DATE: 20th – 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2011.

VENUE: SAINT THOMAS HOTEL, LOME, TOGO.

Facilitators

Constant Gnacadja & Lucky Mbrou

By: Franck Arthur SOMBO

SPECIALISED POLICY ADVOCACY AND ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES

TRAINING WORKSHOP FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS IN TOGO

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………....................3

Training overall Objectives……………………………………………………………………………….3

Opening Ceremony…………………………………………………………………………….…………..3

Training Workshop Development………………………………………………………………............4

Objectives of the workshop……………………………………………………………….........6

The workshop methodology………………………………………………………………........6

Training content………………………………………………………………………….............7

Training Sessions ...………………………………………………………………………………….......7

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………….........................20

Appendix: ………………………………………………………………………………………………….22

- List of Participants

- Training Agenda

- Training Syllabus

- Pictorial illustration.

INTRODUCTION

The West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI) with the Open Society Initiative for West Africa

(OSIWA) organized a four (4) day Training Workshop in Policy Advocacy and Engagement

Strategies. The workshop was specifically designed to respond to the policy influencing and

advocacy gaps identified amidst Civil Society Organisations in Togo. Since the commencement of

WACSI in 2007, the institute has been committed to championing the course of strengthening the

governance and development of Civil Society Actors across West Africa through regular individual

capacity development and institutional strengthening training programmes.

The four-day workshop which was held from the 20th - 23rd of August, 2011 in Dakar, Senegal

attracted 15 representatives from different CSOs and networks in Togo.

TRAINING -GOAL

The overall goal of the workshop was to provide civil society actors in Togo with insight and

reinforce their ability to strategically advocate and engage policy makers using effective

communication tools. Thus, the Training aimed at improving participants skills to designing

relevant and efficient advocacy campaigns that may actually have impact on policy making

process. This will be possible through providing necessary assets for advocacy planning and

conducting and for decision making influencing.

OPENING CEREMONY

The workshop started with the delivery of the WACSI Policy Advocacy Officer’s opening speech.

Ms Balogun Omolara stated that it was a great pleasure to welcome the participants at this

Training; even though they had a busy schedule they made time to participate to this Training. It

was obvious regarding their CVs that they have competencies. Although they already used to

engage in advocacy programmes there is a need for innovative strategies to enhance your work,

she stressed. Thus this module is designed by OSIWA (Open Society Initiative for West Africa),

LGI (Local Governance and Public Sector Reform Initiative) and WACSI (West Africa Civil Society

Institute) to supply this need. This programme, she added, began in 2008 across West African

countries. It has been imported from East Europe region where the content of the course was

experienced and contributed to strengthening democracy and good governance. Then it has been

contextualized to our sub-region. So far the module has been taught in other francophone

countries, namely Benin, Cote d’Ivoire and Senegal. This is the second time we are in Togo.

As brief recall on WACSI, the Institute was established in 2005 and became operational in 2007.

Its creation was driven by the need to contribute to bridge the gaps/ needs existing within Civil

Society sector across West Africa sub-region. For this purpose the Institute acts through three (3)

dimensions. The Training and Capacity Building Unit (1.0) works to strengthening technical and

institutional capacities of civil society actors in many areas such as NGO management, Corporate

Governance and Fundraising and Resource Mobilization. The Research and Documentation Unit

(2.0) is in charge of conducting the Institute research on issues facing civil society; in this sense,

publications are produced, monographs are published and press-release disseminated on several

topics. With respect to the Policy Advocacy Unit (3.0), there are two main aspects; a theoretical

and a technical aspect. This current course is part of the technical aspect. Ms Omolara stated that

WACSI cannot engage directly in advocacy action but WACSI can teach civil society actors how

to better and strategically engage in advocacy. The Institute can also make room for you to

advocate, she added mentioning Dialogue among Civil Society Organisations themselves, with

Parliament, Private Sector, etc.

Ms. Omolara Balogun, WACSI’s Policy Advocacy Officer ended her speech encouraging

participants to actively participate to the Training and pay attention to the instructions of the two

Facilitators, Constant and Lucky, who came out of a tough Training of Trainers programme as the

qualified Trainers for francophone countries for this course in the sub-region. She thanked the

participants once more; then addressed her gratefulness to the Facilitators, showing special

acknowledgement to them on behalf of WACSI for their endurance and qualification to deliver

such a strong course. She affirmed WACSI staff availability throughout the Training; for more

question about WACSI or any concern participants can refer either to her properly or to Franck

SOMBO, the Programme Assistant present with her to facilitate organisational and logistical

aspect of the training.

The floor was given to the Facilitators to introduce themselves to the participants. First Mr.

Constant Gnacadja came to address the audience He introduced himself as the Zone 4

Coordinator for West Africa Network for Peace (WANEP). He is also serves as the President of a

NGO, committed to Human Right, Peace and Development in Benin. Ms. Lucky Antoinette

MBROU introduced herself as a Lawyer with various experience and engagement in development

work. Her strategic areas of interest include Human right, democracy and good governance.

The two trainers confirmed how stiff the selection process which qualified them for this

programme was. Since then they have been committed as French countries’ Trainers for policy

Advocacy Trainings with WACSI to train civil society actors.

TRAINING WORKSHOP DEVELOPMENT

Dynamic Introduction

The workshop began with a drawing exercise. The Facilitators distributed post-it to the

participants in four different colours and asked them to put the name he/she prefers to be called

by during the workshop in a square in the center. Then, they would draw four things they like the

more (children, spouse, beach, a book for instance) all around in the four (4) corners of the paper

divided into four (4) square boxes. Each participant was then told to paste the post-it on his name

tag and go round to meet his/her fellows guessing what s/he put down. Thus they started

introducing themselves to one another and began discussing with their new found friends. This

was a good exercise to create dynamic introduction and bring openness between the participants.

It was an opportunity to start networking and creating space for future alliances.

Following to that, they were divided into four (4) groups according to the four (4) colors of post-it

used; yellow, green, red and orange.

