Policy Advocacy and Engagement Training Narrative Report - Abuja Nigeria 2 (Feb 2010)

8/3/2019 Policy Advocacy and Engagement Training Narrative Report - Abuja Nigeria 2 (Feb 2010)

1/32

A

RAPPORTEUR REPORT

ON

POLICY ENGAGEMENT & ADVOCACY TRAINING

WORKSHOP FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS INNIGERIA

ORGANISED BY

WEST AFRICA CIVIL SOCIETY INSTITUTION(WACSI), OPEN SOCIETY INITIATIVE FOR WEST

AFRICA (OSIWA) AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT &

PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM INITIATIVE (LGI)

February 22-26, 2010

ABUJA, NIGERIA


2/32

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 3

DAY ONE ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

OPENING CEREMONY ............................................................................................................................... 5

SESSION ONE ............................................................................................................................................ 7

SESSION TWO ........................................................................................................................................... 9

DAY TWO ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

SESSION ONE .......................................................................................................................................... 12

SESSION TWO ......................................................................................................................................... 13

DAY THREE .................................................................................................................................................. 16

SESSION ONE ........................................................................................................................................... 17

SESSION TWO .......................................................................................................................................... 18

DAY FOUR .................................................................................................................................................... 19

SESSION ONE ........................................................................................................................................... 20

SESSION TWO ......................................................................................................................................... 21

SESSION THREE ....................................................................................................................................... 23

HOW TO CONSTRUCT A PERSUASIVE MESSAGE ................................................................................... 23

DAY FIVE ...................................................................................................................................................... 25

SESSION ONE ........................................................................................................................................... 26

CLOSING CEREMONY.............................................................................................................................. 28

FURTHER COMMUNICATION .................................................................................................................. 29

APPENDIX: PROFILE OF WORKSHOP ORGANISERS ................................................................................. 31


3/32

INTRODUCTION

With focus on strengthening Policy Advocacy Initiatives in West Africa, the West Africa Civil

Society Institute (WASCI) organized a Policy Engagement & Advocacy Training workshop that

will build capacity and enhancing policy advocacy practices amongst civil society actors in the

sub-region.

This was done in collaboration with the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) and the

Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI-OSI).

Shortlisted Participants for the Training workshop went through a vigorous selection process

aimed at choosing the right group of persons with basic understanding of policy advocacy and

the role of civil society in advancing the policy formulation process within the society and West

Africa in particular.

Managed by WACSI, the workshops were organized to further share best practices and

approaches for influencing policy throughout its various stages of formulation, implementation

and/or review in West Africa.

These training workshops were the final phase of the Train-the-Trainers (ToT) certification

process in Policy Advocacy which kicked off December 2009.

The Abuja leg of the Training workshop was the first in the final Phase of the ToT workshop

series with the scheduled participation of about one hundred (100) civil society practitioners

spread across West Africa.

A total of thirty (30) participants drawn from NGOs, CBOs, FBOs, Womens groups and Youth

Networks were present at the five (5) day event held February 22-26, 2010. The venue of the

workshop was Dennis Hotel, Wuse 2, Abuja.

This rapporteur report details the daily proceedings as it ensued over the course of the

workshop at the Ihialia Hall section of the event.


4/32

DAY ONE

February 22, 2010


5/32

OPENING CEREMONY

The first day of the workshop opened with the Lara Balogun (WACSI) welcoming everybody

with brief remarks. She also introduced other persons seated on the high table who were the

following;

I. Mr. Oladayo Olaide (OSIWA)II. Ms. Lisa Quinn (LGI/OSI)

III. Mr. Eoin Young (LGI/OSI)In his opening remarks, Mr. Oladayo Olaide, acting director of OSIWA (Open Society Initiative

for West Africa, Nigeria) welcomed and congratulated the participants on being selected for the

training workshop. Mr. Olajide emphasized the fact that the workshop model was quite

interactive, tasking as it sought to ensure participants used knowledge gained thereafter in

their work. This, he noted was responsible for the structure and style of the workshop. This will

maximise the impact and consolidate on the gains of the Training workshop.

