VIR21-31

Indicator: Participants opinion

Evidence: All participants indicated that this session was excellent (82%) or very good (18%). Participants appreciated the high level of expertise of the speakers.

Indicator: Participation – frequency and quality of the interventions / questions raised, contribution to group work

Evidence: The session took place in an interview-mode discussion, moderated by one of our SPS colleagues. Ahead of the session, participants had the opportunity to submit questions for the speakers. These questions were included in the overall outline for the sessions and addressed to speakers. Additionally, participants actively used the chat to raise more questions which were incorporated in the discussions as they came along and also answered in writing by the speakers during the session. Following a recap and introductory session on the SPS Agreement organized before this session (i.e. on 24 September), as well as the pre-course questionnaire and reading materials provided in advance (of which speakers were also informed), specific questions and practical examples were requested by participants, permitting a good interaction between moderator, speakers and participants. Participants showed a large interest in STDF's work. Additional follow-up reading materials were also shared after the session.

Indicator: Participants opinion

Evidence: All participants indicated that this session was excellent (91%) or very good (9%). In their comments, participants appreciated having had the possibility to engage with the current Chairperson and former Chairpersons, as well as delegates from the SPS Committee.

Indicator: Participation – frequency and quality of the interventions / questions raised, contribution to group work

Evidence: The assignments that participants were requested to complete ahead of the sessions, as well as the follow-up questions addressed to participants by the SPS organizers in response to the review of assignments, assured a good level of preparedness of participants for the session. Speakers provided very practical information that participants could relate to, and participants took the opportunity to ask questions themselves to speakers on the topics raised. An informal follow-up discussion on how to address trade issues was organized following this session, on Thursday, 30 September, so that participants could further discuss in practical terms, using a real case study based on discussions from the Committee, different aspects mentioned by the speakers in this session.

Indicator: Participants opinion

Evidence: 64% of participants considered the session was excellent, and 32% found it very good. Comments highlighted the need for more time to complete the assignment for this session, as well as the limited proficiency in English of some participants to exchange in the groups. Some other participants considered that the approach to the preparatory assignment had been important in finding out information on national coordination in their respective countries.

Indicator: Participation – frequency and quality of the interventions / questions raised, contribution to group work

Evidence: This session represented a turning point in the engagement of participants in the course. The speaker from Brazil was a former participant in the 2019 Advanced SPS Course, so participants could easily relate to his experience and asked a great amount of practical and very relevant questions. Similarly, participants had shown a large interest in the projects of the STDF in session 1, so that resources provided by the speaker from STDF in this session 3 were highly welcomed. Participants were provided with questions on national coordination ahead of the sessions to find out their national coordination challenges. After the presentations, participants split into break-out group discussions, where they shared experiences on some of the challenges of coordination highlighted by the speakers. As a result, participants' experience-sharing considerably increased for the remainder of the sessions.

Indicator: Participants opinion

Evidence: All participants indicated that this session was excellent (82%) or very good (18%).

Indicator: Participation – frequency and quality of the interventions / questions raised, contribution to group work

Evidence: The pre-course questionnaire shed light on some of the challenges in participants' countries, which frequently related to transparency. This questionnaire also provided an opportunity for participants to become familiar with the provisions of the Agreement and the relevant documents. Likewise, in the follow-up questions to the assignments, participants were invited to further research other transparency-related aspects, such as coordination between the NNA and the NEP in their countries. The pre-course questionnaire and the interactive presentation allowed trainers to get a sense of the level of participants' understanding on the topic. An officer from Tanzania's NEP addressed participants, who could clearly relate to the good practices implemented in the country. Tanzania is an LDC that appears among the top 10 notifiers in 2020, and so far in 2021 too. The speaker was present until the end of the session and also raised interesting additional points in the chat that enriched discussions. Finally, SPS IT tools were presented, through a practical and interactive exercise. Participants were largely engaged to provide answers to the questions asked and took the time to complete and submit the results to the remaining parts of the exercise. Also, 80% of participants attended the voluntary session that was organized the day after on the use of the Notification Submission System, and also submitted answers to the exercises suggested to them.

Indicator: Participants opinion

Evidence: 68% of participants considered the session was excellent, and 27% found it very good. While the high and detailed level of discussions were appreciated and participants acknowledged the opportunity to ask direct questions to representatives of the Three Sisters, comments highlighted the need for more time to interact with speakers in the break-out groups.

Indicator: Participation – frequency and quality of the interventions / questions raised, contribution to group work

Evidence: Participants had the opportunity to submit questions ahead of the session with the Three Sisters. More than 30 questions were received, that were integrated in the outline of the session. Additionally, participants had the opportunity to discuss more technical aspects in break-out groups with a representative of the ISSB of their choice. These discussions, led by a representative of each of the standard-setting bodies, were animated and concrete, providing participants with a unique opportunity to discuss specific challenges in their countries and clarify aspects of their work. Participants' active engagement via the chat was also observed upon return to the plenary room.

Indicator: Participants opinion

Evidence: 86% of participants considered the session was excellent, and 14% found it very good. The case study, based on a real example taken from the Committee discussions, allowed participants to use the knowledge acquired during the course in a practical manner.

Indicator: Participation – frequency and quality of the interventions / questions raised, contribution to group work

Evidence: The day before this session, participants had a preparatory session to extract arguments from the case study and prepare their positions as a Member raising, supporting or responding to a concern in a mock SPS Committee meeting simulated in this Session 6. A former Chairperson of the SPS Committee chaired the mock meeting on Friday, where participants presented their cases, integrating the knowledge on the Agreement acquired during the course, and enriching it with their personal experiences. During the debriefing of the exercise, trainers built on the presentations by participants, who were very active in clarifying certain points and asking further follow-up questions. After the session, DDG Jean-Marie Paugam represented AGCD in the official closing ceremony of the course. Finally, a very rich and participatory evaluation session took place, where all participants took the floor to provide their oral feedback. Comments were extremely positive on the organization and the content of the course, as well as the availability of SPS trainers during the course. Different views were shared in what concerned the duration of the course, the number of sessions per week and the length of the sessions. The session lasted 2h30 hours, given the extensive feedback provided by participants.

Indicator: Presentation to the group – relevance, quality of the substance, quality of the form, time management, etc.

Evidence: Overall, all 4 groups (2 raising, 1 supporting and 1 responding Member) made relevant presentations. Participants had worked on the case study beforehand and had prepared their positions and chosen representatives during the preparatory session on Thursday, 7 October to make the interventions. All of the groups linked their arguments to relevant articles of the SPS Agreement and detailed relevant aspects of the case study which furthered their arguments. During the session, participants made their presentations, which required good time management. All four groups presented their arguments within the allocated time.

Indicator: Results of exercises, simulations or case studies

Evidence: -