Internal Organization

In order to arouse participants’ ownership and sense of responsibility in running the programme,

the Facilitators asked them to establish an order for the Training Workshop internal regulation.

Thus, the participants agreed on the followings:

- Timeframe: 8:30 – 16:30;

- Mobile phone should be on silent mode ;

- Any speaker would be given the floor first;

- Actively participate to the workshop;

- Chatting is forbidden;

- Facilitators should respect timing;

- Respect others opinion;

- Be specific and short in talk;

- Laptops can only be turn on upon request from Facilitators;

Note: Offenders to any of these rules will choose between sing, tell a joke and pay a fine;

Leadership appointment:

- Village Chief: Kpela Azouma;

- Name of the Village: La Colombe (as to refer to the junction nearby the venue – Carrefour

Colombe de la Paix).

Participants’ Expectations and Concerns

Participants were asked to express their needs, concerns and hope in line with the Training

objectives. This was to help the Facilitators better know the expectations of everybody and

consider them in delivering the course. For that matter, the participants were directed to the

Workbook, pp. 5–7. Each participant had to outline three expectations and share it with the other

members round the table. There were five (5) people per table. Every group then wrote its

expectations on a flip.

EXPECTATIONS

GROUP 1

Understanding prerequisite to the context of advocacy;

Being capable of developing a policy advocacy paper;

Analyse key elements for an advocacy plan designing.

GROUP 2

What is Advocacy?

Understand Advocacy planning to influence public policies

Know innovative strategies to influence policies.

GROUP 3

Know favourable and unfavourable elements of an advocacy context in public policies

within West Africa;

Understand planning and developing process of an advocacy paper (method and content);

Build strategic alliances between Civil Society Organisations to better engage.

GROUP 4

Strengthen policy environment analysis competencies;

Equip with pertinent tools for the purpose of advocacy paper writing;

Share individual experiences.

In the same way the participants were given the opportunity to outline their questions and

concerns related to the Training. Here participants showed their concerns as the need for better

understanding on the difference, if any, between public policy advocacy and advocacy; and on the

other hand between advocacy and lobbying.

Afterwards, the Facilitators unfolded the programme objectives, methodology and contents to the

participants.

OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP

The objectives of the Policy Engagement and Advocacy Training were to:

To enhance Civil Society Organizations’ ability in writing and utilizing targeted and

evidence-based policy documents;

To reinforce the comprehension of planning process for effective policy Advocacy

campaign

To consolidate Civil Society Organizations’ knowledge in public policy networks and

processes in Senegal;

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

points;

To provide a platform for Civil Society Actors within the sub-region to form advocacy

networks and build alliances.

WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY

The Training was practices-based. It was composed of experience sharing, learning by doing,

group exercises, case studies, testimonies, role play, etc. The workshop methodology is founded

on interaction and insightful commitment. It takes heed of the workshop participants’ needs to

target them. Also, a Manual, served as a guiding tool to the entire training for each participant,

under the direction of the Trainers.

As the participants had very good insights and were very committed, the interaction was so

constructive and excellent!

TRAINING CONTENTS

The pedagogy of the training was planned in such a way that throughout the workshop we went

through three main sessions:

The workshop was structured around three thematic areas: understanding the context of policy

advocacy and writing; structuring and developing a coherent public policy paper; and developing a

targeted Advocacy Planning Framework.

1) Understanding the context of policy advocacy and writing: i.e. understanding the

nature of public policy processes and strategies to engage all stakeholders concerned in

public policy making in Liberia;

2) Structure and develop a coherent public policy paper: i.e. to gain understanding in the

different types of communication tools available to pursue a successful advocacy

campaign. This session focused on the important and effectiveness of a policy paper in

influencing policy process. It highlighted requisite structure of an advocacy paper, types of

papers, how to write a compelling paper, and be adopted as an advocacy and

communication tool and a ‘call to action’ for decision makers.

3) Develop targeted advocacy plan using the advocacy planning framework (APF): this

session sought to put participants through how to design and use the APF for all advocacy

engagement. This session was duly covered in the second phase of the training, though

participants were introduced to it at the first phase.

They depart the basic comprehension of the context of Policy Advocacy to the pragmatic way of

conceptualizing a targeted Advocacy Plan on the basis of the Advocacy Planning Framework

(APF). Thus, these sessions were spread over all the 4 days of the workshop.

GROUP DISCUSSIONS

To kick start the workshop, the participants were divided into four (4) different groups to share

their experience in writing and using policy papers in conducting Advocacy activities.

During this activity participants shared their excitement from the work they performed through

Advocacy practices. They talked about their commitment and their perseverance. Besides, each

group was invited to share their challenges when implementing their Advocacy programme.

Among others, the listed deeds were directed towards:

- National Communication Strategy Planning;

- Women participation;

- Free access to primary school;

- Death penalty abolition from the sub-region countries’ legislation.

The challenges faced by the participants in implementing their Advocacy programme were

outlined as follow:

- A good organization;

- Well identified targets;

- The monitoring process;

- A problem well identified;

- The Policy paper writing practice-based;

- Ownership of the programme implementation;

- Mindset for change;

- Know the appropriate strategies;

- Identify the good stakeholders;

- Intervene at the right time.

- Endurance and perseverance.

Following exposure of such challenges participants differently commented. They encouragement

one another to cultivate perseverance; though they have to take heed of government priorities as

well. All results are good from one’s perspective, either be positive or negative the best is to draw

lesson from it. They also shared the need for monitoring and evaluation; otherwise, even a fight

for charge-free service won can turn into more costly due to subsidiary charges.

The Facilitators expressed their appreciation to all these comments. They emphasized on the

need for endurance and monitoring throughout the process for advocacy. One should not give up

even after gaining a result. Advocacy never ends; it needs focus and monitoring on a long term,

insisted the Facilitators.

TRAINING SESSION 1: Understanding the content of Policy Advocacy and writing

ACTIVITY 1: What is an effective Policy Paper?