Mr. Eoin Young of the Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative/ Open society

Initiative-(LGI/OSI) then took the floor and gave a detailed analysis of the various activities of

his organization and its journey over the years working in Eastern Europe to promoted

democratic and effective governance and public administration by advancing policy analysis as

a tool decision making in public affairs

Ms. Lisa Quinn also of (LGI/OSI) further elaborated on the activities of the organization and thetremendous progress made so far via the Train-the-Trainer (ToT) programme. She also briefly

spoke of the ten (10) selected trainers drawn from the West African Sub-region.

Four of these ten trainers facilitated the Abuja Training Workshop. They are

Mr. Alhassan Mohammed Mr. Paul Bemshima Nyulaku Mr. Kaine Nwashili Ms. Margaret Brew-Ward

Participants were split into two groups with our designated group assigned to Ihiala Hall. Our

Two trainers were Mr. Paul Bemshima and Ms. Margaret Brew-Ward.

The training commenced with the first activity conducted by Ms. Margaret (trainer). She

encouraged all participants to get to interact with different people across the room as a group

familiarization exercise. Afterwards, participants shared experiences and knowledge about

persons they met and new insight they had gained from the exercise. The activity was followed


6/32

by the establishment of ground rules that will guide us throughout the training workshop. The

rules were democratically made and conceded with sanctions against anyone who flaws anyone

of them.

The participants were then divided into 3 teams to itemize their expectations from the training

workshop and afterwards, share such with the general group. These expectations are capturedbelow:

WORKSHOP EXPECTATIONS OF PARTICIPANTS AT THE WACSI POLICY ADVOCACY

TRAINING WORKSHOP

GROUP 1

Underlying basis for policy engagement Best Practices: Are there examples of policy makers who have made

it and how participants can benefit from their experiences

Due to the peculiar terrain in Nigeria, how can policy makers beengaged

GROUP 2

Basic understanding of policy engagement How to write a policy paper How to build the capacity of policy makers How to make a 5-day training not boring

Group 3

How do participants conduct similar trainings for others Enhanced skills in communication to encourage participation Policy making as it relates to conflict management

Based on these participants expectations, the following points were agreed with respect to

goal, outlines and methodology of the workshop.

Workshop Goal

To equip participants with strategy and insight on how to carry outadvocacy campaigns and how to use the skills and resources to

engage the processes to achieve the desired policy objectives

Outline

Context of policy advocacy and writing

Structuring and developing a coherent policy paper Developing a targeted advocacy plan using the advocacy planning

framework

Methodology Will be practical and learning centered Learning by doing approach Participants experience in policy advocacy


7/32

Trainers: Mr. Paul Bemshima Nyulaku

Ms. Margaret Brew-Ward

SESSION ONE

Participants were requested to go through the training manual during their leisure and if theyhad any questions they could raise it during the workshop. They were also encouraged to use

the manual to train other colleagues in their various organizations afterwards.

Discussing their experiences in policy writing and advocacy, the following common points were

found: -

- Alliance building: One of the participants recounted to the group his experienceadvocating the establishment of a youth committee in the National Assembly. This

campaign was successful as a Committee on Youth Issues was established in the House

of Representatives and a Committee on Women and Youth Issues was established in theSenate. He was also involved in advocating the passage of the child rights act in the

National Assembly.

He highlighted the need to ensure all stakeholders are carried along as while advocating

for the Child Rights bill, it was essential to get support from both Muslims and Christians

thereby securing widespread support without any religious barriers. The act was passed

in 2003.

- Identification of stakeholders: It was established here that an understanding of thecontext of a policy position been sought is necessary and aids the identification of stake

holders.

- Based on participants experiences, some of the Challenges faced:

Involvement of policy makers in the process of governance: One major problemencountered was getting policy makers to be aware of their role in governance and

building relationships between stakeholders.

- Stereotyped notions: This involved managing certain perceptions and at times beliefalready existing.

- Fighting against unpopular themes: A particular issue may not be in the agenda ofpolicy makers.

- Religion- Presentation: It is critical to present policy issues in ways appealing to policy makers- Development of communication skills- Capacity to develop and manage human and financial resources: the need for

resources to get issues through to the policy makers. Bureaucratic processes take too

long time.


8/32

- Gender: People tend to pose resistance because a particular gender is involved.- Timing: This is crucial to determining the failure or success of programmes.- Mistrust between government and CSOs- Acquisition and use of data to support their issues: This most often results in the failure

of programmes as there is no evidence to support their cause.

