EVALUATION REPORT
20 12
Page | 2
INDEX This document contains: A general introduction to the EU’GO project evaluation system (aim, actors and missions)
3
A description of the on line evaluation system for EU’GO project
10
Impact of the Study Visits
23
A document summing up the contribution of the Kick-off Meeting and the Mid-Term Meeting to the EU’GO management process
28
A document summing up the Mid Term Evaluation Questionnaire
32
Recommendations from the external evaluators
34
Conclusions: evaluation plan for next project phase (2nd year)
44
Annexes 1: evaluation graphics about each SV coming from the on line evaluation
46
Annexes 2: hosting reports and sending reports about each SV produced by each hosting and sending member of the consortium
86
Annexes 3: evaluation graphics about the KOM and the MTM
160
INTRODUCTION TO EU’GO EVALUATION SYSTEM Page | 3 In order to focus step by step on the work done on at the evaluation level within EU’GO Grundtvig Multilateral Project, we have to start from what foreseen in the application form, where it was defined and planned the work package 9: CEMEA del Mezzogiorno will take care of the follow-up of EU’GO and monitor the coordinator’s work by using one online tool, where the partners will upload their reports. The project manager ensures good communication between the WP coordinators and the partners. Each partner will be the recipient of a yearly evaluation report written by the evaluation team, from which will be presented recommendations in order to increase the quality of work. The objectives will be analysed in terms of progress in their achievement. The evaluators won’t work separately, but as a team, involved in every step of the project, from the beginning. Among the internal evaluators, we will find the Italian partner as coordinator, the French partner as general coordinator and the German partner, as well as beneficiaries from each partner. So, they will be really working for the project, its development, and become “learners-teachers”. They will benefit from the skills and knowledge of the external evaluator, who will also have to be sure that this work is objective. This integrated and shared approach has already been the subject of tangible results (UNEC best practice model 2006) for its working group part. Four large fields will be evaluated: a. Success of the transnational/national work, effectiveness of the contribution of each partner/use/utility of the resources of the project b. Functionality of the partnership – general management, team work, partnership administration and possibility of a long term collaboration c. Dissemination/highlighting: if the already tested experiences of the project and the results reached a large public and possibly created a gearing down chain d. Quality of the results (trainings and method), importance of the contents and appropriateness between the needs and the feasibility, between the tools and the backgrounds of the participants/beneficiaries, between the project and the labour market. The evaluation group (Cemea del Mezzogiorno, Pistes Solidaires and Inwole), with the intention to better define the content of the public tender for the external evaluator, contributes to fix aim and purposes of the internal evaluation differently from the ones of the external evaluation. Internal evaluation The Italian organisation Cemea del Mezzogiorno is responsible for the open tender for the selection of an external evaluator service. As coordinator of the
evaluation working package 9, Cemea is responsible for four evaluation areas that have been identified as main fields of investigation (cfr. previous section). Inside the consortium Cemea will concretely be responsible for: Creating evaluation tools to be used before during and after the different activities and actions of the EU’GO project Evaluate the productivity and the quality of the international meetings and visits Elaborate information and results of the internal evaluation in a feed back towards the consortium Lead the Mid Term Meeting foreseen in Rome Analyse the results of the project in terms of team working, national and transnational cooperation, dissemination, production of the tools, project promotion, products’ quality, initial goals and objectives of EU’GO for the final report External evaluation In order to ensure objectivity in the part of the evaluation concerning the process of interaction between partners and the final impact on beneficiaries, an external evaluator has been foreseen for the following tasks: Evaluate and stimulate the partnership in terms of - Roles and tasks division within the project - Level of engagement, contribution and mutual support of each partner in the different phases of it - Quality and coherence of the implementation of the actions foreseen in the project - Effectiveness of the communication and decision making process inside the consortium - Working methods and conflict management within the consortium -
Evaluate the real impact on beneficiaries in terms of Concrete results in relation to the aims of the project Local impact of practices experimented Real commitment of the beneficiaries towards the project phases
-
Evaluate the success of the transnational cooperation throughout the Assessment of the effectiveness of the project against its objectives Real achievements of the international project Dimension of results reached at national level by the project Usefulness of the resources provided by the project
Contribute to the final report In order to accomplish his/her mission, the external evaluator is requested to participate for all the duration of the mid-term meeting and of the final evaluation meeting. The participation to at least one study visit is very welcomed. Reactions by e-mail or Skype within the 72 hours after a direct request of advice from the members of the consortium are requested to the external evaluator.
Page | 4
External evaluator: approach and method proposed The approach proposed by the provider REPLAY NETWORK, chosen for this role, for the external evaluation of the project EU’GO is based on the method of “educational evaluation”: evaluation as an inherent part of the learning process and at the service of the achievements of beneficiaries and staff members. There are other possible approaches to evaluation: as part of the decision-making processes, from the point of view of project management, income-outcome oriented evaluations, etc. The approach chosen for EU’GO does not necessarily contradict any other approach to evaluation. It is simply different. The focus will remain on (nonformal) learning.
Educational evaluation is a systematic and ongoing process which includes:
Researching and collecting information, from different sources, about the learning process, the content, the methods, the context, the outcomes of an activity
The organisation and analysis of that information
The establishment of certain criteria (evaluation criteria)
The discernment and judgement of the analysed information (according to the set evaluation criteria and at the light of the learning objectives)
Drawing conclusions and recommendations that allow the re-orientation and eventual improvement of the project activities
It is relevant and necessary to distinguish educational evaluation from the process of collecting and obtaining certain kind of information. The collection of information is something punctual, and it is done in the evaluation process at certain moments. But educational evaluation is an ongoing process. It implies judgement (good, bad, acceptable, ok, advantageous, disadvantageous, of high quality, of low quality, etc.). The educational evaluation implies measurement. But it also goes beyond the mere measurement: it provides explanations and conclusions. Before embarking on any evaluation, the evaluator and the group should address two fundamental questions: 1.
What do you want to know?
2.
Who will use that information, and how?
Identifying evaluation purposes and users generate questions that will then shape the evaluation methods. This sequence is extremely important, since methods should not be chosen without a clear purpose and the audience in mind. The participation of the external evaluator to one of the study visits and to the mid-term and final evaluation meetings will nourish the effectiveness of the support offered to beneficiaries and staff members, finally the target of the project.
Page | 5
In terms of purposes, the evaluation is undertaken to serve one or more of the following three general purposes: 1. Accountability: to measure the results of programs and account for use of foundation resources 2. Knowledge generation: to create new understanding about what works and what does not 3. Program planning or improvement: to support clear, well-designed, feasible, and measurable grant making programs and to support ongoing program planning, implementation, and overall organizational effectiveness WHY TO EVALUATE To learn The first and most basic aim of evaluation is to learn. The aim is the learning of all actors involved: their access to additional knowledge and to a new learning opportunity. While evaluating, the actors involved learn to understand, to give a value and to draw conclusions on their own learning experiences. Through educational evaluation we learn from experience. All the actors involved in evaluation learn to express their knowledge: knowledge not of “topics” but of the relevance of their educational experience to their own lives. Participants also learn while sharing and confronting their judgements with those of their colleagues. During the evaluation process, different interpretations, meanings and interrelations are raised and debated. Very often actors involved in evaluation ask themselves: What does it mean? How should I interpret this or that result? What are the implications? The doubt implied by the diversity of answers that one might get to these questions can be considered as a matter of competence. The different actors need to have a certain “tolerance of ambiguity”, the ability to live with several different possible outcomes, not all of which fit easily together or with one’s personal, professional or organisational values, to be able to accept that the outcomes of the evaluation may not be to their liking. Where this competence is present, evaluation can be a motor of curiosity, a source of learning and an impulse to continue learning. When evaluation and learning take place at the same time, the actors involved create, discern, imagine, analyse, contrast, elaborate answers, formulate questions, come up with doubts, search for other sources. To motivate The evaluation process should lead to improvements and change. Change, improvement, evolution and further development are factors of motivation for all the actors involved in the educational process. That is the reason why a constructively carried out educational evaluation contributes to maintaining a challenge and to fostering motivation within a project. An evaluation whose results or process de-motivates becomes limited and incomplete because it cannot maintain the participation of all actors. Some participants might have negative and discouraging perceptions of evaluation. This can be a result of the fact that at times in formal education, evaluation (or more precisely put student assessment) is used as a mechanism to “select” or “exclude”.
Page | 6
However, achieving the objective of motivating while evaluating does not only depend on “recognising the achievements as well as shortcomings” of what is being evaluated. It also depends a lot on the attitude adopted by those involved, the atmosphere in which the evaluation takes place and on the imagination of the actors about what will happen after the evaluation results have been made public. To participate Evaluation is an opportunity both to promote the values of participation and to practice it. This participative dimension goes beyond the “democratic legitimacy” of changes to the educational process. To change and improve As we have seen in its definition, change and improvement are integral to the process of evaluation. This idea of change is generally assumed in an “operational” way: change of tools, formats, methods, places, targets. Change as a consequence of the accelerated changes taking place in our societies. In evaluation the changes also happen at the personal level: change of attitudes, of values, of ways of understanding. This “personal” dimension of change is often less visible than the “operational” one. But, both are equally important: evaluation requires openness to changing our ways of doing things as well as our way of thinking. Resistance to evaluation is often rooted in resistance to “internal” and “external” changes that might be required of an individual or of a group as a result of the outcomes.
WHAT IS EVALUATION FOR It is possible to identify some “operational objectives” or uses of evaluation. The following objectives are linked to the implementation and practice of evaluation and, to the uses of its outcomes at different moments of the process. The following list is certainly not exhaustive. Evaluation has a lot of potential and uses, but among others, the following: To plan better Evaluation can help to change things and to plan “different things”, but it can also help us to plan things better, in order to prevent negative consequences and to compensate for possible shortcomings. To take stock of achievements It is important to recognise, name and give value to the achievements of the process so that they do not get lost or not sufficiently used. To consolidate results Identified results can be consolidated by making them explicit at the end of the evaluation process. The description, sharing and further use of results are natural follow-up steps of educational evaluation. To check if we met the interests of the funding institutions When funding institutions support a certain educational project, they do it according to certain criteria: the nature of the project, its objectives, their priorities. Funding institutions usually ask to receive a descriptive and evaluative report at the end of the project.
Page | 7
To reinforce co-operation with partners If partners are involved in the educational project, they will be involved in its evaluation. A constructive and participative evaluation will naturally reinforce cooperation. But, even if your partners are not directly involved, the results of the evaluation can be of interest to them. You might share new ideas for common projects, other fields of common interest and ways of co-operating, new partners and networks with them. WHAT TO EVALUATE After having analyzed the project and its needs, the CIPP model seems to be the most appropriate for the EU’GO evaluation process. CIPP model Four fields: 1. Context evaluation – Are the chosen goals the right ones for this activity? 2. Input evaluation – Is the programme well planned? Are there enough resources to implement the activity? 3. Process evaluation – How was the flow of the activity/project? What feedback was received from the participants/organisations? 4. Product (outcome) evaluation – Were the objectives reached? Process assessment tells when a project reaches certain milestones during an assignment or a task. The method proposed is characterised by its global vision, its integrity and by the articulation of different approaches, methods, theories and praxis combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to evaluation. This approach is centred on the whole learning process (integrally and from different points of view), prioritising the most valuable information, avoiding the risk of “doing everything”. The methodological proposal of this approach to educational evaluation is the combination of diverse spaces, actors, times, methods, sources and techniques of evaluation. By doing so, the “conceptual” (learning, motivating…) and the “instrumental” (judging, changing, deciding…) visions of evaluation become complementary rather than contradictory.
UNITY IN DIVERSITY The presence of diversity in international and intercultural activities is a fact. Very often it is one of the most important sources of learning for the group. For the purpose of analysing them, evaluation often puts the emphasis on separating and breaking down backgrounds, opinions, experiences, conclusions, contexts, contents, organisational frameworks and methods. However, and necessarily, this diversity should be respected and all of the aspects of the process have to be considered. This does not contradict the idea of considering all of them part of a whole or of a unity. This approach constitutes a significant challenge. Having reviewed definition, aims, operational objectives and fields, it is not difficult to identify the actors of evaluation. The questions “who?” and “for
Page | 8
whom?” are deliberately formulated together because everybody involved in the educational process should participate in its evaluation and should be informed about its results, as follows: The participants/learners: as learners and the target group of the activity The organisers and partners: as promoters of the activity The funders: as supporters of the activity The decision-makers: as those “responsible” for considering the results of the evaluation in further decision making processes. These different actors have different responsibilities and tasks in the evaluation. They should participate at different levels and in different phases of the evaluation. Nevertheless, it is important to involve everybody. The evaluation should be democratic, transparent and simultaneously accessible for all actors concerned. Evaluation group The evaluation group is composed by the managers of Cemea del Mezzogiorno (Italy), Pistes Solidaires (France) and Inwole (Germany), together with the external evaluators. Its role consists in supervising the evaluation action in its complexity, revising and testing the evaluation tools produced, intervening to correct or reinforce some of the different aspects arose during the evaluation process, claiming for the contribution needed from the partners. This extra level of coordination among partners is actually fostering and guiding the quality milestones needed for the EU’GO project.
Page | 9
THE ON LINE EVALUATION SYSTEM The evaluation system realized for the mobilities is on line, accessible from the section dedicated to EU’GO project in the webpage www.cemea.eu (partner responsible for the evaluation). For each activity of the project including mobilities (Kick off meeting, Mid Term Meeting, ELearning Meeting, Final Evaluation and the 5 study visits in the 5 countries involved) the coordinator of the work package send a specific password to the subjects involved, that will allow them to interact with the specific evaluation session, performed online. The results of the different questionnaires are readable in a special section (blue button) accessible under password and reserved to the members of the evaluation group coordinated by Cemea del Mezzogiorno and to the external evaluator.
A part from the managers meetings, the system has been organized to collect objective and quantitative data organized on 3 levels: Entry data An ex ante questionnaire aimed to fix the expectations and priorities before a meeting/activity with specific questions, most of them with close answers, to be analyzed with graphics summing up the results. Some of them are open questions with the opportunity to add comments. Output data An ex post questionnaire aimed to evaluate qualitative and quantitative aspects of the meeting/activity just after its end with specific questions, some of them with close answers, to be analyzed with graphics summing up the results, some of them are open questions with the opportunity to add comments.
In the following lines an example of ex ante questionnaire and ex post questionnaire used for the study visits are presented:
Page | 10
PRE-VISIT QUESTIONNAIRE th
th
Study Visit – Potsdam (Germany) from 11 to 15 June 2012
Name Family Name Name of my Urban Garden (U.G)
Gender Age Country Occupation My role in the U.G.
(scroll Male Female) (scroll 18-99) (scroll countries) (scroll occupations) (scroll roles)
On the base of the information received during the preparation, for every item click in the scoring box that most closely represents how you feel about the study visit you will do (SV1DE). In your opinion, what is the level of the information given to you on a) Travel to the visit location Poor Excellent b) Organization of the board Poor Excellent c) Organization of the lodging Poor Excellent d) Economic and financial conditions Poor Excellent e) Organization of the visit timetable Poor Excellent f ) Objectives of the visit Poor Excellent On the base of the State of Art and the Good Practice forms you read, rate your level of expectation about a) Knowing Potsdam and its reality Poor High b) Exchanging with other participants to the visit Poor High c) Knowing the local Urban Gardens’ system Poor High d) Experience the good practices proposed Poor High e) Actively sharing my knowledge and competence on Urban Gardening Poor High On the base of your expectations, do you think that the visit will contribute a) To foster you personal knowledge about Urban Gardens Nothing A lot b) To bring innovation in your Urban Garden Nothing A lot c) To better valorize Urban Garden concept in your local reality Nothing A lot How do you feel about the length of the visit? Too long Just right Something I would like to add…
Too short
Page | 11
POST-VISIT QUESTIONNAIRE th
th
Study Visit – Potsdam (Germany) from 11 to 15 June 2012
Gender Age Country Occupation My role in the U.G.
Name Family Name Name of my Urban Garden (U.G)
(scroll Male Female) (scroll 18-99) (scroll countries) (scroll occupations) (scroll roles)
For every item click in the scoring box that most closely represents how you feel about the Study Visit (SV1DE) you did. Where foreseen, you can comment briefly on each item about your reasons for giving this score, particularly requested if your ratings are 3, 2 or 1. In general, the visit was/had… Boring
1 2 3 4 5 6
Stimulating
Useless
Useful for my Urban Garden
Limited discussions
Good discussions
Rigid structure
Flexible structure
Undemanding
Demanding
Too condensed
Well spaced out
Poor use of time
Good use of time
Poor level of activity
Good level of activity
My objectives not achieved
My objectives achieved
Please comment briefly why you have given this rating How do you rate the correspondence between the objectives and the visit? Poor Excellent On the base of the visit, rate your level of satisfaction about a) Knowing Potsdam and its reality Poor High b) Exchanging with other participants to the visit Poor High c) Knowing the local Urban Gardens’ system Poor High d) Experience the good practices proposed Poor High e) Actively sharing my knowledge and competence on Urban Gardening Poor High
Page | 12
Comments
To what extent did you feel to have actively contributed to the visit? Nothing A lot Urban Gardener, to what extent did you feel you have learned from the visit? Learned nothing Learned a lot On the base of the results of the visit do you think that the visit was useful a) to foster you personal knowledge about Urban Gardens Nothing A lot b) to bring innovation in your Urban Garden Nothing A lot c) to better valorize Urban Garden concept in your local reality Nothing A lot Comments
How do you rate the general support you received from the sending organization? Poor Excellent Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
How do you rate the support from the hosting reality? Poor
Excellent
Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
How did you feel about the length of the visit? Too long Just right
Too short
To what extent did you feel you have had the necessary information before the visit? Not at all Fully How do you rate the organization of the travel to the visit venue? Poor Excellent How do you rate the board (breakfasts, refreshments, meals, etc)? Poor Excellent How do you rate the lodging? Poor
Excellent
What is your overall rating of this visit? Poor
Excellent
Something I would like to add…
Page | 13
Project management The evaluation system includes evaluation questionnaires also for the meeting between the different actors directly involved in EU’GO management inside the different organizations, members of the consortium. For the Kick-Off Meeting, the ex ante questionnaire has not been provided because the project was recently launched and it was also the first meeting between the evaluation group members. For the MidTerm Meeting the ex ante questionnaire has been substituted with a feed-back questionnaire provided by the external evaluators.
External evaluation The external evaluators requested and obtained by the consortium the possibility to integrate the evaluation system on line with feed-back questionnaires, realized time to time, according to the need to investigate or to give advice about the communication and team work within the partnership and the achievement of the project’s objectives (including the impact of the actions on beneficiaries)
In the following lines you can find the evaluation questionnaires used for KOM, for the MTM and the first feed-back questionnaire realized by the external evaluators:
Page | 14
EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE th
th
Kick Off Meeting – Marseille (France) from 6 to 9 February 2012
Name
Partner
Family Name
Role in EUGO
(scroll partners) (scroll EUGO roles)
For every item click in the scoring box that most closely represents how you feel about the Kick Off Meeting (KOM). Where foreseen, you can comment briefly on each item about your reasons for giving this score, particularly requested if your ratings are 3, 2 or 1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Boring Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Stimulating
Useless Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Useful for my work
Limited discussions Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Good discussions
Rigid structure Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Flexible structure
Poorly conducted Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Well conducted
Too condensed Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Well spaced out
Poor use of time Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Good use of time
Poor level of activity activity Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Good level of
My objectives not achieved achieved Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
My objectives
Page | 15
To what extent has your understanding of the project improved or increased as a result of the KOM… a) concerning the Grundtvig Multilateral dimension Poor Excellent b) concerning the EUGO phases and timeline Poor Excellent c) concerning the EUGO financial and administrative functioning Poor Excellent d) concerning the roles designed and assigned within the EUGO project Poor Excellent To what extent did you feel you had previous information about EUGO confirmed during the KOM? Confirmed little Confirmed a lot To what extent were the material produced during the KOM useful? Not at all Fully What was the level of the instructions given to you to… a) attend the programme of the KOM Poor b) complete pre-programme material Poor c) bring relevant material with you to the meeting Poor d) travel to the meeting location Poor
Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
To what extent did you feel you tackled the preparation of the KOM? Passively Proactively To what extent did you feel to have contributed to the decision making process inside the working group? Nothing A lot How do you rate your level of satisfaction at the end of the KOM… a) about the common agenda for the following months Poor Excellent b) about the role and tasks of my organization in the project Poor Excellent c) about the communication system by distance Poor Excellent d) about the common working method adopted Poor Excellent Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
As professional, to what extent did you feel you have learned from the KOM? Learned nothing Learned a lot
Page | 16
As member of the consortium, to what extent did you feel the partnership consolidated during the KOM? Nothing A lot To what extent was the program of the KOM logically sequenced? Poorly sequenced Well sequenced
Page | 17
How do you rate the lodging? Poor
Excellent
How do you rate the meeting working room? Poor
Excellent
How do you rate the board (breakfasts, refreshments, meals, etc)? Poor Excellent How did you feel about the length of the meeting? Too long Just right Too short What is your overall rating of this meeting? Poor Excellent Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE th
Page | 18
th
Mid Term Meeting – Rome (ITALY) from 13 to 16 November 2012
Name
Partner
(scroll partners)
Family Name
Role in EUGO
(scroll EUGO roles)
For every item click in the scoring box that most closely represents how you feel about the Mid Term Meeting. Where foreseen, you can comment briefly on each item about your reasons for giving this score, particularly requested if your ratings are 3, 2 or 1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Useless Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Useful
Boring Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Stimulating
Limited discussions Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Good discussions
Rigid structure Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Flexible structure
Poorly conducted Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Well conducted
Too condensed Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Well spaced out
Poor use of time Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Good use of time
Poor level of work
Good level of work
Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
My objectives not achieved Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
My objectives achieved
To what extent did you feel you had previous information about: a) the content of the Mid Term Meeting Poor
Excellent
b) to complete pre-meeting material Poor
Excellent
c) bring relevant material with you to the meeting Poor Excellent To what extent did you feel you tackled the preparation of the MTM? Passively Proactively To what extent was the program of the MTM logically sequenced? Poorly sequenced Well sequenced Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
To what extent has your understanding of the project improved or increased as a result of the MidTerm Meeting… a) concerning the EU’GO project dimension of each partner at European and local level Poor Excellent b) concerning the EUGO objectives, phases and timeline Poor Excellent c) concerning the EUGO financial and administrative functioning and reporting Poor Excellent d) concerning the decisions taken and the roles designed and assigned within the EUGO project Poor Excellent To what extent was the work done during the MTM useful for the next steps? Not at all Fully To what extent did you feel to have contributed to the decision making process inside the working group? Nothing A lot How do you rate the feedback questionnaire prepared by the external evaluators prior the MTM? Poor Excellent How do you rate the role of the external evaluator during the MTM? Poor Excellent How do you rate your level of satisfaction at the end of the MTM… a) about the common agenda for the following months Poor Excellent b) about the role and tasks of your organization and of the partners in the project Poor Excellent c) about the communication system by distance Poor Excellent
Page | 19
d) about the common working method adopted Poor
Excellent
As professional, to what extent did you feel you have learned from the MTM? Learned nothing Learned a lot As member of the consortium, to what extent did you feel the partnership consolidated during the MTM? Nothing A lot How do you rate the travel to the meeting location ? Poor Excellent How do you rate the lodging? Poor Excellent How do you rate the meeting working room? Poor
Excellent
How do you rate the board (breakfasts, refreshments, meals, etc)? Poor Excellent How did you feel about the length of the meeting? Too long Just right Too short What is your overall rating of this meeting? Poor Excellent Please comment briefly why you have given this rating
Page | 20
FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE th
th
In preparation for the Mid Term Meeting – Rome (ITALY) from 13 to 16 November 2012
Name
Partner
(scroll partners)
Family Name
Role in EUGO
(scroll EUGO roles)
Guidelines Please to answer to these questions as member of the partnership EUGO taking in account your personal, but also NGO/organization experience. Please to consult within your organization for answering to these questions. Aim: The survey aims to raise reflection and understanding about the overall process of work within the partnership, the impact and the sustainability of the project. Deadline: Please to answer to these questions by 20 October 2012
RELEVANCE Q4 To which extent do you think the whole project has met your needs so far?
Q5 How do you think the achievements of this project will contribute to your country needs, global priorities and EC policies?
NETWORKING Q6 How can you describe this network, using a metaphor?
Q7 Can you list the 3 most effective aspects of this network as working group?
Q8 Can you list the 3 less effective aspects of this network as working group?
Q9 Are you satisfied about the decision making process? Can you bring 1 example of decision making process that has made you happy or unhappy?
Q10 Do you think that the division of tasks and roles is effective? Can you explain your answer with examples?
IMPACT Q11 What is, according to you, the impact of the project at the international and European level? To which changes could it contribute (economic, political, social‌)?
Page | 21
Q12 Do you think that this international project through its mobilities will bring a concrete impact in your local reality? How?
Q13 What is the community added value of this project? Can you list the main benefits your local community has gained so far thanks to this project?
Page | 22
SUSTAINABILITY Q14 Can you explain how the international experience will be transferred in your local/national reality? Do you have any example of transfer of this knowledge?
Q15 Which strategy are you developing for supporting the mutual learning and sustainability of the local network after such an intense international experience (the 5 Study Visits)?
Q16 List the main milestones already put in place to grant the sustainability of the project after its termination
KNOWLEDGE Q17 How the network will transfer or systematize the experiences into a more general knowledge? How the study visits will create a new knowledge about the topic?
Q18 The study visits and the local implementation will provide new knowledge about the topic and how will be visible and transferrable?
IMPACT OF THE STUDY VISITS This chapter is focused on the comparative analysis between the different study visits, based on data collected through the online ex ante and ex post questionnaires and elaborated in the graphics available in ANNEXE 1. The results integrated also the hosting context described by the organizations responsible for the hosting of a study visit (see ANNEXE 2), together with the feedbacks given from the sending organization about the participants, realized after the end of each study visit (see ANNEXE 3).
Page | 23
Participants
ROLE IN EU'GO
COUNTRY
Urban garden coordinator 18,05%;
EU'GO staff 28,91%
Student 1,67%
Civil servant 4,97%
OCCUPATION
Retired 8,83% Germany 16,87%
Urban gardener 53,04%
United Kingdom 12,93%
Spain 13,44%
AGE
over 50 38,87%
France 34,86%
Unemployed 14,79% Employed 69,74%
Italy 21,91%
GENDER
under 30 18,63% between 30-40 42,50%
Men 29,94% Women 70,06%
The Study Visits involved a significant number of beneficiaries: an average of 13,8 participants to each study visit resulting from a total of 69 mobilities described in the graphics above. The participation to the Study Visits saw a relevant participation of women (70,06% of the participants). Most of the participants had between 30 and 40 years old, but also the participants over 50 years old were very well represented, especially in the Study Visit 1 and 5. The participation reflects actually the common reality for the urban gardens mostly composed by people still active in the working field. The high number of French participants is due to the fact that 2 partners in the consortium are French. Relevant is the high diversification that France, Italy and Spain decided to have in terms of participants, never being the same. The majority of the participants is employed, engaged in urban gardens because attracted by the opportunities for social relations and integration, or for their personal approach towards a sustainable way of life. This phase of the project succeed to involve also disadvantages categories together with retired people, still active in the society, and some representative of public bodies, in charge of urban gardens’ policy.
Study Visits context After the first 2 SVs, some new elements raised up. The online feedback and the coordination meetings lead to some changes in the panorama for the next SV3, SV4 and SV5, trying to reorganize the structure in order to integrate the suggestions received. The new elements to be taken into consideration were: - To extend the period of the study visit with 1 extra day - To increase the number of participants hosted, if economically possible - To foresee a public event in the program - To allow participants to choose which urban gardens to visit (if they are available) - To foster the possibility to really interact in the gardening practice with local gardeners - To avoid to travel on Sunday, especially for UK people
LENGTH OF THE VISIT Too long SV1
Too short
25,00%
SV2
75,00%
35,71%
64,29%
SV3 6,67%
73,33%
SV4 SV5
Just right
20,00%
64,71%
35,29%
9,10%
90,91%
Finally, only Italy and France decide to extend the duration, but the heterogeneity of the participants and the diversity of the local reality was still influencing the perception about the right length of the study visit.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVES AND THE VISIT A LITTLE SV1
8,33%
A LOT 91,66%
SV2
21,43%
78,57%
SV3
20,00%
80,01%
SV4
100,00%
SV5
100,00%
The evolution in the SVs’ program reached its best performance during the last 2 mobilities in Spain (76,47% of rating between 5 and 6) and France (90,90%).
