Policy Advocacy and Engagement Training Narrative Report - Abuja Nigeria 1 (Feb 2010)

8/3/2019 Policy Advocacy and Engagement Training Narrative Report - Abuja Nigeria 1 (Feb 2010)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/policy-advocacy-and-engagement-training-narrative-report-abuja-nigeria-1 1/24

WORKSHOP REPORT

FOR

Venue:

(DENIS HOTEL, WUSE 2, ABUJA. NIGERIA)

Date:

22ND – 26TH FEBRUARY 2010.

THE POLICY ENGAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY TRAINING WORKSHOP

FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS IN

NIGERIA ORGANIZED BY WACSI,

OSIWA AND LGI-OSI

Rapporteur:

WACSI



2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Policy Engagement and Advocacy Training workshop targeted 30 Civil Society Actors in Nigeria. The

workshop which was the 2nd

in the workshop series (the first was held in Ghana in December 2009)

drew 30 civil society actors in Nigeria to brainstorm on best practices to engage relevant stakeholders

in ensuring an effective policy process in Nigeria and beyond.

Four trainers and two Resource persons facilitated the 5 day workshop which started from 22nd

to 26th

February 2010 at Denis Hotel, Abuja. Nigeria. Most of the participants were actors within NGOs, CBOs,

FBOs, Women’s groups and Youth networks who are deeply involved in policy advocacy , analysis, and

engagement, and are conversant with the dynamics of West African policy and political environment

and have relevant knowledge or experience in the area of policy/applied or academic research.

The programme started on Sunday 21st February 2010 with an informal meeting of the participants

with the trainers and organizers in order to acquaint themselves as well as provide a platform for early

networking among participants.

The event was flagged off by 8.00am on Monday 22nd

February 2010 in Ihiala Hall, Denis Hotel with the

Registration of participants and Opening Ceremony.

The closing ceremony took place by 3.30pm on Friday 26th

February, 2010 and attracted partners and

policy advocates across Nigeria.

BACKGROUND:

The advent of democratic governance in the region has generated high expectations about the role and

capacity of CSOs to strengthen governance and foster democratic deepening. Nigerian Civil society

actors are actively involved in policy processes but interestingly, few of them have relevant knowledge

and expertise in policy engagement. Also, with increased democratization, reductions in conflict, and

advances in information and communication technologies, it is imperative to build the policy

influencing capacity of CSOs in Nigeria to bridge the identified gaps and prepare civil actors for

effective engagement in policy process across the country and beyond.

WORKSHOP ORGANIZERS AND PARTNERS

As part of its mandate of strengthening policy advocacy initiatives, the West Africa Civil Society

Institute (WACSI) in collaboration with the Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative of

the Open Society Institute (LGI-OSI) and the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) organized

a 5-days Training workshop in Policy Engagement and Advocacy in Abuja, Nigeria. The 5 day training

aimed to develop the capacity of civil society actors in Nigeria and help them to hold their government

accountable.



3

GOAL

The overarching goal of the workshop was to build the advocacy capacity of participants and deepen

their knowledge and skills in policy engagement/influence and advocacy, and share best strategies and

approaches for required policy influencing in all stages of policy process in West Africa. The training

also served as the final phase of the WACSI/OSIWA/LGI-OSI Training of Trainers (ToT) certificationprocess in Policy Advocacy which commenced in December 2009.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the policy engagement and advocacy trainings were to:

To enhance CSO knowledge of public policy networks and processes;

To increase CSO understanding of the policy environment in West Africa and potential entry

points;

To enhance CSOs ability to write and use evidence-based and targeted policy papers;

To build insight into the process of planning an effective policy advocacy campaign; and To provide the platform for civil society actors across the region to form advocacy networks and

build alliances.

TRAINING THEMES

The training focused on three major themes:

Understanding the context of Policy Advocacy and writing

Structuring and developing a coherent Policy paper

Developing a targeted Advocacy Planning Framework

OPENING CEREMONY: 22nd

FEBRUARY 2010

The programme started by 8.00am with registration and introduction of participants.

The Opening Speech was given by Ms. Omolara T. Balogun – the Policy Advocacy officer, WACSI,

Ghana who congratulated participants and gave a brief historical background of WACSI and the

execution of her mandate. She also gave a brief background to the conception of the policy advocacy

project and its implementation thus far.

Acting Country Director of OSIWA-Nigeria – Mr. Oladayo Olaide in his address commended WACSI for

the initiative and for the obvious gender balance demonstrated in the selected number of participant

for the training. He congratulated and enjoined participants to stay active in the training all through.

