At the end of the workshop a workshop evaluation form was distributed. 12 forms were returned by respondents to the evaluator – Roger Lewis Leh. He completed the evaluation analysis and presents the findings as such:
Question 1a: Wanted to know the suitability or otherwise of the Conference Venue
The majority of the respondents (70%) were satisfied with the venue with scores from 5-10. Thirty (30%) said “somehow” and were clearly not satisfied with the venue.
Question 1b: Wanted to know if the participants were satisfied with the servicing of the workshop.
All participants indicated their satisfaction with scores ranging from 6-10 indications of being highly satisfied with the servicing of the workshop
Question 1c: Was to find out if the facilities provided for the workshop was adequate for the purpose.
The response was very positive for this as well with 90% of participants responding with scores of 8-10. Even the remaining 10% scored 6 which is to say very good.
Question 2a: Participation of Stakeholders - this was to find out how well the issues were presented and articulated by the stakeholders.
This also was scored by 50% of respondents with the highest score of 10 and the rest was spread between 6 and 9 indicating very good to excellent presentation and articulation by stakeholders.
Question 2b: Relevance of Workshop - this question was to find out how relevant the workshop objectives were to participants.
25% of respondents scored this with the highest score of 10 while 45% scored it with 9 and 30% scored it 5 and 7. This also indicates that on a scale of 1-10 the participants say the objectives of the workshop were very relevant to them. (Some of them indicated in writing “very relevant”)
Question 3a: Facilitation of Workshop - this was to find out how the facilitators performed in articulating and presenting the issues.
Clearly, 40% responding to this question scored 9 and another 40% scored 10, 10% scored 5 and another 10% scored 6. The indication here is that overwhelmingly, participants think the facilitators did a good job at presenting and facilitating the issues
Question 3b: Relevance of facilitators’ presentations to the workshop objectives
Here 10% of all respondents indicated the facilitation was good scoring it from 5 as the lowest to between 8 and 10 points, indicating very good to excellent.
The indication here therefore is that participants think the facilitators did an excellent job at presenting issues and facilitating the workshop.
Question 3c: General satisfaction with facilitation
90% of all respondents indicated they were very satisfied with facilitation scoring it from 8 to 10 points. Only 10% scored it with a 5 which was average. The indication here therefore is that there was a general satisfaction with facilitators who did an excellent job at presenting issues and facilitating the workshop.
Question 4: Did Workshop meet your pre workshop expectations?
The response of this followed the general trend of good to very good and excellent as the response. A low score of 4 was recorded for 10% while the 40% recorded from 7-9 and 50% recorded 10 points
Question 5: Any other suggestions for improving the next meeting?
This was open ended and responses were as follows:
“Other relevant institutions not represented should be included in the next meeting’
“Transport should be provided for participants”
“The workshop is good and helps us to gain inputs which are relevant to matter intended but the facilitators should provide allowance to the participants, although we are getting good inputs, but allowance is very important.”
“The venue is far from we are coming from, so there is a need of facilitators to facilitate allowances to cover fuel or transport”
“precise information delivery to paper presenters so that they present well-workshop focused papers”
“There is the need for prior full information. Area for presentation should be chosen by organizer to suit the seminar objectives”
“Workshop facilitator must facilitate transport to the workshop venue and return for participants (0-20km) where the workshop is being held.
“Air conditioning at venue was not working properly, especially the first day”
Appendix E: MoU draft per October 2014
This is a copy of a draft MoU as presented by one of the groups. The document has since been slightly changed. It does in no way represent the result of a finalized process.
TANZANIA ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION NETWORK (GEIN) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)
TANZANIA ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION NETWORK (TEIN) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) is made this……day of ……………. 2014 (Effective Date) Between
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (the “EPA” which term shall where the context requires include its assigns and duly authorised officers) of P. O. Box M326, Ministries Post Office, Accra Ghana.
ENVIRONMENTAL STAKEHOLDER (the “STAKEHOLDER” which term shall where the context requires include its assigns and duly authorised officers).
The fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in Chapter Five of the 1992 Constitution provides that environmental obligations should be addressed through Human Rights and Human Rights complements arrangements for environmental protection and promote effective protection of environment, that is access to information and right to participation;
The Environmental Protection Agency is a statutory body established by the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1994 (Act 490) and is responsible for protecting the environment in Ghana;
Section 27 of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 (Act 490) mandates the Executive Director or an Officer of the Agency authorised by the Executive Director to request in writing from a person or request a person to attend at a time and place specified in writing to give information which the Executive Director considers reasonably necessary for the purposes of protecting the environment.
Meeting the regional and international obligation in environment protection
The Tanzania Environmental Information Network consist of those who are able and willing to provide data to national and regional level management tasks pertaining to the environment;
The members of TEIN all represent owners and users of spatial and non-spatial data important for the management of Tanzanian nature and environment. Products are original data sets and derived data sets – either directly or from a combination of two or more data sets or products.