For this activity participants had to state the characteristics of an effective Policy paper. The

characteristics listed by the four (4) groups had some similarities and differences. Three

adjectives were commonly used to express the characteristics of an effective Policy Paper:

Certain words were differently considered as part of the characteristics. Here they are:

Characteristics Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

The Facilitators invited each group to justify the use of the characteristics they raised, exposing

them for comments and criticisms from others. The Facilitators did not comment but congratulated

the participants for their insight and assured them that their comments and criticisms would either

be confirmed or rejected from what would happen subsequently.

ACTIVITY 2: Defining Public Policy The Facilitators stated first that the objective of the exercise was to show that there is no single

definition of Public Policy but many with common points. Then the participants were directed to

page 14 of the manual for an exercise in the attempt to define what Policy is. The Facilitators

added that there are three (3) main items to consider in defining Policy which are Perspectives,

Process and Policy Community.

Thus some main expressions were quoted to refer to Public policy:

- Governmental action which is of authority;

- Establishes link between problem – solution; which is very important;

- Examine some specific issues and suggest social purposes to reach;

- A framework which guide decision making;

- A guideline or strategy;

- Policy based on values;

- Decision making based on interaction between stakeholders.

The Facilitators commented that we could obtain a definition from each of the above mentioned

words. Public Policy can be a mix up of all these things. But they also noticed that it is important in

envisaging Advocacy to identify who are primary and secondary target.

ROLE PLAY

To experience Advocacy in practice the participants were engaged in a role play. The game was

to represent communication dynamic amongst actors from education sector and governmental

representatives around topics of concern to them. The main topic was about the need for ‘shifting

the university into a trade center'. Regarding the fact that either they were policy community or

decision makers, the stakeholders had to support or reject the project. Students, Parents, School

Headmaster, Minister of Education and Journalist were the different roles the participants were

given. Thus each would identify whom to address and expose his/her demand. Thy started by

turns. The game was made with threads in such a way that the one having the flow holds the wire

and directs it to the one s/he is speaking to. Then all together, each speaking to his/her identified

addressee(s) until all the participants were involved and held at least one rope showing the

information circuit. At the end an interconnected assembly was created with all the stakeholders.

As for commentaries, participants diversely expressed their opinion on the interaction just held.

Afterwards the Facilitators asked participants about what was missing in this exercise. It obviously

appeared to be lack of hierarchy line.

The Facilitators took advantage of this exercise to introduce the next point on POLICY

COMMUNITY.

Some felt confused, not really knowing whom to target to effectively reach their purpose.

Others were waiting for their neighbours to finish speaking instead of claiming their need. Most

of the people wanted to go straight to government representatives. Those are the main cases

and comments made by participants.

POLICY COMMUNITY (Activity 4)

An exercise was given to the participants to discuss in groups according to the role they

embodied during the role play exercise. Each group had to think about the stakeholders,

communication means, interests and goal regarding the type of people they represented. Thus

they discussed within their respective groups and debriefed. This exercise showed

interconnection between the different stakeholders within the policy community; it stood for

another illustration of what the role play taught, but more precise. Page 16 of the Manual served

for this activity.

STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION TEMPLATE FOR ADVOCACY

To help the participants understand and practice strategic communication to successfully

advocate, the Facilitators asked them about their opinion on the need for advocacy. This question

aroused diverse answers. Among others are: to bring change, to influence, to contribute to the

development, to solve social issues, to call to rulers.

The Facilitators acknowledged participants good responses and synthetized them through these

three (3) steps: read from down up,

Model of a strategic communication

Note: Advocate takes more than just putting information on the table; the message has to be

persuasive to incite action from the policy makers. While being analytical the paper must

emotionally influence the addressee with graphical, figures, pictures for instance; all intentionally

and purposely put to show evidence.

PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC POLICY PAPER

The participants were invited go through the portion of text on page 17 of the manual to draw the

purpose of a policy paper. The following key words were underlined:

Comprehensive and persuasive arguments;

Decision-making tool;

Call to action;

Target audience.

The Facilitators then summed up saying that it is very important to know that the purpose of the

policy paper is to push the decision makers to action.

They gave illustration to help understand how comprehensive and persuasive the policy paper

should be (see below). They emphasized on “striking facts”. Then a case was given from EU aid

funding towards Serbia and Bulgaria from 2003-2009. Whilst both countries had 8 million

Action

Persuade

Inform

inhabitants and were promised the same aid from EU, Serbia was receiving less than their

neighbor Bulgaria until they drew attention on the disproportion in the treatment given to them,

showing evidence, using graphics and statistics. That moved EU to admit their imbalance support

and then, decided to correct it.

Day Two (Day 2)

The morning session of that day started with a game to help participants remember key words

from the previous day. Then the facilitators asked the participants which of the four (4) animals

each liked more: lion, cat, parrot and whale. Thus they were repositioned according to the animal

each said s/he liked.

TRAINING SESSION 2: Structuring and developing a coherent public policy paper

TYPES OF POLICY PAPERS

Directed to page 18 of the manual, the participants were tasked to show the differences between

two (2) Policy papers which are: Policy Study and Policy Analysis/ Brief. They engaged in group

discussions and then reported. One main difference resides in the targeted audience, commented

the Facilitators. Policy Study directed towards specialists in the topic while Policy Brief works for

Decision makers, politicians and ordinary citizens aware of the fact. They added that a Policy Brief

paper is not a copy of a Policy Study paper, nor a summary of it. Policy Brief is rather a targeted

tool for advocacy.

Policy papers types we are not talking about

Policy papers resemble but are not:

- research document nor research reports

- consultation reports nor situation analysis followed by recommendations

- Implementation plan of programmes.

Main types of Policy Advocacy papers and their characteristics

Type of Policy Paper

Areas of Difference▼

Policy Study

Policy Brief

Audience Targets other policy specialists Targets decision-makers and a

broad but knowledgeable audience

Focus Issue-driven: Broad recommendations

and analysis of policy issues

Audience-driven: Specific policy

message designed to convince key

stakeholders

Context of use Dissemination and debate on results of

policy research, informs the policy brief

Used for advocating and lobbying

purposes

Methodology Can include much primary research Rarely includes primary research

Ideas/Language used Can be quite discipline

specific/technical

Must be very clear and simple

Length Up to 60 pages Between 4 and 10 pages

Common structural elements of a policy study paper

The Facilitators stated that there four (4) main components in the table of contents of a Policy

paper which are:

- Introduction

- Problem description

- Policy options

- Conclusion and recommendations.

Then the Facilitators asked the different groups to choose one of the four (4) listed components

and apply to it in the three followings: Purpose of the item, Content, i.e. what is included and other

advice (other important points to consider in developing the element). For that purpose the groups

were given pages to consult according to the item they had to write on.

This exercise was very important for participants to practice Policy Advocacy Paper drafting; at

least, know more about structuration and development of the Policy paper.

The groups took turns to present their work to the rest of the class, and gave detailed

explanations to the points raised by the group. As a usual expectation, participants critiqued each

other’s presentations and made substantive contribution to the presentations. In fact, in the

presentations and discussions the participants exhibited professionalism and brought to the fore

their level of understanding and engagement in advocacy work. This was evident in the practical

local examples cited by them. The facilitators elaborated further on the presentations of the group,

simplifying some of the points raised to the understanding of all the participants. Below are the

group presentations on the contents of a policy paper:

Below is an overview of group work’s report on a Policy Paper structure:

Introduction Problem Description Policy Options

Conclusion &

Recommendations

Purpose

Present the topic, problem to be solved.

Describe the problem regarding its origin and environment

Presents an argument for the preferred policy alternative based on the evaluation of all possible solutions.

Synthetize the results;

List all policy recommendations

Make final remarks.

Content

Context of the policy problem

Definition of the policy problem

Statement of intent

Methodology and limitations of the study

Road map of the paper

Origin of the problem: when, how, why, context, etc.;

Problem within its environment: current context, different approaches, failure or success;

Origin of the problem description: what to include for a complete and convincing image;

Development of the problem description: coherent text and argumentation, easy to read.

Analysis framework: ideal statement and values which guides the evaluation. It gives a direction and clear justification of positions taken.

Policy alternatives assessment.

Synthesis of major points of problem description and strategic and policy options elements as well;

Suggested measures to solve the problem

Separation and presentation of suggested solution in different measures

Final remarks.

Other Advice

Writing of the checklist

Brief context and problem-centered

Clear communication on the nature and urgency of the policy problem

Purpose clearly stated

Methodology and limits presented

Paper organization well presented

Convince the reader that the issue require government action

Problem focused in a proper and non-generalized environment.

Argumentation based on: affirmation, support and guarantee;

Variety of primary and secondary sources;

Avoid plagiarism.

While building argumentations, take heed of: coherence, argumentation, paragraphs, author’s voice and sources’ using. They show the author’s expertise or creativity through option assessment.

Final remarks.

Additional information

Other sources.

After Lunch break, the Facilitators tasked the participants to choose the appropriate definition

corresponding to each of the six (6) steps of a policy making process, first in their respective

groups and then with the others. For this exercise, they had to refer to page 15 of the workbook,

Activity 3 - a.

The second part of the exercise, Activity 3 - b consisted in ranking the different steps from 1- 6

on a diagram.

Here is the Policy cycle:

POLICY MAKING CYCLE

Considering the said policy making process, the Facilitators asked the participants why is it

called a cycle. Which question participants replied evoking the fact that the process goes from a

starting point and end to a step which can lead to the first one again.

Afterwards, the Facilitators explained that the cycle is made of six (6) steps as previously stated;

but number of actors ignored or missed one or more steps in the implementation of their policy,

what the participants agreed on. Indeed the process is usually missed by government bodies

and policy makers for many reasons such as: elections, financial opportunities, capture the

crowd for the sake of individual interest or for emergencies, without planning. This

misapplication led to what is called the worst case scenario.

They also asked which of the steps interest either policy editors or implementation actors.

Participants considered that all are important, which response Facilitators welcomed. However,

even though this is the case the Facilitators commented that editors will rather focus on step 1

to 3 known as strategic choice option; while implementers will concentrate on solution

implementing option, steps 4-5. But whatever position you stand from, you must take heed of

Evaluation step, the sixth (step 6), they emphasized.

1. Problem Definition/

Agenda Setting

2. Constructing the Policy

Alternatives/ Policy Formulation

3.Choice of Solution/

Selection of Preferred Policy Option

4. Policy Design

5. Policy Implementation

and Monitoring

6. Evaluation

Figure 3.1 The Policy Cycle

Day three (Day 3)

The Facilitators started distributing post-its displaying figures from 1- 4 to the participants. All of

the participants receiving post-it came together, same for 2 and then 3, 4 respectively. Then

they were asked to put down the key words they got from the previous day session.

With these new recomposed groups they introduced a game to recapitulate on previous day

course. The game titled “electric chair” consisted for each group in having one member sat on a

chair turning back to the flip chart. While the Facilitators were writing and showing the key words

given by the participants, the other members of the group looking at the chart should be acting

such that those on the electric/hot chair can figure out what was on written and say it aloud. The

first one speaking wins for his group.

This game was so funny and instructive in the meantime. It showed the level of participants’

understanding and how simply they could express it. It was very helpful for them to remember

the key points of the Training.

To practicalize the course an exercise was given to the participants to analyze some policy

paper samples: Case study on “Performance management reform in Lithuania” and “Policy brief

on Cote d’Ivoire”.

Step 1: The groups analyze the item.

Step 2: The groups share what their case analysis is about.

After the break, the participants came in for the discussion. With some guiding questions from

the Facilitators, participants discussed some differences and relations between Policy Study

and Policy Analysis.

Here are some main points brought forth:

- Which of the two Policy documents is the most appropriated for Advocacy?

- What is the role of evidence in the document?

