Delegate feedback from 2nd National EMS Forum

The following feedback has been collated from the 28 forms received. Where possible responses have been summarised and numbers of responses for each item are shown in brackets. Quotes are reported where appropriate.

Q 1. What was the most enjoyable aspect of the Forum? Please tell us why.

• Ability to meet and network with other EMS practitioners (8)
• Being able to realist that everyone has the same issues and problems (2) “We’re not alone”.
• Lesson learnt from others (4)
• Diversity of speakers and topics (6)
• Enthusiasm of presenters (1)
• Hearing about innovations taking place (1)
• Hearing about uptake by specific industries (1)
• Update of EMS models (1)
• Matthias’s presentations (5) “Very dynamic, outside the box and intuitive”
• John Collins’ presentation (1)
• Petar Johnson’s presentation (2)
• Sue Sakaki’s presentation (1)
• Update with EMS models (1)
• Tools expo (1) “good innovation”
• Branding ideas (1)
• Seeing that EMS is accepted so widely (1)
• Length of conference (1)
• Showing the flexibility of EMS (1)
• EMS in climate change (1)
• Good food/great food at dinner (2)
• Gaining understanding of EMS on the ground and seeing it in action (1)
• Ocean industries session – EMS in action “Well presented, especially Kelly”
• “Very well run conference – everything clearly communicated”
• “Very motivational”
• “Seeing the application of EMS from individual through to business perspectives. It was thought provoking, informative and inspiring”
• “Belonging to a group of people who’s professional knowledge and skills was gathered around the specific matter of EMS”.
• “I enjoyed the presentations that looked beyond certification level of EMS and explained how environmental improvement is key”.
• “The knowledge, conversation and experience of speakers and participants”

Challenge for the Association comes from this quote: “Unfortunately, this [EMS information and outcomes] isn’t being disseminated to a lot of regional NRM bodies and government agencies. Communication is the key”. Could this form a topic for an upcoming meeting/Forum?

Q 2. Was the blend of topics addressed relevant and useful? Yes or No, and comments please.

27/28 said Yes        1 gave neither response but stated “There was a lot of assumed knowledge and as a result those means that newcomers to EMS and ISO 14001 were behind the eight ball” {Note: this has been a constant concern at all past EMS in Agriculture conferences as well, as has been attempted to be overcome at some past events by having EMS development workshops prior to the conference. Any other suggestions??]

Comments:

• “Allowed for vision to see application to various business types”
• “Broad range of topics – applicable to work and interests”
• “Good spread of topics in the papers (better than last year’s conference)”
• “Not into the agriculture side, but still found enough to be worthwhile”
• “Different perspectives, approaches and issues provided many insights”
• “Topics allowed for discussion on broad environmental issues”
• “Keep up the necessary blend of government, experts, private and public sector topics and case studies”
• “I like the coverage of low and very high level of the EMS process”
• “Covered everything from start to finish for developing and maintaining an EMS”
• “Yes – because of the variety and different perspectives of presenters and audience”
• “Provision of connectivity between topics”
• “Great blend, although I think presentations by certifying bodies (done as a workshop) would be beneficial as a topic as many people had questions regarding this”.
• “Hard issues were not avoided and efforts were made to motivate and inspire professional to tackle common issues. ‘Don’t be afraid’ is an important message I will take home”.
• “Overall, to the majority of businesses represented it would good to hear about green washing. I’d like a topic on how to use EMS principles and adapt to own circumstances eg. how small groups who don’t want certification use the process”.
• “Especially EMS/Government”
• “Generally, but had an administrative focus that bored me”
• “It would be good to include more information from certification bodies”
• “…though more farmer/primary producer based case studies would be beneficial. Possibly a facilitated workshop on say, auditors – how to fix problems of audit interpretation”.  
• “Yes in terms of ourselves and other Departments learning about how to influence/direct auditors”.

Q 3. What were two issues raised at the Forum most relevant to your work with EMS?

• Branding of EMS/market chain opportunities (2)
• Pros and cons of integration of OH&S, EMS (2)
• Evaluation of the system – is it working, adding value, providing benefits (1)
• Aspects and impacts & need for registers (4)
• Detail required in risk assessment (1)
• EMS and climate change/GHG (4)
• Systems simplification and documentation issues (4)
• Public agency, non-Govt environmental and sustainability reporting (4)
• EMS models for primary production (1)
• Using EMS in organisations and businesses – issues raised included: implementation, maintaining momentum, increasing commitment and uptake, not stopping at certification, gaining management support/commitment, refining approaches to increase uptake (13)
• Linking environmental performance standards and EMS – not the same thing; perception that EMS = environmental performance (2)
• Creating public/private partnerships and how these link into Federal initiatives (1)
• Use of consultants in developing EMS (1)
• Perspectives presented by Matthias (1) and project Acorn (1)
• The Best Farms structure (1)
• Using EMS as PR (ocean industries) and green washing (2)
• Difficulty in applying EMS to very small organisations “M. Jeffery most relevant here – their EMS came from the ground-up, from staff; they believe in it which will come out in their production presentation to the public” (1).
• Learning that help and assistance is available (1)
• Certification is not a panacea for environmental management (1).
• Gaining environmental improvement over time (2)
• Evidence mounting against ‘lesser’ systems (1)
• Using good tools (1)

Q.4 Was your thinking about EMS challenged in any way? If so, how?

