Country paper presentations Panel leadoff presentations Plenary discussions Small group discussions

A NNEX

4: S

UMMARY OF P ARTICIPANT E VALUATIONS OF THE W ORKSHOP The participants of the workshop were asked to give their feedback on how the workshop was conducted by answering the following questions: 1. How well did we accomplish the following workshop objectives? Most of the participants 78-99 percent of 32 respondents considered the workshop objectives well accomplished by giving a rating of either good or very good. 2. How useful were the following activities in facilitating the sharing of experiences in CB-MSs between Indonesia and the Philippines? The country paper presentations, panel leadoff presentations, plenary discussions, and small group discus- sions were considered to be either useful or very useful by all the participants. There were a few three of 32 respondents who considered the field trips in Indonesia and the Philippines not so useful. The following were the comments on why each activity was not useful, somewhat useful, useful, or very useful.

a. Country paper presentations

Provided information on the conceptssalient features, cultural, and other management contexts, strengths and weaknesses, and uniqueness of various initiatives Provided common features and differences between the two countries Provided successful and unsuccessful experiences

b. Panel leadoff presentations

Provided guidance, introduction, information, points or stimuli for discussion Provided the workshop participants with information about results of studies and actual experiences, and some dos and don’ts Some presentations were too long Some presentations were not focused Some presentation were more useful than others Time for questions after each presentation

c. Plenary discussions

Key concepts, issues, and challenges were discussedvalidated Validate the topicsconcerns discussed in the focus group discussions Served as an opportunityvenue for interaction, and for clarificationvalidation of “gray” areas Best way to exchange major ideas It was a time for more sharing and learning of ideas and experiences Gave opportunity for participants to learn about results of the other groups’ discussions It would have been better if there was more time given to it While it gave an opportunity to hear what other group discussed useful for informational purposes, it M a r i n e S a n c t u a r i e s W o r k s h o p 101 did not add much additional value to the outputs Filipino participants tend to be limited by “hang-ups” from experiences, and there was a tendency to micro-focus and forget main objectives Filipino participants should have exerted more effort to be understood by Indonesian participants, rather than spend time squabbling over some details

d. Small group discussions

Issues and challenges were discussed in detail People were less inhibited, thus there was more sharing There was sharing of insightsexperiences with other participants Smaller groups are better for sharing Can elicit wider participation Provided a more focused discussion Enabled the participants to learn more about the two countries’ CB-MS sites OK, overall, but could have been better if our Indonesian friends could have related better–factor here is not the interest, but more of some degree of technical language barrier or problem Best way to refine points on various topics Participants were able to share experiences, concerns about, and hopes for CB-MSs–more time would have allowed more fruitful and useful discussions Probably where most of the sharing and best outputs were generated Allowed interactions among Indonesians and Filipinos, and among people of different responsibilities and agency affiliations working on CB-MSs Gave a sense of responsibility to be more active Enhanced participation

e. Field trips