- What step of the policy cycle each follows:

Policy Study:

Policy Analysis:

- How do you disseminate an Advocacy paper?

Afterward, referring to page 28 of the Manual participants were tasked to choose one word

which evokes the concept of Advocacy.

Pell-mell the participants gave their insight on Advocacy definition by quoting one word or

expression:

Communication To convince To influence

Decision Action Change Channels Network

Alliances Political community

Primary decision makers Sensitization

Pressure Message

Social mobilization Claim Campaign

Electoral reforms

Developing effective strategies & communication tools for policy advocacy

The participants were then asked to take the manual, page 28 to define concepts, actors and

their roles in Advocacy. It was about tying each of the below three (3) to the words listed above

related to Advocacy. After discussion, here the correspondent words affected to each case.

- Case 1: African Economics Study Center (Centre d’Etudes de l’Economie Africaine –

CEEA) LOBBYING

- Case 2: International Crisis Group COUNSEL/ MEDIA CAMPAIGN / COOPERATION

- Case 3: Coalition for Domestic Violence Legislation in Ghana (Coalition pour la

législation contre les violences domestiques au Ghana – DV Coalition) ADVOCACY

A graph was designed to represent that; highlighting the role of political actors in Advocacy.

Before closing the day course, Facilitators entrusted the participants with homework consisting

in reading pages 42-48 for the purpose of the next day programme.

Day Four (Day 4)

As a usual duty the participants were engaged in a recap exercise to outline key words from the

previous day course. They thus summed up the Training course sharing key points such as

strategic communication, advocacy, public policy, lobbying and networking.

Then the Facilitators questioned the participants about the risk facing them in running Advocacy

programme. The participants evoked many risks confronting advocates personally and their

organisation. They are: make enemies, office subject to destruction, car breaking, legal papers

withholding, children in hostage, exposure of partner organisations.

ADVOCACY

Following to this the Facilitator added that most of the time civil society organisations go through

such challenges because they want to engage in every battle, every area. CSOs must

specialize, they insisted. They must develop their kennel and reinforce their competencies.

Moreover CSOs should strategically build alliances to become stronger.

As a matter of rewarding for their exemplarity during the Training the participants were

distributed sweets by the Facilitators. The toffees were of four (4) different colours. When they

ready to enjoy it and position comfortably the participants heard the Trainers asking them to

move to sit differently, according to the colour of the sweet they received. All red toffee should

come together, all green together, and so on. Thus the groups were re-ordered regarding the

following colours of sweet: red, green, white and yellow; hence the start of new Session.

TRAINING SESSION 3:

Developing a targeted advocacy plan using the Advocacy Planning Framework (APF)

To introduce the topic, the participants were directed to page 32 of the Workbook. There, the

participants were tasked to read the text on ‘Introduction to the Advocacy Planning Framework

and list three (3) main points per group according to the section they will be given to treat; and

then discuss it with the others.

The participants were therefore affected the following sections to work on. For each group

presentation the Facilitator made necessary comments:

1. The Advocacy Planning Framework (APF): this point focused on the need for a lever.

The lever is the activation key to influence the process and get to realistic objectives. It is

a key tool to access the way forward. In conducting advocacy, civil society actors must

know how to strategically design approach to put together necessary inputs including

stakeholders to successfully achieve goals

2. The way into the process: it starts by questioning the issue on the agenda; then you

have to know the best time to get in, manage and involve stakeholders, know your

values and interests and know how to bypass any oncoming or existing hindrance/

turbulence to implement the appropriate solutions;

3. The messenger: the messenger is determining for your success. He must bear

credibility, show confidence, reflects the organisation. Sometimes, it is rather advised to

get allied to partner organisation for the purpose of your advocacy;

4. The message: the content of the message is very important. He has to be adjusted to

the audience. Therefore it is a must to know the target and design the message and

form/ method of presentation accordingly, i.e. figures, pictures, statistics, etc. Moreover a

winning strategy is to anticipate, think the way your audience would.

Afterwards, the Facilitators asked why APF is called a tool. Participants answered that it is

because it is used forehand, to serve for the preparation of the advocacy; on another hand it

helps to implementing advocacy programme.

Then the Facilitators thanked the participants for their responses and stated that it is because

APF asks questions advocates must answer to planning their advocacy activity. They also

noticed that the context is a distinctive element in implementing APF.

Following this participants were given an exercise at p.39-40 of the Manual. Each group was

asked to take 5mn to think on a persuasive message on the use of an ECOWAS Standby Force

(Force Africaine en Attente de la CEDEAO - FAA). This message was to be directed to a

specific targeted audience composed of the Chief of Defense, Battalion Commanders and Head

of Police. They had either to support or reject the setting-up and working of this new security

body in the quest of peace and stability in the sub-region. Each group discussed and reported to

others on the construction of their message, choosing the most appropriate order to them

referring to the suggested statements given them. This involved further comments. Indeed the

Facilitators commented that it is not obvious for all to have same priorities. Everybody defines

priorities according to his/her own perception, they stressed. However one must overall take

heed of the audience, the target public in construction of the message; and the suggested

interests should be realistic.

The Facilitators then outlined the followings to build effective advocacy message:

1. Have clear objective;

2. Know the process;

3. Know the audience;

4. Give a foretaste, i.e. only show the iceberg first. They will ask more once convinced.

A final exercise was given to the participants to impulse networking dynamic and help them start working towards strategic alliances. This is to be completed later, stated the Facilitators. CONCLUSION The Training in Lome was very successful and to a large extend achieved its major objectives.

Only 15 number of participants participated in the training. It is important to note that, this

special training was funded from the unspent funds realized from the major project sponsored

by LGI with the overall financial support by WACSI. The availability of funds was a great

determinant factor of the number of trainees for the training. Participants created safe

atmosphere for discussions and interaction throughout the Training Workshop with the overall

direction and guidance from the facilitator and the WACSI team on ground.

