants found the Munich event "useful" in this respect also.

Most participants deemed the 2-day event "useful" from a content perspective, and in particular highlighted the "Environmental Information to Public and Experts," and "Monitoring" sessions most useful. Opportunities for discussion during both the User-Forum and Workshop were considered "useful."

Participants made also content and logistical recommendations for future events. While some called for more detailed and longer presentations, others more importantly felt speakers failed to keep to the guidelines in delivering a brief, concise (ten minute) summary of their application and the challenges associated with its implementation. Overly long presentations limited the available discussion which prevented a full exchange of experiences. A full day workshop might also have been more appropriate in realising the day's objectives.

Comment was also noted on the large number of technology driven presentations, which for a workshop appeared to make them too formal. Speakers in the future might be encouraged to stand rather than sit, in this way facilitating better floor involvement. The opportunity to comment on the workshop and user forum through the questionnaire was welcomed by participants, clearly indicated by the 20 responses received.

Finally, among the themes recommended for consideration in future workshops were: transport related issues, GIS system integration, monitoring, modelling and simulation, public information systems, meta-data handling, regional eco-balance considerations, decision-support and integrated information systems, EIA related applications, and remote data access. Horizontal issues in demand included: good practices in improving environmental management at the local level, overcoming organisational bureaucracy, and how to finance environment IST applications.

Encouraging Participation
The organisers, including both POLIS and REC, encountered a number of obstacles in attracting CEE participation (particularly local government). Among the most frequently cited (gathered during pre-conference telephone conversations), were:

• financial constraints (even when reimbursement was offered, local funds cannot be advanced);
• poor English language skills;
• lack of interest in subject and/or "too technical" (IST is not a priority issue);
• visa requirements;
• low level of importance attached to environment, and;
• internal bureaucracy to overcome in securing permission to participate.

It is interesting to contrast these responses, with the 81% (119) local governments surveyed during an earlier component of the CAPE project who requested dissemination events and technical workshops in the IST environment field. The same mailing list was used for both activities, however, the questionnaire survey was mailed in the local language. Clearly, limited language skills remains a major obstacle in securing CEE participation, while financial constraints emerged as the second major obstacle.

Any future IST events targeting CEE may therefore look to overcome these issues through a) full translation into local languages and b) through full reimbursement of costs. Alternately, a national event might circumvent both these obstacles.

---

REC * CAPE * MUNICH

The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe