Validity of the on-the job trainings and study tours according to basic criteria

The on-the-job trainings and study tours are assessed against the general criteria outlined in the terms of reference for this study and developed in Annex 1. This provides a basis for the abstract evaluation of the training and study tour programme and the feedback from the stakeholders.

Relevance

The focus of the on-the-job trainings and study tours was to raise awareness of ECAP and the tools/services available to reduce the environmental impact of SMEs. The objectives of the trainings and study tours were to:

Provide best practice cases to improve a company‟s/SME‟s environmental impact;

Explore possibilities to develop an informal ECAP network; and Initiate follow-up projects.

The on-the-job trainings and the study tours were thus relevant to ECAP objectives.

Coherence

The findings from the desk research and the stakeholder survey indicate that the ECAP on-the job trainings and study tours did not overlap with other ECAP actions. The on-the-jobs trainings and study tours complement other ECAP actions.

15 R out of 21: (14,2%)

First assessment of the Environmental Compliance Assistance Programme for SMEs (ECAP)

41

Economy

Under the overall term “economy”, the dimension of the action, the timing and the budget spent is discussed.

Size and format of seminars: the study tours and trainings attracted between 20 and 50 participants, which met the expectations of the organisers. The format of the study tours and trainings was positively received by the participants. Some participants suggested that more time for networking and in-depth discussions of their experiences would have been very helpful. Some stakeholders found the training at Prato as somewhat unsatisfactory, as the example was not related to SMEs but to a concept for an industrial park. It was concluded that the topic for the trainings and tours should not be too specific.

Timing: The on-the-job trainings and study tours followed the capacity building projects and the Best Practice Transfer workshops, so they are in line with a series of ECAP-related actions moving from general issues to more specific issues.

Budgeting: The trainings and study tours offered a lot of activities during the two days. It can be concluded that the budget was used effectively and alternative cheaper options to achieve the objectives were not available.

The economy-related criteria have therefore been fulfilled.

Effectiveness

The effectiveness of the trainings and study tours were measured by two indicators:

The number of addressees having taken advantage of the trainings and study tours; and The opinions of the participants as to whether the trainings and study tours were perceived as useful.

The number of participants varied between 20 and 50, which indicates that a satisfactory number of stakeholders attended the trainings and study tours.

Both the questionnaires filled in directly after the tours and trainings and the stakeholder surveys suggested that the participants were on the whole satisfied with the trainings and study tours. The only criticism was made in respect to the study in Prato. The example of an industrial park was not transferable to many of the SME related stakeholders. Also the Club EMAS event was attended by many participants, but such a Club is only feasible if there are enough interested SMEs in the region.

The effectiveness of the events was very high. The information was positively received and examples were highly relevant to the stakeholder.

Efficiency

The sum of money allocated to the training events was invested efficiently. The two day events delivered a lot of activities and practical information. The examples were very concrete and relevant to the business of the participants. It was not possible to recommend an alternative way to procure study tours and on-the-job trainings or disseminate the information at a lower cost.

Sustainability

Stakeholders responding to the survey said they had kept contact with stakeholders they met at the trainings, in particular the study tour in Prato. The events have certainly intensified networking and knowledge gathering/exchange between the interested actors of different MSs.

Follow up projects were undertaken after the on-the-job training in Vienna. A number of different activities took place after the trainings and study tours. Two examples were the dissemination of information on the measures to reduce environmental impacts and the realisation of a EMAS club.

These activities were of a smaller scale compared to the training events and more similar to a working group.

The sustainability of the training events has therefore been realised as it helped to raise long-term awareness of ECAP, and enabled interlinking of stakeholders and follow up projects and initiatives.

42

Utility

Most participants viewed the training events as useful for overcoming SME related problems.

However, some reported that the best practice example did not fit with their individual circumstances;

especially the study tour at the industrial park which was only useful for SMEs located in an industrial park. When selecting the destination for a study tour it is important to consider the transferability of the best practice example. The participants also mentioned that there was a very limited amount of time for networking activities.

It can be seen that the training events and study tours have been useful for the majority of participants but the practicality and transferability of best practice cases should always have a high. Furthermore there should be more time for individual discussions between the participants, which would help participants to consider carefully whether there are aspects of the best practice examples that could be applied to their country.

Consistency

The study tours and trainings are very consistent with other workshops and programmes. The events addressed specific issues which are highly relevant to ECAP.

Allocation / distributional effects

The distributional effects of the training events are assessed with regard to two different aspects:

a.) Was additional effort focused on those SMEs (sector wise) with the largest environmental impact?

The trainings and study tours were designed to inform participants about specific best practice examples. The focus was on available examples; specific sectors with large environmental impact were not the focus of the assessment. Within the trainings and study tours, experienced participants from best practice on-the-job training projects were brought together with less experienced participants in knowledge exchange exercises. However the exchange was not always successful because of the best practice examples were mainly suited to individual national circumstances. As a result no real transfers were actually initiated as the participants found it difficult to address the national differences with the best practice examples.

b.) Was effort focussed on geographic location of SMEs, considering that those in less well developed EU states may have a worse track record with regards to environmental pollution?

The different trainings and study tours focussed on specific topics and were open to participants of all MSs. Moreover, there was one event per topic for the whole of EU. Attempts were also made to provide the trainings in different EU regions: one in Central Europe (Vienna), one in South-West (Barcelona), South (Italy) and West (Paris).

Acceptability

The training events and study tours were acceptable to the stakeholders. There were no overtly negative opinions reported to the interviewers.

5.5 Conclusions and recommendations

The study tours and on-the-job training sessions were successful at raising awareness of ECAP and identifying possibilities to improve SMEs‟ environmental impact. The attendance at the events was good with between 20 and 50 people at each event. They therefore raised more interest than the pilot workshops described in Chapter 2.

The interest and the rate of satisfaction that the events aroused, however, clearly differed depending on the type of event.

In general, all events have been of interest to the participants responding. None of the events seemed to have been too specific or off topic. However it must be considered that the case of the industrial

First assessment of the Environmental Compliance Assistance Programme for SMEs (ECAP)

43

park in Prato was only of interest to SMEs located on an industrial park. This training did not contain measures to be applied to individual SMEs.

In terms of practicability, the biggest interest seems to have been generated by the EMAS Club Training, which was positively assessed in nearly every aspect. This training seems to have provided practical advice on how to improve the uptake of EMAS and address specific problems. The Prato tour got a lower rate of positive responses in terms of practicability as the example only applied in specific circumstances. Also the EcoBusinessPlan training and the Paris study tour examples were only to a limited extent regarded as practical. However no specific reasons were given what could be improved in practicability.

The programmes were in general reported to have been rather practical, although some of the information given was not interesting for every participant. Yet, individual projects and initiatives allowed the transfer of best practice experiences.

Responses from the survey have, however, made it clear that it was important that the examples chosen were interesting for a broad SME audience. The excursion to Prato was seen by many as too specific, and it made this example less interesting for individual SMEs who are not situated on an industrial park.

For transferability and applicability, there were problems with the Prato tour which applied to SMEs based on industrial parks. Also, the French study tour was said to have only included French examples which may not have universal applicability. EcoBusinessPlan examples seemed transferable to other countries and sectors, e.g. via the Chambers of Commerce; although transferability would be restricted by different administrative and structural circumstances in individual countries. Similarly the EMAS Club example cannot be transferred to areas in which few EMAS certified companies/organisations exist.

In general all events provided an opportunity for networking, however time was limited and as a result bilateral discussions on specific problems and finding solutions were only somewhat possible.

With regard to follow up projects, it is too early to take stock of numbers given that the training only took place during 2010. From the answers received, it seems that the training has provided a foundation for some ideas for projects, but these have generally not come to fruition yet.

The on-the-job training and study tours generally facilitated the development of contacts and subsequent exchange of information between participants. However it was noted that, given the nature of 1-2 day training courses, they did not leave much time outside of the official programme for networking. As a consequence, they have helped people get to know each other but have not worked as a forum to discuss specific problems and find solutions.

Also, the training and tours did not necessarily trigger new projects. However, they gave participants new ideas for projects or to modify approaches they already had in place. In some cases, for example with the EMAS Clubs, such initiatives are planned in a few regions on a smaller scale than a club.

Certain elements of the EcoBusinessPlan Vienna have also been taken up, for example, constructing a database.

General recommendations for successful trainings and study tours could include:

Easy to implement and widely accessible examples should be selected, to allow as many SMEs as possible to adopt them without them having to engage with third parties. The examples should not be too specific, so that a sufficient number of stakeholders can be attracted.

Best practice examples which are easily transferable to other sectors and Member States or regions should be chosen.

Provide and plan for more networking in the schedule of the event.

44

6 Task A4: Building environmental expertise in the