- Talk down approach.The training progressed into the second exercise where participants were divided into 3

groups and were given the responsibility to name their groups and come up with what they

considered to be five (5) most important characteristics of an effective advocacy paper.

CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY PAPER

Group No Group Name 5 characteristics of an Effective Advocacy Paper

Group 1 MOLZI GROUP Have research background Clear objectives Short and straight to the point Capture the interest of policy makers Demand a specific line of action

Group 2 CHANGE-MAKERS Background statement of the problem Need driven and solution based Contain all relevant data Must be clear, precise and easy to understand Should be targeted at specific policy makers

Group 3 ABLE GROUP Identification the issue Identification of the target group Addressing the issues Strategy or methodology of advocacy Recommendations/conclusion


9/32

SESSION TWO

The second session began with a warm-up exercise, where specifically participants weresaddled with a running dictation game. This was to shake off some lethargy and quickly get

everyone back in learning mood. In this session the following were looked into:

Public policy writing: These contextual factors were identified for framing any policy project.a- Perspective/Views

Participants were asked to carry out activity two on page ten (10) in the training manual.

It was stated that the definition in this activity were selected because they possess

certain principles and different opinions of public policy. Members went through the

definitions and identified key words central to policy making. The following themes

were found to be key perspectives from the definitions:

1- Authoritative government action2- Problem/solution relationship3- Addressing specific problems to achieve ( Outcome oriented)4- Change5- Process/ interaction between stakeholders6- Framework that guides decisions7- A course of action or strategy ( goals, decision and means of achieving)8- Political (Value driven)9- Decision making based in interaction amongst stakeholders

b- People: Policy networks. Discussions focused on how interactions shape public policy.c- Process: UnderstandingPolicy making processes

ROLE PLAY:

This exercise involved Role cards on the privatization of education in African countries being

given to participants for them to act out their interpretation . In the course of this, participants

saw the processes involved both in policy making & policy channeling and also identified

patience as key in achieving the desired objective.

It was further stated that different views and multiple interactions most often change the

pattern/ dynamics of policy making as there are not clear cut ways of achieving it. Furthermore

it seemed the longer a policy advocacy process gets, the messier things became hence it iscritical to manage such situations correctly.


10/32

Participants also made note of the fact that in real life settings, direct access to the main policy

makers is almost never at play especially in the Nigerian context as the policy making process is

greatly aided by ones ability to network amongst different stakeholders.

The next activity was for the participants to identify the following components of an effective

policy advocacy process:COMPONENTS OF AN EFFECTIVE POLICY ADVOCACY PROCESS

Types of people/

organizations

- Trade unions- Traditional ruler- NGOs- Governments official- Student Union- The Press- Ministry of Education and Finance- Politicians

Means of

Communication

- Radio talks- Media- Letters- Advocacy groups- Policy papers- Industrial actions- Campaigns/Rallies- Meetings- Seminars and workshops- Communiqu/ position papers- Press conferences

Values and Interest - Profit makingOver-all perspective of

the network

- A policy paper should be persuasive- Must justify policy action- Must Call to action- Must be a Decision making tool- Should address a target audience.

A policy paper must

show the following

- The problem- The solution- The application

*it is essential that facts and figures-statistics are presented in our advocacy

paper.

END OF DAY ONE


11/32

DAY TWO

February 23, 2010


12/32



SESSION ONE

The workshop opened with a game focused on reminding participants on knowledge and

learning gained from the previous day. The following were identified:

Interaction Evidence based Policy making Contextual issues Policy Public policy, policy advocacy Policy paper Problem- solution

FRAMEWORK OF A POLICY PAPER

A policy paper is not a research paper/consultancy report/programme implementation plans.

A policy maker was defined as a person responsible for making a change happen and this does

not necessarily mean the Government as a policy may be targeted at expert groups.

