TITOLO DEL WORKSHOP: European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Providers

COORDINATORE: Caroline Lentz - European Microfinance Network (EMN), Operations Manager, EaSI TA Senior Non Key Expert

RELATORI: Riccardo Aguglia - European Investment Fund (EIF), Senior Microfinance Investment Manager Aldo Moauro - Microfinanza Rating, Executive Director, EaSI TA KeySpeaker

A total of 45 participants, of which 26 men and 19 women, attended the Workshop about the European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Providers. The participants were asked a series of questions about their experience. The 73% of the participants (33 out of 45) filled the feedback form provided by the EMN.

They were asked to rate difference aspects:

1. General feeling about the workshop

2. Workshop content

3. Workshop material

4. Workshop Moderator & Panellists

5. Workshop organisation and venue

6. The match of the workshop with their needs

7. If they gained relevant knowledge and information

8. The ability to apply the knowledge and information in their work

9. The topics that would interest them the most for future workshops

On a sliding scale:

- 1 = POOR

- 2 = FAIR

- 3 = GOOD

- 4 = VERY GOOD

- 5 = EXCELLENT

Overall, the event has been evaluated by the participants as between good and very good, with an average score of 3.6 out of 5. This shows a high level of satisfaction among the participants, shown also by the high percentage of people evaluating it as excellent. The overall average score from the collected forms is 71%.

1. General feeling about the workshop 31 out of 33 participants (94%) described their general feeling about the workshop as good or very good, the other 6% thought it was excellent. This results in an average rating of 3,61 out of 5. Comments included statements such as “instructive and interesting” or “these are very interesting examples about real experiences”.

2. Workshop content The respondents were very satisfied with the content of the workshop, giving it an average rating of 3,82 out of 5, which is almost very good. 22 respondents (67%) rated the content as ‘very good’, 3 (9%) as excellent, 7 (21%) as good and one person as fair. The part on Microfinance Instruments was highlighted as being especially interesting in the comments.

3. Workshop material Not all the respondents were satisfied with the quality of the workshop material, although the rating average is more than good with 3,36 out of 5. 72% (12 respondents each) rated the material as ‘good’ or ‘very good’, 3 persons as excellent. 6 respondents (18%) were not very satisfied, rating the material as ‘fair’. In the comments, this view has been expressed with “very simple”.

4. Workshop Moderator & Panellists Most respondents were satisfied with the workshop moderator and panellists; resulting in the average rating of 3,82 out of 5 – almost very good. 21 % (7 participants) rated them as excellent, 42% (14 participants) as very good, 33% (11 participants) as good and one person as fair. The comments stressed that the moderator and panellists were “very prepared and concrete”.

5. Workshop organisation and venue Respondents rated the workshop organisation and venue between good and very good (3,57 average out of 5). 13 persons (39%) answered with ‘very good’, 10 (30%) with ‘good’, 4 (12%) with excellent; 2 (6%) with fair and 1 (3%) with poor.

6. The match of the workshop with their needs Overall, the respondents indicated that the workshop matched with their needs, 78% rated it as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ (13 persons each). For one person, the answer was excellent and 3 participants (9%) answered with ‘fair’.

7. If they gained relevant knowledge and information Most participants reported that they gained relevant knowledge and information during the workshop, the average was between good and very good (3,47 out of 5). 30% (10 persons) answered with ‘good’, 39% (13 persons) with ‘very good’, 9% (3 persons) with ‘excellent’, 9% with ‘fair’ and one person with ‘poor’. This results in a rating average of 3,47 out of 5, between good and very good.

8. The ability to apply the knowledge and information in their work Generally spoken, the average rating of this question was the lowest in the questionnaire (3,17 out of 5), which means the respondents still rated the applicability of the knowledge gained during the workshop in their work as ‘good’. While 11 respondents (33%) answered with ‘good’, 8 (24%) with ‘very good’ and 3 (9%) with excellent. Nevertheless, 5 persons (15%) rated it as ‘fair’ and 2 (6%) as ‘poor’.

9. The topics that would interest them the most for future workshops

11 persons answered this last question (30% of all respondents); proposing the following topics:

- More practical examples (suggestion of 2 respondents) yy Other real examples and I would like to see the difference between Italian banks and European banks

- Microfinance Instruments - Technical knowledge about assessment of loss and ranking - The risks of banks or enterprises that will run in the future in this context of new European rules

- Advisor role of the bank in the Microfinance world

- The role of the bank in the governance; the enterprise and risk sharing between public and private sector

- Innovative uses of Microfinance in order to help with the re-organization of business; not only for start-ups

- Economics