Page | 24
PARTICIPANTS' SATISFACTION ABOUT... SV5
SV4
SV3
SV2
SV1
100,00% 76,46% Experience the good practices proposed
60,01%
Page | 25
50,00% 83,33% 100,00% 100,00% Knowing the local Urban Garden's system
100,00% 85,71% 91,67%
Taking into consideration the sum of the answers rated 4, 5 and 6 in the questionnaires, it is possible to see how much the 2 main aspects of EU’GO study visits are achieved in an incremental tendency. The high interest of the participants in knowing the local reality, satisfied during almost all the SVs, is accompanied by the maximum of satisfaction in experiencing good practices during the SV5, where the changes requested in the structure and content of the SVs generated higher results.
PARTICIPANTS' ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT SV5
SV4
SV3
SV2
SV1 100,00% 88,23%
Good Discussions
46,67% 78,57% 91,67%
Exchanging with other participants to the visit
Actively sharing my knowledge and competences on Urban Gardening
100,00% 100,00% 66,66% 92,86% 91,66% 90,90% 88,23% 66,66% 71,43% 66,67%
The diversity in the composition of the participants and in the programs proposed during the SVs is evident in the evaluation of the different possible levels of involvement of the participants. Gathering the answers rated between 4 and 6, it is possible to spotlight how this content aspect is differently achieved in the different SVs, marking out strengths and weaknesses.
Study Visits impact
STUDY VISITS USEFULNESS A LITTLE SV1 SV2 SV3 SV4
Page | 26
A LOT
16,66%
83,33%
21,43%
78,57% 86,67%
6,67% 5,88%
94,11%
SV5
100,00%
In the above graphic about the usefulness of the study visit for the participants’ Urban Gardens, visualizing in orange the answers between 1 and 3 and in green the ones between 4 and 6, we can see the general positive evaluation about the added value provided by the SVs. Also the EGO’GO staff and public stakeholders, present at the SVs, but not directly involved in an urban garden management, answered on the base of their evaluation of the possible impact on their local reality, contributing to enlarge the value of the general result coming out from the mobilities.
THE STUDY VISIT WAS USEFUL.. 100,00%
..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in the participants' local reality
94,12% 80,00% 71,44%
100,00% SV5 100,00%
..to bring innovation in the participants' Urban Garden
82,35%
SV3
66,66% 57,14%
SV4
91,67%
SV2 SV1
100,00%
..to foster the personal knowledge of the participants about Urban Gardens
94,12% 86,67% 71,43%
100,00%
Focusing always on the answers rated between 4 and 6, it is possible to analyze the different kind of impact of the SVs on the Urban Garden dimension through the 3 aspects of knowledge, innovation and valorization.
STUDY VISITS LEARNING A LITTLE SV1
8,33%
SV2 SV3
SV4 5,88% SV5
91,66% 42,86%
13,33%
Page | 27
A LOT
57,14% 86,67% 94,12% 100,00%
On the point of view of Urban Gardener, participants declare a high satisfaction in terms of learning. The support in the preparation of the different study visit from the local organizations members of the consortium and the attention of the hosting organization realizing the study visit has produced also an added value in terms of intercultural exchange and the personal engagement of gardeners in EU’GO project, fundamental aspects for the experimentation phase, postponed in the second year of the project.
To be noticed that the strong effort to keep the SVs open to a larger public, contributing with public events and involving local public stakeholders in the activities and in the reflection moments, increased not only the local impact of the SV in itself but also fostered the visibility of EU’GO project and its sustainability during the second year.
IMPACT OF THE MANAGEMENT MEETINGS This chapter is focused on the comparative analysis between the different moment in which managers and technicians form the different partners involved in EU’GO met. This analysis is based on data collected through the online evaluation questionnaires and elaborated in the graphics available in ANNEXE 4.
EU'GO STAFF IN MEETINGS Trainer/Expert 0% Administrator 11,81%
Technician 29,17%
Manager 59,03%
At both meetings, Kick-Off and Mid-Term, managers and technicians involved in EU’GO project were the majority attending the events. France and Italy decided to participate to both meetings with 2 representatives (a technician and a manger) due to the parallel work of the evaluation group (Italy, France and Germany) held each time.
PREPARATION OF THE MANAGEMENT MEETINGS
88,89% 75,00%
88,88%
77,77% 62,50%
75,00% KOM MTM
..the programme/content of the meeting
..complete premeeting material
..bring relevant material with you to the meeting
Analyzing the structure of the two meetings, data reveals that if the KOM has the right length according to its aims and content (66,67% rated it just right), half of
Page | 28
the different members attending both of them considered the MTM too short. Probably after a huge work realized at local and international level, the need to share and to focus on key issues, considered relevant especially for the next steps, was really strong. That’s why some bilateral and trilateral meeting has been realized out of the official program, during what was supposed to be only a travel day (16th November 2012). Referring to the above graphic so, the decrease of the positive answers (obtained gathering together the answers rated from 4 to 6) can be due to the demanding level of expectations. A variation also in the number of participants to the meeting, decreasing from 9 to 8, could have in a certain measure influenced the general result.
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT 100,00%
..concerning the roles designed and assigned within the EU'GO project
..concerning the EU'GO financial and administrative functioning
75,00%
88,88%
KOM MTM
62,50%
100,00%
..concerning the EU'GO phases and timeline
100,00%
Some of the critical points faced during the project implementation clearly emerged during MTM, like the unbalanced investment inside the partnership and the difficulties in adapting common financial functioning to local realities. Nevertheless the MTM was crucial to fine-tune the timeline and flexibly readapt the cooperative approach needed for the second phase. The general level of satisfaction about the elements related to the following of the project increased during MTM, maintaining almost the same level of trust on mutual cooperation.
LEVEL OF SATISFACTION about the common agenda for the following months
about the role and tasks of my organization in the project
77,77% 100,00%
100,00% 100,00%
KOM MTM
about the communication system by distance
about the common working method adopted
88,89% 87,50%
88,89% 87,50%
Page | 29
If the KOM has established from the beginning a very positive approach towards the project and the consortium of partners, the MTM has reinforced the possibility to contribute and to participate in the decision making process also for the partners having difficulties in facing the complexity of the project. The first part of project, thanks to the mutual support between partners, contributes to foster capacity building, incrementing the project ownership. This condition has been the base to overcome the tasks division defined by the Working Packages distribution, conceptually revising them on the base of their interdependence. What has been started in the first phase by each WP coordinator is now tackled by working groups, counting on staff coming from different partners and WPs.
FUNCTIONALITY OF THE PARTNERSHIP KOM
MTM
100,00% 88,89%
88,88% 87,50%
DECISION MAKING PROCESS INSIDE THE GROUP
PARTNERSHIP
100% of the participants considered positively the usefulness of the two meetings for the following steps, considering them a great opportunity for their own personal learning as professionals. The high level of confrontation has been stimulated also from the preparatory work done by the external evaluators through the feedback questionnaire realized focused on specific aspects like relevance, networking, impact, sustainability and knowledge. If the appreciation for this work done by distance was rated at 100% between 4 and 5, in the following graphic, the direct contribution of the external evaluator during the working sessions of the MTM increased up to excellent for half of the respondents.
Page | 30
EX-POST MTM Q29-30. Rating of the External Evaluator contribution 100% 90%
Page | 31
80% 70%
6 = Excellent
62,50%
60%
5
50%
50% 40%
4
37,50%
3 25% 25%
30%
2
20%
1 = Poor
10% 0% ..the feedback questionnaire prepared by the external evaluators prior the MTM
..the role of the external evaluator during the MTM
Both meetings have been judged really intensive and demanding in terms of work, very useful and appropriated for their aims even if the MTM could have been conducted in a better way and the program was not perceived as completely logically sequenced. In general, the overall evaluation of the process that the partnership is following in the project reveals that a real confrontation is going on and the meetings between EU’GO staff are more and more productive and satisfying for the members of the consortium.
OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE MANAGEMENT MEETINGS 77,77%
Good discussions / Limited discussions
100,00%
Flexible structure / Rigid structure
66,66% 75,00%
KOM
Good level of activity / Poor level of activity
88,89%
My objectives achieved / My objectives not achieved
88,88%
100,00%
100,00%
MTM
ANALYSIS OF THE MID TERM EVALUATION QUESTIONAIRE The present document has the aim to summarise the main outcomes of the questionnaire: A. Relevance 1. To which extend do you think the whole project has met your needs so far? 2. How do you think the achievements of this project will contribute to your country needs, global priorities and EC policies? Generally, the needs have been fulfilled, but at different levels. More people refer to personal needs linked to their knowledge and competences about the subject and topic. Some (few) refer to the overall and organizational needs of their NGO as networking. The focus is on the mobility actions as very important part in the learning path within the project and there are some negative remarks about the time management (specially focus on the study visits … too many in a very short time). A big emphasis is put on the fact that the project will contribute to make more visible the theme of urban gardens within the EU (but the strategy is not clear). Some answers are again more NGO oriented and more focused on reality – from the local to the international as path for developing a more global strategy. As we can see, the relevance of the project is very different within the partnership. This is sometimes linked to the different roles of people within the partnership, but also to the level of implication in the whole process. B. Networking 3. How can you describe, using a metaphor, this network? 4. Can you list 3 the most effective aspects of this network as working group? 5. Can you list 3 the less effective aspects of this network as working group? 6. Are you satisfied about the decision making process? Can you bring 1 example of decision-making process that make you happy or unhappy? 7. Do you think that the division of tasks and the roles is effective? Can you explain your answers with examples? This question was a very important point in the questionnaire. The network has been described in very different ways. There are visions more focused on network as venue of power and control and visions that, more in a naive way, see the network as a good and calm place. There is no description that can see a network encompassing a harmonised understanding of networking. When the network should describe their most and less effective aspects, the answers are focused on concrete and specific tasks as lack of coordination in following the deadlines or in providing information. It’s quite evident that there is not a strong experience in GMP project and there is a different engagement in the project. Moreover, when the network should describe the satisfaction in the decision making process, the answers show that people seem not to have a clear idea on how the decisions have been taken and why. Most of the people refer to decisions taken about administrative staff and not about content.
Page | 32
C. Impact 8. What is, according to you, the impact of the project at the international and European level? Which change does it contribute to (economical, political, social‌)? 9. Do you think that this international project within its mobility actions will bring concrete impact in your local reality? How? 10. What is the community added value of this project? Can you list the main benefits your local community has gained so far thanks to this project? The network seems to have a clear idea about the fact that the project has been having an impact at the local level and within the organisation. The project has been supporting new possibilities to share and to meet people involved in urban gardening and to engage new people and new discussions about innovative methods. What is less clear is the extent on which this process has been only spontaneous or based on a strategic plan. Sometimes it seems that the impact has been more spontaneous and so we have no access to evidences or findings to measure and support a further development. D. Sustainability 11. Can you explain how the international experience will be transferred in your local/ national reality? Do you have any examples of transfer of this knowledge? 12. Which strategy are you developing for supporting the mutual learning and sustainability of local network after such intense international experience (the 6 Study visits)? 13. List the main milestones already put in place to grant the sustainability of the project after its termination? These questions were opening some interesting discussions, because the project is still ongoing and the onsite visits at the end. Most of the network members shared the idea that the sustainability will be guaranteed by the involvement of the two main actors: 1) organisers and 2) local association or group of Urban Gardens. Some members of the network have already a clear picture on how to develop and guarantee such sustainability, while others are still trying to understand how to develop a new path after the project. It would be very important to share better the sustainability plans at national and local level in order to get inspired by the others’ experiences and ideas. E. Knowledge 14. How will the network transfer or systemise the experiences into a more general knowledge? How the study visits will create a new knowledge about the topic? 15. The study visit and the local implementation will provide new knowledge about the topic and how will be visible and transferrable? The network is happy about the knowledge acquired until this phase of the project; what is lacking is a synergic approach in working on visibility and transferability. Final remarks In general, there is satisfaction about the development of objectives, but less about the efficiency. It seems that the network could have been achieved the objectives using better the resources, especially if related to time.
Page | 33
RECCOMANDATIONS FROM THE EXTERNAL EVALUATOR
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this external evaluation report is to clearly set out the findings and conclusions of the external evaluation process, including the reasons for the conclusions being reached. The report is the product of external evaluation and is intended to be used by EU GO project partners to maintain or strengthen their self-assessment. Considering relevant the work done to evaluate the impact on beneficiaries and at local level within the WP9, this report is focused more on the transnational cooperation among the partners. The style of this external evaluation report is intended to be succinct and evaluative. The report will present significant findings including:   
weaknesses, strengths and areas for improvement any opportunities identified for new ways of doing things sufficient information for EU GO project partners to use for ongoing improvement
The review, which allowed the development of the present report, was conducted through the employment of the following methods and strategies: -
at distance, following the e-mail exchanges among project partners, reading the project documents being produced;
-
in person, participating at the study visit 3 in Italy and at the mid-term meeting held in Rome from the 13th to the 16th of November 2012;
-
through an on-line questionnaire (see page 21) focused on relevance, impact, sustainability and knowledge filled-up by all the representatives of project partners directly involved in the implementation of the action (see page 32)
Most of the findings and recommendations of the external evaluator have been communicated during the Mid-Term Meeting in Rome, in order to generate the process of sharing, discussing and deciding, among the partnership, strategies and actions needed to improve particular aspects, already before the end of the first project year. These proposals of improvement indicated have been since then acknowledged by the partnership and implemented during the next 2 months.
FINDINGS The present report presents the main (F) findings followed by the (R) recommendations and the (A) actions required as proposed by the team of the external evaluators.
Page | 34
1. General remarks 1.1 General strengths and achievements of the project 1.1.1 Project management and coordination - good participation, both from a qualitative and quantitative point of view. From the perspective of the external evaluators, since the beginning of the implementation of the project EU GO we have been noticing relevant improvements as far as internal communication and participating in the decision making process are concerned. Partners’ participation in the coordination meeting has been active and valuable and has represented an important “pillar” of EU GO. - ownership of the Working Programme. It is important to highlight the ownership of the WPs by each partner responsible for them as an important strength of the project implementation phase. Partners have managed their WPs employing a responsible approach and with a clear understanding and vision. Throughout the implementation period, partners have become more aware about the concrete tasks, the different steps foreseen by the project and about how to deal with them both at the international and national level. 1.1.2 Competencies and skills - study visits. Study visits have represented a good tool for gaining new skills and for exchanging them. The study visits allowed participants and partners to get in touch with their different target groups, to share and develop their working models and get inspired by the others. The study visits were the core of the project in the 1st phase and provided new energy and motivation within the overall process. The visit allowed participants to build-up a more concrete and shared understanding of good practices about urban gardens and to share the different national methods and systems. 1.1.3 Target groups - an interesting balanced combination of beneficiaries. The groups – partners, local stakeholders, beneficiaries, etc. - involved in the project are enough different and heterogeneous to provide a cross fertilisation effect. This “combination” represents a relevant component for knowledge development and for a fruitful sharing of good practices among the participants. The number of people involved so far represents a good achievement and indicates a significant level of engagement of all the partners’ organisations as well as of each national network. The group of stakeholders is well represented in terms of gender and age and this contributes to the development of a richer process and exchange. 1.1.4 Methodology - structured work for the implementation of the project. The project partners have so far developed (and made a good use of) of shared templates - jointly developed by partners under the supervision of the coordinator – as important management tools which have highly contributed to a smooth and clear management of the different WPs. We can clearly state that the WPs that have encountered more difficulties in their implementation phase are the ones that have not gained from this structured work yet.
Page | 35
1.1.5 Dissemination - guidelines. The guidelines developed in the framework of the WP focused on dissemination, despite the gap represented by the lack of the international dimension, represent a good example of a common and shared document which should inspire also the other partners in charge of “transversal” WPs. Partners, and especially the less experienced ones, feel “safer” and duly supported when guiding documents are prepared and clearly present aims, objectives, tasks and methods to reach a defined quality standard. 1.1.6 Evaluation system - good structure and methods. The internal evaluation system is well structured and provides many useful data for the overall evaluation of the project and of its achievements. In particular, we wish to highlight the on-line system for collecting feedbacks through the questionnaires that have greatly facilitated the analyses of the data. Moreover, the internal systematic evaluation questionnaire and report, foreseen for each single activity, represent an important action for a quality implementation phase. 1.2 EU GO project application vs. EU GO project implementation (F) The project application EU GO reports different tools/strategies/methods that have been implemented so far. Some of these relevant ideas – i.e. the monthly teleconference, the website, work sheets – have been put into practice, but participatory governance of the project still needs to be reinforced. (R) We recommend all the partners to re-read the application form of the project EU GO, which was jointly drafted and developed by all the project partners, in order to brush up possible already identified tools for solving problems emerged during the implementation phase. (A) The solutions reported in the original project are considered really valid to contribute to the successful implementation of the project and they should be put into practice, instead of looking for new and complex solutions . We therefore invite project partners to revise from time to time the application form and to take inspiration from the original operating procedures. 1.3 Focus (F) In the communication process we notice that a relevant part of the time invested by the partners seems to be related to organisational and administrative constraints, affecting the time dedicated to valorise the objectives, content and target of the project. This was evident in the significant number of email messages on these issues. Also during the meeting held in Rome, in some cases, these issues absorbed again part of the time dedicated to internal communication, decision making process and participatory governance and management. (R) It is fully understandable the need to work properly on the administrative and organisational aspects of the project, but this should not affect the time to discuss the other fundamental pillars of project management. Formal issues should be discussed in a small group, involving only those staff members responsible for them (and not all the project managers). (A) We invite project partners to produce internal working documents (i.e. guidelines) – similar to the one elaborated for the dissemination WP – dedicated to internal communication, decision-making process and participatory governance
Page | 36
of the project. These guidelines should be brief, focused and functional to the management of the project. (F) Due to the huge amount of activities realized in a very short time in 2012, the external evaluation highlights the risk of focusing on “doing things” without paying enough time to elaborate these “things” from a pedagogical and educative point of view. (R) We recommend to pay attention and resources (i.e. time) to systemize the learning achievements realized until now from the activities flow, since it represents one of the most important outcomes of the project, both for partners’ representatives and for final beneficiaries. (A) The attention to the learning process behind the overall action and each single activity represents a crosscutting element throughout the whole duration of the project. However, taking into consideration the above-mentioned risk, we invite project partners to dedicate a specific time (i.e. during an activity, or employing ICT/Skype…) to jointly analyse, reflect and debate on the learning process and the outcomes achieved so far. 1.4 Responsibilities (F) From the sources of information employed, it becomes evident that the responsibilities defined by the separation in WPs and assigned to each partner, at this step are no more so well defined and distinct. The interdependence and interrelation between WPs needs team work not only inside the member’s team but also among different teams. (R) We recommend partners to continue to update, as already started during the Mid-Term Meeting in Rome, the responsibilities of each partner in the implementation of the common actions, taking into consideration what was agreed during the drafting phase and what now are the crossing objectives to be tackled through the different WPs . (A) We invite partners to draft an updated chart of responsibilities to be debated, shared and agreed among all, mirroring the evolution of tasks shared within the partnership: we suggest to redefine and readapt the roles and specific focuses of the coordinator and the leaders of the different Work Packages (WPs), for the second phase of the project.2. Project coordination and management
2. Project coordination and management 2.1 Coordination and decision-making process (F) Some partners, concerning the coordination of the project, highlight their need to have a stronger role of the coordinator in collecting and making a synthesis of the work produced at local and international level, in order to foster a more participatory approach within the partnership. Actually, in the first phase of the project, the responsibilities and tasks of the coordinator were more linked to the management of deadlines and guiding of the project management group (encompassing one manager for each partner in the role of WPs leader). Concrete and practical problems, emerged during the implementation of the mobilities, provoked on spot reflections among the staff members present at the study visits. This decision making process was thus de facto based on a generalized consensus, even if not all the managers were present. The process of participatory
Page | 37
governance risked at this moment to be weakened and the coordinator needed to intervene in favour of the entire process, assuming the leading of WP3. (R) We recommend the coordinator to focus on the internal coordination of the project, paying attention to fostering communication among partners as a key element to support a more participatory approach by project partners. We recommend all the partners to better contribute to the role and responsibilities of the coordinator, making a clear distinction between WP leading and project management, adopting a proactive approach. (A) We invite the coordinator to better structure its role in order to be able to support general communication among the project partners and to grant, at the same time, a participatory governance of the project. The coordinator should continue to reinforce partners’ participation by preparing and delivering useful tools such as periodical reminders, functional templates, etc. Secondly, we invite all the partners to prepare an organizational chart, summarising roles and responsibilities of the coordinator, of the project management group and of the leaders of the WPs. As a suggestion, this subdivision of the responsibilities may follow this principle: - the coordinator should supervise the development and the general progress of the project; - the project management group should take care of all the strategic and technical aspects; - the technicians should be in charge mainly of the logistical and organizational issues. Finally, for the second phase of the project, where less possibility to meet physically is foreseen, we suggest the coordinator to possibly increase the opportunities for the partners to “meet” regularly, both physically and virtually, in order to facilitate the interaction, the dialogue, the debate, the decision-making and the exchange among partners. 2.2 Partnership (F) It is evident that the capacity and the knowledge of the partners in the specific field of the project EU GO, as well as in the management of LLP or other European programmes, are very different. From the point of view of the external evaluation, the partnership is only starting to capitalize on its own diversities. Timing and deadlines are a common structure to bypass the difficulties and to work simultaneously on different tasks, but not always the partners demonstrated to respect internal commitments, provoking an extra investment of energies among all the consortium. (R) We recommend all the partners to find out the best and most suitable and sustainable solutions for making the diversity of partnership become an added value of the project, considering strengths, weaknesses and constraints as well as time management. (A) In the second part of the project, in order to capitalize the added value of diversity, knowing better the different competencies among the different organisations, we invite partners to introduce the role of the “back-up” partner, namely an experienced partner in charge of supporting the weak one in the management of a part of its WP, where this competence can be crucial for its objectives achievement. 2.3 Problem solving (F) From the point of view of the external evaluators, the problem solving methods are mainly delegated or requested to the Coordinator and to a few partners, while the others rely most of the time on their decisions.
Page | 38
(R) We recommend all project partners to provide their active contribution to the identification of the most suitable solutions for the identified problems. (A) We recommend the coordinator, as highlighted above in 2.2, to increase the possibilities for a proper exchange among partners, in which solutions for the identified problems can be proposed and discussed. We wish to highlight that many good solutions have been already designed in the application form, so the need is only to identify the most suitable tools and put them into practice.
3. Implementation of activities 3.1 Prior organization of the activities (F) The preparation of the different activities foreseen by the project programme has increased in terms of quality and efficiency in an evolutive way. The delay in producing common guidelines, especially for the first two Study Visits, generated some gaps in their preparation phase, especially concerning the timing and some differences in implementing the activity occurred. For these reasons, despite the strong interest showed by the beneficiaries in the Urban Gardens reality, expectations of some participants in the SV 2 and SV 3 were in some cases not 100% fulfilling the SVs content and context, although their evaluations were globally very positive. (R) We recommend to better space out the realization of the joint activities, in order to promote a more participatory approach and thus contribute to the ownership of the whole project also by beneficiaries. (A) We invite all the partners to draft a realistic action plan for the whole year 2013, including all the activities still to be realized, encompassing also a proposal– defined on the basis of prior experiences – of the starting date for the preparation.
4. Methodology 4.1 Transferability and best practices (F) One of the key steps of the project, namely the identification and the transferability of the best practices, presents a major problem that was not tackled at the right time: what are the criteria to be used to identify a best practice. Not considering and defining these criteria at a prior stage, has led to a collection of “practices” and only later to a selection of “best practices”, requesting an extra work before to be transferable . (R) We recommend project partners to give consistence to the choice of the practices by defining a set of common criteria that can speed up the selection, focusing on their transferability. (A) We invite project partners to define a set of criteria that indentifies a “best practice” in the field concerned. After that, we invite all the partners to fill in a grid that matches the selected criteria with the characteristics of the visited gardens, so to identify objectively the “best practices” on the basis of shared
Page | 39
criteria. As a suggestion, the selected criteria may be taken from the official definition of best practice of the European Commission. 4.2 Team-work (F) Related to what highlighted in 2.2, the team work component presents some weaknesses: if from one side the most experienced partners suffer from a certain redundancy in the implementation of the project, the less experienced ones claim for a more guided support. (R) We recommend project partners to strengthen this relevant component by adopting a set of measures that includes strategies such as mutual support, working-groups, etc. (A) We invite partners to introduce the role of the “back-up” partner, namely an experienced partner in charge of supporting the weak one in the management of its WP or part of it. This measure would highly contribute to the promotion of mutual support. Secondly, we invite partners to create “working groups” encompassing the managers of two or three consequential WPs (i.e. WPs 2, 3 and 4): this system, besides strengthening cooperation among partners and increasing the sense of belonging to the project, would highly contribute to avoid getting lost with the different deliverables.
5. Target 5.1 Vulnerable groups (F) The project presents a strong focus on vulnerable groups (migrants, seniors, young people in trouble, etc.), considered the main target of the project EU GO. The different partners worked on these target groups at local level and involved them as beneficiaries in the mobilities. During the implementation of the first phase seems not to have dedicated enough time to revise all the work done until now from the different partners, in order to design the strategic approach to be adopted for the second part of the project. (R) We recommend to all the partners to open a confrontation about the dimension of the target “vulnerable groups” in the project until now and to adopt specific measures to keep them involved in the second part of the implementation phase. (A) Considering the diversity of the categories included in the definition of “vulnerable groups”, according to the EU GO project, we invite all the partners to define ad hoc strategies to continue to include these categories, through the employment of a personalized approach, that can also differ for each local reality, but must compose a common action.
6. Time management 6.1 Time-line (F) Concerning time-management, we have identified the following weaknesses: on one hand, the concentration of all the mobility actions in 2012 created a very “crowded” period and has obliged partners to run after activities, creating an overlap among the preparation, evaluation and valorisation phase of each activity.
Page | 40
Despite that, even if it was not concerning all the partners, the choice to accompany beneficiaries during the study visits, permit to staff members to meet each other almost one time per month. This meant multiplying the opportunities to capitalize the on-going reflection, ensuring nevertheless the foreseen achievements. In the second phase there are less opportunities to see each other and more time is foreseen between meetings. (R) We recommend project partners to make all the possible efforts to stay connected, despite the few meeting opportunities, and to keep as visible as possible the link between the local activities foreseen in 2013 and the European Project EU GO. (A) We invite project partners to draft a realistic time-plan for the year 2013 and foresee – and plan - a series of measures (monthly teleconference, ad-hoc meetings, synergies with other projects, etc.) aiming at favouring a constant interconnection among partners. Also, we invite the partners to include in this plan the different occasions to meet, provided by the participation to common projects different from EU GO, in order to count on and exploit extra bilateral or trilateral meetings. (F) Concerning timing, we also acknowledge some changing in the implementation of different WPs (i.e. WP 4), or in putting into practice some actions (i.e. project website). These postponements could affect the overall coherency of the project flow and influence the development of the future actions. (R) We recommend partners to make any possible effort to harmonize these changes between the original project and the current status of implementation of the action, in order to realign the achievements to the expected results in due time. (A) We invite partners to analyse these postponements and to regulate the actual strategy, as well as a specific and realistic time-plan, towards the realization of the activities that have been changed. 6.2 Coherence of the action plan (F) Concerning timing, due to some methodological and strategic delays, the coherence of the different project steps has not been fully fulfilled as designed. For example, the identification of the best practices – on the basis of identified criteria - during the realization of the study visits has sometimes limited the impact on the achievements and results of the study visits and of the following steps (i.e. transferring of the practices), requesting extra work to all the partnership. (R) We recommend project partners to adjust all the logical relation between the different activities, in order to follow a coherent action-plan for 2013. (A) We invite partners to draft a Pert Diagram – besides the Gantt one - a project management tool used to schedule, organize, and coordinate tasks within a project that clearly illustrates task dependencies, so not to loose the coherent flow of the whole action.
