Questionnaire

Inter-Parliamentary Meeting 2011 Stockholm

Thank you for helping us to improve our annual IPM!

General evaluation

· In general, the event was ⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

· My favourite panel was

⃝ The first (“EU 2020 Renewables Targets – are we on track to deliver?”)

⃝ The regional workshops

⃝ The second panel (“Financing renewables in the middle of the economic crisis”)

⃝ The third panel (“A Vision beyond 2020 – 100% renewable energy in 2050”)

⃝ The fourth panel (“Energy Efficiency in the European Union: Time to act and implement!”)

· How do you evaluate the time that was allocated to questions and answers after the presentations? ⃝ Too much ⃝ Enough ⃝ Not enough

· The side programme was ⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

· My favourite event was

⃝ The Gala Dinner at the Vasa Museum

⃝ The site visit to the forest with Sveaskog

⃝ The site visit to the Igelsta Power Plant

⃝ The Boat Tour

· Did you find the site visit to the Igelsta Power Plant useful? ⃝ Very ⃝ Average ⃝ No

· Would interpretation into your mother tongue have created an additional value in the conference? ⃝ Yes ⃝ No

Comments:

Panel Discussions’ and Regional Workshops’ Evaluation

· The first panel, “EU 2020 Renewables Targets – are we on track to deliver?”, was in general ⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

· The Speakers of the first panel were ⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

Comments:

· Which Regional Workshop did you attend?

⃝ RES in the Southern and Mediterranean EU”

⃝ RES in the North-Western EU”
⃝ RES in the Baltic and Scandinavian EU

⃝ RES in Central and South-Eastern EU”

· This regional workshop was in general ⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

·The chairs’ performance was ⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

Comments:

· The second panel, “Financing renewables in the middle of the economic crisis”, was in general ⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

· The Speakers of the second panel were ⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

Comments:

· The third panel, “A Vision beyond 2020 – 100% renewable energy in 2050”, was in general ⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

· The Speakers of the third panel were ⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

Comments:

· The fourth panel, “Energy Efficiency in the European Union: Time to act and implement!”, was in general ⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

· The Speakers of the fourth panel were ⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

Comments:

Networking evaluation

· Networking opportunities during the IPM were, in general,

⃝ Very good ⃝ Good ⃝ Average ⃝ Poor

· Which part of the programme was better for networking?

⃝ The coffeebreaks

⃝ The Gala Dinner at the Vasa Museum

⃝ The site visit and the Boat Tour

Comments:
Suggestions for the next IPM:

Thank you very much! We hope to meet you again in 2012!