A policy paper was differentiated from a policy brief as follows:

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A POLICY PAPER & A POLICY BRIEF

AREA OF

DIFFERENCE

POLICY STUDY POLICY BRIEF

Audience Targets other policy specialists Targets decision makers and a broad

but knowledgeable audience

Focus Issues driven: Broad recommendation

and analysis of policy issues

Policy message designed to convince

key stakeholders

Context of use Dissemination and debate on results of

policy research inform the policy brief

Used for advocacy and lobbying

purposes

Methodology Can include much primary record Includes only key findings from

primary research

Ideas/Language use Can be quite discipline specific/technical Must be clear and simple

Length Up to 260 pages Between 4 and 10 pages


13/32

Participants discussed among themselves the above stated differences. At the end of the

exercise, it was sought to know if was necessary to carry out a primary research before bringing

out a policy brief. In response, it was stated that a policy brief is not a summary of a study. A

policy study is technical as well as attention grabbing.

It was also sought to know if it is important to produce a policy study before a brief. This was

stated not to be necessary as the need for a brief could be urgent as there might be an urgent

situation that must be dealt with and no time to conduct a study. Also a person may already be

knowledgeable in a particular area and as such will not need to carry out a research first before

producing a brief. It was however stated that because a research was not conducted, the brief

may be lacking in certain areas.

A policy brief was however identified as a call to action and the context of use is important in

determining the type of policy paper to be produced.

SESSION TWO

COMMON STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE POLICY STUDY

1. Title2. Table of content3. Abstract/Executive Summary4. Introduction5. Problem description6. Policy options7. Appendices8. Bibliography9. Endnotes

Participants were divided into groups and given different elements of a policy paper to study &

discuss with the entire group. They were asked to identify the purpose of the element in thepaper, its main feature, its organizational structure and factors to consider when writing that

element

GROUP 1- PROBLEM DESCRIPTION (PAST AND PRESENT)

Purpose of the element:

Identifies, defines and elaborates the nature of the problem The need to convince the reader that the issue in focus requires government action


14/32

Focus in outlining the problem within its environmentWhat is included?

Background of the problem Problem within its current policy environment Organizing your problem description

Other points/advice

Coherence; make clear links Arguments must consist of claims, support and warrant (implementation) Use of paragraphs effectively Basic arguments on wide variety of sources into your argument (use of sources) Make reference to tables and figures

GROUP 2 - POLICY OPTIONS (FUTURE)

Purpose of the element

It presents an argument for the preferred policy alternative based on the evaluation ofall possible alternatives

What is included?

Framework of analysis Evaluation of policy alternatives

Other points/advice

Less prominent use of primary and secondary sources Must be coherent and adequately divided into paragraphs Must reflect the expertise and creativity through option evaluation

GROUP 3 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose of the element:

Concise synthesis of major findings Set of policy options Concluding remarks

What is included?

Layout and format of the recommendation Proposed solutions in separate measures


15/32

Other points/Advice

Structure and content of the element Effectiveness of both samples as decision making tools

SESSION THREE

THE BASICS OF POLICY ARGUMENTATION (THE POLICY LOGIC)

BASICS OF POLICY LOGIC

ELEMENT OF THE POLICY

STUDY

MOVEMENT IN ARGUMENT QUESTION

Problem description Problem Why act?

Policy option Solution What Strategy? And what

not?

Conclusions and

recommendation

Application How to implement

THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS (THE POLICY CYCLE)

The following steps were outlined as part of the policy making process:

1. Problem definition/Agenda setting2. Constructing the policy/Alternatives/Policy Formulation3. Choice of solution/Selection of preferred policy option4. Policy design5. Evaluation

We closed proceedings for the day here as our learning experience continues.

END OF DAY TWO


16/32

DAY THREE

February 24, 2010


17/32



SESSION ONE

The day started with the participants engaging in a familiarization and warm up game before

we went into the events of the day. There was a brief recap on the journey so far, lessons learnt

and clarification where necessary.

In policy making process, it was re-emphasized that timing is a very key element. It is about

participation, letting policy makers be aware of the fact that the people they lead should have

an entry process to make contributions. However, it was stated that in practice CSOs have to

carry out an in-depth study to know when to come in.

The session began with an exercise shown as activity 8 on page 23 of the training manual. This

was focused towards identifying the basic differences between academic research papers and

policy papers.

FEEDBACKS FROM THE EXERCISE:

Outlining the difference: A policy paper is practical in outlook while an academic paper is

theoretical in nature.

