Appendix 1

A SHARED VISION OF NILE IRRIGATION: 2010

LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Name Position

MINIS1RY -- MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE l

I.Eng. Gamil Mahmoud Chairman, IMS High Coordinating Committee 2.Eng. Ali Abu El-Seoud First Undersecretary of the Ministry, & Head of Planning Sector 3.Eng. Ahmed EI Sawaf Head, Irrigation Department 4.Eng. Ahmed Maher Head, Irrigation Sector 5.Eng. Sarwat Fahmy Monitoring Office Chief for IMS 6.Eng. Abdel Rahman Shalaby Head of Central Management for Minister's Office 7.Eng. Yehia Abd El Aziz Director, Irrigation Improvement Project 8.Eng. Soliman Abu Zeid Director, Main System Management

MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCES Group I: Irrigation Operations Study

9. Eng. Hessein Elwan General Manager of Water Distribution in the Irrigation Sector (Coordinator)

1O.Eng. Khaled Bekheit* Irrigation Improvement Project II.Eng. Mahmoud EI-Sayes Irrigation Department 12.Eng. Tarek Hanafy Selim

Kotb Irrigation Department 13.Eng. Fayek Amin Fareg Planning Sector I4.Eng. Kamel M. Amer National Water Research Center

Group II: Cost Recovery Study

I5.Eng. Kamal Anam General Manager Project Preparation Department (Coordinator) I6.Dr. Lotfy Nasr National Water Research Center 17.Eng. Samir Mohammed Ahmed

Project Preparation Department 18.Eng. Shinnawi Abd EI Aty

EI Shinnawi Irrigation Improvement Project 19.Eng. Soraya Abd Elwan Irrigation Improvement Project 20.Eng. Fawzy Mohd. Ibrahim

Khalil Project Preparation Department 2I.Eng. Mohammed Hamed

Abdel Latief Planning Sector 22.Eng. Baha Ghonem Project Preparation Department 23.Eng. Hoda Salah El Dien Project Preparation Department

One member of the Steering Committee, Dr. Mahmoud Abu Zeid, Chairman, National Water Research Center, was unable to attend the Workshop.

7

Comments:

* Because the time of each session is very small

* Need to extend for one more day

* The limited time, limits the discussions around specific points

* It was too intensified, a Jot of work was done in a short time

Need more time *

* Need more time "3 days"

* We were over loaded .'

* No. of working hours was more than it is supposed to be

* 8.30 - 4.30 pm is more satisfactory

Need more time *

* More time is required during the sessions and the coffee breaks as well

8. Level of satisfaction with the length (number of days) of the workshop? WHY?

score 1 - 2* score 2 1* = score 3 = 8*

* score 4 = 5 * score 5 - 5

Average score - 3.52

Comments:

* Important issues need more time

* More time is required to totally cover all the issues

* It should be extended to another day

* Divided the effort and best output

* One more day is needed

* It was too condensed & compressed. It is too hard to stay from 8.30 - 6.00

26

* Need more time (maybe 3 working days)

* Should have been 3 working days

Too short *

* Time of each session is very short

* 3 Full days is more logical

* Number of days should not be less than 3 working days

* Two days is not enough

* Could be a session on Sun~ay morning . ~.", .

Need more time *

* We left our responsibilities for a very limited period

* If it was longer, the material would have been repeated. Better to have an interval for discussion in all the informal job settings.

* It was managed very well; also some of the expected outputs can be managed after the workshop with the participants (Task Force & Steering Committee)

* As I mentioned the number of days must not be less than 3 days.

* 3 full days is more logical.

9. Level of satisfaction with the facilitation methods of process of the workshop?

... score 4 - 4

... score 4.5 = 2

... score 5 - 16

average score - 4.77

* They are very well organized and covered the subject in an excellent way.

* Excellent; communications and interactions between participants were clear and specific.

* Good explanation.

* They were very helpful.

27