Page | 41
7. Evaluation 7.1 Evaluation committee (F) We acknowledge that the evaluation committee is composed of three representatives of three different organizations: this choice was made during the development phase, considering this as the best possible solution to guarantee an efficient functioning of the committee. In the first half of the implementation phase, the evaluation committee can count on an efficient method of data and feedback collection, involving all the partners and the main stakeholders, but may have lost some relevant opportunities to monitor and assess the results with the project managers. (R) Considering the above and the reduced number of opportunities to meet during 2013, we recommend the project partners to involve in the evaluation committee, for the second phase of the project, 1 representative for each partner organization, in order not to skip any data and information that may be relevant for an overall monitoring action and assessment. Taking into consideration the limited number of partners (6), we think that involving 6 people will bring more advantages without making the functioning of the committee too heavy. At the same time, we strongly recommend to produce some synthetic information to be spread among all the EU GO staffs in the form of graphics or other visualizing tools. (A) We invite project partners to consider the opportunity to revise and propose a new structure and updated functioning methods for the evaluation committee, that should be ready for preparing the monitoring and evaluation actions foreseen in 2013.
8. Information, communication and dissemination 8.1 Information sharing (F) The project is equipped with several methods/tools aiming at sharing information and at communicating both internally and externally (drop-box, email, etc.). However, in some occasions, project partners have highlighted the need to be more informed and updated about the flow of the overall action and about the most relevant information that all the partners should know in order to play a proper role in the project implementation. (R) We recommend partners to improve the internal communication system, in order to grant more participation of all project partners in the life of the project: an informed partner is in fact able to play better its role and to communicate better on the whole EU GO project. (A) We invite partners to identify an organization (it may be the coordinator, having a general overview of the project) in charge of drafting an internal and periodical (i.e. once a month) information message/sheet, presenting both the realized activities and the ones to be implemented, as well as other relevant information concerning the project. Finally, we invite the partners to improve and harmonize the existing tools, in order to facilitate the information flow (i.e. better categorizing the folders in drop-box).
Page | 42
8.2 Communication and dissemination tools (F) As far as communication and dissemination are concerned, we noticed that the project website registered a delay in its implementation. Communication towards external audience have been nevertheless achieved thanks to the information always available in the languages of the partnership on the local web sites of the organisations and by the flyers designed by the coordinator, produced in the different languages. The international website offers anyway stronger opportunities, also for internal communication and interlinked e-learning platform. (R) We recommend project partners to transfer to the international website all the information as soon as possible and to promote it widely and at the largest possible scale, in order to partially fill the gap caused by the delay. (A) We invite project partners to identify as soon as possible the internal responsible in charge of taking care about the setting-up, management and update of the website in the local language. We strongly encourage the partners to set up a common strategy for promoting also a series of measures aiming at widely disseminating the Multilanguage website. 8.3 Levels of dissemination (F) We acknowledge the good outcome represented by the guidelines on dissemination, which may be taken as an example for drafting common guidelines on other common issues concerning all the partners and the life of the project (i.e. participatory governance, decision making and problem solving, etc.). However, we suggest partners to start already now to implement the designed strategy for the dissemination of project outcomes and outputs at the EU level. (R) We recommend project partners to refer to the overall strategy launched by the coordinator, encompassing all the possible levels for the dissemination of project outcomes and outputs. (A) We invite project partners, and especially the partner in charge of the specific WP, to further develop the guidelines, outlining the strategy related to the dissemination of the project at the EU level and to act consequently, putting into practice the identified dissemination plans.
Page | 43
CONCLUSIONS: EVALUATION PLAN FOR NEXT PROJECT PHASE
The first year of EU’GO project has been focused on KNOWING and SHARING elements. From one side, during the Kick-Off Meeting, partnership and task division issues represented the biggest investment for future cooperation. From the other side, the evident heterogeneous reality of Urban Gardens in the different countries, spotlighted by the State of Art and investigated during the Study Visits, has been the main challenge of the project. At the end of the first year the 27 Urban Gardens visited during the SVs provoked not only the need to revise the general State of the Art and to better describe the 60 Urban Garden info sheets, but also a general common process of reflection on more than 50 different good practices. The level of ownership of the project increased during the process among beneficiaries as also in the partnership. Participants to the SVs not only took part to the mobilities, becoming resource persons for their territory, but took also a step in the management of EU’GO project, together with the consortium’s staff members. They influenced directly not only the structure of the SVs, contributing to improve their effectiveness, but intervened also in further and better select good practices to be experimented in the second phase of EU’GO. Quality in the process and in the products adopted in EU’GO are directly determined not only by the cooperation among the partners but also through the participants that became real stakeholders. The Mid Term Meeting put in value the huge work done during the first phase and identified difficulties in the partnership, most of them due to the capacity building process, still going on for some of the partners. However, differences in size and operational capacity have been balanced by motivation and participation, supported by a strong local engagement of beneficiaries. The new approach and structure for WPs management, decided during the MTM, reflects not only the transversal issues to be tackled in the second year, but also the clear interconnections and affinities between EU’GO staff members, fundamental for a better cooperation. Evaluation plan for 2013 The consortium is actually preparing the tools needed for the second phase of EU’GO project, that will be focused on DOING and LEARNING. In the following lines we will simply list the main evaluation issues to be tackled during 2013: EXPERIMENTATION PHASE - Set up tools aimed to support beneficiaries auto evaluation in terms of personal learning, obtained during the experimentation phase - Set up tools aimed to support EU’GO staff in evaluating the experimentation process, oriented also to keep all the consortium informed about its evolution - Set up an on-line rating system in the e-learning website dedicated to collect feed-back about the (experimented) good practices
Page | 44
SOCIAL MARKETING - Set up tools aimed to support beneficiaries auto evaluation in terms of personal learning, obtained during the social marketing phase - Set up tools aimed to support EU’GO staff in evaluating the social marketing process, oriented also to keep all the consortium informed about its evolution - Set up an on-line rating system in the e-learning website dedicated to collect feed-back about the social marketing tools PARTNERSHIP - Set up tools aimed to support the evaluation of the E-Learning managers’ Meeting - Set up tools aimed to support the evaluation of the Final Meeting - Set up tool aimed to support the evaluation of the cooperation of the transnational consortium within the whole EU’GO project EUGO PROJECT - Accompany partners in realizing video interviews with beneficiaries participating to all phases of EU’GO project - Set up tools aimed to collect feedback on the web site and e-learning system - Set up a final evaluation questionnaire for EU’GO project
Page | 45
ANNEXE 1: SVs’ GRAPHICS
EVALUATION REPORT STUDY VISIT 1 IN POTSDAM (GERMANY) 11th – 15th of June 2012
Page | 46
This evaluation report is based on the EX-ANTE and EX-POST questionnaires filled in by the participants to the EU’GO Study Visit 1 in Potsdam, Germany. The questionnaires gather participants’ feedback regarding the SV1 development, focusing on two dimensions: Organization and Management of the Study Visit; Content. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting participants’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-study-visitquestionnaire-potsdam-germany-from-11th-to-15th-june-2012-ex-post/). The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 12 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED that can be defined by:
GENDER
Men 33,33%
AGE
Over 50 41,67%
Women 66,67%
United Kingdom 8,33%
Germany 8,33%
Under 30 25% Between 30-40 33,33%
COUNTRY
Urban garden coordinator 16,67%
ROLE IN EU'GO
France 41,67%
Spain 16,67%
Urban gardener 50% EU'GO staff 33,33% Italy 25%
Student Civil servant 0% Retired 8,33%
OCCUPATION
8,33%
Unemployed 25%
Employed 58,33%
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT LEVEL OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BEFORE THE STUDY VISIT Page | 47
EX-ANTE SV1 Q8. Opinion on the level of information received regarding.. 6 = Excellent
41,67%
4
3
2
1 = Poor 41,67%
41,67%
41,67%
33,33%
5
33,33%
33,33%
33,33%
25% 25%
25%
25% 16,67%
16,67% 8,33%
the travel to the visit location
the board (breakfast, refreshments, meals, etc.
16,67%
16,67%
16,67% 16,67% 8,33%
8,33%
the lodging
economic and visit timetable financial conditions
objectives of the visit
EX-POST SV1 Q22. To what extend did you feel you have had the necessary information before the visit? 6 = Fully
5
4
3
2
1 = Not at all
50% 16,67%
25% 8,33% 0%
6 = Fully
5
4
3
2
0%
1 = Not at all
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT THE SUPPORT RECEIVED FROM THE SENDING AND HOSTING ORGANISATION. LOGISTIC RATING
Page | 48
EX-POST SV1 Q23.-Q25. Logistic rating 100,00%
91,67%
80,00% 60,00% 40,00%
6 = Excellent
66,67% 50%
5 4
41,67%
20,00%
8,33%
16,67% 8,33%
8,33%
3 2
0,00% the organisation of the travel to the visit venue
the board (breakfast, refreshments, meals, etc.
the lodging
1 = Poor
EX-POST SV1 Q17.* How do you rate the general support you received from the sending organisation?
1 = Poor
8,33%
2
3
25%
4
5
16,67%
6 = Excellent
50%
EX-POST SV1 Q19.* How do you rate the support from the hosting organisation? 1 = Poor
25%
2
3
25%
4
5
50%
6 = Excellent
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT LENGTH OF THE VISIT Page | 49
EX-ANTE SV1 Q11. How do you feel about the length of the visit? Too long 0%
Too short 41,67% Just right 58,33%
EX-POST SV1 Q21. How do you feel about the length of the visit? Too long 0% Just right 25%
Too short 75%
CONTENT LEVEL OF EXPECTATIONS REACHED EX-ANTE SV1 Q9. On the base of the State of Art and Good Practices forms read, rate your level of expectation about.. Page | 50
100,00% 90,00% 66,67% 66,67% 80,00% 58,33% 70,00% 60,00% 41,67% 50,00% 33,33% 40,00% 33,33% 25% 25% 25% 30,00% 16,67% 16,67% 8,33% 20,00% 8,33% 8,33% 16,67% 8,33% 10,00% 0,00% Knowing Exchanging Knowing the Experience Actively Potsdam and with other local Urban the good sharing my its reality participants Garden's practices knowledge to the visit system proposed and competences on Urban Gardening
6 = High 5 4 3 2 1 = Poor
EX-POST SV1 Q11.* On the base of the visit, rate your level of satisfaction about.. 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 58,33% 70,00% 50% 60,00% 41,67% 50,00% 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 40,00% 30,00% 16,67% 16,67% 16,67% 8,33% 20,00% 8,33% 8,33% 10,00% 8,33% 0,00% Knowing Exchanging Knowing the Experience Potsdam and with other local Urban the good its reality participants Garden's practices to the visit system proposed
6 = High 33,33% 16,67%
5 4
8,33%
3
Actively sharing my knowledge and competences on Urban Gardening
2 1 = Poor
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVES AND THE VISIT EX-POST SV1 Q10. How do you rate the correspondence between the objectives and the visit?
1 = Poor
25% 33,33%
2
33,33%
3
8,33%
4 5 6 = Excellent
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CONTENT PARTICIPANTS’ LEARNING AND CONTRIBUTION DURING THE STUDY VISIT
EX-POST SV1 Q13. To what extend did you feel to have actively contributed to the visit?
8,33% 6 = A lot
16,67%
5
33,33%
4 3 2
41,67%
1 = Nothing
EX-POST SV1 Q14. As Urban Gardner, to what extend did you feel you have learned from the visit?
8,33% 8,33%
6 = A lot
33,33%
5 4 3 2
50%
1 = Nothing
Page | 51
CONTENT USEFULNESS OF THE VISIT EX-ANTE SV1 Q10. On the base of your expectations, do you think that the visit will contribute.. 6 = A lot
5
4
3
2
1 = Nothing
58,33% 50% 41,67% 25%
33,33%
25%
16,67% 16,67%
16,67%
8,33% ..to foster your personal knowledge about Urban Gardens
8,33%
..to bring innovation in your Urban Garden
..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality
EX-POST SV1 Q15.* On the base of the results of the visit do you think that the visit was useful.. 6 = A lot
5
4
3
2
1 = Nothing
58,33% 41,67%
50%
41,67% 33,33%
33,33%
16,67% 8,33% ..to foster your personal knowledge about Urban Gardens
..to bring innovation in your Urban Garden
16,67%
..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality
Page | 52
EX-POST SV1 Q8.* OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE STUDY VISIT: 100,00% 90,00%
Page | 53
80,00% 70,00%
66,67% 58,33%
60,00% 58,33% 50%
50%
50,00% 41,67% 40,00%
41,67%
41,67% 33,33% 33,33%
30,00% 25%
33,33% 33,33%
25%
33,33%
25%
20,00%
16,67% 16,67%
16,67% 8,33% 8,33% 8,33%
10,00%
33,33%
8,33%
8,33% 8,33%
8,33%
16,67% 8,33%
8,33%
0,00%
6(max)
5
4
3
2
1(min)
OVERALL RATING OF THE STUDY VISIT 1 EX-POST SV1 Q26.*
33,33% 6 = Excellent 5 4
16,67%
3
50%
2 1 = Poor
EVALUATION REPORT STUDY VISIT 2 IN PLYMOUTH (UNITED KINGDOM) 9th – 13th of July 2012 Page | 54 This evaluation report is based on the EX-ANTE and EX-POST questionnaires filled in by the participants to the EU’GO Study Visit 2 in Plymouth, United Kingdom. The questionnaires gather participants’ feedback regarding the SV2 development, focusing on two dimensions: Organization and Management of the Study Visit; Content. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting participants’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-study-visitquestionnaire-plymouth-united-kingdom-from-9th-to-13th-july-2012-ex-post/). The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 14 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED that can be defined by:
GENDER
AGE
over 50 21,43%
Men; 35,71% Women; 64,29%
Germany 14,29%
between 30-40 57,14%
COUNTRY
Urban garden coordinator 14,29%
France 35,71%
United Kingdom 7,14%
under 30 21,43%
ROLE IN EU'GO Urban gardener 42,86%
Spain 21,43%
EU'GO staff 42,86% Italy 21,43% Retired 0% Unemployed 21,43%
OCCUPATION Civil servant 0% Student 0%
Employed 78,57%
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT LEVEL OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BEFORE THE STUDY VISIT
Page | 55
EX-ANTE SV2 Q8. Opinion on the level of information received regarding.. 6 = Excellent
5
4
3
2
1 = Poor 50%
50%
42,86% 35,71%
35,71%
35,71%35,71%
the travel to the visit location
21,43%
14,29%
14,29%
14,29% 7,14%
7,14% the board (breakfast, refreshments, meals, etc.
28,57%
21,43%
21,43% 7,14%
28,57%
28,57%
28,57% 28,57% 28,57%
the lodging
economic and financial conditions
7,14%
visit timetable
7,14% objectives of the visit
EX-POST SV2 Q22. To what extend did you feel you have had the necessary information before the visit? 6 = Fully
5
4
3
2
1 = Not at all
50% 21,43%
7,14%
21,43% 0%
6 = Fully
5
4
3
2
0% 1 = Not at all
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT THE SUPPORT RECEIVED FROM THE SENDING AND HOSTING ORGANISATION. LOGISTIC RATING
Page | 56
EX-POST SV2 Q23.-Q25. Logistic rating 50%
50%
50%
42,86%
42,86%
40%
35,71%
6 = Excellent
28,57%
30%
5
20%
4 7,14%
7,14%
10%
3 2
0% the organisation of the travel to the visit venue
the board (breakfast, refreshments, meals, etc.
the lodging
1 = Poor
EX-POST SV2 Q17.* How do you rate the general support you received from the sending organisation?
1 = Poor
2
7,14%
3
4
5
6 = Excellent
57,14%
35,71%
EX-POST SV2 Q19.* How do you rate the support from the hosting organisation? 1 = Poor
7,14%
21,43%
2
3
35,71%
4
5
6 = Excellent
35,71%
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT LENGTH OF THE VISIT Page | 57
EX-ANTE SV2 Q11. How do you feel about the length of the visit? Too long 0%
Too short 42,86%
Just right 57,14%
EX-POST SV2 Q21. How do you feel about the length of the visit? Too long 0%
Too short 64,29%
Just right 35,71%
CONTENT LEVEL OF EXPECTATIONS REACHED EX-ANTE SV2 Q9. On the base of the State of Art and Good Practices forms read, rate your level of expectation about.. Page | 58
100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 57,14% 50% 60,00% 42,86% 50,00% 35,71% 35,71% 35,71% 40,00% 28,57% 28,57% 28,57% 21,43% 30,00% 14,29% 14,29% 14,29% 14,29% 20,00% 7,14% 7,14% 10,00% 7,14% 0,00% Knowing Exchanging Knowing the Experience Actively Plymouth and with other local Urban the good sharing my its reality participants Garden's practices knowledge to the visit system proposed and competences on Urban Gardening
6 = High 5 4 3 2 1 = Poor
EX-POST SV2 Q11.* On the base of the visit, rate your level of satisfaction about.. 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 42,86% 50,00% 35,71% 35,71% 28,57% 35,71% 40,00% 28,57% 30,00% 21,43% 21,43% 21,43% 14,29% 21,43% 21,43% 20,00% 14,29% 14,29% 7,14% 10,00% 14,29% 7,14% 7,14% 7,14% 0,00% Knowing Exchanging Knowing the Experience Actively Plymouth and with other local Urban the good sharing my its reality participants Garden's practices knowledge to the visit system proposed and competences on Urban Gardening
6 = High 5 4 3 2 1 = Poor
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVES AND THE VISIT EX-POST SV2 Q10. How do you rate the correspondence between the objectives and the visit?
1 = Poor
28,57%
2
50%
3
7,14%
4
14,29%
5 6 = Excellent
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CONTENT PARTICIPANTS’ LEARNING AND CONTRIBUTION DURING THE STUDY VISIT
EX-POST SV2 Q13. To what extend did you feel to have actively contributed to the visit?
7,14% 7,14% 6 = A lot
14,29%
5
28,57%
4 3 2
42,86%
1 = Nothing
EX-POST SV2 Q14. As Urban Gardner, to what extend did you feel you have learned from the visit?
6 = A lot
28,57% 42,86%
5 4 3 2
28,57%
1 = Nothing
Page | 59
CONTENT USEFULNESS OF THE VISIT EX-ANTE SV2 Q10. On the base of your expectations, do you think that the visit will contribute.. 6 = A lot
42,86%
5
4
3
2
1 = Nothing
42,86%
35,71%
42,86%
35,71% 21,43%
35,71% 21,43%
14,29% 7,14%
..to foster your ..to bring personal knowledge about innovation in your Urban Garden Urban Gardens
..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality
EX-POST SV2 Q15.* On the base of the results of the visit do you think that the visit was useful.. 6 = A lot
28,57% 14,29%
5
4
3
35,71% 28,57%
2
1 = Nothing
42,86%
14,29% 7,14%
14,29%
21,43% 7,14%
..to foster your ..to bring personal knowledge about innovation in your Urban Garden Urban Gardens
..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality
Page | 60
EX-POST SV2 Q8.* OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE STUDY VISIT: 100,00% 90,00%
Page | 61
80,00% 70,00% 60,00%
64,29%
57,14% 57,14% 50%
50,00% 40,00% 30,00%
35,71% 28,57%
20,00% 10,00%
7,14%7,14%
42,86%
35,71%
35,71%
35,71%
28,57%
28,57%
28,57% 28,57% 21,43% 21,43% 21,43% 21,43% 21,43% 21,43% 14,29% 14,29% 14,29% 14,29% 14,29% 14,29% 7,14%14,29% 7,14% 7,14%
14,29% 7,14%
0,00%
6(max)
5
4
3
2
1(min)
OVERALL RATING OF THE STUDY VISIT 2 EX-POST SV2 Q26.*
6 = Excellent
71,43%
5 4
28,57%
3 2 1 = Poor
EVALUATION REPORT STUDY VISIT 3 IN ROME (ITALY) September 26th – October 1st, 2012 This evaluation report is based on the EX-ANTE and EX-POST questionnaires filled in by the participants to the EU’GO Study Visit 3 in Rome, Italy. The questionnaires gather participants’ feedback regarding the SV3 development, focusing on two dimensions: Organization and Management of the Study Visit; Content. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting participants’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-study-visitquestionnaire-rome-italy-september-ex-post/).
Page | 62
The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 15 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED that can be defined by:
AGE
GENDER
over 50 under 30 20% 20%
Men 26,67% Women 73,33%
between 30-50 60%
ROLE IN EU'GO
COUNTRY Germany 20%
Urban garden coordinator 26,67%
France 46,67% United Kingdom 13,33%
EU'GO staff 26,67%
Spain 20%
Italy 0% Civil servant Unemployed 6,67% 6,67%
OCCUPATION
Retired 0% Employed 86,67%
Student 0%
Urban gardener 46,67%
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT LEVEL OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BEFORE THE STUDY VISIT
Page | 63
EX-ANTE SV3 Q8. Opinion on the level of information received regarding.. 6 = Excellent
5
4
3
2
1 = Poor 66,67%
46,67% 33,33%
46,67% 33,33%
20%
13,33%
the board (breakfast, refreshments, meals, etc.
33,33%
13,33% 6,67%
6,67%
6,67%
the travel to the visit location
40%
33,33%
33,33%
13,33%
53,33%
53,33% 46,67%
the lodging
economic and visit timetable financial conditions
objectives of the visit
EX-POST SV3 Q22. To what extend did you feel you have had the necessary information before the visit? 6 = Fully
33,33%
5
4
3
2
1 = Not at all
40% 26,67%
0% 6 = Fully
5
4
3
0% 2
0%
1 = Not at all
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT THE SUPPORT RECEIVED FROM THE SENDING AND HOSTING ORGANISATION. LOGISTIC RATING
Page | 64
EX-POST SV3 Q23.-Q25. Logistic rating 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%
60%
60%
6 = Excellent
46,67%
5
33,33% 26,67% 20%
20%
4
20%
3
6,67%
6,67%
2 the organisation of the travel to the visit venue
the board (breakfast, refreshments, meals, etc.
the lodging
1 = Poor
EX-POST SV3 Q17.* How do you rate the general support you received from the sending organisation?
1 = Poor
2
3
4
5
46,67%
6 = Excellent
53,33%
EX-POST SV3 Q19.* How do you rate the support from the hosting organisation? 1 = Poor
6,67%
20%
2
3
40%
4
5
6 = Excellent
33,33%
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT LENGTH OF THE VISIT Page | 65
EX-ANTE SV3 Q11. How do you feel about the length of the visit?
Too short 26,67%
Too long 6,67%
Just right 66,67%
EX-POST SV3 Q21. How do you feel about the length of the visit? Too short 20%
Too long 6,67%
Just right 73,33%
CONTENT LEVEL OF EXPECTATIONS REACHED EX-ANTE SV3 Q9. On the base of the State of Art and Good Practices forms read, rate your level of expectation about.. Page | 66
100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 60% 60% 70,00% 53,33% 53,33% 53,33% 60,00% 46,67% 50,00% 46,67% 40% 40,00% 26,67% 20% 30,00% 13,33% 20,00% 6,67% 13,33% 10,00% 6,67% 0,00% Knowing Exchanging Knowing the Experience Actively Rome and its with other local Urban the good sharing my reality participants Garden's practices knowledge to the visit system proposed and competences on Urban Gardening
6 = High 5 4 3 2 1 = Poor
EX-POST SV3 Q11.* On the base of the visit, rate your level of satisfaction about.. 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 46,67% 50,00% 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 33,33% 40,00% 26,67% 26,67% 30,00% 20% 20% 13,33% 13,33% 20% 20,00% 13,33% 13,33% 6,67% 6,67% 10,00% 6,67% 0,00% Knowing Exchanging Knowing the Experience Actively Rome and its with other local Urban the good sharing my reality participants Garden's practices knowledge to the visit system proposed and competences on Urban Gardening
6 = High 5 4 3 2 1 = Poor
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVES AND THE VISIT EX-POST SV3 Q10. How do you rate the correspondence between the objectives and the visit?
6,67% 6,67% 66,67%
1 = Poor 2 3
13,33% 6,67%
4 5 6 = Excellent
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CONTENT PARTICIPANTS’ LEARNING AND CONTRIBUTION DURING THE STUDY VISIT
EX-POST SV3 Q13. To what extend did you feel to have actively contributed to the visit?
6,67% 13,33%
6 = A lot 5 4
33,33%
3
46,67%
2 1 = Nothing
EX-POST SV3 Q14. As Urban Gardner, to what extend did you feel you have learned from the visit?
13,33%
6,67% 13,33%
6 = A lot 5 4 3 2 1 = Nothing
66,67%
Page | 67
CONTENT USEFULNESS OF THE VISIT EX-ANTE SV3 Q10. On the base of your expectations, do you think that the visit will contribute.. 6 = A lot
5
4
3
2
1 = Nothing
53,33%
60%
40%
40% 26,67% 6,67%
..to foster your personal knowledge about Urban Gardens
20%
6,67%
..to bring innovation in your Urban Garden
20%
..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality
EX-POST SV3 Q15.* On the base of the results of the visit do you think that the visit was useful.. 6 = A lot
5
4
3
2
1 = Nothing
53,33% 40% 26,67%
40% 20%
20%
13,33% 13,33% ..to foster your personal knowledge about Urban Gardens
13,33%
..to bring innovation in your Urban Garden
20%
20%
..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality
Page | 68
EX-POST SV3 Q8.* OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE STUDY VISIT: 100% 90%
Page | 69
80% 70% 60% 50%
60% 53,33%
40% 30%
26,67% 26,67%
0%
53,33% 46,67% 40%
33,33% 33,33%
20% 20% 10%
53,33%
46,67%
33,33% 33,33%
20%
33,33%
26,67%
6,67% 6,67% 6,67%
26,67%
20% 20%
20% 20% 13,33%
26,67%
13,33% 13,33% 13,33% 6,67% 6,67% 6,67% 6,67% 6,67%6,67%
6,67%
6(max)
5
4
3
2
1(min)
OVERALL RATING OF THE STUDY VISIT 3 EX-POST SV3 Q26.* 53,33%
6 = Excellent 5 4
6,67%
3 2
40%
1 = Poor
EVALUATION REPORT STUDY VISIT 4 IN BARCELONA (SPAIN) 18th – 22nd October, 2012 This evaluation report is based on the EX-ANTE and EX-POST questionnaires filled in by the participants to the EU’GO Study Visit 4 in Barcelona, Spain. The questionnaires gather participants’ feedback regarding the SV4 development, focusing on two dimensions: Organization and Management of the Study Visit; Content. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting participants’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-study-visitquestionnaire-barcelona-spain-october-2012-ex-post/).
Page | 70
The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 17 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED that can be defined by:
AGE
GENDER Men 17,65%
under 30 17,65%
over 50 29,41%
Women 82,35%
between 30-50 52,94%
COUNTRY
Germany 23,53% United Kingdom 17,65%
ROLE IN EU'GO Urban garden coordinator 23,53%
France 41,18%
EU'GO staff 23,53% Italy 17,65% Spain 0%
OCCUPATION Civil servant 0%
Retired 17,65% Unemployed 11,76% Employed 70,59%
Student 0%
Urban gardener 52,94%
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT LEVEL OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BEFORE THE STUDY VISIT
EX-ANTE SV4 Q8. Opinion on the level of information received regarding.. 6 = Excellent
5
4
3
2
1 = Poor
64,71% 47,06%
47,06% 41,18%
41,18% 35,29% 29,41%
29,41%
41,18% 35,29%
29,41% 29,41%
23,53%
17,65% 5,88%
the travel to the visit location
17,65%
11,76% 11,76%
the board (breakfast, refreshments, meals, etc.