Purpose of Policy and Academic Research Papers: It was identified that a policy paper is a call

to action in a persuasive approach while the academic paper is not necessarily aimed at a call to

action.

Outcome: The policy paper designs policies and societal issues while academic paper is meant

to change thinking and influence disciplinary & educational issues.

Policy paper is targeted at certain group of people while academic paper is open-ended.

Academic papers are not timed bound, but time is of the essence as regards policy paper.It was also identified that the style and methodology of the preparation of both types of paper

results in significant differences as Methodology for academic paper includes primary and

secondary papers while policy paper may not follow such strict methodology.

Also, academic papers have some very strict guidelines on its structure while policy papers do

not necessarily follow such guidelines. While academic papers are usually more verbose in

content, policy papers are straight to the point and brief.


18/32

SESSION TWO

This started with an exercise after which participants went straight into discussions on the

genesis and history of advocacy and engagement in general. It was established that althoughthe ideals and principles of advocacy has been there over human history, it has evolved over

time to reflect present day realities hence the coinage of the word, policy science.

It was also added that all CSOs should take into account that being ill-informed on societal

issues is no longer allowed, as one must display a thorough grasp of issues to reduce repulsions

from the politicians. At this point, a quick reminder from previous learning was done to

enumerate the differences between policy and academic papers.

Thus, a policy paper will have the following; Problem description Policy options Conclusion and recommendation

SESSION THREE

After lunch break, the final session for the day began. This kicked off with a warm-up exercise.

In this session, we undertook a recap of lessons learnt so far from the three days of the trainingworkshop.

Subsequently, we had thought-provoking group discussions examining the differences &

similarities in the policy advocacy terms used during the course of the training workshop.

END OF DAY THREE


19/32

DAY FOUR

February 25, 2010


20/32



SESSION ONE

We started the day with a word association game using specific words from our learning

experience over the course of the workshop. The main focus of the session was ADVOCACY as

participants examined it holistically from different angles and perspectives. Participants were

then divided into pairs to work on their understanding of the various meanings of advocacy.

This assignment was drawn from the training manual (please see part B of page 29).

Some identified synonyms to the word Advocacy include:

1. Lobby2. To appeal3. Persuade4. Arguing on behalf of5. Appeal6. Plead7. Support8. Present

It was agreed that Advocacy can also be defined as a combination of Strategy, methods and

actions. The following were taken to be key elements in defining advocacy:

1. Strategy to affect Policy Change/action (at any stage of the process)2. Primary audience of decision makers3. Deliberate process of persuasive communication (aim: move to action) being deliberate

to win over stakeholders by making them know what they stand to benefit.

4. Requires the building of support and momentum: here it was stated that momentum isbuilt gradually, support is gotten from coalition, network members and people who can

be used to garner support. The best acceptable representative to get the message

across.

5. Conducted by groups of organized citizens.Participants were thus taught on developing advocacy strategies and communication tools for

policy action. The following was identified as the guiding perspectives:


21/32

It is more than a one (1)-Way Transfer. It is not simple transportation of research to policy sphere It is not just demonstration the facts generally do not speak for themselves. It is not just research it, write it and they will find it.

Advocacy was stated to be a two (2)-way process of mediation and negotiation that could get

messy, takes time and requires a lot of commitment and resources. Advocacy is also strategic

and not necessarily mob action.

Using Activity 29-30 in the training manual, participants were to identify which of the advocacy

strategies of any civil society organization can be determined by their names/write-ups.

After the exercise, discussions focused on how lobbying can be described in the African context.

In response, it was stated that in lobbying the key is determining what is ethical and what is

not. It was stated that lobbying is an informal way of influencing decisions and within the

context, what is key is the ethical values and strategies chosen.

In adopting strategies, it was stated that factors such as Location, Issue, Audience and focus

were necessary to making right choices.

Hereafter, we took a lunch break

SESSION TWO

Using Activity 11 on page 32 of the training manual, Participants were grouped and asked to

discuss the following among themselves. The outcome of their deliberations was presented to

the whole group. The groups were as follows:

Entry into the process The messenger The message The overall Advocacy Planning Framework (APF)


22/32

GROUP PRESENTATIONS

GROUP 1: OVERALL APF:

Leverage: These are conditions that facilitate your choice of a particular mode of entry, new

evidence argument that could move the process further, new problem identification.

