VIR22-13

Indicator: Participants opinion

Evidence: Participants indicated that this session was excellent (55%) or very good (45%). As one participant indicated: "Je tiens à remercier toute l'équipe SPS pour ce cours qui m'a permis de renforcer ma capacité sur l'Accord SPS en général" (see PEF), which comment might be associated with this particular session. The participant from Benin also stated that the SPS Agreement had become a sort of "Bible" for him that he now understood better and that he was ready to make known to different economic actors in Benin. (See News item: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news22_e/tech_24nov22_e.htm). Following this sessions, participants were offered a 1-to-1 session with one of the SPS trainers to clarify doubts about the SPS Agreement, which contributed to an enhanced understanding of the Agreement.

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

Evidence: Participants actively raised questions orally and the trainers built on the answers that had been provided in the pre-course questionnaire to clarify issues of interest. There was very good interaction between speakers and participants. Issues of particular interest, as became evident from the questions and interventions from participants, related for example to the relationship between SPS and TBT, regionalization, and science-based SPS measures. Participants were experts in SPS issues and some also represented their countries in the SPS Committee and, therefore, questions asked were concrete and relevant and allowed for practical and applicable answers.

Indicator: Participants opinion

Evidence: Participants indicated that this session was excellent (45%) or very good (55%). In their informal feedback at the end of the course, participants appreciated having had the possibility to engage with the current Chairperson and a former Chairperson from Cameroon, as well as SPS delegates. The participation of the Secretary of the Committee also contributed to an increased understanding of the role of the Secretariat in the work of the SPS Committee. Participants had been invited to attend the Committee meetings virtually and most of them participated in most of the sessions. Therefore, participants had a first hand experience of the Committee and this session was an opportunity to further their understanding of the functioning of the Committee.

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

Evidence: Participants were requested to prepare questions for the various speakers in advance of the session, which insured a good interaction. The two moderators who were leading the interview-style discussions eventually mostly relied on participants' questions as opposed to their own. Speakers provided very practical information that participants could relate to, and participants were particularly keen to hear from speakers on issues such as the role of the Chairperson of the SPS Committee and practical tips for national coordination. One subsequent indicator of success was that one participant requested to liaise bilaterally with the SPS delegate from Guatemala to learn more about their national SPS Committee. As the Chairperson of the SPS Committee noted: "The participants were active and asked me many questions. In answering their questions, not only did I give them a better understanding of the Chair's role, but I also learned about their expectations of the Committee.” (See News Item: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news22_e/tech_24nov22_e.htm).

Indicator: Participants opinion

Evidence: Participants indicated that this session was excellent (27%), very good (64%), or good (9%). In the pre-course questionnaire, participants discovered how the IT tools available could contribute to the fulfilment of the transparency obligations. Through a practical demonstration on the ePing SPS&TBT Platform, participants learned about the functionalities that can contribute to improve their national coordination. Participants were invited to get in touch with their national notification authorities and enquiry points which, in some cases, led to the beginning of conversations between different actors at the national level.

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

Evidence: An officer from the national notification authority in Madagascar, a Member that very successfully increased its SPS notifications in recent times, addressed participants, who could clearly relate to the good practices implemented in the country. The session otherwise focused on SPS IT tools, through a presentation and practical and interactive exercises. Participants were engaged to provide answers to the questions asked, but also to request clarifications whether orally or through the chat.

Indicator: Participants opinion

Evidence: 64% of participants considered the session excellent, and 36% found it very good. The case study, based on a real example taken from the SPS Committee discussions, allowed participants to use the knowledge acquired during the course in a practical manner. One participant observed "utiliser ce que je lis dans des exercices de simulation qui me permettent de résoudre un problème concrets aide beaucoup à l'assimilation de l'Accord SPS et à la participation au Comité SPS." (see PEF)

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

Evidence: The day before this session, participants had a 2-hour preparatory session, supervised by the trainers, to extract arguments from the case study and prepare their positions as a Member raising, supporting or responding to a concern in a mock SPS Committee meeting simulated in this session. This mock session and advanced preparatory work allowed participants to reflect on current SPS issues in small groups, review key provisions of the SPS Agreement, and present their cases, integrating the knowledge on the SPS Agreement and the work of the SPS Committee acquired during the course. The mock session also enabled them to test presentation skills and practice in delivering Committee type interventions. During the debriefing of the exercise, trainers built on the presentations by participants, who were very active in clarifying certain points and asking follow-up questions.

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

Evidence: Participants were divided in 4 groups (2 raising, 1 supporting and 1 responding Member in the context of a trade concern). They worked in small groups to develop their presentations and each group selected a spokesperson to deliver a statement in a mock SPS Committee session. All of the groups linked their arguments to relevant articles of the SPS Agreement and detailed relevant aspects of the case study which furthered their arguments. During the session, participants made their presentations, which required good time management. All four groups presented their arguments within the allocated time. The participants also incorporated into their presentations some of the practices they had observed during the November Committee meeting they were invited to attend.