5,88%
5,88%
the lodging
economic and financial conditions
5,88%
5,88%
visit timetable
objectives of the visit
EX-POST SV4 Q22. To what extend did you feel you have had the necessary information before the visit? 6 = Fully
5
4
3
2
1 = Not at all
47,06% 23,53% 11,76% 5,88% 6 = Fully
11,76% 0%
5
4
3
2
1 = Not at all
Page | 71
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT THE SUPPORT RECEIVED FROM THE SENDING AND HOSTING ORGANISATION. LOGISTIC RATING
Page | 72
EX-POST SV4 Q23.-Q25. Logistic rating 60,00%
52,94%
47,06%
50,00%
6 = Excellent
41,18%
40,00%
17,65%
17,65%
20,00% 10,00%
5
29,41%
29,41%
30,00%
23,53%
4 3
5,88%
5,88%
2
0,00% the organisation of the travel to the visit venue
the board (breakfast, refreshments, meals, etc.
the lodging
1 = Poor
EX-POST SV4 Q17.* How do you rate the general support you received from the sending organisation?
1 = Poor
2
3
17,65%
29,41%
4
5
6 = Excellent
52,94%
EX-POST SV4 Q19.* How do you rate the support from the hosting organisation? 1 = Poor
17,65%
2
23,53%
3
4
5
58,82%
6 = Excellent
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT LENGTH OF THE VISIT Page | 73
EX-ANTE SV4 Q11. How do you feel about the length of the visit? Too short 17,65%
Too long 0%
Just right 82,35%
EX-POST SV4 Q21. How do you feel about the length of the visit? Too long 0% Too short 35,29%
Just right 64,71%
CONTENT LEVEL OF EXPECTATIONS REACHED EX-ANTE SV4 Q9. On the base of the State of Art and Good Practices forms read, rate your level of expectation about.. Page | 74
100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 64,71% 70,00% 52,94% 60,00% 47,06% 50,00% 35,29% 40,00% 35,29% 35,29% 29,41% 29,41% 23,53% 17,65% 30,00% 17,65% 11,76% 11,76% 20,00% 11,76%11,76% 5,88% 11,76% 11,76% 10,00% 5,88% 0,00% 5,88% Knowing Exchanging Knowing the Experience Actively Barcelona with other local Urban the good sharing my and its reality participants Garden's practices knowledge to the visit system proposed and competences on Urban Gardening
6 = High 5 4 3 2 1 = Poor
EX-POST SV4 Q11.* On the base of the visit, rate your level of satisfaction about.. 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 64,71% 70,00% 60,00% 47,06% 50,00% 35,29% 35,29% 35,29% 35,29% 40,00% 29,41% 29,41% 29,41% 30,00% 23,53% 17,65% 23,53% 17,65% 17,65% 20,00% 11,76% 10,00% 5,88% 11,76% 5,88% 0,00% Knowing Exchanging Knowing the Experience Actively Barcelona with other local Urban the good sharing my and its reality participants Garden's practices knowledge to the visit system proposed and competences on Urban Gardening
6 = High 5 4 3 2 1 = Poor
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVES AND THE VISIT EX-POST SV4 Q10. How do you rate the correspondence between the objectives and the visit? 1 = Poor
35,29%
2
41,18% 23,53%
3 4 5 6 = Excellent
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CONTENT PARTICIPANTS’ LEARNING AND CONTRIBUTION DURING THE STUDY VISIT
EX-POST SV4 Q13. To what extend did you feel to have actively contributed to the visit?
11,76%
6 = A lot 29,41%
5 4 3
41,18%
2 17,65%
1 = Nothing
EX-POST SV4 Q14. As Urban Gardner, to what extend did you feel you have learned from the visit?
5,88%
6 = A lot 5 41,18%
35,29%
4 3 2
17,65%
1 = Nothing
Page | 75
CONTENT USEFULNESS OF THE VISIT EX-ANTE SV4 Q10. On the base of your expectations, do you think that the visit will contribute.. 6 = A lot
5
4
3
2
1 = Nothing
52,94% 47,06%
47,06%
29,41%
23,53%
29,41% 17,65%
17,65% 5,88%
17,65% 5,88% 5,88%
..to foster your ..to bring personal knowledge about innovation in your Urban Garden Urban Gardens
..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality
EX-POST Q15.* On the base of the results of the visit do you think that the visit was useful.. 6 = A lot
5
4
3
2
1 = Nothing
52,95%
29,41% 11,76% 5,88%
35,29%
23,53%
23,53% 17,65%
41,18% 29,41% 23,53% 5,88%
..to foster your ..to bring personal knowledge about innovation in your Urban Garden Urban Gardens
..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality
Page | 76
EX-POST SV4 Q8.* OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE STUDY VISIT: 100,00% 90,00%
Page | 77
80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 52,94%
52,94% 50,00% 40,00%
47,06% 35,29%
35,29% 29,41% 29,41%
30,00%
47,06% 41,18%
29,41%
29,41%
11,76% 11,76% 5,88% 5,88%
0,00%
6(max)
5
4
3
2
29,41%
35,29%
23,53% 17,65% 11,76%
5,88%
41,18% 35,29%
35,29%
20,00% 10,00%
47,06%
41,18%
17,65% 11,76% 5,88% 5,88%
5,88%
11,76% 5,88%
1(min)
OVERALL RATING OF THE STUDY VISIT 4 EX-POST SV4 Q26.*
47,06%
6 = Excellent 5
11,76%
4 3
41,18%
2 1 = Poor
11,76%
EVALUATION REPORT STUDY VISIT 5 IN MARSEILLE (FRANCE) 5th – 10th November, 2012
Page | 78
This evaluation report is based on the EX-ANTE and EX-POST questionnaires filled in by the participants to the EU’GO Study Visit 5 in Marseille, France. The questionnaires gather participants’ feedback regarding the SV5 development, focusing on two dimensions: Organization and Management of the Study Visit; Content. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting participants’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-study-visitquestionnaire-marseille-france-november-2012-ex-post/). The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 11 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED that can be defined by:
AGE
GENDER
under 30 9,09% between 30-50 9,09%
Men 36,36% Women 63,64%
over 50 81,82%
Urban garden coordinator 9,09%
COUNTRY France 9,09% Germany 18,18% United Kingdom 18,18%
ROLE IN EU'GO
EU'GO staff 18,18% Italy; 45,45%
Urban gardener 72,73%
Spain 9,09%
OCCUPATION Student 0%
Civil servant 18,18% Retired 18,18%
Unemployed 9,09%
Employed 54,55%
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT LEVEL OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BEFORE THE STUDY VISIT Page | 79
EX-ANTE SV5 Q8. Opinion on the level of information received regarding.. 6 = Excellent
5
4
72,73%
3
2
1 = Poor
72,73% 63,64%
54,55%
54,55%
54,55%
27,27% 18,18% 9,09%
9,09% 9,09%9,09% 9,09%
18,18%
18,18% 18,18%
27,27% 18,18%
9,09%
9,09% 9,09%
the travel to the visit location
the board (breakfast, refreshments, meals, etc.
the lodging
economic and financial conditions
visit timetable
objectives of the visit
EX-POST SV5 Q22. To what extend did you feel you have had the necessary information before the visit? 6 = Fully
45,45%
5
4
3
2
1 = Not at all
45,45%
9,09% 0%
6 = Fully
5
4
3
0%
2
0%
1 = Not at all
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT THE SUPPORT RECEIVED FROM THE SENDING AND HOSTING ORGANISATION. LOGISTIC RATING
Page | 80
EX-POST SV5 Q23.-Q25. Logistic rating 60,00%
54,55%
54,55%
50,00% 40,00%
27,27%
30,00%
18,18% 9,09%
5
27,27%
20,00% 10,00%
6 = Excellent
36,36%
36,36%
4
18,18%
3
9,09%
2
0,00% the organisation of the travel to the visit venue
the board (breakfast, refreshments, meals, etc.
the lodging
1 = Poor
EX-POST SV5 Q17.* How do you rate the general support you received from the sending organisation?
1 = Poor
2
3
4
27,27%
5
6 = Excellent
72,73%
EX-POST SV5 Q19.* How do you rate the support from the hosting organisation?
1 = Poor
9,09%
2
36,36%
3
4
5
54,55%
6 = Excellent
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT LENGTH OF THE VISIT Page | 81
EX-ANTE SV5 Q11. How do you feel about the length of the visit? Too short 9,09%
Too long 0%
Just right 90,91%
EX-POST SV5 Q21. How do you feel about the length of the visit? Too short 0%
Too long 9,09%
Just right 90,91%
CONTENT LEVEL OF EXPECTATIONS REACHED EX-ANTE SV5 Q9. On the base of the State of Art and Good Practices forms read, rate your level of expectation about.. 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 54,55% 60,00% 50,00% 45,45% 36,36% 36,36% 40,00% 27,27% 27,27% 30,00% 18,18% 18,18% 18,18% 9,09% 20,00% 9,09% 18,18% 10,00% 9,09% 0,00% Knowing Exchanging Knowing the Experience Marseille and with other local Urban the good its reality participants Garden's practices to the visit system proposed
Page | 82 6 = High 45,45%
5
27,27% 18,18% 9,09%
4 3
Actively sharing my knowledge and competences on Urban Gardening
2 1 = Poor
EX-POST SV5 Q11.* On the base of the visit, rate your level of satisfaction about.. 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%
81,82% 54,55%
45,45%
54,55%
36,36%
45,45% 9,09%
9,09%
9,09%
Knowing Exchanging Knowing the Marseille and with other local Urban its reality participants Garden's to the visit system
27,27% 18,18%
Experience the good practices proposed
6 = High
45,45% 36,36%
5
9,09% 9,09%
4 3
Actively sharing my knowledge and competences on Urban Gardening
2 1 = Poor
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVES AND THE VISIT EX-POST SV5 Q10. How do you rate the correspondence between the objectives and the visit? 1 = Poor
45,45% 45,45%
2
9,09%
3 4 5 6 = Excellent
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CONTENT PARTICIPANTS’ LEARNING AND CONTRIBUTION DURING THE STUDY VISIT
EX-POST SV5 Q13. To what extend did you feel to have actively contributed to the visit?
6 = A lot
27,27%
27,27%
5 4 3 2 1 = Nothing
45,45%
EX-POST SV5 Q14. As Urban Gardner, to what extend did you feel you have learned from the visit?
6 = A lot
18,18%
5 45,45%
4 3 2
36,36%
1 = Nothing
Page | 83
CONTENT USEFULNESS OF THE VISIT EX-ANTE SV5 Q10. On the base of your expectations, do you think that the visit will contribute.. 6 = A lot
45,45%
5
4
3
45,45%
2
1 = Nothing
45,45% 45,45%
36,36% 27,27% 18,18%
18,18% 9,09% 9,09%
..to foster your personal knowledge about Urban Gardens
..to bring innovation in your Urban Garden
..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality
EX-POST SV5 Q15.* On the base of the results of the visit do you think that the visit was useful.. 6 = A lot
5
4
3
2
1 = Nothing
54,55% 45,45% 45,45%
45,45% 27,27%
9,09%
..to foster your personal knowledge about Urban Gardens
18,18%
..to bring innovation in your Urban Garden
36,36%
18,18%
..to better valorize the Urban Garden concept in your local reality
Page | 84
EX-POST SV5 Q8.* OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE STUDY VISIT: 100,00% 90,00% 80,00%
Page | 85
70,00% 60,00% 54,55% 50,00%
63,64%
63,64% 54,55%
63,64%
54,55% 45,45%
45,45%
45,45%
40,00% 30,00% 20,00%
36,36%
36,36% 27,27% 18,18%
27,27% 18,18%
27,27%
27,27% 18,18%
18,18%
18,18%
10,00%
27,27% 27,27%
18,18%
9,09% 9,09% 9,09%
18,18%
18,18%
0,00%
6(max)
5
4
3
2
1(min)
OVERALL RATING OF THE STUDY VISIT 5 EX-POST SV5 Q26.*
45,45%
6 = Excellent 5
9,09%
4 3
45,45%
2 1 = Poor
ANNEXE 2: SVs’ HOSTING and SENDING REPORTS
SV1 Inwole e.V. HOSTING REPORT Hosting organisation:
Inwole e.V.
Dates of the visit:
11/06/2012 – 15/06/2012
Meeting Location:
Potsdam, Germany
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Christin Meile 2/ Angelique Walter 3/ Monika Koch 4/ Christian Theuerl 5/ Miriam Meeden
Description -
What activities have you organised for the study-visit?
Getting to know the participating projects and their representatives The groups presented their projects using PowerPoint presentations and movies. These reports were received with great interest. After each presentation there was time for the many questions. Beside this formal method to meet the other participants we offered phases for a rather non formal exchange. During all the visits of the gardens we ensured that the participants have the opportunity to make a rest. The participants used these breaks for the discussions about the visited gardens, for the exchange of ideas and of course for the necessary recreation.
Active gardening (Production of seed bombs) Because a teamwork was necessary during this workshop the production of seed bombs was an appropriate tool to increase the group cohesion. Furthermore the topic “seed bomb” is a very important theme in the sector of urban gardening and
Page | 86
therefore also usable as a Good Practice. The seeding technique with seed bombs is used both in permaculture as well as in the "guerrilla gardening". During a small seminar the participants received information about the necessary raw materials (seeds, clay, compost) and their mixing ratio. Then the seed bombs were manufactured under supervision. Their distribution was carried out during the next few days.
Visit of various gardens in Potsdam and Berlin We visited two gardens in Potsdam (Projekthaus Potsdam, Interkultureller Garten am Schlaatz) and three gardens in Berlin (Prinzessinnengarten, Ton Steine Gärten, Allmende-Kontor). The selection was made in order to show various aspects of Urban Gardening (foundation in cooperation with the City Council vs. occupation, temporary use vs. permanent use, portable beds, conflicts with the neighbourhood, financing models).
-
Which were the most relevant according to EU’GO’s objectives?
The chosen gardens have very different designs and the gardeners work under very different conditions. Thus the participants of the Study Visit got the opportunity to view a great variety of Urban Gardens and to discover many Good Practices. Hence the presentation of the different gardens was the most relevant activity of the Study Visit.
Your team and local partners -
Who was in involved in the organisation of the SV? How did you separate the tasks?
The Study Visit was mainly organised by the “gardening group” of the Projekthaus Potsdam. The tasks were separated according to the activities. For each task one member of the group had the primary responsibility but got also the support from the other team members. Christin Meile (staff member of Inwole e.V.) helped the participants during the travel planning and organised the PowerPoint presentation (Tue, Thur). Angelique Walter (staff member of Inwole e.V. and responsible for the pottery at the Projekthaus) was in charge of the workshop “Production of seed bombs” (Tue). She procured the material and under her supervision the seed bombs were manufactured. Both of them presented the garden of the Projekthaus Potsdam (Tue) and organised the visit of the “Interkultureller Garten am Schlaatz” (Wed). Monika Koch (graduated sociologist from Berlin, specialized in Urban Studies) was responsible for the visit of the three gardens in Berlin: Prinzessinnengarten, Ton Steine Gärten, Allmende-Kontor (Thur). She provided several information sheets with the main facts of the gardens and created a table (comparison of the three gardens
Page | 87
based upon several criterias). On site she presented the gardens. In addition to the “gardening group” also other members of Inwole e.V. were involved in the Study Visit. Christian Theuerl (staff member of Inwole e.V.) explained the work of the Inwole e.V. by a PowerPoint presentation and organised a sightseeing tour to the different buildings of the Projekthaus Potsdam. Miriam Meeden (staff member of Inwole e.V.) was responsible for the booking of the accommodation.
-
How did you involve the local gardens in the programme?
Before the Study Visit we informed several gardens of the region about this Study Visit. With members of some of these gardens we met and they agreed to support us (Interkultureller Garten am Schlaatz, Ton Steine Gärten, Allmende-Kontor). They gave us further information about their projects. Furthermore they ensured that a representative of the respective project led us through the garden during the Study Visit and answered the many questions of the participants. The gardening group of “Interkultureller Garten am Schlaatz” even prepared a coffee break for us.
Good practices -
How were selected the gardens to visit?
Because Potsdam is situated nearby the German capital Berlin we decided to visit both cities. The selection was made in order to show various aspects of Urban Gardening in the region. Some of these aspects were for instance: Potsdam (medium-sized town: 0.16 million inhabitants)
Berlin (metropolis: 3.5 million inhabitants)
Foundation in cooperation with the City Council all (besides Ton Steine Gärten) Temporary use
Occupation
Different types of portable beds
Different types of raised beds (not portable)
Interkultureller Garten am Schlaatz, Projekthaus Potsdam
Prinzessinnengarten, Allmende-Kontor
Prinzessinnengarten, Allmende-Kontor
a fence existing
Prinzessinnengarten, Allmende-Kontor, Projekthaus Potsdam, Interkultureller Garten am Schlaatz,
-
Prinzessinnengarten, Ton Steine Gärten, Allmende-Kontor Ton Steine Gärten Permanent use
Interkultureller Garten am Schlaatz, Projekthaus Potsdam, Ton Steine Gärten Interkultureller Garten am Schlaatz, Projekthaus Potsdam, Ton Steine Gärten no fence existing (access at any time possible)
Ton Steine Gärten
How many good practices were experimented by the participants? Do you know if some of them will be transferred by participants?
Page | 88
During a workshop the “Production of seed bombs” was taught. The participants enjoyed this activity. Because some of them asked for further information we wrote a Good Practice Info sheet (no. 49) for this activity.
Page | 89 Several participants of the Study Visit were also very interested in the topic “Insect Hotel” (seen at Projekthaus Potsdam and Interkultureller Garten am Schlaatz). Therefore we described the main facts about the construction in a Good Practice Info Sheet (no. 47). During the Study Visit in Rome (SV3) a short introduction about the construction of an “Insect Hotel” was given by Angelique Walter (Projekthause Potsdam). Follow-up -
What is the feedback of the gardens involved after the visit?
After the Study Visit the contact strengthened especially to “Ton Steine Gärten”. The members were very glad that their garden was presented to so many international gardeners. Because the gardeners of “Ton Steine Gärten” were very interested in the international exchange they participated in the following Study Visits.
-
Are there local outcomes to be outlined?
In the aftermath also the connection to other gardens has improved. The cooperation with the visited “Interkultureller Garten am Schlaatz” is intended to be increased. In addition the gardeners of the (not visited) project “Freiland e.V.” asked for a closer cooperation. The Study Visit in Potsdam was characterized by interest and warmth. During the talks the participants told us their enjoyment of this visit – and the ex-postquestionnaire confirmed that impression. This positive feedback gave us as the hosting group much motivation for the further work. In the aftermath of the Study Visit already several other projects were implemented in the Projekthause (e.g. the construction of a raised bed for medicine plants, the construction of a compost pile, collecting of seeds for a later seed bank).
-
How did/do/will you communicate and disseminate about the visit?
Klaus Jack – a member of the Spanish delegation – created a video about the Study Visit in Potsdam. It was spread on internet and even selected by Arte TV for the blog. During the Study Visit in Barcelona this video was shown on the Tool Fair Party. During the monthly neighbourhood-brunch in the Projekthaus Potsdam (see Good Practice no. 30) we talk with many interested people about our experiences of the Study Visits and the further work. At the end of 2012 (11th December) all German participants of the five Study Visits met in the Projekthaus Potsdam to share their experiences. Chronological from SV1 to SV5 all delegations gave a short report about the visited gardens. Additionally the
many photos enriched these impressive reports. Further meetings between the members of “Projekthaus Potsdam” and “Ton Steine Gärten” are agreed for the next year. The gardening group of the Projekthaus Potsdam has an own facebook account. There the newest developments of the group are being published.
Comments
Pistes Solidaires SENDING REPORT SV1 Sending organisation:
Pistes Solidaires
Dates of the visit:
11-16 June 2012
Meeting Location:
Potsdam & Berlin, Germany
Participants of your organisation:
1/Marlène Benzler 2/Céline Viaud
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Marlène is a volunteer in Pistes Solidaires, working on the implementation of the EU’GO project. She is not directly involved in a community garden but ensures the quality of the project implementation. She discovered a lot on urban gardening during the visit, in order to become more familiar to the topic and strengthening her understanding of the stakes and issues of urban gardening around Europe. She exchanged with the other staff participating to the visit on the content of the visit, having in mind the organisation of the following visits. She also exchanged with the urban gardeners on their experience, practices. She shared about Pistes Solidaires’ aims as an organisation and the objectives of the EUGO project. Céline is an intern in Pistes Solidaires, working on the development of a network of gardens in the South West of France. Her participation was the opportunity to meet urban gardeners from around Europe and bring back ideas for the creation of the
Page | 90
network. She also exchanged a lot with RJSM on the topic.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Since the participants are not directly involved in one garden they cannot bring back practices to them.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
Pistes and RJSM will gather to follow experimentation in the Artichaut garden in which Ali and Louiza Foudil are gardening. We will communicate with the garden and the gardeners and fix a meeting to organise experimentation An article on the visit is already online on otesha-gardens.eu
Comments
Nexes SENDING REPORT SV1 Sending organisation:
NEXES INTERCULTURALS DE JOVES PER EUROPA
Dates of the visit:
11-15/07/2012
Meeting Location:
Postdam, Germany
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Klaus Jack 2/ Anna SuùÊ
Description We sent a group of 2 young people in Postdam, Germany. It ought to be 3 but we had a cancellation of a boy on the same of departure and we couldn't manage to find someone else, neither to reimburse the flight. As the third participant also made the preparation, he has been also kind on
Page | 91
involved in the process.
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
To select the participants, we send to all the network a description of Inwole, their gardens and projects and well as a planning of the stay. The most interested people were 3 young people from 3 different gardens: - Klaus Jack from a communitarian garden in a heart of a multicultural district of Barcelona: el Xino. Klaus is a German boy living in Barcelona and in this way, he has been able to help in translation tasks and integration. He is also a video and documentary maker and realised a short video from its stay in Barcelona (see link video in WP3 Multimedia Focus). Klaus has been interested by the different ways of working with urban gardens in Germany and the difference between Spain and Germany. He has been motivated in his hobby of realising video on the topic of urban gardens. - Anna Suñé is a young Catalan girl from district of Guinardó. Since months, she has been involved in a urban garden made with beds in the top of the building of the cultural centre "Guinardó casal d'entitats". Through the participation to the garden, they are creating social link with inhabitants of their district and also, as it lives there many old people and families, they are also creating intergenerational link. She saw many small and practical tools in Germany that she wanted to apply later on but as the environment of her garden is very different (beds on a roof), she is at the moment, disseminating the ideas and tools among their participants. - Xavier Varona Espallargas is a young boy from a communitarian garden in Barcelona, el Forat. He was about to go with the others and follow the preparation but he had a familiar problem at the last moment and had to stay in Barcelona. He asked for feedback from the other participants.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
At the moment, we can't know it for sure. Klaus seems involved in the project and with motivation to follow up. He will probably go on with dissemination and video tasks within EU GO activities. In his garden, he went back with some concrete ideas and tools but we need more time to see if there are good practices interesting to apply for El Xino garden. In the case of Anna suñé (Casal d'entitats), she transferred the results to the
Page | 92
others and they will probably send another participant to another study visit but the "type" of garden were very different from hers and many tolls are not transferable in their garden. Even thought, it gave her a lot of motivation to see what others are doing, open the mind to others countries and culture and improve English.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
For of all, we did an evaluation with them to help them to detect the learnings at different levels (tools detected; learning to do, learning to be and new interests (see annexe Evaluate the learning SV). Then, we asked them to do a mail for the network where they could spread their experience to all and they also explained their experience in a local meeting. As the experimentations has been delayed, we keep close contact with the gardens to keep the motivation and asked them to think about a personal project. We also asked them to be involved in the organisation of the Barcelona Study visit: both Klaus and Anna were very involved: they organise a visit to their gardens, Klaus realised a video on the study visit of Barcelona. The video ok Klaus about the study visit in Germany has been translated into French also and spread on Internet. It has been selected by Arte TV on the blog (see dissemination). Dissemination about the experience: in the local blog of EU GO, in the Facebook and webpage of Nexes (see WP8 Dissemination). The participants of El Xino and Casal d'entitats will be involved in the implementations in 2013.
Comments The third participant, Xavi, from El Forat, was involved at the beginning but as he did not came to Germany, he went slowly out of the project for personal reasons and it has been difficult to keep contact with his garden (el Forat). At the moment, this garden proposed a practice but is not really involved.
Page | 93
KC English SENDING REPORT SV1 Sending organisation:
KC English, Cawsand, Cornwall, England
Dates of the visit:
11 June 2012 > 15 June 2012
Meeting Location:
Potsdam, Germany
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Laurence M Watkins
Description Visits made to: a. b. c. d. e.
Projekthaus Potsdam Interkultureller Garten, Potsdam Ton Steine Garten, Berlin Prinzessinnen Garten, Berlin Tempelhofer Gardens, Berlin
Your group - Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? Participant for this visit was Laurence M Watkins who is a volunteer gardener at a community owned park in Cornwall. He had made contact with KC English, has a good understanding of, and interest in the objectives of the EUGO programme and was available at relatively short notice.
-
How are they involved in urban gardening?
-
What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Laurence M Watkins is a volunteer gardener at a community owned park in Cornwall. He has spent several years supporting the professional gardening team in the park, in addition to being a long-standing food growing gardener.
Exchanged knowledge of:
Food growing - suitability of plants and appropriate tools and techniques. Public participation in the garden – what works best in particular circumstances How to encouraging young people to participate in gardening programmes
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Good practices that will be transferred back to gardens by participants include:
Use of irrigation systems in raised bed and container growing situations
Page | 94
Publicising open days and open events
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind?
Support and encouragement in garden experimentation will be given by Page | 95 encouraging participants to identify and adopt new good practices by enabling contact with originators and those considered to be practice experts, both within the local area and at partner locations. - How will you communicate and disseminate about it? Communication and dissemination will be undertaken through the established networks with local urban gardens using appropriate media: email, blogs, newsletters, in addition to contacts with individuals by telephone and face to face meetings. Comments Participants were appreciative of the organisation and visits made during this study visit.