Levers: are tools to facilitate the process, strategies to be adopted into the process,

combination of right advocacy measures media, lobbying, advising, support building, inside

track approaches, best way or strategy to get into the process.

GROUP 2: WAY INTO THE PROCESS:

Demand: issues on the agenda.

The current position: value and interestsConsensus or conflict: What is the issue triggering?

Current thinking on procedure and solution: What language is to be used to frame a

presentation?

Opening and timing: What is the right time to come into the process?

Obstacles: What are the impediments that could be faced in coming into the process? Here it

was stated that an overall look must be had to determine any problems that may arise. For

example; the stakeholders, broader context issues, interests, e.t.c.

GROUP 3: THE MESSENGERThe group stated that what must be paramount in the mind of the messenger is the fact that

the messenger is often more Important than the message. This is the philosophy upon it is

based.

Credibility/Visibility Personality: does the messenger have the credibility to push the agenda? Subject Matter: will it attract the targeted audience? Is the organization well

vested in the subject matter? If the credibility is lacked then it has the option of

seeking other support which can bring credibility and visibility to the project.

Resources: the basic resources to bring the objective into reality.GROUP 4: THE MESSAGE

The following were identified as key elements that the message must contain;

Audience Profile: This requires an understanding of the targeted audience and centering the

message on the issue in question.


23/32

Listening to the audience and responding: CSOs were requested to imagine the possible

responses and questions that could arise.

Focus and language: The language of the paper must be at the level of the targeted audience

and directed at something that is already in issue or should be in issue.

Format/Packaging: The message should be made to look attractive to get the targeted

audience interested. Attention must be paid to the wording and general layout of the

document. It was further stated that the media is a very important lever.

SESSION THREE

HOW TO CONSTRUCT A PERSUASIVE MESSAGE

Participants embarked on an activity from page 41-42 of the training manual. This sought to

determine which of the messages in the activity would best convince the targeted audience

based on different reasons such as the interest of the audience.

It was emphasised that there is a need for the message to appeal first to the personal interests

of the audience as this will then gravitate to the overall interest.

Questions also arose as regards the place of ethics, morality, good conscience and natural justice in the policy making process as participants sought to know if one should suppress a

particular issue that is right based on good conscience and pursue another just for the purposes

of ensuring that it sails though.

In response, the trainers stated that personal issues particular to a person advocating an issue

should not be brought to play as this could compromise and defeat the whole purpose of

pursuing a particular objective.

The following were identified as necessary in constructing effective advocacy messages: Have a clear objective Know the process Know your audience perspectives, interests, hopes, positions, fears e.t.c Present the tip of the iceberg from all the research data/evidence you have

collected, what is the most grapping?

Keep it simple at the beginning the questions will come later you will get topresent the whole of the iceberg


24/32

Get THEM into the research not present YOUR research Overall consumable, plausible and striking.

It was noted that where there is a failure to adhere to the guidelines, reputations will be

destroyed and conflicts may arise. The message must be comprehensive but no necessarily

verbose or lengthy. Also, where a policy process fails to result in the adoption of proposed

policy, experience & knowledge gained can be used to form a basis for something else thus

resulting in satisfaction for its initiators.

END OF DAY FOUR


25/32

DAY FIVE

February 26, 2010


26/32

Trainers

Mr. Paul Bemshima Nyulaku


SESSION ONE

We began the day with a name game as participants and trainers all took part. Thereafter,

participants embarked on outlining and remembering the lessons of the previous day as well as

some of the key term/swords used in the course of the training.

After outlining the words remembered from yesterdays event, the participants then tried to

explain the words as they understood it. This was to demonstrate newly acquired

communication skills from the workshop therewith focused on delivering the message in aformat that is understood by audience.

The Trainers then led participants in analyzing a chart on ADVOCACY PLANNING FRAMWORK

(APF). The chart has the following elements;

I. TheMessage: This is the core of what you want to do.II. The Messenger: who could be a politician, technocrat or whoever you think is best to

advance the cause you are pursuing.

III. The Way into the Process: This was explained as your manner of engagement.IV. The Leverage: This is referred to as the point where everything connects. Activities here

could be-Lobbying advising, activitism etc.