The Training content which focused on three main aspects as highlighted the contextualized

training handbook/guidebook understanding the context of Policy Advocacy and writing (1),

structuring and developing a coherent policy paper (2) and developing a targeted advocacy plan

using the Advocacy Planning Framework (3). For this purpose, the Trainers used facilitation

method to help the participants understand and get involved through ‘learning by doing. Also,

training materials were adequate for the purpose of generating adequate learning experience for

the participants. The methodology greatly encouraged mutual understanding and exposure.

Thus all participants had room to intervene and make comments in a constructive way.

Furthermore, it encouraged networking among civil society actors partaking in the workshop.

Overall, the four-day Policy Advocacy Training enabled the participants to better understand

Policy Advocacy context and how to engage policymakers strategically in order to achieve their

desired objective and or change. One key lesson learnt during the Training is endurance,

perseverance and monitoring. It was obvious from the experiences shared that civil society

actors need to be more persistence, with perseverant spirit. Another principle that emanated

from the Training is specialization, that is, targeting some specific areas and concentrate on to

significantly make impact instead of embracing whatever comes one’s way which in the end

leads to inefficiency. Participants recognized that one weakness of policy advocate particularly

CSAs is “lack of focus”. They however, promised to work towards improving their skill and better

generate desired outcomes.

Finally, the workshop was beneficial and significant to building alliances and strengthening

relationship between actors within Togo. Participants proposed and reached a consensus on

creating a platform of action to work through and continue the network already created by

WACSI in bringing them together as a result of the training. This proposed platform/network

was, considered an important gain/tool for advocacy action.

In organizational, WACSI staff managed the overall affair of the total training packing from the

administration of the “Call for Applications” to the “Certification” of all successful participants.

The total package was rated “excellent” by over 95% of the participants.

Notable challenges:

The usual delay experienced in most if not the entire Institutes’ fund transfer process was a

major challenge for the training. In Togo, the initial 70% advance funds transferred to the hotel

did not hit the designated as scheduled, and this made the hotel management apprehensive,

which in turn disturbed the concentration of WACSI for a short while. However, situation soon

returned to normalcy when the advance transferred was effected and the 30% balance payment

was made in Cash, out of the existing contingency component of the activity budget.

Overall, it was exciting to be part of this expedition and contribute once more to the fulfillment of

Civil Society practitioners through Policy Advocacy and Engagement Strategies for more

democratic states across the sub-region.

APPENDIX I : PARTICIPANTS’ LIST

LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS FORMATION SPECIALISEE EN PLAIDOYER ET STRATEGIES D’ENGAGEMENT DE POLITIQUE

POUR LES ACTEURS DE LA SOCIETE CIVILE AU TOGO 20-23 Septembre 2011 - SAINT THOMAS HOTEL, LOME, TOGO.

No. Nom du candidat Organisation Poste Actuel Email/Téléphone

1. AGOUNKEY ELISE ADJOA GROUPE INTERNATIONAL POUR LE RENFORCEMENT DES CAPACITES FEMINIES (GIRCAFEM)

Présidente du Conseil d’Administration

elisagou@yahoo.com; elisagou@live.fr +228 99 36 15 53

2.

AKUE ADOUDE A.

MIKAFUI

GROUPE DE REFLEXION ET D’ACTION FEMME DEMOCRATIE ET DEVELOPPEMENT (GF2D)

Assistante de programme – Programme d’éducation civique à l’endroit des Femmes (PECIF)

mikafuiakue@yahoo.fr;

gf2dcriff@yahoo.fr +228 90 28 06 96

3. ANDRÉ KANGNI AFANOU COLLECTIF DES ASSOCIATIONS CONTRE L’IMPUNITE AU TOGO

Directeur Exécutif andreafanou@gmail.com +228 90 02 10 38

4. AVEGNON KOFFI EDEM

TERRE DES HOMMES - TOGO Juriste, Personne Ressource

avegnone@gmail.com ; avegnone@yahoo.fr +228 90 25 71 07

5. AYETAN Kodjo Ognandou CERCLE DES JEUNES POUR UNE SOCIETE DE PAIX (CJSP)

Secrétaire General carlosaye@yahoo.fr ; cjsp_tg@yahoo.fr +228 927 58 25

6. DOGBE YAO CARREFOUR DE DEVELOPPEMENT charge de programmes dcarrefour@yahoo.fr ; ydogbeyao@yahoo.fr +228 90 07 68 04

7. ECCARIUS-ACHILLE LYDIA FLORAISON Présidente ongfloraison@yahoo.fr +228 99 40 59 57

8. EDEM KOMI AMOUDOKPO

CONSEIL POUR LE DEVELOPPEMENT DE KLOTO (CODEK)

Secrétaire Général edemamoudokpo@yahoo.fr

+228 90 31 18 79

9. KOUAMI OLÉVIÉ AGBÉNYO

INTIC4DEV & ESTETIC Directeur Exécutif / Secrétaire Général

olivierkouami@gmail.com +228 90 98 86 50

10. KOUASSI HOUEFA AKPEDJE

JOURNALISTES POUR LES DROITS DE L’HOMME (JDHO)

Trésorière Générale fabbikouassi@gmail.com +228 91 96 59 56

11. KPELA AZOUMA

YAOSSIM KOFFI

CERCLE DES JEUNES POUR UNE

SOCIETE DE PAIX (CJSP) Président

cjsp_tg@yahoo.fr;

azkpela@hotmail.fr

+228 90 03 92 76 /23 38 79 28

12.