CEMEA del Mezzogiorno SENDING REPORT SV1 Sending organisation:
CEMEA del Mezzogiorno
Dates of the visit:
From 11th to 15th of June 2012
Meeting Location:
Potsdam and Berlin, Germany
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Ilenia Zuccaro (CEMEA del Mezzogiorno) 2/ Luigi Di Paola (O.U. Garbatella) 3/ Maria Antonietta Cossu (Amici della Terra)
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Luigi di Paola is a senior member of O.U. Garbatella. He participated from the beginning to the creation of the gardens and today is the spokesman. Even if he doesn’t have a plot inside the garden, he is member of the executive committee of the gardens. Luigi has been from the beginning of the EU’GO project really
interested in it and active in order to gather information about O.U. Garbatella. This Urban gardens is one of the first garden in Rome and really active in the process of recognition. Luigi speaks also German and for him was easy both to exchange with local participants/gardens than with the European participants. He came back with more motivation for continuing his work. The intercultural experience brought him new energies and the proof that Italian urban gardeners Page | 96 are not alone in their “fight” for the recognition. He has been surprised by the creativity of the German urban gardens and the cultural approach with the Instituions, even if He has been in Germany for a while, regarding the topic of Urban Gardens he lived an experience from which he can bring new ideas and motivation in Italy. Maria Antonietta Cossu is an old volunteer of CEMEA del Mezzogiorno and since one year is engaged in helping Toto, a 80 years old man that cultivate a garden in the centre of Rome. She created the association Amici della Terra and she started to involve school and citizens in the activity of the Garden. From the beginning she was very active and she helped a lot the preparation of the EU’GO project. She was used to live an intercultural experience and the Study Visit enriched her a lot in terms of knowledge and exchange with other participants. She realized that german gardens have a different approach compare with the Italians one, mostly with the relationship with the Institution. Both of them appreciated a lot Projecthause and the relaxed and familiar environment created by the association, as well as the European group. Ilenia Zuccaro is staff of EU’GO project in CEMEA del Mezzogiorno. She participated to the Study Visit in order to be a support for the Italian participants as well as to be present and understand better the European context of urban gardening. By knowing the Italian reality she realized the differences in terms of cultures of the German gardens, the relationship with the Institutions is more patient than the one in Italy. Urban gardeners wait for the access to the land but when they have it the creativity and the solutions they have found are really original.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Luigi di Paola as well as Maria Antonietta Cossu found in the Insekt House one of their possible good practices. Luigi decided to build an Insekt house in his urban gardens, because is something not known in Italy, there are no gardens in Rome that have an Insekthouse. In fact the Insekt hause is one of the Good practice that will be experimented in Italy. Maria Antonietta Cossu didn’t found a real good practice, but she came back with a lot of ideas about how to recycle objects can become useful in the garden, and she will use some of this ideas.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the
-
gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
One of the support from the German partner is to create a good practice sheet about the Insekthouse because it wasn’t in the beginning of the project. Thanks to the Study Visit we discover a new good practice, well known in other countries but Page | 97 not yet used in Italy. With the participants we are always in contact, both at local level than for the project EU’GO. After the Study Visit the collaboration became stronger. Luigi di Paola disseminate the experience of the Study Visit by presenting to a local event what he lived. Moreover we will create webpage of the Study Visit and we asked to the participants to write a little article about the experience. The article of Luigi di Paola was published in an online newspaper comune-info.net.
Comments We expected more contact and exchange with the German urban gardeners, rather than only visit the gardens. The key word of this Study Visit for the Italian group is: creativity.
RJSM SENDING REPORT SV1 Sending organisation:
Reseau des Jardins Solidaires Méditerranéens RJSM
Dates of the visit:
11-15/07/2012
Meeting Location:
Postdam, Germany
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Alexandrine Fillion 2/ Ali Foudil 3/Louisa Foudil
Description We sent a group of 3 people to the study visit in Postdam, Germany. Alexandrine Fillion is staff of the RJSM, in charge of EUGO project, and Ali and Louisa Foudil are gardener s in the garden “Jardin de Gibraltar” in the city centre of Marseille
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
The offer to participate to the study visit was send to all the garden members of the RJSM network and all the other gardens partners of RJSM who participated in the first phase of the project, sending information on their gardens and their practices for the project. However June is a very busy month in the gardens and most of them were not available to participate in this first study visit. - Alexandrine Fillion is a staff member of RJSM since September 201. The RJSM Page | 98 network is run by a board of volunteers, and her task is to help those volunteers, to create more link with the gardens less involved in the daily life of the RJSM, to deal with the demands that the network receive from the members, the people starting garden projects and the stakeholders. She has been able to share her global knowledge of the gardens of our area, and to help with translation and travel necessities. - Ali and Louisa Foudil are retired people, from Northern Africa origin, leaving in a very popular district of the city centre of Marseille: “La belle de Mai”. They are gardeners at the garden “Jardin de Gibraltar” since several years. They found the garden just by walking in the area and wanted to participate. They are cultivating their small plots inside the garden, but they are also actively participating in the community life of the garden, and actively sharing their knowledge of cultivation with the other gardeners. The Jardin de Gibraltar has been interested and participating in the EUGO project since the beginning, and not only by the action of Ali and Louisa, but also by other volunteers. However at that time of the year only Ali and Louisa were able to make the travel. They were very keen on meeting gardeners from Germany as they had previously heard of the “intercultural gardens” of this country. La Belle de Mai is a district with lot of people from immigration background, and lot of diversity. Their gardens a special link with Germany as it was initiated by a German girl that wanted to reproduce in her new living place the garden she had experienced in Germany before coming to Marseille. They were able to share with the others their experience of the “normal life” of the gardeners in community shared gardens in Marseille. They were really motivated by what they saw during their trip. The travel and the fact of being integrated during 5 days in a group of people with different nationalities, backgrounds, languages, most of them younger, was in itself a positive experience. But it was good that they were the 2 of them, to feel less “lost” They were also interested by the way of people to take over a land and start a use benefacting to the whole community and open to everybody.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
At the moment, we can't know it for sure. We know they will bring to their garden the richness of this experiences. Ali and Louisa are more and more involved in the community life of their garden since their trip. Most of the practices that they saw during this trip are already in use in their garden. They however are willing to propose some things for the next season, next spring. Alexandrine is not gardener in a community garden herself but she will help the
garden of the network to set up their own experiment.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
The EUGO project is regularly integrated in the meetings of the RJSM network. At the end of the study visit 1 it is not yet very clear to the gardens how the project will go on and which form will take the experiments. In our case most of the gardens rely on paid staff as coordinator, and this period of the year (beginning of summer) is not easy for them to participate: most of the staff have lots of work with lots of visitors coming to the gardens, and the summer is always a time were volunteers gardeners are less present because they go on holydays, and because of the very hot and dry weather. However the gardens start to be aware of the project, the first participant to a study visit can tell what they saw, and more gardens are willing to participate to the next ones. We also can use the pictures both from our participants and partners to show the gardeners in the next meetings of RJSM.
Comments
Page | 99
KC English SV2 HOSTING REPORT Hosting organisation:
KC English, Cawsand, Cornwall, England
Dates of the visit:
09 July 2012 > 13 July 2012
Meeting Location:
Congregational Hall Cawsand Cornwall England.
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Kim von Kanel 2/Michelle Maunder 3/Laurence Watkins
Description -
What activities have you organised for the study-visit?
A. Visit to “Diggin-It” operation at Peverall, Plymouth to understand & discuss their work there: Provision of Community Gardens, Integrational Support to disadvantaged youngsters, Educational gardening with local schools and other youth organisations. B. Meeting at Congregational Hall, Cawsand to review work being done with partner representatives plus presentation on the work of the UK’s Federation of Community Gardens and City Farms. C. Visit to “Eden Project” (Near St Austell, Cornwall) to understand and discuss their scientific and educational programmes on plant preservation, plant utilisation & environmental management, and their community development activities. D. Visit to “Horticultural Healing Trust’s” garden at Torpoint Cornwall to view their garden and understand & discuss their work with mentally disadvantaged individuals, using the healing power of horticulture. E. Visit to Mount Edgcumbe Park, Cornwall to visit the community garden and park and understand & discuss their work to provide a community garden for the benefit of the people of Plymouth and Cornwall -
Which were the most relevant according to EU’GO’s objectives?
The most relevant visits for the objectives of EU’GO were visits A and D above, due to their focus on including and supporting the disadvantaged and disabled.
Page | 100
Your team and local partners -
Who was in involved in the organisation of the SV? How did you separate the tasks?
Personnel identified above were involved in the organisation of the SV. Task separation was undertaken using standard project management Page | 101 principles of task identification, resource requirement, capability and availability in conjunction with task scheduling. - How did you involve the local gardens in the programme? Local gardens were involved in deciding and developing the programme by communicating our requirements through our existing (and evolving) network of local urban and community gardens, and encouraging them to assess their programmes & capabilities against the EU’GO objectives. They were also requested to identify the possibility of supporting a visit with suitably qualified personnel during the time period of SV2. Good practices - How were selected the gardens to visit? Gardens were selected according to a number of criteria: -
Conformance to EU’GO objectives Location Accessibility Ability to support a visit during the SV2 timeframe Willingness to support a visit during the SV2 timeframe Potential costs of providing the visit during SV2 Unusual and/or distinguishing features
How many good practices were experimented by the participants? Do you know if some of them will be transferred by participants?
Good practices experienced by the participants included:
Supporting and improving the lives of mentally disadvantaged through horticultural activities. Providing gardens and gardening facilities for the enjoyment and benefit of the local community on a low or zero cost basis. Use of scientific research to provide a diverse range of plant based materials to enable the provision of organic, sustainable solutions to meet manufacturing needs. Interacting with school organisations to supply an educational support facility enabling youngsters to understand plant growing cycles and experience growing activities.
Certain practices were identified by participants as being relevant to their gardens and gardening activities, with aspects of the practices experienced being particularly beneficial and
transferrable to their activities. Follow-up - What is the feedback of the gardens involved after the visit? Gardens involved were pleased to host the visits and engage in the Page | 102 discussions of their activities with the participants. A number identified that those discussions highlighted opportunities to extend and/or develop their current activities and practices.
Are there local outcomes to be outlined? Yes
-
- How did/do/will you communicate and disseminate about the visit? Communication and dissemination regarding the visit was undertaken using a variety of media:
Email – for direct contact with individuals Internet blog – for general consumption Newsletter – for consumption by the local community Public meetings - for consumption by the local community
Comments Weather conditions for the duration of this visit were challenging, as the SW of England was experiencing extremely heavy rainfall (the highest recorded for over a century). This had the effect of precluding and/or curtailing certain aspects of some visits. It was not considered that this had any major detrimental impact overall to the visit’s objectives, but clearly did not aid the process.
Inwole e.V. SENDING REPORT SV2 Sending organisation:
Inwole e.V.
Dates of the visit:
09/07/2012 – 13/07/2012
Meeting Location:
Plymouth (Cawsand / Kingsand), UK
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Angelique Walter 2/ Monika Koch
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them?
The German delegation consisted of two people. Angelique Walter as well as Monika Koch are members of the gardening group at the “Projekthaus Potsdam”.
Both were engaged in the preparation and realisation of the Study Visit in Potsdam. They learnt a lot about the Urban Gardening in the Germany. Now they were interested to see how the gardens are organised abroad. -
How are they involved in urban gardening?
Angelique Walter (staff member of the Inwole e.V. and amongst other things responsible for the pottery at the Projekthaus) is engaged for several years in the maintenance of the outdoor area of the Projekthaus. She is responsible for the cultivation of vegetables and flowers. During the last years she was involved in the construction of several raised beds (material: natural stone, brick, timber). Since the beginning of 2012 Monika Koch has participated in the gardening group of the Projekthaus. She was engaged in the construction of several raised beds and the cultivation of the plants. During the Study Visit in Potsdam (SV1) she was responsible for the visit of the three gardens in Berlin: Prinzessinnengarten, Ton Steine Gärten, Allmende-Kontor. -
What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Some of the non-German participants also attended the Study Visit 1 (Potsdam) and were very interested in the work of the gardening group in the weeks after SV1. Therefore the Projekthaus was often mentioned during the discussions. For many participants the successful combination of the different aspects (living, working, culture, gardening) in one project was very interesting. It was characteristic for the Study Visit in England that many discussions were focussed on political issues. Of course the gardeners talked also about plants but rather important were the questions: How to organise a garden? With which legal restriction a garden has to cope? Are politicians helpful or a burden? For the German delegation it was a surprise that in some other countries the gardeners have to deal with much more bureaucracy and legal restrictions than in Germany. With this knowledge the German group appreciated more the current support for Urban Gardening projects in Germany.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
During the visit of the Eden Project especially a medical plant garden aroused great interest. For every plant there was a description for which illness it is appropriate. After the return from England the gardening group in the Projekthaus Potsdam already began to implement this Good Practice. A raised bed was constructed (material: bricks) and the medical plants were selected and planted. The description of the plants however still has to work out in the near future. The initially for the Study Visit announced activity “Garden in a bag� was unfortunately cancelled. Nevertheless this Good Practice (no. 27) sounds interesting. It is planned to experiment with this type of container garden in 2013
Page | 103
(maybe as a version of a potato tower). In the garden “Diggin it” a spectacular Good Practice was discovered: an “Aquaponic system”. This food production systems combines aquaculture (fish breeding) with hydroponics (cultivating plants in water). Most of the participants have never seen such a unit before. Despite the interesting type of agriculture this Good Practice will not be implemented in Potsdam. It would be too expensive and needs furthermore much energy for the pumps.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind?
One experimentation has already started in the Projekthaus (construction of a raised bed for medical plants). Many interested people helped and Inwole e.V. provided the tools. It is too early to say, which help from the partners is needed in the future. -
How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
During the monthly neighbourhood-brunch in the Projekthaus Potsdam (see Good Practice no. 30) we talk with many interested people about our experiences of the Study Visits and the further work. After we had completed the construction and planting of the raised bed for medical plants (see above) we celebrated an opening party. Many neighbours and friends of the Projekthaus Potsdam attended this party. At the end of 2012 (11th December) all German participants of the five Study Visits met in the Projekthaus Potsdam to share their experiences. Chronological from SV1 to SV5 all delegations gave a short report about the visited gardens. Additionally the many photos enriched these impressive reports. Further meetings between the members of “Projekthaus Potsdam” and “Ton Steine Gärten” are agreed for the next year. The gardening group of the Projekthaus Potsdam has an own Facebook account. There the newest developments of the group are being published.
Comments
Page | 104
CEMEA del Mezzogiorno SENDING REPORT SV2 Sending organisation:
CEMEA del Mezzogiorno
Dates of the visit:
From 9th to 13th of July 2012
Meeting Location:
Plymouth and Cawsand, United Kingdom
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Ilenia Zuccaro (CEMEA del Mezzogiorno) 2/ Giovanna Lenzo (Terra d’orto- Casa S. Rosa) 3/ Franco Paolinelli (Agroclub – SAP)
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Giovanna Lenzo is a social worker in Terra d’Orto- Casa S.Rosa, a residential house for women with mental disabilities. Since 8 years she is developing horticultural therapy with her guests and she collect the results of the horticultural therapy by using her own tool because in Italy is not recognised as in UK. For this reason we proposed to this organization to participate to the Study Visit because in England there are good practices about the horticultural therapy and she could have the possibility to exchange and discover new tools for her work. She brought new motivation in continuing her work and thanks to the visit to the Horticultural Healing project she exchanged a lot with Deb, responsible of the garden, on how to use some survey tools in order to follow the progress of the disabled people. She said she grow a lot from a professional and personal point of view, by speaking in English and exchanging with other European realities. The EDEN project was really interesting for her for the idea of recycling an ex mine. Franco Paolinelli is an agronomist, not directly involved in any urban gardens in Rome but he proposes the concept of Agroclub and he follows the 2 or 3 projects of Agroclub in Rome. He followed research in urban gardens since the 80’s and he is really active in Rome. For him the Study Visit was very stimulating but he reclaimed the lack of presence of experts in the European group. This was one of his needs, because he was looking for an enrichment from a professional point of view. A part this, thanks to the visit he realized that he didn’t see anything new but that the Italian system is really retarded compare to the other European countries. During the informal exchange he could exchange a lot and he said he lived the inferiority complex because in England the National Health system is present and they defined a recognised qualification for social workers who used horticultural therapy. Ilenia Zuccaro is staff of EU’GO project in CEMEA del Mezzogiorno. She participated
Page | 105
to the Study Visit in order to be a support for the Italian participants as well as to be present and understand better the European context of urban gardening. By knowing the Italian reality she realized the differences in terms of recognition of the potential of horticultural therapy in UK, that should happen also in Italy.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Not really, because we really didn’t see good practices, but the participants brought back some nice idea for their garden/experiences. Giovanna Lenzo will bring back the idea to use flowers inside the garden. Not really used in Italy and she saw a good motivational and artistic tool to use in the garden. Moreover she is motivated to create the compost area and the dry toilet, very useful for her target group. Franco Paolinelli didn’t see new practices, but he came back with more information about the English system.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
From KC English I need to be in contact with Deb of the Horticultural Healing project, in order to give the possibilities to Giovanna to continue to share with the responsible of this project. About dissemination and communication, we will create a webpage of the Study Visit with the articles of the Participants. Franco Paolinelli created a good survey of the experience, with data sheets of each garden present, from the English ones to the European ones. He proposed us to continue to do it with also the Italian gardens and the European gardens, involved in the project. His idea is to create definitions for the garden. Work that is not so easy, neither maybe possible. But he is a researcher and he needs to classify.
Comments Unfortunately there were a lot of rains and it was difficult to be always inside the activities. We also lost the visit to MontEdgcumbe Park because of the rain. The key word of this Study Visit for the Italian group is: recognition of the horticultural therapy
Page | 106
Nexes SENDING REPORT SV2 Sending organisation:
NEXES INTERCULTURALS DE JOVES PER EUROPA
Dates of the visit:
9-13/07/2012
Meeting Location:
Cawsand, UK
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Beatriz Gomar 2/ Laura Ciudad 3/ Esther Toran
Description We sent a group of 3 girls in Cawsand, UK. We prepared them previously with a meeting, information about EU GO and concrete planning about UK study visit. During the previous meeting, ,we also realised a short video with their expectative about the study visit.
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening?
To select the participants, we send to all the network a description of UK, their gardens and projects and well as a planning of the stay. The most interested people were 3 participants from 3 different gardens: - Beatriz Gomar is a teacher working in a secondary school and who is personally very motivated by the topic of urban garden. She created one with her students of secondary in a high school of Santa Coloma de Gramenet, an intercultural city next to Barcelona. She wrote previously a good practice about her school garden and is interested by EU GO and its "learning process detection". As she knows about pedagogy and education, she wanted to come to another country and see the learning there. Garden: INS Terraroja Practice: 16-Edible garden - Esther Toran is a girl living in a small city next to Barcelona and next to the big park of Collserola where many initiatives of gardens are being developed. She is now on the process of starting a new garden with a group of people and she was
Page | 107
interested to see how do other people manage to do it in other countries. For her, the experience of all the participants were interesting. Garden: in process of creation - Laura Ciudad is a girl from Madrid living in Barcelona and in charge of the communitarian garden of Can Masdeu, a house were are living a group of people Page | 108 and which has many gardens to be share with the neighbours. As an occupied house and shared gardens, she is interesting by the process of active participation and she wanted to see other examples. She has few international experience. Garden: Can Masdeu Practice: Intergenerational ecology
Good practices and learnings -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How? What did they learn during the study visit?
All of them saw many interesting tools and exchanged a lot with the other participants. Most of them could get some good inputs and learning. As experimentations has been delayed it is hard to detect now which experimentations they will implement but Laura form Can Masdeu and Beatriz from INS Terraroja are really motivated to follow the project. Laura is already thinking about applying a "path of senses" as she saw. Knowledge: Bea learned new ways of cultivating, Laura learnt other ways of self managing exchanging with the people there and she also practiced English. Esther also exchanged many ideas and learnt ways to manage projects with Urban gardens. Learn to do: Bea learnt to use other tools; using new practices from horticulture (aquatic ecosystem; vertical separation; creation of microsystems). Laura learnt diverse good practices that she could try in her garden; meet new people with similar activities; travelling. Esther learnt concrete practices; create network; how to manage city farms and community gardens Learn to be: Bea learnt to share practices; participation in a network as a tool to promote diversity; new personal visions and opinions. Laura learnt to be part of an international collective; To see new realities gives you new perspectives. Esther reinforce this idea that the exchange increases knowledge and personal growth. New interests and motivation: Bea found new approaches about the use and benefits of gardens for therapeutic/social/cultural aim and got more motivation to help local gardens to understand better the project. Laura got more motivation to explore more deeply the educational tools and the therapeutic tools. Esther got more motivation to create a communitarian project and garden.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
For of all, we did an evaluation with them to help them to detect the learning at Page | 109 different levels (tools detected; learning to do, learning to be and new interests (see annexe Evaluate the learning SV). Then, we asked them to do a mail for the network where they could spread their experience to all and they also explained their experience in a local meeting in July (See "act of the meeting) As the experimentations has been delayed, we keep close contact with the gardens to keep the motivation and asked them to think about a personal project. We also asked them to be involved in the organisation of the Barcelona Study visit: both Laura and Bea were very involved: they organise a visit to their gardens, Bea went with the group to other gardens and helped in the preparation of the study visit in Barcelona. Esther also help in the preparation and the visit to Can Masdeu. Dissemination about the experience: by mail within the network, in the local blog of EU GO, in the facebook and webpage of Nexes (see WP8 Dissemination).
Comments
Pistes Solidaires SENDING REPORT SV2 Sending organisation:
Pistes Solidaires
Dates of the visit:
18-22 October 2012
Meeting Location:
Barcelona, Spain
Participants of your organisation:
1/Mathieu Decq 2/CĂŠline Viaud
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Mathieu is the director of Pistes Solidaires. He ensures the general coordination of the project. His participation to this study visit aimed at supporting the hosting organisation and fostering exchanges between staff members to increase the quality of the project. He also shared about the situation of urban gardens in the South West of France, especially in Pau where Pistes Solidaires develops activities with them. CĂŠline is an intern in Pistes Solidaires, working on the development of a network of gardens in the South West of France. Her participation was the opportunity to meet urban gardeners from around Europe and bring back ideas for the creation of the network. She also exchanged a lot with RJSM on the topic.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Since the participants are not directly involved in one garden they cannot bring back practices to them. Although, Mathieu’s participation is linked to the idea of developing a new urban garden with European volunteers in Pau.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
Mathieu will encourage the experimentation of creation of a new garden in Pau. For this, he asks the help of the RJSM, experienced on this topic, to identify the cycle of an urban community garden and add on this cycle the good practices to experiment. The dissemination of this experimentation will be ensured through the European volunteers that are to define their working process in the next months. An article on the visit is already online on otesha-gardens.eu
Comments
Page | 110
RJSM SENDING REPORT SV2 Sending organisation: Dates of the visit: Meeting Location: Participants of your organisation:
Réseau des Jardins Solidaires Méditerrannéens From 9th to 13th of July 2012 Plymouth and Cawsand, UK 1/ Viviane Cronier 2/ Alexis Jan 3/ Gonzague Maison
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Like the previous Study visit, participation to this one was proposed by e mail to all the gardens members and partners of RJSM. We also made announcement when the project was presented at the annual assembly of the RJSM, and during the previous meeting of RJSM. The participant were selected because of their involvement in the previous part of EUGO, their representativness of different kind of gardens of the network, their ability to communicate in English (the previous visit had shown it to be important), and of course their availability. Viviane Cronier is a new staff of RJSM, appointed to manage the EUGO project that becomes to much for our current staff. She is staff since 10 years of the garden “Jardin de l’Esperance” which is and educational and job inclusion garden since more than 15 years. She is also an active member of RJSM since may years, with a strong knowledge of the different gardens of the network, and of other gardens all around France. She is also a trainer for the RJSM on the subject for example of creation of new gardens, and gardening with disabled people. She was able to share with the participant her experiences of working in a garden, and her knowledge of the French gardens. She also as a special interest in Hortitherapy/Horthicultural therapy and in meeting with Deb and Dennis of Horticultural therapy trus, and Giovanna Lenzo from Italy. She learned a lot about the different situations in the different country partners of EUGO, and talking with people having a same interest in Uraban gardens but different ways of doing gave her a lot to think about the French situation of gardens, and the way things are done in them. For the EUGO project it was as well more than interesting to meet the some of the partners, as well as some other gardeners involved in the project and understand better each ones own reality. Alexis Jan is a garden organiser/coordinator for an organization that manage gardens in different districts of Marseille. In his daily practices he goes in different gardens, and he was very interested in knowing other realities. The AMIEU organisation has proposed various practices to the EUGO program, an we wanted to involve them even more by doing a Study visit. Alexis was very interested by meeting the European participants, even if he didn’t visit in UK gardens that could be close to his owns. The exchanges about the ways other garden develop in other part of Europe being managed entirely without the help of paid staff was quite a
Page | 111
discovery. Gonzague Maison is a gardener in community garden since many years, and a newly recruited staff of the garden “Croq jardin” to be responsible of a new pilote tool in this garden: a collective composting facility, for neighbouring professional. Croq Jardin is very active in the EUGO program, has proposed many practices and wanted to do some experimentation. At this state of the project,and as Croq jardin Page | 112 has already many practices it was not easy fro them to see in the proposed practices sheet what could be implemented locally, but they really wanted to go and visit, in order to understand what was happening elsewhere and take profit for their future innovations. Gonzague was very interested by the exchanges with the other Europeans, and with the other French as well. It helped him to understand better all the field of possibilities inside his new job.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Because of the weather and the advancement of the project we didn’t have really opportunities to see practices. However the study visit helped us reflect about what are the practices of our diffenrent gardens, what are the similarities and differences. It helped us understand as well what are the garden in the different countries and how they are living: with or without paid staff, with what kind of money, and what sort of leagal status.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
The UK visit has been important for the project because it allowed us to exchange more on the way the garden are running. It also Gave us more concrete to bring mback inside our own network of garden to help the garden understand better what will be the exchange of practice. It was a bit frustrating beacause we couldn’t exhcage so much about technical practices, and we now need to maintain the exchange that have started between the gardeners. We will continue giving new in our newsletter, and during our meeting to show all the garden what is happening and motivate even more the involved gardens. We are also relaying the information on this project to the other networks of garden in France, especially as we are preparing together a nationa “colloque” about urban garden and citizen initiatives that will be held in Strasbourg in October.
Comments We were not lucky with the weather.
CEMEA del Mezzogiorno SV3 HOSTING REPORT Hosting organisation:
CEMEA del Mezzogiorno
Dates of the visit:
From the 26th of September to the 1st of October 2012
Meeting Location:
Rome - Italy
Participants of your organisation:
1/Ilenia Zuccaro (CEMEA del Mezzogiorno) 2/ Andrea Messori (CEMEA del Mezzogiorno) 3/Gabriela David (EVS in CEMEA del Mezzogiorno) 4/Dina Drakatou (EVS in CEMEA del Mezzogiorno) Plus some representatives of the Italian Urban Gardens
Description -
What activities have you organised for the study-visit? Which were the most relevant according to EU’GO’s objectives?
The Study Visit in Rome was organized with some extra activities that in the last Study Visit arise during a coordinator’s meeting. The Study Visit lengths 6 days (one day more), there have been two public events and the gardens organized some activities – sometimes their good practices – to be done with the European group. Franco Paolinelli, participants to the SV2 in Uk that doesn’t have a garden, visited with the group almost all the local gardens involved, because of his interest, as researcher in the field, to discover new realities, both local than European ones. For all the week we move around Rome with the Public Transports and it created some difficulties in terms of efforts from the European participants. Rome is a big city and to move from one part to another resulted sometimes very hard with 15 participants. The meals where organized in different restaurants where the participants tasted different regional food and products.