Mr. Eion Young (LGI-OSI representative and Course Director) – gave an overview of the LGI-OSI

programmes in Budapest and beyond. He said in his speech that the organization focuses mainly on

Governance Reforms and democracy through decentralization process. It also focuses on effective



4

communication of policy ideas and research to improve governance. According to Mr. Young, LGI is

currently working on an Advocacy Manual and conducts trainings in Advocacy in Eastern Europe,

former Soviet Union and Africa. In collaboration with OSIWA, it runs a Research Fellowship

programme.

Ms. Lisa Quinn (another representative and Course Director for LGI-OSI) gave insight into the

intensity of the TOT programme which will last for a period of 6 months. According to Ms. Quinn, the

programme started in October 2009 and has 10 possible trainers selected across West Africa to

participate in the ToT. She said the on-going training marked the final phase of the 6 months ToT for

the training and also serves as the certification of the trainers-candidate to be qualified as full fledged

Policy Advocacy trainers for West African Actors. Four of the ten trainer-candidate will go through the

certification opportunity in Abuja, another set of four in Monrovia and the last two in Dakar, Senegal.

She wished the participants a fun-filled and productive training.

Introduction of Trainer Candidates: The four trainers introduced themselves:

Mr. Mohammed Alhassan (Ghana), Ms. Margaret Brew-Ward (Ghana), Revd. Kaine Nwashili (Nigeria)

and Paul Nyulaku Bemshima (Nigeria).

In her Vote of Thanks, Ms. Balogun thanked the tripartite for supporting the projector in one capacity

or the other. Specifically, she expressed her appreciation to OSIWA and LGI-OSI for funding the project

since the pilot phase that held in October, 2008; the OSIWA office in Abuja, Nigeria for supporting the

preparation/logistic stages of the project; Finally she recognised the effort and assistant of Mr. Peter

Ocheikwu from OSIWA-Nigeria and also welcomed the two rapporteurs: Ms. Nkiruka Nnaemego and

Mr. Tope Soremi

NOTICE:

The participants were divided into two groups of 15 each. This report gives account of Group One

located in Ihiala hall.

Trainers: Mr. Kaine Nwashili and Mr. Alhassan Mohammed

Resource persons/Observer: Lisa Quinn and Eion Young



5

DAY ONE: 22ND

FEBRUARY 2010

Session One: The session started by 9.30am with an activity by participants who were asked to draw

the four most important things in their lives.

Climate Setting: Participants set the following ground rules

Phones on Vibration

Respect Opinions

Minimize Side Talks

Time Management

A chief whip (Mr. Joseph Izigbinini) was selected after participants agreed to adopt the Pandora Box

system to punish defaulters.

Expectations from the Workshop:

Participants were asked to write down three expectations and two fears. They shared their experiences

as a group.

Summary of participants

Expectations and fears as indicated by the participants are as follow:

Expectations:

Acquisition of new skills and techniques

Networking among participants

Gain technical expertise

Ability to write persuasive policy briefs and papers that have an impact on policy and decision

making

Sharpen policy formulation in line with existing global standards

Ability to identify issues and the right policy method of tackling same to achieve a workable

blueprint

Fears:

Sustaining the network after the workshop

Insufficient time to cover the syllabus

Content of training may not sufficiently meet the needs of some participants

Challenges in the implementation of skills acquired

How to localize the content/context to meet needs



6

Technical Session: Developing effective strategies and communication tools for policy advocacy:

Context of Advocacy Papers;

Structure of Policy papers;

Advocacy Plan using Advocacy Planning Framework (APF)

Methodology:

Practical and learning centered;

Targets needs of workshop participants;

Learning by doing approach;

Analysis of sample policy papers, research case studies and advocacy tools;

Participants’ experience in policy analysis and advocacy

Breakout Session 1: Participants were divided into groups and asked to get a moderator and a

rapporteur to discuss their previous experience of writing and/or policy-oriented reports; and the

challenges of policy advocacy and policy paper writing they face in their work.

Tea break: 10.30am - 11am

Session 2: The Session started with the Plenary Session

GROUP PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE CHALLENGES

Group 1 - Engaging the Police and Legal

System in Drafting Bills

- Ignorance of the police

Group 2 - Research Reports aimed at

influencing policy

- Lack of Capacity to write Policy Papers;

- Unwillingness to engage with Civil society actors on such

issues;

- Ignorance of issues and inaccurate information on policy

issues by Civil Society actors

Group 3 - Translate research reports into

policy briefs/writing;

- Use of policy think-tank group;

- Build capacities of audience

- Poor access to policy makers;

- Availability of Policy briefs and need for access to simpler

policy briefs;

- Disconnect between federal and state legislators;