In summary, it simply means that the message/cause being pursued determines the

messenger and the point of entry. That is when you engage the message and then message

you will determine the point of entry.

Participants were divided into 3 groups based on their current areas of engagement in the

issues listed in the table below.

Group 1 Law, Human rights and Gender

Group 2 Peace and conflict

Group 3 Poverty, empowerment, child development and community development.


27/32

The task for the participants was to

1. Identify one of the issues per group2. Set a specific and realistic objective3. Use the objective to develop an advocacy plan

Each group took turns to present the output of their discussions. The whole activity took aboutninety (90) minutes. An additional reading assignment drawn from page 39 of the training

manual was given as participants read through till page 50. The goal of the exercise was use the

APF to develop an advocacy plan.

The first group to present was the Peace and Conflict group who chose to merge both peace

and conflict as the issue to tackle using as the 2009 Guinean conflict as a case study. They

stated their objectives, CSO engagement and suitable ways to intervene, and transitional

proposals to civilian rule. After the proposal, questions were thrown at the group on the merits

and demerits of the presentation. Generally, it was agreed that the presentation met with theguidelines set by the APF concerning the message, messenger and the timing for engagement.

The second group chose as its focus IMPROVING SECURITY THROUGH ARTISAN

EMPOWERMENT IN THE FCT. They effectively use guidelines of the APF and were applauded

for the choice of their topic, clarity of presentation, and adherence to the APF.

The third group chose ANTI-VIOLENCE COALITION IN NIGERIA as its focusas they identified the

timing of the next elections in Nigeria as influential to their choice. While the presentation was

well received by fellow participants, questions were raised as regards the face of messenger.Generally, participants were not really comfortable with the choice made by the group.

A five (5) minute recess was taken at this point.

After the recess, a Question & Answer session took place.

Q: How will you utilize the knowledge and skills acquired in your work?

A: One of the participants attested to how the training has sharpened his policy advocacy skills

as previously, he had never really taken an organized approach to engage. He outlined he will

transfer knowledge gained to others with his organisation and fellow Civil Society practitioners

within his network.C:Further contributions by other participants were made as they expressed their appreciation

to the organizers of this training and hoped more people will be trained subsequently in the

country. Participants also suggested that linkages should be explored with academic institutions

so as to have both theoretical and practical experiences in the policy advocacy process.

Thereafter, we took a lunch break.


28/32

CLOSING CEREMONY

The Program Officer of West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI), Ms. Omolara Balogun

thanked all participants, invited guests, and trainers for a very successful training over its five

(5) day duration.

Ms. Balogun conducted the closing session of the workshop, which is targeted at obtaining

feedback from participants and trainers. This session was also used to provide answers to

participants questions in relation to the workshop and WACSI activities generally.

The final discussion was focused on how the training process can be improved in the future.

The following were highlighted by the participants during the deliberation;

Follow-up/assistanceParticipants were in agreement that WACSI along with her partners, OSIWA & LGI need

to provide further support as a deliberate process to assist and follow-up on the good

foundation that the training workshop has established via the knowledge they had

gained.

The viewpoint was that without any coordinated support program, then the impact of

the ToT process will be reduced as participants might struggle to implement the

knowledge transfer process on their own.

Reputation of the courseThe quality of the Training workshop was commended as been of impeccable standard

with proven course content. This was encapsulated in the training materials used as well

as the training methodology/style in practice.

Specialization in an area & Personal developmentParticipants sought clarity on how to build career opportunities and personal

competency in the field of Policy Advocacy. This was perceived as a possible area to

demonstrate expertise within the Nigerian civil society community and thus, become acertified specialist.

In response, the LGI team outlined the possible career path and ways they would be

willing to support any participant interested in attaining further qualifications. Lara

Balogun also reiterated WACSIs commitment to her stakeholders and participants of

the Policy Advocacy Training Workshop.


29/32

ProfessionalismIt was identified that engaging in policy advocacy and influencing the policy making

process requires professionalism on the part of civil society organisations working in

and/or around those specific policy matters being addressed. This would mean a

detailed knowledge and understanding of the challenges, current policies and a clearproposition with exact strategies for improving these social entities such as water,

electoral reform, good governance, ICTs, education amongst others.