26th of September: ARRIVAL DAY No activities have been organized because of the different arrivals of the participants. Last group arrived at 11 p.m. that have been welcomed in the Airport by one of the Italian gardeners, Luigi di Paola. 27th of September: MORNING: a public event was organised in partnership with the Province of
Page | 113
Rome and the Forum of Social Farms. The European gardens presented themselves to the Italian public, that was formed by Representatives of Public Institutions, representatives of urban gardens, journalists, researches and other organizations and realities interested in the topic. This event was really appreciated by the Italian public because they could discover the different realities participating in EU’GO and received a perspective of what is Page | 114 the situation in Europe. Thanks to the presentation of the activities of the European gardens the local public discovered new things and got also new ideas. AFTERNOON: A visit to a Domus Romana was organized in order to give an idea of the history of Rome. To understand and to know what happened before us helped the group to know better the reality of Rome, the “Eternal City”. Then we visited the FERMENTI DI TERRA, Pigneto’s Urban garden, an example of open space urban garden in the middle of a square. This garden was really curios for most of the participant for its characteristics of management and free organization of the activity. 28th of September: MORNING: Visit to Terra d’Orto- Casa S. Rosa, Giovanna Lenzo participated to the Study Visit 2 in UK. The group visited the site and then worked together in the garden with the women of the residential centre that suffer of light mental disability. This was a really nice moment, in which the European participants communicated with the women in different languages, but gardening overcame the language barriers. We met some gardeners of the open garden that Terra d’Orto has and we spoke with some of them. Then the organisation offered us the lunch. AFTERNOON: Visit to Amici della Terra, Maria Antonietta participant to the SV1 in Germany, welcomed us with Toto and the other gardeners. She presented the site and then she organized an activity related to her Good practices (A path for blind people). Some European participants were blindfolded and they had to recognize some herbs and plants only by smelling them. For the winner Maria Antonietta prepared a small gift, a typical Sardinian plate. The group enjoyed a lot the meeting with Toto, 80 years old man that had gardened this 100sm garden. Then Maria Antonietta guided us from Monteverde to Trastevere, in a nice and historical walk where the participants discovered more about Rome. The afternoon was completely organized by Amici della Terra Monteverde that enjoyed the visit and the exchange with the European group. 29th of September: MORNING: Visit to CIBI D’ITALIA and Circo Massimo Urban Garden. Daniele Taffon, Responsible of Campagna Amica Foundation guided us inside the historical site of the Jewish fish market, nowadays turned in a farmer market in the city centre of Rome. With Alberto, the personal trainer (Good practice) the group went deeper to the activity of Alberto that explained us also the intents of the demonstrative garden in the farmer market. Some of the gardeners exchanged with Alberto about how to organize the arise bed of herbal plants, techniques and
some tricks. AFTERNOON: Free visit to the event CIBI D’ITALIA with typical products and food from all Italy. At 6 o’clock we had a meeting in Citta dell’Altra Economia with AIAB that presented their Leonardo partnership project the MAIE project about the development of a Page | 115 120-hour curriculum for workers in Social Agriculture and the local project about urban garden and young ex-offenders carried on in partnership with the Ministry of the Justice. The meeting was really intensive and there were really participated questions, suggestions and discussions. The possibility to meet other European project that can create synergy of intents with EU’GO is an added value to take into consideration and that open new partnership and follow up of the project’s objectives. 30th of September: MORNING: Visit to O.U. Garbatella, Luigi di Paola participants to the SV1 in Germany welcomed us and presented to the group the history of the gardens. Then various activity were carried on: Presentation of the Japanese garden by Antonio Viglietto Presentation of the Hagape 2000 organization and its work with disabled people in the garden. Presentation of the Asinitas organization and its work with migrants in the garden. Presentation of the synergic garden created by the group of the Permaculture course, run by Carmelo Leotta. After visited and knew the different and various organizations and people active in the urban garden, some participants to which was asked to, presented some tricks and suggestion for building and using the Insekthouse. Françoise from France, presented to the Italian gardeners, a card game for children about insects. Then all the gardeners (Italian and the Europeans) exchanged seeds about typical plants or ornamental plants and flowers. The visit to the Garbatella gardens was really participative, the Italian gardeners were open to know the European gardeners and they shared and exchanged story, gave advised and went deeper in the topics each of them is interested to. AFTERNOON: Visit to Casale Garibaldi Garden - LAVANGAQUADRA where Paola Turroni and Bianca d’Aniello welcomed us and presented the site and the history of the garden. Under the rain there was a quick visit of the garden and the explanation of the herbal purification site.
In the late afternoon we organized a public event open to the public where the participants could express themselves and gave to the Italian gardeners impressions, feedback, suggestions and advice about what they had experienced. Some Institutional Representative were invited to speak and listen the debate, where were present Luigi di Paola as spokesman of the new-born local network of
urban gardens of Rome and the Municipality of Rome with Paola Marzi, responsible of the urban garden department of Roma Capitale. The debate gave different and various input for analyzing the situation of the Urban gardens in Rome. The point of view of the European participants were different because also they analyzed their local realities by experiencing the Italians one. The local public was attentive to catch the differences but also the similarities Page | 116 from the speech of the European participants. In general the European had seen the “hearth” of the roman gardeners in the way the continue to fight for the access to the land, many of the urban gardens in Rome are not legally recognized and, often, the land is a results of an action of occupation. But the Roma’ gardens are beautiful, participative, organized and self financing, this last characteristic shocked a little bit English and French participants. The voluntary work that every day citizens carry on in the garden for their community is respectful and an example to follow. The debate arise topics and input for the future, both for the Italians and the European participants. 1st of October: DEPARTURE DAY The most relevant activities of the EU’GO project, relating also to the Italian local realities, we organized : -
To visit different realities in different parts of Rome, the big eternal city. To know and experience some Good practices ( A path for blind people, my
-
To give a public visibility to the Study Visit by organizing two public events and to involve Public Institutions in the debate and in the visit. To open some parts of the Study Visit to different stakeholder, researchers, environmental organizations, citizens, etc.. To exchange and to discover other realities by the direct meeting of the gardeners To valorize the characteristics of each Italian garden, by giving them the responsibility of the hosting and the activity to do during the Visit To involve vulnerable groups in the Study Visit To discover the local reality from different point of view (cultural, historical, natural, etc..)
-
personal trainer, to work with disable people in gardening, the garden in the market, Connecting people, the herbal purification)
Your team and local partners -
Who was in involved in the organisation of the SV? How did you separate the tasks? How did you involve the local gardens in the programme?
From CEMEA’S team 2 staff were involved from the beginning and for different tasks (manager and technician), while the trainer helped with the program and the administrative with financial issues. The manager, Andrea Messori, took care to all the communication with the local stakeholders, as the Public Institutions and local newspapers. The technician, Ilenia Zuccaro, organized with the Italian gardens the visits and
took care to the logistics. The two European volunteers, Dina Drakatou and Gabriela David, were responsible for videos and photos during the length of the Study Visit and helped with logistical issues. The involvement of the local gardens was really natural and some cases they Page | 117 helped a lot for the success of the visit and for the well being of the European participants. The first beneficiaries of the previous two Study Visits proposed themselves automatically after the Study Visits, with the aim to return back their good experiences and give to the European participants the feeling to feel at home and welcomed. The other local gardeners knew from the beginning of their involvement in the EU’GO project that a Study visit should be organized and the ones we visited answered in a positive and proactive way to our invitation to collaborate. As partner in this project we tried to give to the participants a wide view of the Roma’s situation by visiting different realities, the involvement of the public Institutions and other Organizations dealing with similar European projects was part of the dissemination and communication strategy of CEMEA’s organization. This strategy aims to open the project EU’GO to different beneficiaries as stated in its objectives.
Good practices -
How were selected the gardens to visit? How many good practices were experimented by the participants? Do you know if some of them will be transferred by participants?
Before the Study Visit CEMEA del Mezzogiorno sent a form with the lists of the Italian gardens and their Good practices to the partner’s organizations, asking for a ranking made by the participants to the Study Visits. Some of the participants answered and we took into account their preferences. The practice experimented were:
A path for blind people – AMICI DELLA TERRA To work with disable people in gardening – TERRA D’ORTO The practices presented:
my personal trainer, the garden in the market – CAMPAGNA AMICA FOUNDATION the herbal purification – CASALE GARIBALDI The Japanese garden – O.U. GARBATELLA We don’t know yet which Good practices have been chosen by the European participants.
Follow-up -
What is the feedback of the gardens involved after the visit? Are there local outcomes to be outlined? How did/do/will you communicate and disseminate about the visit?
After the Study Visit we sent a questionnaires to the involved Urban Gardens and, in general the feedback is very positive. Most of them appreciated a lot the Opening event with the presentation of the participants and the final debate, the two public events gave the possibility to show to a larger public the phenomena and its consequences in five European countries. Some of their answers underlined the interesting fact to be seen by the point of view of the participants and the feeling to be not alone in what they do every day in their garden. All of the local urban gardens communicated and disseminated before and after the Study Visit inside their network. The importance to share and exchange with other European gardeners your history and difficulties gave to the local gardens the motivation and the support to continue. Some of them suggested also new ideas for projects and some others participated to the informal moment of the visit like the meals, by building stronger relationships with the European participants. The active participation of the Province of Rome consolidated the partnership began with EU’GO project and gave solid base to future collaboration on this topic. The presence of the Municipality of Rome to the final debate is an important aspect of the Study Visit and a starting point for the collaboration with the Municipality, that until the Visit in Rome never participated to the EU’GO project. The numerous public attended to the two events showed the importance of the thematic in the city of Rome. COMMUNICATION AND DISSEMINATION: Before the Study Visit: Mailing Invitation to local stakeholders and local gardens Use of Social Network and webpage of the Study Visit Creation of flyers and press release During the Study Visit: Mailing and phone calls to local stakeholders After the Study visit: A video showing the activities in Italian and in English Photos exhibition Speeches about the experience in local events
Comments
Page | 118
Inwole e.V. SENDING REPORT SV3 Sending organisation:
Inwole, Ton Steine Gärten
Dates of the visit:
26.09.-1.10.2012
Meeting Location:
Italy, Rome
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Claudia Sommer 2/ Angelique Walter 3/ Bettina Herzfeld
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them?
The German delegation consisted of 3 people: 1 member of the Projekthaus Potsdam (Angelique Walter), one member of the Berlin garden “Ton Steine Gärten” (Claudia Sommer) and one member of a neighbourhood garden network in Berlin (Bettina Herzfeld). -
How are they involved in urban gardening?
Angelique Walter (staff member of the Inwole e.V. and amongst other things responsible for the pottery at the Projekthaus) is engaged for several years in the maintenance of the outdoor area of the Projekthaus. She is responsible for the cultivation of vegetables and flowers. During the last years she was involved in the construction of several raised beds (material: natural stone, brick, timber). Claudia Sommer is a member of the neighbourhood garden “Ton Steine Gärten” in Berlin. They have got 60 members (families, small groups, kids) who are cultivating small plots in a 1000sqm garden in the middle of Berlin. They have got different neighbourhood meetings, feasts and working together in their garden mostly in working groups: compost, cultivating tomatoes, herbs… . Bettina Herzfeld is a very engaged qualified gardener. Now she learn to be an educator for children. She worked at first in a tree nursery and later in different garden projects as a staff member. Last year she came to the Projekthaus Potsdam and helped to built a raised bed. -
What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
During the Study Visit they had the chance to get to know different garden projects in Rome. They visited different kinds of social projects which are combined with gardening. These garden projects base on an engagement of a few people in the neighbourhood who wants to create their own green district with gardening. That was very interesting to see that many little places in the city are used for
Page | 119
gardening. Unfortunately the German participants had only less time for the exchange of experiences with the participants from the other countries and with the local gardeners in Rome. But they want to sustain their contacts.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Claudia Sommer wants to transfer a good practise that she had seen in Rome. With other members of “Ton Steine Gärten” who participated in the other EU’GO Study Visits she wants to use more permaculture in their garden. Besides that they want to built an insect house in their garden together with youngsters. Bettina Herzfeld wants to bring her experiences to her workplace. She is working in a kindergarten and she has to ask at first her employer what is possible in the small place.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
In the garden “Ton Steine Gärten” they discussed in meetings their new ideas, modifications for the next season and the plans to implement good practices. Its too early to say in which form they will need help. Claudia Sommer has prepared a presentation of the Study Visit to share her experiences she had during the visit of the gardens in Rome. At the end of 2012 (11th December) all German participants of the five Study Visits met in the Projekthaus Potsdam to share their experiences. Chronological from SV1 to SV5 all delegations gave a short report about the visited gardens. Additionally the many photos enriched these impressive reports. Further meetings between the members of “Projekthaus Potsdam” and “Ton Steine Gärten” are agreed for the next year. The gardening group of the Projekthaus Potsdam has an own facebook account. There the newest developments of the group are being published.
Comments The Study Visit in Rome was a very interesting visit, but with a lot of travelling in a very short time.
Page | 120
KC English SENDING REPORT SV3 Sending organisation:
KC English, Cawsand, Cornwall, England
Dates of the visit:
26 Sept 2012 > 01 Oct 2012
Meeting Location:
Rome, Italy
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Laurence M Watkins 2/ Lee Stenning
Description Visits made to: a. Fermenti di Terra, Pigneto b. Terra d’Orto, Casa Santa Rosa c. Amici della Terra, Monteverde d. Orto Didattico di Campagna Amica e. Orti Urbani Garbatella f. Orto Didattico Casale Garibaldi
Your group - Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? Participants for this visit were Lee Stenning and Laurence M Watkins. Lee Stenning is the Head Gardener at Mt Edgecombe Park in Cornwall and Laurence M Watkins is a volunteer gardener at this community owned park in Cornwall. These participants were selected from our network of local urban gardens and gardeners. They were available to participate in the Study Visit and in contact with KC English. They understand and were sympathetic to the objectives of the EUGO programme.
-
How are they involved in urban gardening?
Lee Stenning is the Head Gardener at Mt Edgecombe Park in Cornwall. The park is an important part of the horticultural heritage of the Plymouth area, provided for the people of the city at no cost. He has been a professional gardener all his working life. The park provides much support to young and disadvantaged people and helps with back-to-work schemes for local people and similar international schemes. Laurence M Watkins is a volunteer gardener at this community owned park. He has spent several years supporting the professional gardening team in the park, in addition to being a long-standing food growing gardener.
-
What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Exchanged knowledge of:
Support programmes for return to work schemes – how to provide best support to scheme participants. Using volunteers to support garden activities and programmes – how to best attract and manage volunteer
Page | 121
support. Public participation in the garden – Events and programmes likely to attract interest and participation. How to encouraging young people to participate in gardening programmes
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Good practices that will be transferred back to gardens by participants include:
Using the garden as a social inclusion catalyst by encouraging visitors through the provision of garden tours and similar events for public participation. Provision of sensorial planting zones to encourage garden participation by the visually impaired.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind?
Support and encouragement in garden experimentation will be given by encouraging participants to identify and adopt new good practices by enabling contact with originators and those considered to be practice experts, both within the local area and at partner locations. -
How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
Communication and dissemination will be undertaken through the established networks with local urban gardens using appropriate media: email, blogs, newsletters, in addition to contacts with individuals by telephone and face to face meetings. Comments Participants considered that the Study Visit to Rome provided a good variety of practices to review and that it was a well organised and managed programme.
Page | 122
Nexes SENDING REPORT SV3 Sending organisation:
NEXES INTERCULTURALS DE JOVES PER EUROPA
Dates of the visit:
26.09-01.10/2012
Meeting Location:
Roma, Italy
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Gisela Mir Viader 2/ Gemma Velasco 3/ Jordi Bonet
Description We sent a group of 3 persons from Cardedeu, a small city next to Barcelona from 2 different gardens. One of them is Pheonicurus (Gisela Mir) and the other is EsBiosfera (Gemma and jordi). We made a preparation before departure to explain the planning, the objectives, the gardens, etc.
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening?
To select the participants, we asked in the local meeting in July who were interested to come and we already had several interested participants. At the end, Isabel from "Forat" could not come but Gisela from Phoenicursus could come. - Gisela Mir Viader is a girl working in an ecological garden in Cardedeu in order to produce vegetables, disseminate the permaculture tools, organise visits and work with a cooperative of consumption to sell their products but also enhance the active participation of consumers within the garden. She is really motivated by this project as it gives them an international opening and for them it a way to reflect on what they are doing by sharing with other people. She read before all the projects and gardens and contacted previously some gardens to organise a personal meeting in order to implement the practice. Garden: Phoenicurus Practice: 25/ Small Scale organic food production / 55/ Web of life - Gemma Velasco is a girl living in a small city next to Barcelona (Cardedeu) and working with Es Biosfera giving courses of permaculture for adults, introducing families from Barcelona to ecological agriculture and environment. The idea of renting plots also give them the opportunity to create social link among families through gardening. - Jordi Bonet is a boy living woth Gemma and sharing together the project of EsBiosfera. Both, they organised the courses. As they have a baby, they wanted to come together and managed with grandfathers to have care of the baby. That
Page | 123
shows also their motivation on a common project. Garden: Es Biosfera Practice: 22/ Organic horticulture course with plots As Italian system was quite similar to Spanish one for gardens, both Gemma and Jordi were interested to come to Italy to see how it works. Also, their level of English was not so good bit Gisela could help them.
Good practices and learnings -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How? What did they learn during the study visit?
All of them saw many interesting tools and exchanged a lot with the other participants. Most of them could get some good inputs and learnings. As experimentations has been delayed it is hard to detect now which experimentations they will implement but Gisela from Phoenicurus is really interested to set up a local project and use the ideas and tools she saw. She contacted previously some gardens in order to organise a special meeting. Also Gemma already implemented the idea of "Library" in the garden she saw in an Italian garden. As Jordi could not come in the evaluation, we are still missing its results but we can alreday detect the following learning from Gemma and Gisela: Knowledge: Gemma realised that we were not so different from the others; learnt about legality aspects in public spaces; Social dimension /social fights of the gardens. Gisela learnt about the adaptation of the garden to special needs (Vivianne, Sta Rosa); the relationships with other gardeners (French people); idea to do cans; other realities of other countries. Learn to do: Gemma learnt to live together and share in a community; Find similarities ; ideas about how to manage a programme for a big group. Gisela learnt how to manage and use public spaces; small library in the garden (Garbatella); Pruning and compost techniques (croq jardin; taller el forum) Learn to be: Gemma learnt to listen; to know concerns and personal aspects of the rest of the group; to be involved in a multicultural group with different language; and got more confidence about what she is doing already. Gisela saw that gardens that trust the people with open gardens (Pigneto, Garbatella); got more self confidence (be able to communicate; to share); and Citizenship management (Amici della Terra) New interests and motivation: Gemma got new interests for new agriculture techniques; new social and educational tools; motivation to work in a group for a same aim; to create network and collective talent!; Extract from the others roles and structures that can help us in our project. Gisela recognised that we are part of a recognised group; fell less "alone"; and got new interests for synergetic garden (Garbatella); German music; social farming
Page | 124
(Città dell’Altra Economia); funding models; and motivation to follow.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
First of all, we did an evaluation with them to help them to detect the learning at different levels (tools detected; learning to do, learning to be and new interests (see annexe Evaluate the learning SV). Then, we asked them to do a mail for the network where they could spread their experience to all. As the experimentations has been delayed, we keep close contact with the gardens to keep the motivation and asked them to think about a personal project. Most of them already have thought about it and are planning to do it at the beginning of 2013. We also asked them to be involved in the organisation of the Barcelona Study visit: both Gemma and Gisela were very involved: they organise a visit to their gardens, Gemma and Jordi organised also the meal, went to catch the group at the train; Gisela organise also the visit, went to Barcelona Tool fair to present a tool, etc. Dissemination about the experience: by mail within the network, in the local blog of EU GO, in the Facebook and webpage of Nexes (see WP8 Dissemination).
Comments
Pistes Solidaires SENDING REPORT SV3 Sending organisation:
Pistes Solidaires
Dates of the visit:
26/09 – 1/10 2012
Meeting Location:
Roma, Cemea del Mezzogiorno
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Alix Bonneau 2/ Francesca Carlaccini
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they
Page | 125
gain/bring? Alix Bonneau is a staff, coordinator of the EUGO project within Pistes-Solidaires organisation. She is not involved directly in urban gardening, but in projects management, and Eugo project specifically. Anyways, she wishes to learn a lot about urban Page | 126 gardening, mostly on the question of “what does it bring to the gardeners”? She exchanges weather with the gardeners and also with the staff of other countries. About the organisation of the next visits, the content, length, etc. With the gardeners, she learnt a lot about permaculture, tools they used to raise awareness with kids, schools, and migrants. Francesca Carlaccini is a volunteer within Pistes Solidaires organization, and she is plans to get specialized in permaculture and social gardening. This is why she used this opportunity to develop her skills and start a thematic network on this topic. She learnt a lot on this SV, meet new people, learn about permaculture with Carmelo, and got in contact with the gardeners of RJSM, with who she will start a cooperation at the local level. She organized an “on spot” evaluation with the participants during the SV in Roma.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
The participants sent are not gardeners. What they will transfer is the knowledge, the seeds they exchanged, and they will speak about the project to let people know about it.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
The follow up of this SV is that Francesca should be contracted as a volunteer in one of the shared gardens of the RJSM, where she will be proposed to follow the implementation of EUGO project, trying to experiment a new practice she discovered in Roma for example.
Comments
RJSM SENDING REPORT SV3 Sending organisation:
Réseau des Jardins Solidaires Méditerrannéens
Dates of the visit:
From 27th to 1st of September 2012
Meeting Location:
Roma, Italy
Participants of your organisation:
1/ 2/ 3/ 4/
Viviane Cronier Jean André (Croq Jardin) Coraline Dechaize (Cap Vert) Dominique Reynosa (Cosmos Kolej)
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Participation to this study visit was proposed by e mail to all the gardens members and partners of RJSM. We also made announcement when the project was presented at the annual assembly of the RJSM, and during the previous meeting of RJSM. The participant were selected because of their involvement in the previous part of EUGO, their representativeness’ of different kind of gardens of the network, their ability to communicate in English. We also decided to use the budget to send more participants, because we experimented during the firsts study visit that going to meet other European gardeners was an essential step in making the project more concrete. We choose experimented garden staff because it would as well be important to discuss with the other what are the good practices and to detect eventually new one. Viviane Cronier is astaff of RJSM, appointed to manage the EUGO project as well as staff since 10 years of the garden “Jardin de l’Esperance” which is and educational and job inclusion garden since more than 15 years. She has a strong knowledge of the different gardens of the network, and of other gardens all around France. She is also a trainer for the RJSM on the subject for example of creation of new gardens, and gardening with disabled people. She was able to share with the participant her experiences of working in a garden, and her knowledge of the French gardens But also the experience of a previous study visit. She was also able to help with the translation. . Jean André is a staff of the “Fédérartion de Foyers Ruraux 13”, he is a youth worker, and was the initiator of Croq Jardin. He is developing new project inside the garden with the help of youngsters. He was really interested in experimenting new practices as innovation for next year with his youngsters groups. He was interested in some of the Italian practices. The Italian trip was really interesting for him although very demanding. We saw a lot of gardens, and some practices, and Jean was able to compare them with is own many experiments.
Page | 127
Coraline is working in a garden managed by an organisation in the countryside of northern Corsica. Her garden is not properly Urban, although we thought some practices could be shared. They also have the project to develop new community gardens in the centre of Bastia so it was interesting to compare their idea of such a project with the realities of gardens created elsewhere. Coraline was very impressed by the energy of the Roman people and the fact that all those garden Page | 128 we met existed with very little or no help at all from the city council/stakeholders. Dominique Reynosa is staff of Cosmos Kolej, a theatre company to develop urban community garden on the grounds around their building. She is working in a difficult area of Marseille with lot of poverty, immigration, unemployment, drug traffics etc. She wanted to share her experience of setting up gardens ina difficult all concrete city environment, and to get some new ideas and new point of view about her practice. Her garden was not involved a lot in the proposition of practices but wanted to join the experimentation phase.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Croq Jardin and Cosmos Kolej will definitely be places for experimentation but they still hesitate between different practices like gardening in an open square/roundabout, experimenting permaculture courses, having more personal tutorial for gardeners‌
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
This visit has permitted to visit a lot of garden and we now really understand the differences between our country and others. We will report this visit as the advancement of the whole project in the next RJSM meeting, but we are also preparing to report this experience to other French gardeners at the colloquy of Strasbourg on 11th and 12th of October. We now need to keep the links that have been created between the gardeners and gardens.
Comments
NEXES SV4 HOSTING REPORT Hosting organisation:
NEXES INTERCULTURALS DE JOVES PER EUROPA
Dates of the visit:
18-22/10/2012
Meeting Location:
Barcelona, SPAIN
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Julie Paucot 2/ Marine Chabbert 3/ Biel Martinez 4/ Julian Hernandez 5/Gala santiago (as volunteer) 6/ Beatriz Gomar (as volunteer) 7/ Klaus Jack (as volunteer)
Description -
What activities have you organised for the study-visit? Which were the most relevant according to EU’GO’s objectives?
We organised a 4 days study visit with the idea to: 1/ Create a space where gardeners from different countries could exchange on their experiences and practices 2/ Visit and exchange various gardens in Barcelona and exchange with gardeners 3/ Create spaces to reflect and communicate on good practices, learning and experiences on gardens 4/ Give a general view of urban gardens situation on Catalonia 5/ Create contacts between gardens through the visits, exchanges and more 6/ Clarify the idea of good practices and next steps of the project In this way, we proposed several visits and activities as we can see in the definitive programme (See annexe Definitive programme). ACTIVITIES TO CREATE LINK AND COHESION AMONG THE GROUP - Thursday 18/10: On first night, we had an activity to know the group, its names, gardens, profiles and interests within a dynamic called "Passeport" . - On Saturday night, we organised all together a tool fair open to public where all participants were active actors and could present tools, exchange, etc.
Page | 129
ACTIVITIES TO DISCOVER THE GARDENS AND GOOD PRACTICES - On Friday morning, we had a moment to present the gardens of the participants and their good practices. - On Friday afternoon, we visited 2 gardens: Conreu Sereny in an old monastery near Santa Coloma and Casal d'entitats Mas Guinard贸 in Barcelona. Both explained the environment of the garden, its history, its participants and Conreu Sereny also explained the practice they present. On the first garden, only one referent was present because the others were busy but in Mas Guinard贸, the whole team were there, many participants and responsible of the centre. - On Saturday, we visited Can Masdeu where all the gardeners waited for us for a complete visit and a meal together. - On Sunday, we visited 2 gardens and met 4 projects in Cardedeu (Es Biosfera; Phoenicurus; Cardedeu Autosuficient and Llavors orientals). All gardens were strongly involved in the hosting and organised a meal, the presentation, some exchanges among participants, etc. At night, we also visited Xino garden in the centre of Barcelona. ACTIVITIES TO REFLECT, EXCHANGE AND SPREAD GOOD PRACTICES -
On Friday morning, we had a moment to reflect on several inputs (What is a good practice? What can we learn in the gardens? Which competencies, etc. (see annexe Power Point)
-
On Saturday afternoon, we had the Tool Fair where we could follow on reflecting about good practices, the concept of exchanging tools and also try a specific tool. It was also an activity opened to the public that has been disseminated in the city and among gardens.
Page | 130
NON FORMAL MOMENTS; FREE TIME and MEALS These moments are as well very important as they are a space to exchange ideas, contacts, tools and points of view. It is also important to let the people rest a bit in order to be efficient for the visits and Page | 131 other activities. - On Saturday, the gardeners of Can Masdeu cooked a paella for everyone and we had a meal all together with around 50 persons. - On Saturday afternoon, some of the participants had free time to see Barcelona or rest. Others went to Nexes office to prepare the tool fair. We also had "tapas" there for the dinner. - On Sunday, the gardens from Cardedeu organised an organic meal with local products.
DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES The main one was the tool fair opened to the Public. Unfortunately very few people came because of the rain but the people who came could exchange with the participants, participate (Gisela and Mark organised an activity) and many people warned us that they wanted to come. Any way, it has also be an opportunity to spread and disseminate info about the project.
EVALUATION ACTIVITIES: The managers from the countries made some evaluation meeting during the visit. We also organise a group evaluation for all the participants where we asked a free written feedback in their own language about what did they saw and learnt during the stay.
Your team and local partners -
Who was in involved in the organisation of the SV? How did you separate the tasks? How did you involve the local gardens in the programme?
At Nexes, all the staff members were involved in the organisation of the study visit, even if Julie Paucot were the main person specially during the stay. Organisation inside Nexes: Biel and Marine organised many things of the previous tasks: reserving the accommodation, managing the needs of partners (through Julie for the Page | 132 international contacts), collecting information from gardens, organising city travels, collecting from airport, needed phone numbers, local transport by public or private transport. Julian was in charge of the budget: if every partner paid its own bills, we also had common bills that we had to copy and divide. We also focused on some cheap and good issues in order to propose a good alternative for a group of gardeners. The booklet has been prepared by Biel and Marine was in charge of the contacts with gardens. Julie was preparing the Tool Fair and working sessions as well as the contacts with partners. The dissemination tasks before and during the stay had been divided between several members. During the stay, Julie has been mostly following the group and organising the activities. As part of the staff was already involved in other projects, we also could count on the help of volunteers already involved in EU Go or volunteers of Nexes. Persons such as Gala, Klaus, Nien, Bea or Giulia have been helping doing concrete tasks (go with the group to a garden, organise tool fair, video, airport catching, etc.). Even if it meant a lot of work for the team and an intense programme for Julie who was in charge of the whole group, it has been an effective organisation, which worked well. We had good results from the evaluations and people were happy of the accommodation, travel and other conditions of the stay.