- Lack of commitment by policy makers

Group 4 - Platform/Talking Point to

engage policy makers

- Some policy makers do not read much and are therefore

not fully grounded;

- Discontinuity in the legislative assembly



7

Activity 1: Drafting an Effective Policy Paper

Breakout Session 2: Participants were asked to discuss five basic characteristics of an Effective Policy

Paper

Group Name Contents of an Effective Policy paper

The Change Agents Must be clear to all;

makes advocacy campaigns unanimous;

provides strong links between the past and the present;

builds confidence on advocates;

builds capacity of CSOs

The Advocates Targeted to a particular issue;

Provides a workable method of addressing the identified issue;

written in simple communication methods;

be pro-active and futuristic;

designed in a way that is implementable and acceptable at all levels

The Visionaries Coherent, organized and clear message that emphasize the major issues;

takes cognizance of the context within which the policy issue is developed and a

good understanding of the target audience;

draws on in-depth research, credible/verifiable data and information;

action-oriented;

acceptable format and attractive layout (structure)

AJEE Vanguard Based on qualitative and accurate data (well research);

content must be in clear and unambiguous language (to enhance understanding

by policy makers);

content must address a specific issue (to aid proper implementation);

must be derived from broad based consultation and participation of stakeholders;

must be time sensitive to the policy development process

Activity 2: Defining Public Policy

Participants were asked to read the 6 definitions of Public Policy (see page 10 of the Workbook) and

underline words from the definitions that they think are central to explaining Public Policy.

The following words were chosen by participants:

Decisions

Cause of action



8

Do

Government

Population

Political decisions

Achieve societal goalsInterrelated decisions

Demand for change

Key perspectives from the definitions of Public Policy:

Authoritative government action

Problem-solution relationship

Addressing specific problems to achieve societal goals (i.e. outcome-oriented)

A framework that guides decision-making

A course of action or strategy (goals, decisions and means of achieving)

Political (value-driven)

The next activity commenced after lunch break

Activity 3: The session started with a Role Play by participants on ‘Policy Initi ative Transfer of

tertiary schools to private owners’. Participants were to argue for or against based on

the role. Participants agreed that the role play depicted the present crises situation in

Nigeria in terms of policy and decision making processes.

Activity 4: Participants were asked to consider the education policy network (the people who are

commonly involved in trying to influence the education issue) in their context as well as

brainstorm what they associate with the aspects of the policy network: goal/objective of

the network, types of organizations, interests/values, and means of communicating.

Group Policy

Communities/

Network

Means of

Communication

Values/

Interests

Goals/

Objectives

What network

members seeks

to achieve when

communicating

The Change

Agents

NUJ,NAWOJ, MDAs Media, Letters

and Memo, IEC

Strategy

CSOs, Media,

Traditional

Institutions

Achieve a vibrant

educational

system in Nigeria

Influence

The

Advocates

Students Union,

NANS, Faith Based

Organizations,

Town Criers, IEC

Strategy used in

local languages,

The Liberals, the

Progressives

and the

Transformation of

Educational

system

Persuade



9

Traditional Rulers,

Development

Partners

Strikes Conservatives

The

Visionaries

Women groups,

School Owners,

PTA, Banks,

Education focused

CSOs

Consultative

Fora, Town Hall

Meetings,

Advocacy Visits

and Lobbying,

Press

Conferences,

Rallies, Policy

Briefs

Capitalists,

Government

Apologists,

Reformists,

State

Governments

Influence decisions

and protect

interests, gain

visibility, induce

policy change, pre-

empt a course of

action to guide

decision making

Convince

AJEE

Vanguard

Trade Unions: NLC,

ASUU, NUT, NASU,

SAANU, National

Commission for

Polytechnics and

Colleges of

Education; Ministry

of Education,

National Assembly,

Social Media

Protests, Non-

Violent

Demonstrations,

Students, Faith

Based Groups,

Academia,

Education

Service

Providers,

Achieve set

objectives/results,

provide

information to

government as

well as engage

policy makers

Advocate

Activity 5: Purpose of the Policy Paper

Participants were asked to read the description of the purpose of the policy (page 15 of the workbook)

and underline the words that they think is most suitable or key to defining the purpose as well as

discuss their choice with their group.

Group Name Choice Key Words on the Purpose of the Policy Paper

The Change Agents Justifying, Recommendations

The Advocates act as a decision making tool, problem-solution application

The Visionaries Comprehensive and Persuasive

AJEE Vanguard Call to Action, Target Audience



10

Activity 6: Policy Papers used in the Policy Community

Participants were asked to review the differences between the two main types of policy papers (policy

briefs and policy study) and discuss with their groups.