Building interaction within groupsParticipants were interested in exploring the possibility of further interactions amongst

themselves as well as the trainers after the conclusion of the ToT workshop.

Lara Balogun responded to these requests by stating the efforts already made (Please

see under further communication below for complete details).

Furthermore, Participants commented appreciated the teaching method, relaxed teaching

environment, outstanding training personnel, localization of the trainer pool, training skills of

the trainers, quality of training manual, excellent training methodology, wonderful gender

balance in the selection of the participants and wonderful welfare package.

However, based on feedback, participants wished there has been opportunities for both groups

to interact beyond the walls of the training room over the course of the workshop. They

emphasized the need for social activities such as site visits as well as incorporating prayer-timebreaks into training schedule.

In closing, it was emphasized that the journey has not ended as work continues outside of the

training workshop as participants need to constantly practice all they had learnt during the

workshop as a way of developing their writing skills individually.

FURTHER COMMUNICATION

A mailing group has been developed [email protected] for

participants to further interact and engage one another after the conclusion of the training

workshop.

Opportunities were given to the four (4) Trainers and two (2) LGI facilitators to make a closing

remarks/statements. In their statement, they expressed their appreciating to the participants,

organizers, facilitators and everyone who have contributed to the success of the training

workshop
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


30/32

Acting Director of OSIWA-Nigeria, Mr. Dayo Olaide expressed his appreciation by thanking

everyone who supported and helped facilitate the workshop.

The event concluded with a series of group pictures after which, everyone retired for the day.

END OF DAY FIVE

END OF TRAINING WORKSHOP


31/32

APPENDIX: PROFILE OF WORKSHOP ORGANISERS

About WACSI

The West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI) was established by the Open Society Initiative forWest Africa (OSIWA) to reinforce the capacities of civil society in the region. The Institute is

committed to bridging the institutional and operational gaps within civil society.

WACSIs vision aims to strengthen civil society organisations as strategic partners for the

promotion of democracy, good governance and national development in the sub-region.

The objective of the Institute is to strengthen the institutional and technical capacities of CSOs

in the formulation of policies, the implementation and promotion of democratic values and

principles in West Africa by serving as a resource centre for training, research, experience

sharing and political dialogue for CSOs in West Africa.

Through policy dialogue, WACSI engages & discusses current issues affecting West African

States. Reference documents are regularly published by the Institute and disseminated to

political leaders/policy makers.

For more information, please visit the website:www.wacsi.org

About OSIWA

The Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) was created in December 2000 as part of

the world network of 32 autonomous foundations founded and supported by George Soros.These non-profit-making foundations share in the commitment to work for an open society.

Based on the principle that no one has monopoly of the truth, an open society recognises the

different points of view and always remains open to improvements. In practice, open societies

are characterised by the priority of law, democracy, respect of diversity and human rights,

liberalisation of markets, information to the people and the dynamism of civil society.

For more information, please visit the website:www.osiwa.org

About LGI-OSI

The Local Government & Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI) supports the OSI mission by

working to promote democratic and effective governance and public administration, and by

advancing policy analysis as a tool for decision making in public affairs.

LGI supports local and regional governmental reform, in collaboration with its civil society

partners, by monitoring and benchmarking government performance on the one hand and

providing analytical and technical support to government on the other.
http://www.wacsi.org/http://www.wacsi.org/http://www.wacsi.org/http://www.osiwa.org/http://www.osiwa.org/http://www.osiwa.org/http://www.osiwa.org/http://www.wacsi.org/


32/32

While LGI works primarily in the transition countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet

Union, it has recently formed strategic partnerships with other OSI programs and external

institutions to implement programs in Asia and Latin America and Sub Saharan Africa.

LGI policy engagement initiatives can be summarized in five broad themes namely;

Democratization & Decentralization Fiscal Management, Transparency and Accountability Delivery of Public Services and Urban Management Management of Multi-Ethnic Communities Local Economic Development

For more information, please visit the website:http://lgi.osi.hu
http://lgi.osi.hu/http://lgi.osi.hu/http://lgi.osi.hu/http://lgi.osi.hu/

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wacsi
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times

Policy Advocacy and Engagement Training Narrative Report - Abuja Nigeria 2 (Feb 2010)

Documents