The programme has been totally followed and we had no cancellations neither special problems. Organisation and involvement of gardens: As we said before, 2 staff members of EU GO were involved on a last moment task in Nexes and could not be there during the stay. Nexes, a part from Julie and Julian, could be supported by volunteers but also a lot by the gardens that have answered very positively to the request. We asked them to propose a visit, some activities with the group but also a meal if possible. Many of them got involved: Mas Guinard贸 organised a meal at the restaurant of their place and brought with the group until the metro at night. The gardeners of Can Masdeu organised a Paella cooked by them and all participants could also helped in the cooking process. They also organised a round of exchange to meet better each gardener. On Sunday, the 2 gardens of Cardedeu went to catch the group at the train and bring them to the garden, they also organise an organic meal with products from their gardens and local products. They wanted to have a workshop on solar cooking but it has been cancelled. Also, Llavors Orientals came to present their project of seed bank into Cardedeu
gardens to avoid the group to have many travels. Gisela and Mark from Phoenicuruis went until Barcelona for the tool fair to share tools and present an activity. We are really happy with the involvement of our gardens during the study visit and we hope we are able to keep intact the motivation to follow with next steps of the project. Support of other partners from EU GO: We could also feel the support and team work among managers of each country during the stay: Ilenia from Italy, Marlene and Vivianne from France and Christin from Germany have been really involved also during the stay: we decided together how to run the tool fair and prepared it together also. We run several meetings to prepare the final evaluation and think about improvements.
Good practices -
How were selected the gardens to visit? How many good practices were experimented by the participants? Do you know if some of them will be transferred by participants?
The good practices that have been presented or experimented are: - Conreu Sereny: we spoke about the course with migrants but it lacked of details and supporting materials. We wished we had more information about it. - Can Masdeu: As the practice is based on the active participation and assemblyprocess of gardeners, it has been more an informal moment to speak with them and see their way of working rather than experimentation. But most gardeners came and participants could see the relationships between them and the house. - Phoenicurus: The good practice is based on the relation with the consumption cooperative and so they invited them for a common presentation: Cardedeu autosuficient explained the objectives and their agreement with Phoenicurus. Phoenicurus also organise a small workshop during the tool fait to show us their other practice : an education tool to understand permaculture. - EsBiosfera also presented their gardens and their courses and offered a small activity on that basis. The other gardens, Mas Guinard贸 and Xino did not present the good practices for different reasons (the person responsible for this concrete activity was not here and they did not feel able to present it by themselves). At this moment, we don't know which Spanish practices will be transferred in some other countries but we could see bilateral contacts: a boy from a French garden kept contact with Gisela about a tool they've been exchanging; A girl from France kept contact with the seed bank organisation, etc. If at this moment, there is no concrete and formal experimentation decided, many tools have been exchanged informally and will be transferred in a "quiet way". It's
Page | 133
the difficult think about this project: how to detect all the exchanges and tools that have been made between participants?
Follow-up -
What is the feedback of the gardens involved after the visit? Are there local outcomes to be outlined? How did/do/will you communicate and disseminate about the visit?
All the gardens asked feedback about their visits: how was it? Did they like it? It shows a real interest for the visit. Now the challenge is about the experimentations and how they will be able to set up what they saw or learn. We are working on it. Among the local network of gardens, the visits have raised curiosity, expectative and motivation. They also realised that they were not alone and what does that mean to share an international level. The visit of Barcelona has been widely shared through Nexes' webpage and Facebook that is seen by more than 1000 hundred people. Then, each gardens made its own advising and in the visits, we could also see participants from each gardens, their friends or families coming to see "the international group of gardeners!" Video about Barcelona study visit: we realised a video on Barcelona study visit which explain the whole project in English. It will be a very useful tool to disseminate first at European level among partner and then, if any country want to translate it, among local partners. The video will also be spread on Internet. We also contacted with Barcelona city council, environment department about the project and before the study visit. The personal responsible could not come during the visit but we had a meeting afterwards where we spread the results.
Comments
Inwole e.V. SENDING REPORT SV4 Sending organisation:
Inwole e.V.
Dates of the visit:
18/10/2012 – 22/10/2012
Meeting Location:
Barcelona, Spain
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Christin Zschoge-Meile 2/ Monika Koch 3/ Lory Dell’Anna 4/ Heidi Gamess
Page | 134
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening?
The German delegation consisted of 4 people: 2 members of the Projekthaus Potsdam (Christin Meile, Monika Koch) and 2 members of the Berlin garden “Ton Steine Gärten” (Lory Dell’Anna, Heidi Gamess). Both members of the Projekthaus Potsdam were engaged in the preparation and realisation of the Study Visit in Potsdam. They learnt a lot about the Urban Gardening in the Germany. Now they were interested to see how the gardens are organised abroad. Christin Zschoge-Meile (staff member of the Inwole e.V.) is engaged for some years in the cultivation of vegetables and flowers in the Projekthaus. Last year she organised a German – French work camp in order to construct a raised bed for herbs (material: natural stone). Also in 2012 she was responsible for the gardening and for the construction of raised beds within the framework of a qualification project with migrants. Since the beginning of 2012 Monika Koch has participated in the gardening group of the Projekthaus. She was engaged in the construction of several raised beds and the cultivation of the plants. During the Study Visit in Potsdam (SV1) she was responsible for the visit of the three gardens in Berlin. Monika Koch lives not in Potsdam but in Berlin. For the future she plans additionally to engage in a garden group in her hometown. In May of 2013 a new Urban Gardening Project will start in Berlin: “Himmelbeet” – a very large garden on top of a roof. Therefore she was very interested in the roof garden of the “Mas Guinardo”-project in Barcelona. After the Study Visit the contact strengthened especially to “Ton Steine Gärten”. The members of this project were glad that their garden was presented to so many international gardeners. Because the gardeners of “Ton Steine Gärten” were very interested in the international exchange they participated in this Study Visit. Lory Dell’Anna works for several years in the project “Ton Steine Gärten”. There she is among other things responsible for a community bed. She is very interested in the topic “Permaculture” and had thus many expectations for the visit of the garden “Phoenicurus” in Cardedeu (Good Practice no.25). Heidi Gamess is also engaged in “Ton Steine Gärten” for a long time. Meanwhile this project is established thus the gardeners look now for new inspirations. Heidi Gamess was interested to detect new activities with which the connections between the gardeners could be strengthened also in order to make the work in the garden more effective.
Page | 135
-
What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Some of the non-german participants also attended the Study Visit 1 (Potsdam) and were very interested in the work of the gardening group in the months after SV1. Other participants have heard a lot about the Study Visit in Potsdam. Page | 136 Therefore the Projekthaus was often mentioned during the discussions. For many participants the successful combination of the different aspects (living, working, culture, gardening) in one project was very interesting. Because “Ton Steine Gärten” was visited during the Study Visit 1 many nonGerman participants were informed about the project and enjoyed to met some representants of this garden. Many participants were interested how the gardeners managed it to become established after so many conflicts with the city council during the occupation of the plots. Also a special condition arose interest: the garden is not surrounded by a fence and therefore vandalism and thievery are serious problems. The presentation of the future Berlin roof garden “Himmelbeet” causes much surprise and interest. Because it is a very new project (opening season in 2013) nobody has heard about that before. With the spectacular huge area of 10.000 sqm this could be the largest roof garden in Europe one day.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
The garden “Phoenicurus” (Good Practice no.25) works explicitly with the concept of Permaculture. Many participants visited for the first time of their life such a garden and had many questions. It is not realistic that the existing gardens will be fully transformed into permaculture gardens in the near future. But many participants (also the members of “Projekthaus Potsdam” and “Ton Steine Gärten”) had the idea to experiment with some elements of Permaculture in the next year (e.g. mulching of the plants, mixed cultivation of vegetables and herbs, use of an astronomical plant calendar). The inspiring speech of the representant from “Llavors oriental” reminds the participants on the importance of the variety of sorts. The introduced “seed bank” (Good Practice no.21) is an appropriate means to ensure diversity and can be applied in a single garden but also in a whole region. Because in Berlin a “Seed Bank” is currently being developed a new creation is not necessary but a collaboration very reasonable. The members of “Ton Steine Gärten” were assured in their intention to use more activities in their garden to strengthen the group cohesion. They expect that with a better cooperation a sharing of knowledge is easier. Therefore some gardeners will transform their individual plots in one collective plot. Furthermore they decided to build an “Insect hotel” (Good Practice no.47) – probably together with children.
The first gardening season of “Himmelbeet” will begin in May 2013 and the potential gardeners are not well connected until now. Therefore it is not clear if and which Good Practices could be transferred.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind?
It is too early to say, which help from the partners is needed in the future. -
How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
During the monthly neighbourhood-brunch in the Projekthaus Potsdam (see Good Practice no. 30) we talk with many interested people about our experiences of the Study Visits and the further work. At the end of 2012 (11th December) all German participants of the five Study Visits met in the Projekthaus Potsdam to share their experiences. Chronological from SV1 to SV5 all delegations gave a short report about the visited gardens. Additionally the many photos enriched these impressive reports. Further meetings between the members of “Projekthaus Potsdam” and “Ton Steine Gärten” are agreed for the next year. The gardening group of the Projekthaus Potsdam has an own Facebook account. There the newest developments of the group are being published.
Comments
KC English SENDING REPORT SV4 Sending organisation:
KC English, Cawsand, Cornwall, England
Dates of the visit:
18 Oct 2012 > 22 Oct 2012
Meeting Location:
Barcelona, Spain
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Laurence M Watkins 2/ Sheila Taylor 3/ Helen Parker
Description Visits made to: a. Conreu Sereny (Monastery – Sant Jeroni de la Murtra) b. Mas Guinardo c. Can Masdeu d. Pheonicurus - Cardedeu Autosuficient
Page | 137
e. Es Biosfera f. Hort del Xina
Your group - Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? Participants for this visit were: Sheila Taylor, Helen Parker and Laurence M Watkins. These participants were selected from our network of local urban gardens and gardeners. They were available to participate in the Study Visit and in contact with KC English. They understand and were sympathetic to the objectives of the EUGO programme.
How are they involved in urban gardening? Sheila Taylor is a volunteer in a public maintained garden in Plymouth and also volunteers to support gardening activities for disabled with the Horticultural Healing Trust. Helen Parker provides garden based teaching support at a young peoples centre.
Laurence M Watkins is a volunteer gardener at the Mount Edgecombe community owned park in Cornwall. He has spent several years supporting the professional gardening team in the park, in addition to being a longstanding food growing gardener.
-
What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Exchanged knowledge of:
How to encouraging young people to participate in gardening programmes. Tools, games and activities suitable for stimulating young people in the garden.
Support programmes for return to work schemes – Provision of training programmes to give best long term support to scheme participants. Support programmes for disabled and disadvantaged persons – how to provide and manage suitable activities for these participants. Using volunteers to support garden activities and programmes – how to best attract and manage volunteer support. Public participation in the garden – Events and programmes likely to attract interest and participation. Good practices
-
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Good practices that will be transferred back to gardens by participants include:
Water management – practices to capture, manage and conserve available water resources. Use of raised beds to facilitate garden access in urban areas. Inclusion of excluded persons as volunteers in gardening
Page | 138
programmes to act as a social inclusion activity.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind?
Support and encouragement in garden experimentation will be given by Page | 139 encouraging participants to identify and adopt new good practices by enabling contact with originators and those considered to be practice experts, both within the local area and at partner locations. -
How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
Communication and dissemination will be undertaken through the established networks with local urban gardens using appropriate media: email, blogs, newsletters, in addition to contacts with individuals by telephone and face to face meetings. Comments
CEMEA del Mezzogiorno SENDING REPORT SV4 Sending organisation:
CEMEA del Mezzogiorno
Dates of the visit:
From 18th to 22nd of October 2012
Meeting Location:
Barcelona - Spain
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Ilenia Zuccaro (CEMEA del Mezzogiorno) 2/ Paola Turroni (Ass. LAVANGAQUADRA – S. Benedetto School) 3/ Sezgy Uyugur ( OrtoinSNIA)
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Paola Turroni is a special teacher, she give support to students with disabilities (both mental and physical). Since three years she run a school garden for students
of the S.Benedetto school, in which she organized theatre laboratory with an actor. She is also member of the association LAVANGAQUADRA that created a urban garden in a contaminated site. Paola participated in a really active way during the SV3 in Rome because she was curious about the intercultural exchange that an European project can bring, for this she asked to be one of the participants for the SV4 in Spain. From a personal point of view she gained a lot in self esteem and she Page | 140 realized that the language barrier is easy to overcome. Surely an experience like this made her more open minded. She really appreciated the non formal activities organized in order to establish the first contacts among the participants. From a professional point of view, she found new interesting activities for the school garden and she also reflected a lot about the management of an organization, the issues that a group of people have to tackle and the collaboration among the member. The intercultural experience was really enriching and she met different personality also relating to the different countries, but the experience and the direct contact with them help her to overcome stereotypes and prejudices. Sezgy Uyugur is a Turkish girl, living in Rome since 8 years. She is the coordinator of the ORTOin SNIA, a garden created in a contaminated site in the squatted centre of EXSNIA. She was really involved in the Study Visit and she exchange a lot with the other participants that helped her in founding economical solutions for her garden. She realized to be the youngest in the group but this did not create problem, on the contrary, as also Paola said, the intergenerational dialogue was really enriching and brought different competencies in the group. She found that the Spanish reality is really close to the Italian one, specially for her to visit gardens in squatted place brought her new ideas and motivation to continue her work. The experience in CANMASDEU where there are water problems make her reflecting upon this issues that afflicts also her garden. She would like to meet in other occasions the gardeners, she proposed to think about a new project for seeing how they are going on. Ilenia Zuccaro is staff of EU’GO project in CEMEA del Mezzogiorno. She participated to the Study Visit in order to be a support for the Italian participants as well as to be present and understand better the European context of urban gardening. By knowing the Italian reality she realized the differences in terms of recognition. The Spain is less develop than the Italians one, also in terms of local networking. The similarity is the political use of the urban gardens.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Both of the participants were very interested to the Permaculture principles and the techniques of the Synergic garden. Paola Turroni wanted to realize in her school a synergic garden and she asked a lot of questions to the Spanish gardens. She is organizing also a permaculture course to do with the students and their parents. Sezgy got new ideas and suggestions from the European participants but also from the Spanish garden, mainly about the management of squatted place and urban gardens. The technique to put flowers and vegetables together made her curious to try it. One important point was that she realized what is her good practices, due
to the fact that at the beginning of the project was really difficult for her to understand the concept of Good practices, thanks to this European experience she discovered also something of her garden.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the Page | 141 gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
Paola wanted to prepare a photo exhibition of the Study Visit to organize in the school but also in other gardens. She wanted to continue to collaborate in the project and with CEMEA and she is thinking to come in the next study Visit in Marseille. Segzy Uyugur presented her experience to the other gardeners and she expressed her willing to continue to collaborate with us. Both of them are very active in the Roma’s urban gardens network and they wanted to bring their experience in the Italian context.
Comments The key word of this Study Visit for the Italian group is: to manage a group
Pistes Solidaires SENDING REPORT SV4 Sending organisation:
Pistes Solidaires
Dates of the visit:
18-22 October 2012
Meeting Location:
Barcelona, Spain
Participants of your organisation:
1/Marlène Benzler 2/Aline Grosjean
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Marlène is a volunteer in Pistes Solidaires, working on the implementation of the EU’GO project. She is not directly involved in a community garden but ensures the quality of the project implementation.
She strengthened her skills on urban gardening during the visit, in order to become more familiar to the topic and strengthening her understanding of the stakes and issues of urban gardening around Europe. She exchanged with the other staff participating to the visit on the content of the visit, having in mind the organisation of the following visit in France. She also exchanged with the urban gardeners on their experience, practices. She shared Page | 142 about Pistes Solidaires’ aims as an organisation and the objectives of the EUGO project. Aline is working in the Jardin des Aures, in a popular northern district of Marseille. She is an experienced garden manager and activity leader. Her garden has familial and collective plots. It organises educational activities with local schools to sensitize children to nature and sustainable development. It also welcomes young volunteers for construction activities in order to foster social inclusion and active participation.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Yes, Aline has discovered the good practice n°19 “community bread oven” in the El Xino garden. She is very interested in the technique and the process implemented in the garden. She has previously identified needs for this kind of practice in her garden and the participative construction process is something she wants to develop for the experimentation. She will discuss experimentation options with her steering committee and the structure which owns the land and see whether the practice can be implemented or not. If not, she is also willing to take a look at other practices that weren’t seen during the study visit and participate to experimentation phase in her garden.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
If this experimentation takes place, either Pistes Solidaires or RJSM will follow the experimentation and accompany Aline and the other beneficiaries in the process. We can also help by talking with the stakeholders involved for starting the experimentation. An article on the visit is already online on otesha-gardens.eu
Comments Video interviews available : before and after the visit (expectations, outcomes)
RJSM SENDING REPORT SV4 Sending organisation:
Réseau des Jardins Solidaires Méditerrannéens
Dates of the visit:
From 18th to 22th October 2012
Meeting Location:
Barcelona, Spain
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Viviane Cronier 2/ Olivier Brunetto (ARBRE) 3/ Elise Aracil (Cap Vert) 4/ Serge Franc (Cosmos Kolej) 5/Chantal Diart (Cosmos Kolej)
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Participation to this study visit was proposed by e mail to all the gardens members and partners of RJSM. We also made announcement when the project was presented at the annual assembly of the RJSM, and during the previous meeting of RJSM. The participant were selected because of their involvement in the previous part of EUGO, their representativeness’ of different kind of gardens of the network, their ability to communicate in English. We also decided to use the budget to send more participants, because we experimented during the firsts study visit that going to meet other European gardeners was an essential step in making the project more concrete. Olivier is an experimented garden staff and will be able to discuss with the other what are the good practices and to detect eventually new one.Elise had a project of crating a community garden in Bastia and is volunteering to CAP VERT organisation. Serge and Chantal are gardeners having a plot at the Jardin du mail, managed Dominique Reynosa from Cosmos Kolej who went to Roma study visit.
Viviane Cronier is astaff of RJSM, appointed to manage the EUGO project as well as staff since 10 years of the garden “Jardin de l’Esperance” which is and educational and job inclusion garden since more than 15 years. She has a strong knowledge of the different gardens of the network, and of other gardens all around France. She is also a trainer for the RJSM on the subject for example of
Page | 143
creation of new gardens, and gardening with disabled people. She was able to share with the participant her experiences of working in a garden, and her knowledge of the French gardens But also the experience of a previous study visit. She was also able to help with the translation. . Olivier Brunetto is a staff of the organisation “ARBRE”. Formerly a trainer to environmental education he is now setting a garden for production of vegetables, olive oil and Honey with youngsters in and special inclusion program. Their production is dedicated to social shops mainly. He wanted to participate in the EUGO program to enrich is practice, and to continue is reflection about developing new project with his organisation. Elise is volunteering in a garden managed by an organisation in the countryside of northern Corsica. Her garden is not properly Urban, although we thought some practices could be shared. They also have the project to develop new community gardens in the centre of Bastia so it was interesting to compare their idea of such a project with the realities of gardens created elsewhere. Elise has been volunteering previously in an organisation setting a community garden in Nice for social centre. She really wanted to meet the Spanish gardeners of can mas deu Serge Franc and Chantal Diart are gardeners from cosmos Kolej. They were involved after Dominique Reynosa, their garden coordinator going to Roma. Chantal is a retired English teacher, but Serge as no previous knowledge of English, and a very little Spanish. He was very keen on going has he said gardening saved him from anger and despair, and he really wanted to meet some other gardeners elsewhere. He was really interested about what was proposed to see in Barcelona, and to meet gardeners that set their garden themselves and want to do things without waiting for people to do things for them. It was possible for him to come because He was with Chantal, which he knew well, and because we were many French that could relay to help with translation. Additionally to not speaking English he is a bit deaf, which make traducing not an easy job. The experience of travel was a great discovery for him, although it was not easy to be all the time in a group.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
We can’t say exactly at the moment, because the choices are not all made. but we can report that for example Serge and Chantal have started to modify their small garden plot according to the thechnique of permaculture that they discovered dunring the visit.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
Page | 144
This visit was the last visit abroad for the French participant, next visit we will host the European participants. We have already communicate a lot about it beacause it is so clos. It is a pity that we don’t have more time between those two visits because we could have really build on it to construct the receiving visit in France. However we will use the pictures and video to communicate to the other gardens and partners of RJSM about what happened in Spain. Each traveller has made a travel report that will be available for the other French. We need to find a way to keep the exchanges going between the participants of all the study visit, after the next one in France.
Comments
Page | 145
Pistes Solidaires & RJSM SV5 HOSTING REPORT Hosting organisation:
Pistes Solidaires (P1) – RJSM (P6)
Dates of the visit:
5-11 November 2012
Meeting Location:
Marseille and Paca Region
Participants of your organisation:
From Pistes-Solidaires (P1) 1/ Alix Bonneau - staff 2/ Marlène Benzler – staff 3/ Isabel Cordeiro – EVS volunteer 4/ Amandine Mathivet – local volunteer 5/ Marie Plé – local volunteer
From RJSM (P6) 1/ Viviane Cronier – staff 2/ Alexandrine Fillion – staff 3/ Jean-Claude André – garden coordinator Croq’Jardin – La Roque d’Anthéron 4/ Julien Nadreau – garden coordinator – Jardin des Aures - Marseille 5/ Françoise Aymard Duvernay – gardener – A Fleur de Pierres - Digne 6/ Alexis Jan – garden coordinator – AMIEU Marseille 7/ Dominique Reinosa – garden coordinator – Cosmos Kolej – Marseille 8/ Aline Grosjean – gardener – Jardin des Aures Marseille 9/ Sébastien Guerret – president of RJSM, trainer and gardener - Marseille 10/ Lionel Benady – Municipality officer – Marseille City Council 11/ Jean-Noël Consales – University Lecturer – Marseille and Montpellier
Page | 146
12/ Gonzague Maison – Gardener – Croq’ Jardin – La Roque d’Anthéron 13/Marie-Line Dune, staff 14/ Bénédicte - gardener – l’Artichaut - Marseille 15/ Chantal Diart – gardener – Jardin du Mail, Cosmos Kolej – Marseille 16/ Serge Franc – gardener – Jardin du Mail, Cosmos Kolej - Marseille
Description -
What activities have you organised for the study-visit? Which were the most relevant according to EU’GO’s objectives?
We decided to organize the days by topic, organizing a balance between discovery of good practices and sharing experiences and concerns between participants. Day 1 : arrival of the participants, settling in the apartments and getting to know each other Day 2: travelling to La Roque d’Anthéron, small city close to Aix en Provence and marseille to visit Croq’ Jardin. Topics of the day: 1/ Garden & disability 2/ Gardens & schools 3/ Compost 4/ Building an insect House. Four of the participants presented themselves, their gardens and their role inside their gardens and answered to the questions of the other participants. We held practical or reflexion workshop on the different topics of the day to present the French practices, and to share the related practices from other countries. We also proposed to the participants to gather in small intercultural groups every evening in order to write a collective diary of each day. Day 3: we spent the day in the Northern part of Marseille, with the Topics : relation with city council/politicians, and how to involve the local community in a garden project Morning: at Plan d’Aou, to visit Cosmos Kolej organization which has 2 shared gardens and 1 that is at the foot of the buildings. We invited the responsible for shared gardens of Marseille Municipality, and we could organize an exchange of questions/answers between her and the participants. Her counterpart from Roma municipality was here, it was a very rich exchange. We mainly discussed about the city charter on shared gardens, its conditions, the obstacles they are facing, etc.
After the discussion, we visited the 2 gardens, with the commentaries of 2 gardeners, who participated in the SV5 in Barcelona, and already knew some of the participants. They were very proud of showing their space, and explaining the process how they managed to develop their own garden there. On the afternoon, we went to another northern neighbourhood, called La Busserine. We visited 1 open garden “Jardin d’Adam”, managed by a group of women and an art organization. They were sharing their experience on how to reuse materials from the area to build up furnitures and needed things for the
Page | 147
garden, how to create and develop a garden using only the local resources provided by recycling and getting to know the wild and local flora. They insisted in the fact that they are open, and never got vandalized. Finally, in the same area, we visited the first City-shared-garden of Marseille, “Font’Obscur”, where they have various plots given for gardening to organizations and not to private people or families. Thanks to this place, local organization of the Page | 148 neighbourhood got to know each other and started new cross-cutting projects, which was not the case before then. They also have a leisure centre for kids, and a big activity room, where we took some time for the participants to exchange, share experiences, feelings about the day, write the diary, etc. We had dinner there too.
Day 4: We went to Eastern part of Marseille to discover a shared garden located between 2 big blocks of housing: “Néréïdes-Bosquet”. The day was about how is organised the life inside the gardens, how people get together to organise what is happening inside the garden, to We joined the monthly “meeting of gardeners” in the social housing land-lord’s office. This meeting was one of the proposed Good practices from France. It was a rich experience for everybody, since they interact quite a lot, sharing experiences, asking questions, getting connected to each other. Afterwards, we went down to visit the gardens and the presentation was made by the gardeners themselves.
We had lunch in the social centre nearby and during the afternoon, we did the presentations of the European participant’s gardens and practices in their country of origin. Around 18:00 pm, we came back down town, where Pistes-Solidaires had organized an open buffet, in order to meet their members, people from Marseille interested in urban gardening and in EuGo project. This meeting was organized into 4 parts: buffet, projections room with videos of the European participants, round tables (1/ involvement of the local community in the shared gardens, 2/ shared gardens and public bodies, 4/ garden and disability, 3/ Permaculture); free expression on the walls. This event gathered around 50 people during the night.
Day 5: We visited a shared garden in the centre this time, in La Belle de Mai neighbourhood, which is one of the poorest area of the city. The garden is called “Jardin de Gibraltar, and managed by the non profit organisation “l’Artichaut”. They insisted on the importance of the inhabitant’s involvement and ownership to their garden. The European participants had free lunch and free time in Marseille to visit around. We met at 17:00 pm to implement the final evaluation. We proposed various non-formal activities, such as drawing a comic to represent the week, choosing the most relevant photos, re-writing the week planning together. Globally the evaluation of the week was positive, and the participants learnt a lot and got chance to share also their experience and knowledge.
We think that organizing a balance between visits and exchanges was important. To give the participants to be actors, and not just visitors during the week. We also experimented different good practices which were on the “garden info sheets”
already. We also thought that the public event was a great experience since it gave the opportunity to all to meet new people from other gardens, and a concrete exchange of practice and new experimentation was born between a social center of Belle de Mai and the Spanish representative during this open event.
Your team and local partners -
Who was in involved in the organisation of the SV? How did you separate the tasks? How did you involve the local gardens in the programme?
Please read list above for the detailed list of people involved on the organization of the SV5. Basically, Pistes-Solidaires was responsible of the logistics and RJSM of the contents. Both organizations worked together on each step of the organization, and we had a fluent communication and tasks repartition. RJSM associated the French gardeners, and more deeply the ones who participated in the previous study visits in the organization of the planning. We managed to visit 6 gardens during the week, without running out of time. For each garden visited, we had an indoor place to sit, to have a hot coffee or tea, and where to exchange between the participants. This was a very important success criterion. Each garden involved was responsible to invite local gardeners who made the visit for the European group. The gardens we couldn’t visit had the chance to participate in others gardens’ activities, and/or share the open event with the group.
Good practices -
How were selected the gardens to visit? How many good practices were experimented by the participants? Do you know if some of them will be transferred by participants?