Group Main points of difference between Policy Study and Policy Brief

The Change Agents Policy Briefs are usually not more than 10 pages

The Advocates Size

The Visionaries Policy Briefs are easier to use to engage policy makers than Policy Study

AJEE Vanguard Length of document (Policy study is sometimes very lengthy and often

disseminated widely)

DAY 2: Tuesday, 23rd

February 2010

The workshop started by 8.30am with a recap of Day 1 activities by participants.

Participants were asked to write down four new words they learnt at Day 1. They had a game within

their group to match the words with relevant meanings.

Key words: identified by participants were advocacy, persuasive, decisions.

New words: Policy Study, Policy Brief, Value Vs. Interest, Talking PointsMost Interesting words: Strikes, Policy network mapping, Advocacy Planning Framework

Activity 7: Common Structural Elements of the Policy Study

Title

Table of Contents

Abstract/Executive Summary

Introduction

Problem Description

Policy OptionsConclusion and Recommendations

Appendices

Bibliography

Endnotes



Participants were shared into four groups to look at the purpose of the element, the contents/main features of the element and

other important points. The four elements are Introduction, Problem Description, Policy Options and Conclusion/Recommendations.

References were made to the Training Guidebook.

Group Element Purpose Contents of the Element Advice

Group 1 Introduction - Defines the main content,

- gives an overview of the paper

which serves to maintain the

reader’s interests, brings out the

nature of the policy problem,

- it gives the reader a clear idea of

the direction, focus and main

ideas developed throughout the

body of the paper

- Context of the policy problem,

- definition of the problem,

- statement of interest,

- methodology and limitations

of the study,

- roadmap of the paper

- is context brief and focused on the

problem,

- communication of nature and urgency

of the problem, - clearly state purpose,

- introduction should be clear,

- introduction should be properly

organized and clearly presented

Group 2 Problem Description - To identify, define and elaborate

the nature of the problem focused

on;

- to convince the reader that the

issue in focus requires

government action,

- provide a framework for acomprehensive policy response

options

- Background of the problem,

- problems within its current

policy environment, -

organized based on Topic,

Purpose and Audience

- Argument must be coherent,

- convincing and easy to follow.

- there must be clear links between and

within all elements of your argument

Group 3 Policy Options - Outline, evaluate and compare

the possible policy alternatives;

- provide a convincing argument

for the preferred policy

alternative;

- focus on reporting a decision

made;

- Framework of analysis, -

Evaluation of policy alternatives

- A more writer driven focus;

- less prominent use of primary or

secondary sources in the argument;

- coherent construction of the elements

of the argument and paragraphing



12

- build a clear and coherent link to

the conclusions and

recommendations element of the

paper

Group 4 Conclusion and

Recommendations

- To crystallize/synthesize major

findings;

- to outline the course of action

towards problem-solving;

- to leave a lasting impression on

the target audience;

- to present a clear overview of the

policy study

- Synthesis of the major findings;

- a clear set of policy

recommendations;

- practical steps needed for

implementation;

- a final/concluding remarks

- Clarity,

- Practicability,

- Persuasiveness,

- logicality,

- comprehensive,

- brevity/conciseness

The Problem tree was used to explain the relationship between the four elements and the timeline (Past, present and future).

Activity 8: Policy Papers and Academic Papers

Participants were asked to discuss the differences between policy papers and traditional academic papers.

Groups Academic Papers Policy Papers Purpose Outcome

Group 1 Evidence Based

Objectivity

Issue driven Objectivity To provide general recommendation;

call to a decisive action

Value Driven


Objectivity

Evidence Based Subjectivity Influence policy changes for common

good

Advocate and lobby


Objectivity

Specific policy designed to

convince policy makers

Deepen understanding of the issue in

focus and provide policy options

Provoke public debate about the

issue and serve as reference

points for policy makers,


Objectivity

Specific Policy Contribute to policy & decision making

and advanced the course of the interest

group

Policy Change



The session started with an Energizer where participants were asked to choose partners. A partner

dictates some sentences while the other writes down. The couple with the right words won the game.

Activity 3: Contextual factors framing any policy project

Participants were asked to match the 6 steps in the policy-making process (on page 12 of theWorkbook) with their appropriate definition and put the 6 steps in the policy-making process in the

appropriate order on the diagram (page 13 of the Workbook).

Participants were also asked to work with their partners to answer the following questions:

- Why do you think this model of the policy-making process is called the ‘policy cycle’?

- Does the policy cycle model reflect the approach to policymaking in your country?

- Describe the development of a current policy issue using the steps of the policy cycle

- Which stages of the policy cycle do policy paper writers usually target?