KPELA AZOUMA

YAOSSIM KOFFI

CERCLE DES JEUNES POUR UNE

SOCIETE DE PAIX (CJSP) Président

cjsp_tg@yahoo.fr;

azkpela@hotmail.fr

+228 90 03 92 76 /23 38 79 28

13. KPODJRATO KOFFI MAWULÉ

FLORAISON Chargé de Programmes

krismakk@gmail.com ;

cemakk2005@yahoo.fr +228 99 45 96 14

14. MME GNAZOU R. EYOUNA BENEDICTE

CEG TOKOIN WUITI Directrice gnazoub@yahoo.fr +228 90 04 18 20

15. NICOLE DAGAWA

WILDAF WEST AFRICA wildaf@cafe.tg +228 22 61 26 79

16. OMOLARA BALOGUN WACSI Responsable Programme

de Plaidoyer de Politique

obalogun@wacsi.org

+233 243 746 790

17. SOMBO ATSE FRANCK

ARTHUR WACSI

Assistant aux

Programmes

fsombo@wacsi.org

+233 540 495 186

18. MBROU ANTOINETTE

LUCKY GOREE Institute Chercheur

princesselucky@yahoo.fr

+228 91 74 69 79

19. GNACADJA CONSTANT WANEP Coordonnateur Régional gnacaconstant@yahoo.fr

+229 21 30 99 39

20 MOUVY BIOVA OBSERVATEUR bioyves@yahoo.fr

+228 90 27 96 53

APPENDIX II: TRAINING AGENDA

PROGRAMME DE L’ATELIER

ATELIER DE FORMATION SPECIALISEE EN PLAIDOYER ET STRATEGIES

D’ENGAGEMENT DE POLITIQUE POUR LES ACTEURS DE LA SOCIETE CIVILE

AU TOGO

DATE: Du 20 au 23 septembre 2011

LIEU : SAINT THOMAS HOTEL, LOME, TOGO

PROGRAMME DU 20 SEPTEMBRE

Date HEURE ACTIVITE PERSONNES

RESSOURCES

20 SEPTEMBRE

8.00- 9:30

INSCRIPTION

9:30-10:00

MESSAGE DE BIENVENUE/PRESENTATION DES

PARTICIPANTS

(Photo d’ensemble)

Responsable Plaidoyer

de Politique de WACSI

10:00-11:00

SESSION 1

Constant GNACADJA

Lucky A. MBROU

11:00-11:30 PAUSE-CAFE

11.30 – 13.00

SESSION 2

Constant GNACADJA

Lucky A. MBROU

13:00-14:30 PAUSE DEJEUNER

14:30-16:30

SESSION 3

Constant GNACADJA

Lucky A. MBROU

FIN DE LA JOURNEE

PROGRAMME JOURNALIER (DU 21 AU 23 SEPTEMBRE 2011)

Date HEURE ACTIVITE PERSONNES

RESSOURCES

8.30 - 11:00

SESSION 1

Constant GNACADJA

Lucky A. MBROU

11:00-11:30 PAUSE CAFE

11:30 -13:00

SESSION 2

Constant GNACADJA

Lucky A. MBROU

13:00-14:30 PAUSE DEJEUNER

14:30-16:30

SESSION 3

Constant GNACADJA

Lucky A. MBROU

FIN

APPENDIX III: TRAINING SYLLABUS

ATELIER DE FORMATION SUR LE PLAIDOYER ET L'ENGAGEMENT DE POLITIQUE POUR LES ACTEURS

DE LA SOCIETE CIVILE AU TOGO

Un cours élaboré pour les Acteurs de la Société Civle en Afrique de l’Ouest

Lieu : Saint Thomas Hotel, Lomé, Togo

Date: 20 – 23 September, 2011.

Formateurs: Ms. Lucky Antoinette Mbrou et Mr. Constant Gnacadja

BUT & OBJECTIFS

Cette formation particulière a été élaborée pour faire prendre conscience des

différents aspects des défis liés à un Plaidoyer de Politique efficace. Ce cours aidera

les participants à aiguiser leur vision, leur langage ainsi que les outils qui leur

permettront de progresser dans la réalisation des buts de leurs organisations

respectives et par la même occasion d’améliorer leurs compétences individuelles en

Plaidoyer et Engagement de politique ; en accomplissant ce qui suit :

L'objectif de cet atelier est de donner aux participants un aperçu stratégique,

des compétences et des ressources pour élaborer des campagnes de

plaidoyer utiles en matière de politique ainsi que des outils de communication

qui expriment une position politique convaincante et qui permettent de

réaliser des objectifs politiques souhaités.

À cette fin, les participants à l'atelier auront à : Maîtriser les enjeux du point de vue de politique publique qui déterminent les

moyens de communication à utiliser dans la formulation de la politique de plaidoyer ;

Comprendre comment les documents de politique à travers l’exemple principal de politique de communication, peuvent soutenir une décision factuelle du processus décisionnel;

Elaborer une vision dans une approche stratégique de planification d'une campagne de sensibilisation: le cadre de planification de plaidoyer (CPP);

Analyser et réfléchir sur des stratégies pour accroître la probabilité d'atteindre l’impact souhaité dans la rédaction et l'utilisation des documents de politique;

Avoir une compréhension sur la structure et les objectifs de plaidoyer des deux principaux types de documents de politique : l’étude politique et la note de synthèse et d’orientation ;

Comparer les différences entre le style académique traditionnel et le style du monde réel appliqué à la politique;

Approfondir la compréhension à travers l'analyse des études de cas pertinents et les réels documents de politique universelle;

Déterminer une attention appropriée et objective pour une campagne de sensibilisation ciblant le contexte des politiques locales;

Avoir un aperçu sur la nature des messages de plaidoyer convaincants. L'atelier vise également à:

Promouvoir le développement des compétences autonomes grâce à l'utilisation du guide LGI « Rédiger des documents pertinents de politique publique» comme un document de référence;

Créer un environnement de travail collaboratif entre les participants de l'atelier.

APERÇU DE L'ATELIER

L'atelier de cinq jours est composé de 15 sessions reparties en 3 phases

principales :

1. Comprendre le contexte du plaidoyer en politique publique et de son élaboration

Cette section examinera les facteurs contextuels qui structurent les campagnes de

plaidoyer politique et qui articulent les documents de politique publique comme des

outils de communication utilisés dans le processus de mise en œuvre de décision

politique. Nous examinerons la nature de la politique publique dans son contexte, les

approches pour l'élaboration des politiques et les différents aspects de la

communauté politique comme un moyen de formuler les documents politiques. Enfin,

les différents types de documents politiques couramment utilisés dans l'élaboration

des politiques communautaires, à savoir les études politiques et les notes de

synthèses et d’orientation seront mises en place.