The tasks of TEIN includes but not limited to the preparation of thematic maps and data for spatial analysis for official and public use
The Parties are concerned about the state of the Tanzanian environment and have resolved to collaborate with each other for the management and protection of the environment.
A. SCOPE OF THE MOU
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to establish the framework and responsibilities of the parties to ensure effective collaboration with each other on the collection, sharing and management of environmental information for the management and protection of the Tanzanian environment. It is also to ensure that NEMC serves as a channel of communication and focal point between the parties to achieve the objective of section 27 of Act 490 and also its mandate as the lead Environmental Agency in Tanzania.
This MOU shall come into effect immediately after signatures have been appended by the parties hereto and shall be valid for a period of two (2) years and subject to review for further periods and terms to be agreed on between the parties.
The initial membership shall consist of the following institutions as listed in annex 1 (continue to list all institutions invited to this workshop)
The initial membership shall be a closed group. Subsequent membership shall be by formal application.
2.0. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTIES
2.1 Responsibilities of NEMC;
Serve as the lead Agency and secretariat for the TEIN
Host and coordinate the meetings of the Network
Handle all administrative matters relating to the operation of the Network
Manage and oversee the operation of the TEIN clearing house
Receive data and products from the stakeholders for the purpose of the TEIN portal and other environmental Products determined by the Network
Consider a member’s application for review of the MoU
Membership meetings shall be held quarterly for the first two years.
The parties shall:
agree on funding of shared projects
Jointly source for external funding for shared projects.
Funding from private sector i.e product selling
2.5 Data sharing:
Data may be shared by the owner of the dataset, and will declare ownership or custodianship of the data at the time of provision.
All shared data, metadata, and products shall be free of charge within the TEIN and for purposes under TEIN related projects.
Data received from members and used in products should be properly acknowledged.
A clearing house shall be established under NEMC. The sharing point makes metadata available for the general public. Open and restricted products are made available through the focal point. Restricted data and products are only accessible for TEIN members.
Access administration shall be controlled by the secretariat, with the aim of securing coherent chain of custody of data.
The distributed data should be based on national guidelines as prescribe by the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI); and
International standards, such as ISO 19115:2003, for spatial data may also be followed where applicable and relevant.
Modification to the terms of this MOU may be proposed by either party and shall be made effective by mutual consent of the parties, through the issuance of a written modification, signed and dated by the parties, prior to implementation of any changes. Likewise, each party will promptly notify the other of any anticipated or actual material changes that will affect the implementation of this MOU.
IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT THE PARTIES shall from time to time upon the reasonable request of the other party execute any additional documents and do any other acts or things which may reasonably be required to effectuate the purpose of this MOU.
Any doubts, ambiguities or disputes, if any, in the interpretation of the provisions of this MOU or any of its supplements and with respect to the obligations of the parties, shall be resolved through mutual consultations and negotiations among the parties without prejudice to the rights of either party in law. The parties agree to resolve any such dispute within thirty (30) days.
Any information disclosed by either Party to the other relating in any way to the subject matter of this MOU shall be kept confidential by the receiving Party (or its agents, officers, employees and others acting on its behalf) during the term of this MOU.
All annexure to this document shall form an integral part of this MOU and shall be cited as such.
Any notice or other communication including but not limited to any request, demand, consent or approval must be in legible writing and in English addressed as shown below:
The Executive Director The Stakeholder Institution
P.O. BOX 63154 ……………………………………. (Address)
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania ...........................................................
Tel.: +255 22 2774852/4889 Tel.: ……………………………….
Fax: +255 22 2774901 Fax: ………………………………..
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org E-mail: …………………………….
IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE HEREUNTO SET THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS THE DAY AND YEAR FIRST ABOVE-WRITTEN
Signed on Behalf of NEMC Signed on Behalf of Stakeholder Institution
Eng. Bonaventure Baya …………………………………….
Executive Director (Position)
In the Presence of: In the Presence of:
Ghana. (1994). The Environmental Protection Agency Act. Accra. Hentet fra http://www.lexadin.nl/wlg/legis/nofr/oeur/arch/gha/490.pdf
IPIECA. (2012). Sensitivity mapping for oil spill response. OGP Report.
Johansson, J. (2006). Improving Access to Geographic Information. Lund: University of Umeå.
Kalande, W., & Ondulo, K. (2006). Geoinformation Policy in East Africa. Munich.
Lubidaa, A., Pilesjöa, P., Esplingb, M., & Runnströma, M. (2014). Applying the theory of planned behavior to explain geospatial data sharing for urban planning and management: cases from urban centers in Tanzania. Routledge.
Norad. (2007). Oil for Development. Oslo: NORAD.
Samaki consultants. (2011). Tanzania Coastal Sensitivity Atlas (TanSEA). Hentet fra www.tansea.org
Tanzania. (2004). Environmental Management Act. Tanzania.
TZGISUG. (2006). Tanzania GIS User Group. Hentet fra http://www.tzgisug.org
UNEP. (2013). Strengthening the Africa Environment Information Network. Arendal: Grid.