Groups Policy Cycle Policy Cycle

Model

Development of a

current Policy issue

Stages targeted by

Policy Paper writers

Group 1 There is no end point to the

cycle because it’s a revolving

process

Yes, to an extent. Stages 4 - 6 Stage 4

Group 2 Has to be religiously

followed

Yes Stages 1 - 4 Stage 1 - 3

Group 3 It is a complete process;each stage informs the

previous and next stages

Yes Stages 1 – 3 Stage 3

Group 4 It’s a logical, inter -related

cycle

Yes Stages 1 – 4 Stage 1 -6

‘The Kidneys’ and the Policy Window proposed by Kingdom were used to explain the stages of the

policy cycle targeted by policy paper writers.



14

DAY 3: WEDNESDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY 2010

The workshop started with a ‘warmer’- The participants were asked to write down and share 2 truths

and 1 lie about themselves.

Participants were made to sit in groups according to the colours of paper-sticks given for the exercise.

The groups were divided based on the different part of a policy study they will be examining. These

includes: Problem Group (Yellow), Options Group (Pink), and Conclusions & Recommendations Group

(Orange). Participants were later shared into four groups to share lessons learnt.

Recap of Day 2 activities:

Policy cycle is not an end in itself; it is ongoing

Policy cycle is a complete cycle, one stage leads to another

Policy window or policy moment involves the problem description, solutions and political will

Activity 9: Common structural elements of a Policy Study and Policy Brief

Participants were asked to get some arguments/data on policy study and policy brief using the

Lithuania Policy paper provided as ‘Sample’

Political Economy

Towards results based governance

Reformation

Performance management

Practicable/tangible policies

Plenary Session:

The following observations were made by participants from the sample papers on Lithuania and

Guinea given to them.

- The conclusions and recommendations of the policy study are well laid out unlike the policy brief;

- Problems addressed in the policy brief are comprehensive but not well captured (font-size usage)

- Policy brief was a bit detailed and more direct (no preamble) when compared with the Policy study.

- Policy Study gave two sides of the problem and is more of an academic exercise;

- Policy study did not make any strong call for action;

- Policy study was more convincing and the arguments were technically advanced with the use of

graphs

- Policy brief was analytical and had an urgent call for action

- Policy brief appeared more like a flag sheet; its target audience is

- Policy study is restrictive and appeared like an academic exercise trying to inform a decision



15

- Policy brief is more appealing than the policy study because the former has a call for action while

the latter is more of an academic exercise

- Policy study is proactive while policy brief is reactive

- Policy study focuses more on Stages 1 -4 (Problem Definition to Policy Design)

-

Policy Brief covers Stages 1 – 3

Participants were also exposed to contextual factors framing any policy project.

Ways of disseminating Policy Study and Brief:

Newsletters,

Post,

Website,

Print Media,

Fact Sheets,

Consultative fora,

Press Conferences,

Seminars/workshops

Target Audience of Policy Study/Policy Brief:

ECOWAS,

AU,

UN,

Military Junta,

CSOs,

Opinion Leaders,

Activists,

Media,

Foreign Embassies,

Legislators

DAY 4: 25TH

FEBRUARY 2010

The day’s activities started with a recap. Participants were asked to write down three words that are

interesting to them. They had a competition to determine their level of IQ and retention of things they

have been taught from the first day of the training till date.

Activity 10: Defining Advocacy: Concepts, actors and roles

Participants were asked to use the spidergram to brainstorm words they associate with the term

‘advocacy’. The following words were identified by participants: Plead, campaign, argue, influence,

change, persuade, lobby, position, convince, propose, support, action, issue, recommend, legislate,

propagate, canvass, educate, demonstrate, communicate, policy, threaten, disobey, defend, aid,

dissuade, conscientize, mobilize, etc.

Participants were exposed to the key elements of advocacy and developing effective advocacy

strategies and communication tools for policy action.



16

Participants were paired to share one sentence definition of advocacy in a policy context using three

scenarios stated on page 29 of the Workbook. They were also asked to describe the advocacy activities

of three Organizations on page 29 of the Workbook.

Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa: This is a Think Tank GroupDissemination

Advising

Capacity Building

Research/Evidence-based work

Think Tank work

International Crises Group: This is a Lobbyist Group

Activism

Dissemination

Negotiation

Lobbying

Mediation

Campaign

Coalition for Domestic Violence Legislative in Ghana (DV Coalition): This is the Service Delivery &

Activist Group:

Activism

Advising

Lobbying

Campaigning

Dissemination

Mobilizing

Service Delivery

Consultation

Participants were asked to put the three organizations on the graph of co-operation vs evidence on the

handout.