Yes 21/28    No 4/28    No response 3/28

• “I have little EMS experience, so it was very informative”
• Backcasting (2)
• Non-government environmental reporting
• Existing public/private partnerships and how to expand these
• Future EMS directions and supporting systems
• Simplification of EMS
• Links between EMS and environmental performance
• Potential impact if branding
• EMS, OH&S and QA integration
• Tangible and measurable performance indicators
• “All hesitancy about persisting overcome”
• Regionally-based EMSs
• Risk assessment methodology and use of aspects impacts register (focus on negative aspects)
• “Realising that the system does not have to be as cumbersome as it is made out to be”
• “Aim higher for more rigorous targets”
• “EMS relationships to community organisations, flexibility, depth of EMS and connection to other aspects of green procurement”
• “EMS is an evolutionary process – not something that sits on the shelf but rather a continuing self/environment/social/economic improvement process”
• The use and relevance of EMS to industry
• “Roger Carthew’s point  - the relevance of EMS if environmental resources are properly valued and Matthias also raised interesting points”
• “The interpretation of ISO 14001 was very interesting”.
• “Explained that the performance of the EMS is probably more important than the certification compliance”.
• Links between climate change and EMS policy

Q.5. How helpful and informative was the Ecomapping workshop? Would you prefer to have separate events?

• Great (1)
• Good (4)
• Very helpful (3)
• Very interesting (1)
• Not so relevant to my EMS at this point – have moved onto other issues (1)

Comments received:

• One hour was not long enough to do the tasks.
• Too long (2)
• Suggest having a tour of the facility first, manager explains what happens on site, and then do tasks.
• Use smaller groups to get better feedback/more interaction
• Practical – it would be good to follow up to see what use is made of the information that the group came up with.
• “I intend to use this method to improve my company’s EMS”. “This is a tool to use with client groups”. “Would like to see further development of this tool with GIS.”

Q.6 How helpful and informative were the Forum workshops? Please tell us how they could be improved.

• Very good (1)
• Good (4)
• Very helpful (3)
• Helpful (1)
• All were excellent (2)
• Great (2)
• Very informative (4)
• Helpful and informative (5)
• Would have been good to attend more (1)
• Could have been longer – maybe 2 hours each?
• Hard to decide which to go to (3)

Comments:

• Size and numbers worked well
• Those relevant to ag/beef excellent, others generally excellent but not relevant to me
• Interactive best – Aaron W’s too short for the material.
• “Aaron W too bogged down in admin detail”.
• “Interaction part of the workshops was beneficial for me. Interesting to hear others ideas, different to my own”.
• “Participatory -  great”
• “People reluctant to take part – too used to sitting and listening. Maybe try targeting issues participants face individually”.
• “More activities, perhaps.”
• Provided large scope and alternatives for EMS.
• Maybe some reps from the regions – mining and viticulture?
• In future, could have a climate change adaptation focus?

Q.7 How helpful and informative were concurrent sessions? Please tell us how they could be improved.

• Very informative (1)
• All excellent (1)
• Great (2)
• All great – wanted to go to all (2)
• Interesting (1)
• Helpful (1)
• Very helpful (4)
• Good (8)
• Very good (1)
• OK (1)
• Hard to decide which to go to (2)

Comments:

• ‘Allow time to move from one to the other”
• “Round Robin structure would also have worked well”
• “Allow questions after each presenter”
• “Added to knowledge, and broad range of subjects of interest”
• “Good level of detail provided and not too rushed”
• “Good variety”, “Sessions covered a good range of topics, especially Wednesday sessions”
• “Too many – narrow the field”
• “Topics within session seemed a little repetitive – maybe not as many case studies?”
• “Like to see more ‘how I did it’ stuff”
• “Helpful as this educated me in a practical definition of EMS and how various agencies use them”
• “Avoid ‘trade fair’ – can be handled differently”

Q.8 What themes and topics would you like to see included in the next Forum?

• Samples of policies and procedures
• Tools to use
• Do an introduction to EMS for those that don’t yet use it or know much about it. Want to know how to apply it to own individual situation (2)
• Risk assessment and prioritising – methods
• Decision making processes used
• Promotion and outreach – how to succeed at it in a range of areas.
• Continue the mix of large/small, Government and non-government, public and private EMS use.
• Examples, success stories and case studies (7)
• Carbon trading, global warming, climate change adaptation and mitigation and how this fits with EMS (4)
• Government use of EMS principles (2)
• Antarctic Divisions EMS – want to hear more about it.
• Include wider range of industry groups eg. manufacturing (3)
• Liked international perspective – want national and international perspectives on EMS use.
• Emerging national and international themes on EMS
• Streaming of agriculture and other industry sectors into different sections
• ½ day field trips to EMS certified users in various sectors
• Auditing from the auditors perspective – what makes a good or a bad system, what do they look for, etc.
• Auditing body workshops (3)
• ‘Power’ of auditors
• Lobbying/influencing techniques for creating, changing or removing regulations
• Linkage of EMS and environmental performance outcomes
• Actual and quantifiable improvements and outcomes being achieved by Australian companies using EMS
• Integration of operational targets into regional or national targets and/or indicators.
• Papers on the individual elements of EMS (eg. auditing, legal obligations, operational control) that are the most challenging when implementing an EMS.
• Integration and Business Management systems (BMS)

Q. 11. Other comments

• “Excellent conference, presenters, food and venue”
• “Well done” (2)
• “Thanks”
• “Great job”
• “Very inspiring networking. Small groups made getting to know people easy, discussions and valuable contact. Better than most conferences/seminars we go to”.
• “The Forum exceeded my expectations. It had enough punters (100 or so) which allowed for networking/communication/information moving. Not too big and not too small”.
• “Thought that there was an over-reliance on PowerPoint and presenters reading their papers. Overall too much being talked to versus discussion”.
• “Would definitely attend again”.
• “A great Forum. Well done! Revived my interest”.
• “Great job – really well organised and interesting”.