2. Structurer et développer un document cohérent de politique publique

Le but de cette section est d’élaborer une vision autour de l'objectif et des

caractéristiques des éléments structurels communs au niveau des recherches

politiques et des synthèses politiques. L'accent sera mis sur la maîtrise de la

compréhension totale des principaux éléments structurels qui sont essentiels pour

atteindre l'objectif du document de politique à savoir : la description du problème, les

options politiques, les conclusions et recommandations. Les participants pourront

effectuer une analyse comparative du contexte, du but et de la structure d'un cas

d’étude politique et de note de synthèse et d’orientation. Le principal document de

rédaction utilisé pendant l’atelier sera le guide LGI "Rédiger des documents pertinents

de politique publique"1.

1 Young, Eóin et Lisa Quinn (2002) Writing Effective Public Policy Papers: A Guide for Policy Advisors in

Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: OSI/LGI.

Dans l'élément final de cette section, nous allons examiner les différentes approches

de la structuration des documents de politique en termes d'efficacité dans le seul but

d’attirer l'attention des cibles potentielles et de faciliter la délivrance des messages

désirés.

3. Élaborer un plan de plaidoyer ciblé en utilisant le cadre de planification du

plaidoyer (CPP)

Le but de cet élément de l'atelier est d'examiner les éléments clés pour mettre sur

pied un plan de plaidoyer afin de maximiser les chances de parvenir à influencer la

politique. Cette session commence par la définition de la notion de plaidoyer dans un

contexte politique et l'analyse des différents rôles que les acteurs politiques

choisissent de jouer dans leurs activités de plaidoyer. Les participants pourront

également réfléchir sur le rôle qu'ils jouent ou qu’ils entendent jouer dans leurs

propres activités de plaidoyer.

Après cette étape initiale, le Cadre de Planification de Plaidoyer introduira les grands

axes clés de la planification pour une campagne de sensibilisation ciblée. Les

participants auront alors l'occasion d'utiliser ou d’appliquer cet outil important dans la

planification du plaidoyer en se basant sur des études de cas. Enfin, nous allons

analyser les approches pour l’élaboration des messages convaincants de plaidoyer à

l’endroit des parties prenantes ciblées. Toutes les questions les plus importantes qui

doivent être abordées dans la planification d'une campagne de sensibilisation

efficace sont prises en compte en tant que ressource à l’usage des participants.

METHODOLOGIE DE L'ATELIER

Cet atelier est de nature pratique et vise la rédaction des documents de politique et

les besoins en plaidoyer au profit des participants des ateliers. La participation active

est la pierre angulaire de la méthodologie utilisée avec un accent particulier mis sur

l'analyse des documents authentiques de politique, des études de cas et l'application

des connaissances et des compétences au plaidoyer politique et au contexte

rédactionnel propre des participants.

Autres principales approches méthodologiques adoptées au cours de l'atelier :

Approche basée sur l'apprenant dans un environnement interactif; Approche basée sur l'apprentissage par la pratique; Travail en paire ou en petit groupe pour faciliter l'interaction avec les paires; le rôle des participants comme des apprenants adultes avisés et

responsables, et le rôle du formateur comme facilitateur.

PROGRAMME DE LA FORMATION

Le calendrier journalier des 4 jours de l'Atelier se présente comme suit:

Le calendrier journalier de l’atelier Dates

Inscription et présentation : Mardi 20, 8h00 – 9h00

08.30 – 10.30 Session 1 A partir du

Mercredi 21 au

Vendredi 23 10.30 – 11.00 Pause café

11.00 – 13.00 Session 2

13.00 – 14.00 Déjeuner

14.00 – 16.00 Session 3

FORMATEURS

Constant C. GNACADJA : Béninois, marié et âgé de 46 ans, a un Master en gestion

des projets et une expérience très riche en édification de la paix et en organisation

institutionnelle dont le plan stratégique. Il est formateur international en plaidoyer. Il

est Consultant sur les questions électorales. Ses expériences de travail depuis 2003

avec le réseau WANEP (West Africa Network for Peacebuilding) et la CEDEAO lui

ont permis de collaborer avec d’autres personnes venant d’autres pays. M.

GNACADJA a la capacité de travailler en anglais et en français.

Avec le réseau WANEP, il a eu à diriger le programme de renforcement des

capacités des organisations de la société civile en prévention des conflits et la bonne

gouvernance pour sept (7) pays francophones (le Bénin, le Burkina Faso, la Côte

d’Ivoire, la Guinée, la Guinée Bissau, le Sénégal et le Togo) et continue de diriger le

programme d’alerte précoce et de réponses rapides pour le Bénin, le Nigéria et le

Togo. La gestion de ces programmes lui a permis de renforcer ses capacités de

facilitateur de session et médiateur dans des conflits. Aussi a-t-il participé à des

consultations au Bénin et dans la sous-région pour le compte de différentes

organisations. Son intérêt sur les questions électorales lui a permis d’observer les

différents processus électoraux au Bénin, au Togo, en Côte d’Ivoire, en Guinée et en

Afrique du Sud.

En réseau avec d’autres organisations de la société civile au Bénin M. GNACADJA

est membre du Front des Organisations de la Société Civile pour la Liste Electorale

Permanente Informatisée (FORS LEPI 2011) et de FORS-ELECTIONS. Il est le

Président de l’Association Droits de l’Homme, Paix et Développement (DHPD).

Antoinette L. Mbrou : Togolaise et Juriste.

APPENDIX IV : PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATION OF THE TRAINING

Group picture

Opening Speech from WACSI Staff – interpreting from English into French.

Facilitators, Lucky and Constant

Op

Participant speaking

Participants working in group

Group Discussions - Active participation

Role play – showing communication dynamic and Networking (1)

Energizing activities

Energizing activities

Final Group Picture

Role play – showing communication dynamic and Networking (2)