Activity 11: Introduction to the Advocacy Planning Framework (APF)

Participants were asked to bring out three main points from their section of the reading “Introduction

to the Advocacy Planning Framework” and give a short presentation to the group on their assigned

element of the Advocacy Planning Framework.



17

Game:

Participants were asked to write down and share with their group 3 adjectives that start with their

names and match with their personality

Plenary Session:Finding the most suitable way into the process using the Advocacy Planning Framework:

Group 1: The Process

- The process focuses on the following points:

- Mobilize advocates for mapping out work around planned policy advocacy efforts

- Provide series of guiding questions for the mapping out work (i.e. demand openings)

- Guide advocates to the most suitable route and timing into the process

Group 2: The Message

- The essence of the message is to find the right focus and the right means of communication to

persuade the target audience. The message must be:

- Understandable: Written in simple language, have new & interesting things, be short and direct

- Attractive: in Format and Packaging

- Convincing: to the Target audience, mode of presentation using pictorials, graphics, translations

Group 3: The Messenger

- The messenger is as important as the message. He is the face of the messenger, he is the soul of

the message;

- The messenger could be a person, organization or a coalition;

- The messenger must have enough credibility, power, resources, clout to carry people along,

support within his coalition. He must be legitimate for the message to be taken serious.

Group 4: Advocacy Planning Framework

- The group focused on the following:

- Leverage: is the entry point to consider the main issues. The following processes are involved to

bring alternatives and choose the best solutions:

- The lever: this is where the messenger is and where all relevant stakeholders are brought

together to discuss strategies to move the process forward (resource mobilization). These are

the strategies to help move the process ahead.

- The Message: This involves what is being communicated and how to communicate it .e.g.

through conferences, policy briefs, newsletters, etc

Data gathering applies to all the processes to show enough evidence for choosing the type of solution.

Also, evaluation has to be conducted to track and measure progress.

Participants were asked to read pages 45 – 49 of the Workshop on the APF.



18

Activity 13: Constructing a persuasive message for your target audience

Participants were asked to choose the areas to prioritize in constructing a persuasive message for a

particular target audience and come up with four options from the 12 options on page 41 of the

Workbook.

Group 1:

Possibility of getting funding from ECOWAS, AU and the UN to strengthen the country’s military

May get advance military training and up-date weapons for your military

Your country may gain recognition and respect from the African Union and United Nations for

its direct participation

Has greater chances to reduce human deaths and the destruction of properties in the event

that civil conflict broke in any ECOWAS member state

Group 2:



Your country may gain recognition and respect from the African Union and United Nations for

its direct participation

Will help in making decisions about how to develop security services at the national level

Could allow your military to work closely with relatively advanced, prestigious and experienced

militaries like the Nigerian, Ghanaian and Senegalese

The Correct Options:

Participants were given the following options as the four correct options:



Your country may gain recognition and respect from AU, Military and Police

Could allow your military to work closely with relatively advanced, prestigious and experienced

militaries like the Nigerian, Ghanaian and Senegalese.

Exercise: Participants were asked to say constructing persuasive advocacy messages and make notes

about their conclusions.

They were taught the 7 processes for constructing effective advocacy messages

1. Have a clear objective

2. Know the process

3. Know your audience

4. Present the tip of the iceberg



19

5. Keep it simple, at the beginning, questions will come after

6. Get them into the research

7. Overall – message must be consumable, plausible and striking

DAY 5: 26TH

FEBRUARY 2010

The day’s activities started with a game where participants were made to say the names of other

participants and facilitators.

Resource 1: Guidelines for your advocacy plan

Participants were asked to read pages 45 – 49 and do the practical exercise on page 50.

1. Impact of the Training.

The training was contagious

Improved skills and knowledge in policy process

New lessons and experience learning about policy briefs

New words were learnt

New approach and strategy involved in policy process

More knowledge acquisition

How do you intend to use materials from the training?

- As a resource material to design and develop policy briefs and policy study

- As a reference material for individual and group use

- As a Step-down Training Guide

- Materials for Policy experts and Consultants

- As a Real Companion to gain more understand and training manual

2. Follow-Up Activities:

Policy writing and advocacy by participants at organizational level

feedback to workshop organizers on how to make the training practicable in our

organizations

Effective Network mechanism among participants, organizers and trainers. E.g. Listserve

Follow up trainings and networking meetings by organizers for participants

Partnership building among participants to share ideas and projects, advocate and lobby

policy makers



20

Prompting questions by organizers to participants to clarify issues and bridge

communication gaps

Draw up Policy Case study on Nigeria

3.