We were also in contact with European gardeners in order to associate them in the choice of the good practices they wanted to discover and experiment, but we didn’t get any concrete feedbacks, except from Italian and UK sides. So we adapted the programme to their wish, but we had to choose by ourselves the other practices to experiment. The garden to visit where chosen the following criteria: their want to participate and availability, their previous involvement in EUGO, the location: easy access, and possibility to be indoors, the diversity of practice to show, the diversity of public involved in the projects. We experimented: -
“Compost workshop”: new practice not yet in the list, but detected and asked for during SV4, Barcelona “Meeting of gardeners” practice number 11
Page | 149
-
“Insect house” practice number 47 from Germany, with addition from France “Adaptation of garden to disabled guests” practices number 2 we also extended this practice with an exchange about the benefits of gardening that can be experimented by disabled people. “constructing activities for schoolchildren inside the garden” inspired from practice number 1 and experiences of the participants Page | 150 “Collaborative construction with teens” practice number 3 “Art in the garden” practice number 6 “Eco-construction with recycled materials” practice number 12
About the transfer, we know the Social Center will adapt the system of « table gardens » in its roof, because it’s totally adapted to its target group and space. The director will go to Spain to “Mas Guinardo” garden to learn more concretely and deeply how it works to be able to reproduce and adapt it the best. The Italians from Garbatella wanted to build some insect houses inside their own garden, the go back with the experience of having actually doing it, plus some documentation to help them, and know they’ll be able to contact the Julien in France as well as Angelique in Germany for help if needed. The gardeners from The Mail, Cosmos Kolej, that discovered the permaculture concept during the SV in Barcelona where happy to show their garden to the European visitors, and to discuss permaculture with the Italian “expert” that proposed permaculture courses as good practice in the EUGO program.
Follow-up -
What is the feedback of the gardens involved after the visit? Are there local outcomes to be outlined? How did/do/will you communicate and disseminate about the visit?
The general feedback is mainly positive. We have to say that as we were the last country to host a study-visit, we tried to build the program and to keep the most positive from each of the previous study visits. We took special care of the wellbeing of the participants, for the visit of many gardens, in few days, with a lot of things to do can be exhausting. We also took great care to provide everybody with the occasion to speak about what they saw and relate it with what they are living in their own gardens. Thanks to the volunteers of Pistes and the different staff members we were able to translate effectively what was said when needed, which was important due to the technical vocabulary involved in many discussions, and very important for the Spanish and some of the Italian. The fact that some staff members from the different countries had had several occasions to meet each other before helped a lot for this job. At the gardens’ level, the impact is highly positive, the gardeners feel connected to others gardens in EU, and they felt a deep connection when they realized that other gardeners in other countries implement the same practices for the same objectives. It was also the occasion for some gardens, member of the RJSM network to discover other gardens of the network they didn’t know yet, or to see them with another point of view.
At the partnership level between RJSM & Pistes Solidaires, organizing together this SV was a great opportunity to reinforce the existing links and gain new confidence and trust in each other. The open event was a great element to communicate about the study visit, to make it visible, open, with a wider dimension. We invited all members of both Pistes-Solidaires and RJSM, local stakeholders, gardeners, local partners of both Page | 151 organizations. After the visit we edited 2 videos that are on the website: one which can be considered as a teaser to present the visit, which is about 3 min. and the other one, a little longer, which aims to present the diversity of the gardeners and the proximity of their concerns all around Europe. The visit will be presented at the next Assembly of RJSM to all the gardens, including those that where not present or involved in the program.
Comments
Inwole e.V. SENDING REPORT SV5 Sending organisation:
Inwole eV
Dates of the visit:
5th-10th November 2012
Meeting Location:
Marseille
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Jutta Leite 2/ Angelique Walter
Your group -
Who were your participants?
Th The German delegation consisted of 2 people: one member of the Projekthaus Potsdam (Angelique Walter) and one member of the Berlin garden “Ton Steine Gärten” (Jutta Leite). -
How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening?
Jutta Leite is a gardener in an intercultural neighbourhood garden which is located close to the “Rauch Haus”. She has her own plot and is involved in various working groups in the garden. Jutta Leite has many experiences in the cultivation of collective plots and she works often together with kids in the garden.
Angelique Walter (staff member of the Inwole e.V. and amongst other things responsible for the pottery at the Projekthaus) is engaged for several years in the maintenance of the outdoor area of the Projekthaus. She is responsible for the cultivation of vegetables and flowers. During the last years she was involved in the construction of several raised beds (material: natural stone, brick, timber). -
What did they exchange with the other participants?
The participants learned how educational gardens are working in France. Additionally they learned more about the concept of Permaculture. The had many discussions how to organize a garden and how to bring different nations together. - What did they gain/bring? Jutta had made her first experiences with horticultural therapy and for her it was really interesting. Angelique was interested in the beekeeping in the garden “Croq Jardin”. She thinks about the possibility to keep bees in the garden of the Projekthaus, especially for the big old trees.
-
Some of the non-German participants also attended the Study Visit 1 (Potsdam) and were very interested in the work of the gardening group in the months after SV1. Other participants have heard a lot about the Study Visit in Potsdam. Therefore the Projekthaus was often mentioned during the discussions. For many participants the successful combination of the different aspects (living, working, culture, gardening) in one project was very interesting.
-
Because “Ton Steine Gärten” was visited during the Study Visit 1 many nonGerman participants were informed about the project and enjoyed to met a representant of this garden. Many participants were interested how the gardeners managed it to become established after so many conflicts with the city council during the occupation of the plots. Also a special condition arose interest: the garden is not surrounded by a fence and therefore vandalism and thievery are serious problems.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Jutta Leite will bring back a good practice. Together with the kids she wants to build an insect house in their garden. She wants to teach them how important insects are for a garden.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
During the monthly neighbourhood-brunch in the Projekthaus Potsdam (see Good
Page | 152
Practice no. 30) we talk with many interested people about our experiences of the Study Visits and the further work. At the end of 2012 (11th December) all German participants of the five Study Visits met in the Projekthaus Potsdam to share their experiences. Chronological from SV1 to SV5 all delegations gave a short report about the visited gardens. Additionally the many photos enriched these impressive reports. Further meetings between the members of “Projekthaus Potsdam” and “Ton Steine Gärten” are agreed for the next year. The gardening group of the Projekthaus Potsdam has an own Facebook account. There the newest developments of the group are being published.
Comments
KC English SENDING REPORT SV5 Sending organisation:
KC English, Cawsand, Cornwall, England
Dates of the visit:
05 Nov 2012 > 10 Nov 2012
Meeting Location:
Marseille, France
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Laurence M Watkins 2/ Sheila Taylor 3/ Dennis Trewin
Description Visits made to: g. h. i. j. k. l.
Croc Jardin, Roque d’Antheron Cosmos Kolej Jardin d’Adam Jardin de Font Obscure Jardin des Nereides Jardin Gibraltar
Your group - Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? Participants for this visit were: Sheila Taylor, Dennis Trewin and Laurence M Watkins. These participants were selected from our network of local urban gardens and gardeners. They were available to participate in the Study Visit and in contact with KC English. They understand and were sympathetic to the objectives of the EUGO programme.
Page | 153
How are they involved in urban gardening?
Sheila Taylor is a volunteer in a public maintained garden in Plymouth and also volunteers to support gardening activities for disabled with the Horticultural Healing Trust. Dennis Trewin established, manages and runs the Horticultural Page | 154 Healing Trust which provides garden based activities to support individuals with mental disabilities. He has worked in gardening and garden related activities for 38 years.
Laurence M Watkins is a volunteer gardener at the Mount Edgecombe community owned park in Cornwall. He has spent several years supporting the professional gardening team in the park, in addition to being a longstanding food growing gardener.
-
What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Exchanged knowledge of: Support programmes for return to work schemes – Provision of training programmes to give best long term support to scheme participants. Support programmes for disabled and disadvantaged persons – how to provide and manage suitable activities for these participants. Using volunteers to support garden activities and programmes – how to best attract and manage volunteer support. Public participation in the garden – Encouraging participants from the community through a varied range of events and programmes. Good practices
-
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
Good practices that will be transferred back to gardens by participants include:
Introduction of best practice composting techniques to enable high volume effective re-use of organic waste materials. Creation of specially designed boxes to encourage positive insect population within the garden. Use of raised beds to facilitate garden access for disabled persons in urban areas. Provision for excluded persons to participate as volunteers in gardening programmes - to act as a social inclusion activity.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind?
Support and encouragement in garden experimentation will be given by
encouraging participants to identify and adopt new good practices by enabling contact with originators and those considered to be practice experts, both within the local area and at partner locations. - How will you communicate and disseminate about it? Communication and dissemination will be undertaken through the Page | 155 established networks with local urban gardens using appropriate media: email, blogs, newsletters, in addition to contacts with individuals by telephone and face to face meetings. Comments Participants commented upon the wide range of gardens included within the programme and the high quality of support provided by the visit management team.
CEMEA del Mezzogiorno SENDING REPORT SV5 Sending organisation:
CEMEA del Mezzogiorno
Dates of the visit:
From 5th to 9th of November 2012
Meeting Location:
Marseille - France
Participants of your organisation:
1/ Ilenia Zuccaro (CEMEA del Mezzogiorno) 2/ Paola Turroni (Ass. LAVANGAQUADRA – S. Benedetto School) 3/ Carmelo Leotta (O.U. Garbatella) 4/ Sylviane Borghesi (O.U. Garbatella) 5/ Paola Marzi (Roma Capitale- Responsible of Urban Garden Department)
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening? What did they exchange with the other participants? What did they gain/bring?
Paola Turroni is a special teacher, she give support to students with disabilities (both mental and physical). Since three years she run a school garden for students of the S.Benedetto school, in which she organized theatre laboratory with an actor. She is also member of the association LAVANGAQUADRA that created a urban
garden in a contaminated site. Paola participated in a really active way during the SV3 in Rome and she was one of the two participants of the SV4 in Spain. We gave the opportunity to live also this experience because of her motivation and her willing to continue to work within EU’GO. The second Study visit she experienced made her more self confident about the intercultural exchange and the language. She lived the intercultural environment without stress. From this Study Visit she Page | 156 enlarged her knowledge in Permaculture, she discovered new approaches to the garden in a school and also about horticultural therapy, that she would like to do. Her reflections about the involvement of the member of an organization dealing with a garden were more open and she realized that knowing each other and put yourself in challenges are the ingredients for the art of collaboration as well as the development of skills in management and mediation of the group and the land. Carmelo Leotta, member of O.U. Garbatella, participated to this Study Visit with a big curiosity and the willingness to discover new ideas and to see other realities. He was very involved in the Study Visit 3 in Rome where he already experienced the meeting with other countries, during te Study Visit he exchanged a lot about Permaculture principles and he put himself in challenges when he presented during the toolfair the topic. Thanks to this Study Visit he realized that to create an urban garden is a pretext for socialization and to see a locked garden is a defeat. He also realized that the experience of a Study Visit help you to know better your local reality, it’s an experience of enriching both on a human than professional level. Sylviane Borghesi is one of the founder of O.U. Garbatella, she is really active in her local reality. She really appreciated the enthusiasm and motivation of the Hosting organizations and thanks to the Study Visit she found back her motivation. She saw that the willing to do is everywhere and she felt not alone in continuing her work in Rome. One of the things that she will bring back is the creativity that the gardeners used in their own garden that become the representation of your character. She exchanged a lot and the intensity of the sharing among the European and French participants gave her a lot of energy, that was difficult to spend once came back in Rome. Paola Marzi is the responsible of the Urban Gardens Department in the Municipality of Roma Capitale. She started to collaborate with EU’GO project since the Sv3 in Rome and her presence to this Study Visit represents an important step for the reality of Rome, waiting for guide lines or a sort of recognition of the phenomena from the Municipality. Thanks to the Study Visit she could see some more structured urban gardens and she also met her similar of the Marseille Municipality. She felt close to this person because of the loneliness in which they have to work for the recognition of the phenomena. She got new ideas for the Guide lines about the freedom that citizens should have when they reclaim the creation of an urban garden, the importance of having both collective and individual plots and the socialization aspect of the urban garden. She saw the brave that some persons put in their work in sensitive area of Marseille and this aspect push her to continue her work. After this Study Visit she would like to visit more and more gardens all over the world. From an intercultural point of view, even if she had difficulties with the language she succeeded to exchange with everybody. Ilenia Zuccaro is staff of EU’GO project in CEMEA del Mezzogiorno. She participated to the Study Visit in order to be a support for the Italian participants as well as to
be present and understand better the European context of urban gardening. By knowing the Italian reality she realized the differences in terms of development and structure of the network, buy also the recognition of the urban garden as a tool of development.
Good practices -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How?
The member of the O.U. Garbatella built an Insekthouse and they learnt how to build it in order to experiment the practice in their garden (Luigi di Paola from the SV1 already choose this practice). Paola Turroni went deeper in the topic of Permaculture and Synergic garden and she came back with more knowledge and motivation for experiment the creation of a school synergic garden. Paola Marzi got ideas from the regulations of the Municipality of Marseille and from the exchange with the local responsible. As functionary she will come back with inside the certainty that urban gardens represent a resource in an urban context, from different point of views.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
Paola Marzi renovated her willingness to continue to work with the EU’GO project and thanks to this experience she will do her job with a new point of view. Paola Turroni will add the photos of Marseille of her Photo exhibition for the school. Carmelo Leotta and Sylviane Borghesi after only two weeks had already created a small photo exhibition and during the Tree event they spoke about their experience.
Comments The Study Visit was helpful from different point of view, from an internal point of CEMEA that are consolidated their local partnership and for the participants that have experienced a wonderful visit, not only from a point of view of the content but also from the contact with different persons and cultures. For this Study Visit the key word of the Italian group is: garden as a pretext for socialization
Page | 157
Nexes SENDING REPORT SV5 Sending organisation: Dates of the visit: Meeting Location: Participants of your organisation:
NEXES INTERCULTURALS DE JOVES PER EUROPA 5-11/11 Marseille, France 1/ Antonio León
Description We had many troubles to find a participant for this study visit because of different reasons: - As SV4 Barcelona was just before, we concentrated a lot on this and not enough on the dissemination for SV5 in France. - Even if we already had several persons interested to go to Italy before the SV Barcelona, we had the bad luck that the dates were not good for anyone: one had his family coming on this day, another had a non preview exam, another couldn't ask for holidays in his job. - As we were about to send only one person, we were thinking to send someone later on: a motivated man from Cardedeu who were not able to come at these dates. We were about to send nobody in France but at the last moment, we found a participant.
Your group -
Who were your participants? How and why did you select them? How are they involved in urban gardening?
- Antonio Leon is an active member of the garden of Casal d'entitats from the district of Guinardó, Barcelona. He is a 60 year old retired man who is involved in the district on this topic as a trainer and active volunteer. The same garden already has been involved in the SV1 in Germany with Anna Suñé and she convinced Antonio to go. He was not sure at the beginning because he does not speak English, there were no other Spanish participants to help him and he was not used to travel. But he decided to come finally with the motivation to share its knowledge with other people. Antonio has been motivated when he received the international group in Barcelona in its garden. He saw concretely what is an international group of gardeners and what he could exchange with them. He became much more involved in the project since then. Garden: Casal d'entitats del Mas Guinardó. Practice: Agroecological cineforum
Good practices and learnings -
Will the participants transfer good practices back to their garden? Why/Why not? How? What did they learn during the study visit?
Page | 158
A part from a concrete detected practice, Antonio learnt many things during the study visit because he was a senior, not speaking English and not use to travel. In this way, some things has been difficult for him but also very interesting and useful. He was very grateful of the organisers (RJSM; Pistes) because they helped him a lot during the stay with translations and other tasks. Knowledge: Antonio learnt to communicate with people from other countries; to be able to learn to share a bedroom with a roommate; to see how to cook with solar energy; Learn to do: He learnt to do compost; to take public transport in another country; to travel Learn to be: Antonio learnt to be more patient with his colleagues for the language difficulties; to communicate with body and hands New interests and motivation: He liked all the projects presented by the group and their ways of presenting and came back with more motivation.
Follow-up -
Now, how do you support/encourage the experimentation in the gardens? Do you need help from the partners? What kind? How will you communicate and disseminate about it?
First of all, we did an evaluation with him to help them to detect the learning at different levels (tools detected; learning to do, learning to be and new interests (see annexe Evaluate the learning SV). Then, we asked him to transfer the results into his own garden and do a written report (in Spanish). We also did a short video of Antonio after its return from France and disseminate it within webpage and Facebook. With 2 participants in the Study Visits, the Casal d'entitats Mas Guinard贸 is a motivated garden which have to find the good tools to be experimented as they are part of the few gardens which only have beds on the roof. We put them in relation with a German garden which is preparing the same, even of meteorological conditions can be very different between Berlin and Barcelona. Dissemination about the experience: by mail within the network, in the local blog of EU GO, in the Facebook and webpage of Nexes (see WP8 Dissemination). We are studying the possibility to send Mark, from Phoenicurus, to France in other dates: he was really motivated to come but was not available during the dates. He studied the different French gardens and is really interested in visiting some of them later on in 2013 with the idea to implement its good practice.
Comments
Page | 159
ANNEXE 3: KOM AND MTM REPORTS
EVALUATION REPORT KICK OFF MEETING IN MARSEILLE (FRANCE) February 6th – 9th, 2012
Page | 160
This evaluation report is based on the EX-POST questionnaire filled in by the EU’GO partners participating to the EU’GO Kick off Meeting in Marseille, France. The questionnaires gather partners’ feedback regarding the KOM development, focusing on three dimensions: Organization and Management of the KOM; Content; EU’GO Partnership. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting partners’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version ( http://www.cemea.eu/report-kom-marseille-6-9feb-2012-ex-post/). The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 9 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED representing the partner organizations of the EU’GO project:
PARTNER
Nexes 11,11% CEMEA del Mezzogiorno Inwole eV 22,22% 11,11% KC English 11,11% RJSM 22,22%
PistesSolidaires 22,22%
ROLE IN EU'GO Trainer/Expert 0% Administrator 11%
Technician 33,33%
Manager 55,56%
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT PREPARATION OF THE KOM. LOGISTIC RATING
EX-POST KOM Q25. The level of the instructions given to you to.. 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 66,67%
70,00% 60,00%
55,56%
6 = Excellent 5
44,44%
50,00% 40,00% 33,33% 30,00%
33,33%
4 33,33%
33,33%
3 2
20,00%
11,11%
11,11%
11,11%
1 = Poor
10,00% 0,00% ..attend the programme of the KOM
..complete preprogramme material
..bring relevant material with you to the meeting
..travel to the meeting location
EX-POST KOM Q33.-Q35. Logistic rating 70,00%
66,67%
60,00% 50,00%
55,56%
6 = Excellent
44,44%
5
40,00%
33,33%
30,00% 22,22%
33,33%
4
22,22%
3
20,00% 11,11%
11,11%
10,00%
2 1 = Poor
0,00% the lodging
the meeting room
the board (breakfast, refreshments, meals, etc.)
Page | 161
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT LENGTH AND PROGRAMME OF THE KOM
EX-POST KOM Q36. How do you feel about the length of the meeting?
Page | 162
Too long 0% Too short 33,33%
Just right 66,67%
EX-POST KOM Q32. To what extend was the programme of the KOM logically sequenced? 1 = Poorly sequenced
2
3
4
44,44%
5
6 = Well sequenced
55,56%
EX-POST KOM Q24. To what extend was the material produced during the KOM useful?
1 = Not at all
11,11% 11,11%
2
3
55,56%
4
5
6 = Fully
22,22%
CONTENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE EU’GO PROJECT Page | 163
EX-POST KOM Q22. To what extend has your understanding of the project improved or increased as a result of the KOM.. 6 = Excellent
5
4
3
2
1 = Poor 66,67%
55,56% 44,44%
44,44% 33,33%
22,22% 11,11%
11,11%
11,11%
..concerning the ..concerning the Grundtvig EU'GO phases Multilateral and timeline dimension
22,22% 11,11%
..concerning the EU'GO financial and administrative functioning
11,11%
..concerning the roles designed and assigned within the EU'GO project
EX-POST KOM Q23. To what extend did you feel you had previous information about EU'GO confirmed during the KOM? 6 = Confirmed a lot
5
4
3
2
1 = Confirmed little
44,44% 22,22%
22,22% 11,11% 0%
0%
CONTENT PARTICIPANTS’ CONTRIBUTION TO THE KOM AND LEARNING EX-POST KOM Q26. To what extend did you feel you have tackled the preparation of the KOM?
11,11% 22,22%
6 = Proactively 5
22,22%
4 3 2 1 = Passively
44,44%
EX-POST KOM Q30. As professional, to what extend did you feel you have learned from the KOM?
22,22% 33,33%
6 = Learned a lot 5 4 3 2 1 = Learned nothing
44,44%
Page | 164
EU’GO PARTNERSHIP DECISSION MAKING PROCESS AND PARTNERSHIP EX-POST KOM Q27. To what extend did you feel to have contributed to the decision making process inside the working group? 1 = Nothing
11,11%
2
55,56% 22,22%
3
11,11%
4 5 6 = A lot
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
EX-POST KOM Q31. As member of the consortium, to what extend did you feel the partnership consolidated during the KOM? 1 = Nothing
33,33%
2
33,33% 22,22%
3 4
11,11%
5 6 = A lot
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
LEVEL OF SATISFACTION EX-POST KOM Q28.* Level of satisfaction at the end of the KOM.. 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 44,44% 44,44% 50,00% 33,33% 40,00% 30,00% 22,22% 22,22% 20,00% 11,11% 10,00% 0,00% about the about the role common agenda and tasks of my for the following organization in months the project
66,67%
22,22% 11,11%
6 = Excellent 55,56% 33,33% 11,11%
5 4 3 2
about the about the communication common system by working method distance adopted
1 = Poor
Page | 165
EX-POST KOM Q4.* - Q21.* OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE KOM: 100,00% 90,00% 80,00%
Page | 166
77,78%
70,00% 66,67% 60,00% 55,56%
55,56%
50,00% 44,44% 33,33% 30,00%
33,33%
33,33%
33,33%
33,33%
22,22% 22,22%
22,22% 22,22% 11,11%
33,33%
22,22%
20,00% 10,00%
44,44%
44,44%
40,00%
11,11% 11,11% 11,11% 11,11%11,11%
11,11% 11,11%
11,11%
11,11%
0,00%
6(max)
5
4
3
2
1(min)
OVERALL RATING OF THE KOM EX-POST KOM Q37.* 6 = Excellent
12,5%
5
62,5% 25%
4 3 2 1 = Poor
EVALUATION REPORT MID TERM MEETING IN ROME (ITALY) November 13th – 16th, 2012 This evaluation report is based on the EX-POST questionnaire filled in by the EU’GO partners participating to the EU’GO Mid-Term Meeting in Rome, Italy. The questionnaires gather partners’ feedback regarding the MTM development, focusing on four dimensions: Organization and Management of the MTM; Content; EU’GO Partnership; External Evaluator Contribution. The evaluation report contains graphics presenting partners’ answers (expressed in percentages) to each question included in the questionnaires. The questions marked with asterisk (*) signal that some comments to the answers are present, visible from the online version (http://www.cemea.eu/report-ex-post-mid-term-meetingrome-italy-november-2012-ex-post/). The questionnaires were directed to a sample of 8 PEOPLE INTERVIEWED representing the partner organizations of the EU’GO project:
PARTNER
Nexes 12,5%
Inwole eV 12,5%
CEMEA del Mezzogiorno 25%
KC English; 12,5% Pistes-Solidaires 25% RJSM; 12,5%
ROLE IN EU'GO Trainer/Expert 0%
Administrator 12,5%
Technician 25% Manager 62,5%
Page | 167
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT PREPARATION OF THE MTM EX-POST MTM Q22. The level of information given to you about.. Page | 168
100,0% 90,0% 80,0%
6 = Excellent
70,0%
5
60,0%
4
50,0%
37,5%
40,0% 30,0% 20,0%
25%
37,5% 25%
12,5%
25%25% 25% 12,5%
3
25%
2
12,5% 12,5%
12,5% 12,5%
10,0%
1 = Poor
0,0% ..the content of the MTM
..complete pre-meeting material
..bring relevant material with you to the meeting
EX-POST MTM Q23. To what extend did you feel you tackled the preparation of the MTM?
1 = Passively
2
37,50%
3
4
5
12,50%
6 = Proactively
50%
EX-POST MTM Q24*. To what extend was the programme of the MTM logically sequenced? 1 = Poorly sequenced
12,50%
2
25%
3
4
25%
5
6 = Well sequenced
37,50%
ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT LENGTH OF THE MTM. LOGISTIC RATING
EX-POST MTM Q38. How do you feel about the length of the meeting?
Page | 169
Too long 0%
Too short 50%
Just right 50%
EX-POST MTM Q34.-Q37. Logistic rating 70,00% 62,50%
62,50%
60,00% 50,00% 40,00%
50%
50%
6 = Excellent 37,50%
37,50%
37,50%
37,50%
4
30,00%
3
20,00% 10,00%
5
12,50%
2
12,50%
1 = Poor
0,00% the travel to the meeting location
the lodging
the board (breakfast, refreshments, meals, etc.)
the meeting room
CONTENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE EU’GO PROJECT EX-POST MTM Q26. To what extend has your understanding of the project improved or increased as a result of the MTM.. = Excellent 37,50% 637,50% 37,50% 25% 25% 25%
5
4
3 25%
12,50% 12,50% 12,50% 12,50% ..concerning ..concerning the EU'GO the EU'GO project objectives, dimension of each partner at phases and timeline European and local level
2
1 = Poor
37,50%
..concerning the EU'GO financial and administrative functioning and reporting
37,50% 25%
25%
12,50%
..concerning the decisions taken and the roles designed and assigned within the EU'GO project
LEARNING AND USEFULNESS OF THE WORK DONE DURING THE MTM EX-POST MTM Q32. As professional, to what extend did you feel you have learned from the MTM? 6 = Learned a lot 5
25% 37,50%
4 3 2
37,50%
1 = Learned nothing
EX-POST MTM Q27. To what extend is the work done during the MTM useful for the next steps? 6 = Fully 12,50% 25%
5 4 3
62,50%
2 1 = Not at all
Page | 170
EU’GO PARTNERSHIP DECISSION MAKING PROCESS AND PARTNERSHIP EX-POST MTM Q28. To what extend did you feel to have contributed to the decision making process inside the working group? 1 = Nothing
37,50%
2
50% 12,50%
3 4 5 6 = A lot
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
EX-POST MTM Q33. As member of the consortium, to what extend did you feel the partnership consolidated during the MTM? 1 = Nothing 2
50% 37,50%
3
12,50%
4 5 6 = A lot
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
LEVEL OF SATISFACTION EX-POST MTM Q31. Level of satisfaction at the end of the MTM.. 100,00% 90,00% 75% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 12,50% 12,50% 10,00% 0,00% about the common agenda for the following months
75% 62,50% 50% 37,50% 25% 12,50%
6 = Excellent 5
25% 12,50%
about the role about the about the and tasks of my communication common organization and system by working method the partners in distance adopted the project
4 3 2 1 = Poor
Page | 171
EXTERNAL EVALUATOR EXTERNAL EVALUATOR CONTRIBUTION Page | 172
EX-POST MTM Q29-30. Rating of the External Evaluator contribution 100% 90% 80% 70% 62,50%
6 = Excellent
60%
5 50%
50% 40%
4 3
37,50%
2 30%
25% 25%
20% 10% 0% ..the feedback questionnaire prepared by the external evaluators prior the MTM
..the role of the external evaluator during the MTM
1 = Poor
EX-POST MTM Q4.* - Q21.* OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE MTM: 100,0% 90,0% 80,0%
Page | 173
75% 70,0% 62,5%
62,5%
60,0% 50,0% 40,0%
50%
50%
37,5%
50%
50% 50% 37,5% 37,5%37,5%
37,5%
30,0% 25%
25%
25%
25%
25% 25%
20,0% 10,0%
12,5% 12,5% 12,5% 12,5%
12,5%12,5%12,5%12,5% 12,5%
0,0%
6(max)
5
4
3
2
1(min)
OVERALL RATING OF THE MTM
EX-POST MTM Q39.*
25%
6 = Excellent 5 4
25%
50%
3 2 1 = Poor
Page | 174