Suggest what can be added to the training manualTraining on Policy Analysis should be conducted for Policy Advocates to empower them

Icebreakers and Energizers

4. What is your experience in using the APF as a planning tool

A good guideline for aggregating points

Provided a platform to know various areas to focus on

Putting ‘the message’ together was a bit tasking for some participants especially in terms of

convincing others

The APF simplified and made the process clearer

It is thought-provoking

It allows a lot of people to contribute their ideas based on their understanding of issues

5. Were the expectations meant?

Most of the expectations were met. Skills and techniques were enhanced

6. Were Participants Fears addressed?

Most challenges and fears expressed by participants were addressed by the training.

Contents of syllabus were covered

Closing Event:

The closing event was facilitated by the Policy Advocacy officer- Ms. Balogun. Having expressed her

gratitude for the commitment and dedication demonstrated by all participants, trainers, resources

persons, rappouteurs present all through the training period. She specially thanked Mr. Oladayo Olaide

(Acting Director, OSIWA-Nigeria) for his availability to close the 5 days workshop. She appreciated the

technical support provided by the LGI resources persons/Course Director – Ms. Quinn and Mr. Young

for the trainers and participants, particularly in giving advance clarification on few sessions in the

training.

Ms. Balogun, commenced the review of the 5days workshop by calling on the participants to give their

opinion on the entire workshop – from contents to context, materials, trainers, resources persons,

partners and fellow participants. She requested that participant also includes in their submission

critical comment on areas where they thought the workshop package should have been better.



21

General Comments:

Participants submitted that the Trainers were adequate and well prepared for the training; they used

good communication skills and teaching method to ensure that participants learn in a relaxed manner.

They commended the experiential learning method used as being very strategic and just right for the

group of participant present – mostly adult learning method. Other comments on the trainer arehighlighted below;

Trainers were outstanding; humble and patient with participants;

Trainers adopted excellent training methodology; and

Posses good contextual knowledge of the Nigeria political and policy environment

The types of Energizers and group works adopted during the training were also very innovative and

inspiring according to the participants from the two groups (Group A and B); Training Materials

provided were very comprehensive, easy to understand, thought-provoking and appealing to senses.

The participant appreciated the conscious effort of gender equity on the part of the partners,

especially WACSI who was responsible for the shortlisted participants. They commended the balanced-

ratio in Gender representation; Good and complete welfare package including feeding,

accommodation and training venue; and respect for time management.

Critical Comments:

Participants emphasized the need to respect cultural/religious values of participants especially

with regards to faith based issues and institutions.

According to Mr. Joseph Izigbine, there is need to have more localized case studies in the

manual;

The need to foster relationship and interaction between groups was emphasized. Mr. Tony

Ojukwu offered;

Mr. Uso Excellence submitted that trainers need to adopt group management skills for effective

participation of every member in a group. He further reiterated the need to introduce

Tourist/Pleasure trips and Relaxation activities that will ease the intensity of the training; and

Ms. Aisha appreciated the trainers, organizers especially staff of WACSI and the rapporteurs,

she however enjoined the organizers to always include in a space for opening/closing prayers

before and after workshops.

Ms. Balogun opened the floor for participants to propose best follow-up mechanisms, which partners

could adopt to establish a networking among the different parties present at the workshop. She also

requested the participants to highlight areas in which they might require further assistance from the

workshop partners i.e. WACSI, OSIWA and or LGI-OSI. In this regards, participants offered the following

suggestions:



22

Recommendations:

Overall, participants commended the organizers for a great workshop; they however made some

recommendations to target at improving the implementation of similar workshops in future. Other

recommendations include:

-

It was recommended that the training be scared-up for participants to enhance competence inpolicy strategy/paper writing (Ms. Balogun assured participants that WACSI is mandated to

building the individual capacity of civil society actors in order to strengthen their organizations)

- Organisers, especially WACSI requested to maintain contacts with and among participants to

influence policy decisions making processes in Nigeria.

- Participant agreed that future training should include a practical session where participant can

have Orientation/tour to the National Assembly, and possibly witness a decision making process

- It is adviced that, due to the centrality of communication to Policy engagement, advocacy and

campaign/lobbying, the training should include amongst other session, a “Core Communication

Skills” session that will give detail expertise strategies needed for effective policy analysis and

influencing. The training handbook should also integrate a comprehensive communication

module into it before final publishing.

- The Soft copies of the Training materials was advised to be made available to the participants

prior to the training (this was rejected by the two partners WACSI and LGI-OSI present, on the

ground that, the manual are still going through stages of review process and will surely be

published and disseminate). This will help to instill quality control measure and minimize the

number of versions to exit.

Trainers’ Experience:

At the end of the 5days training workshop, the trainers were given opportunity to make brief

comments about the training. The following comments were made:

- Learnt a lot from participants and enjoyed the workshop

- Participants were resourceful

- Participants are deep in knowledge and enthusiastic

- Participants were easy to work with

- Participants asked good questions and gave constructive feedback to trainers

- Participants were very cooperative



23

Lisa & Eion:

The representative of LGI also gave a brief comment about their impression of the 5day training. They

commended

- the four trainers for excellent training method

-

WACSI, OSIWA and all participants for their support and active participation

Mr. Dayo Oladayo Olaide, Acting Director, OSIWA-Nigeria:

The Acting Director of OSIWA-Nigeria graced the closing ceremony with his presence. According to

him, Mr. Olaide commended the trainers, the partners (especially WACSI) for playing the most critical

of roles in the implementation of the project. He went further to congratulate the participants for their

commitment and dedication demonstrated through the 5days training. He enjoined participants to

step the training through feedback and follow-up mechanisms. In his final words, Mr. Olaide

encouraged participants to put into practice the skills and knowledge acquired into their daily activities

and actively participates in the online forum created and managed by WACSI.

Ms. Omolara Balogun, Policy Advocacy Officer, WACSI:

Ms. Balogun rounded up the closing remarks, first by commending the former Executive Director of

WACSI – Ms. Thelma Ekiyor for conceiving and pushing for the initiative behind the Policy Advocacy

Project. Specifically, she commended on her exhibiting great zeal which resulted at the implementation

of this project. She thanked the Executive Director of OSIWA-regional based in Dakar, Dr. Nana Tanko

for supporting project, both financially and morally. She expressed her appreciation to the

management and staff of OSIWA’s country office in Nigeria, especially, her Acting-Country Director,

and specially, Mr. Peter Ocheikwu, for mapping out general logistics prior to the commencement of the

training.

Ms. Balogun appreciated LGI-OSI for co-financing the project with OSIWA. In her words, she specially

thanked Eoin and Lisa for supporting the project, all through the implementation stages, particularly

for acclimatizing to the West African weather during their stay. She encouraged the trainers by

appreciating the high level of commitment demonstrated throughout the six month ToT process.

Ms. Balogun expressed her gratitude to the entire staff and management of WACSI. She thanked the

interim-executive Director, Dr. Esi Sutherland Addy for her support and leadership direction through

the leadership gap in the organisation. She thanks all management and staff, especially Mr. Yaya

Ramde for his support. Finally, she thanked the participants and rapporteurs for their absolute

commitment.



Follow-Up strategy and Networking:

The Policy Advocacy officer stated the importance of following up with the participants, trainers and all

partners to the project. She mentioned that WACSI as the implementing partner of the tripartite has

put together a communication link, through which information will be disseminated; avenue to

continue sharing idea and experiences on the Nigerian political environment and policy processes;sharing policy , studies and briefs. In this regard, WACSI created yahoo group to ensure this

relationship building among participants;

Group name: [email protected]

Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/policyadvocacy_westafrica

Group email: [email protected]

- Make conscious effort to establish Network with organization and co-participants

- Frequently contact trainers and facilitators for guidance

Participants Certification Process:

Ms. Omolara Balogun apologized to participants for the inability to provide suitable certificates due to

some unexpected constraints. She however promised that the certificates will be ready in few days and

will be present at the OSIWA-Nigeria country office for participants to collect. Meanwhile the available

certificates were the LGI representatives, Mr. Young and Ms. Quinn while the last set was presented by

Mr. Olaide, OSIWA-Nigeria, acting country director.

Vote of Thanks:

In her remarks, Ms. Omolara congratulated participants. She also enjoined them to submit their

evaluation forms.

Observations:

The workshop was very successful; the training manuals were comprehensive and addressed key areas

for intervention. In Nigeria, due to current political instability and conflict situations, it is highly

recommended that next phase of the training in Nigeria should target policy advocates from conflict

prone areas such as Niger Delta region, Plateau State, Bauchi. Also, the workshop should also be

designed such that it will provide a platform for both Policy makers and policy advocates to meet and

discuss. This will help facilitate policy engagement as well as provide partnership opportunities for

policy makers and advocates to work towards an effective policy system in Nigeria. There is also need

to do more Training of Trainers for Nigerian Policy advocates so they can use their experience and

background knowledge about Nigeria to effectively deliver the training across Nigeria.

mailto:[email protected]


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/policyadvocacy_westafrica







Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wacsi
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Policy Advocacy and Engagement Training Narrative Report - Abuja Nigeria 1 (Feb 2010)

Documents