Page | 1 Training Narrative Report POLICY ADVOCACY AND ENGAGEMENT POST-TOT TRAINING WORKSHOP FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS IN NIGERIA “A tailored Training for OSIWA-Grantees in Nigeria” DATE: 27 – 30 SEPTEMBER, 2010. VENUE: STARFIRE, G.R.A, IKEJA, LAGOS, NIGERIA. SEPTEMBER 2010.
22
Embed
Policy Advocacy and Engagement Training for OSIWA Grantees in Nigeria- Training Narrative Report (September 2010)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page | 1
Training Narrative Report
POLICY ADVOCACY AND ENGAGEMENT POST-TOT TRAINING WORKSHOP FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS IN
NIGERIA “A tailored Training for OSIWA-Grantees in Nigeria”
DATE: 27 – 30 SEPTEMBER, 2010.
VENUE: STARFIRE, G.R.A, IKEJA, LAGOS, NIGERIA.
SEPTEMBER 2010.
Page | 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of acronyms ………………………………………………………………………………… 3
amongst other skills aimed at influencing policy discourse at all levels.
Mr. Olaide stated the need for civil society actors in Nigeria to make a paradigm shift from
the traditional mode of engaging government on policy issues. He said constructive policy
agenda is fundamental to the development of good governance; create platform to
strengthen democracy, foster accountability, enhance transparency and rule of law, and as
well encourage freedoms and widespread civic participation. Mr. Olaide reiterated the
need for CSOs to re-strategise, in their effort to examine, analyze, influence and advocate
for a more inclusive and participatory policy making processes. In his final words, the acting
coordinator emphasize on OSIWA’s commitment to support initiatives that seeks to promote
open society in West Africa. He concluded by appreciating WACSI for conceiving and
leading the implementation of the initiative which he called a “strategic partnership with
mutual benefit” for the tripartite.
TRAINERS OPENING REMARKS
In the final stage of the opening session, the trainers - Ms. Margaret Brew-Ward and Mr. Paul
Bemshima Nyulaku were given the opportunity introduce themselves and give a brief
information on their involvement in the project. The duo briefed the participants about their
involvement in the regional policy advocacy project, highlighting specifically on the six
months ToT process (December, 2009 to May, 2010) that culminated in the establishment of
a pool of West African (local) training team. Both trainers appreciated OSIWA, WACSI and
Page | 7
LGI for providing another platform for them to put their acquired skills and knowledge into
practice. They thanked WACSI for coordinating the training, and congratulated the
participants for making the OSIWA nomination list. Above all, they appraised the richness of
the participants’ and commended the depth of policy knowledge, practical advocacy
experiences, and excellent academic portfolio.
Trainers, stated that, the four days training will not only offer them the opportunity to learn
from the experiences of the participants, but will create a practical platform for both trainers
and participants to explore, discuss and share knowledge, good practices and strategies to
construct effective policy advocacy framework, and to enhance individual knowledge in
policy advocacy, engagement, formulation, and analysis.
WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES
Day One
Aims of the Training and Introduction of Participants
The trainers introduced participants to the aims of the training and the possible values it
could add to their respective organizational mandates and individual development. The
trainers enjoined participants to form a community for the four days in which they would be
working together, emphasizing the impact of participation and interaction as well as sharing
experiences. The trainers explained the benefits of learning from one another’s experiences
as well as creating new ideas and solutions together to guide the work, exercises and case
studies analysis.
Participants were given the opportunity to introduce themselves succinctly, including a few
words in their thematic areas of operation, organizational mandates, goals and objectives,
work experience amongst others. Participants revealed the diversity of their high level
practical experience, talents and resources.
The participants worked together, in groups of four, to define their expectations and
concerns for the workshop as well as their personal objectives. This exercise highlighted the
priority given by participants to exploring an understanding of policy issues and how to
present and address those issues in the Nigeria context. Conducting effective policy
advocacy and best strategy in engaging policy makers were two leading issues identified by
the participants in during the session. Some of the specific concerns and expectations raised
are illustrated in the table below:
Page | 8
Table 1: Expectations and Concerns of participants for the training
Group Number Expectations
Group One:
STAR
To acquire new knowledge and skills in policy advocacy.
To learn new things and share knowledge.
Group Two:
INNOVATIVE
Understanding why policies fail in Nigeria.
In-depth interactions in policy formulation procedures.
Group Three:
DYNAMIC
How to develop persuasive advocacy briefs
To know about good policy engagement and advocacy
processes
Group Four:
SUPREME
Learn how to structure and implement advocacy campaign
within the Nigerian framework.
Setting Ground Rules
As a next step, participants drew up a list of ground rules for the meeting. Working in small
groups, the participants suggested a variety of useful rules. The rules could be practical or
deal with the attitude of participants. Their suggestions included the following:
Listening to what each person had to say without interruption;
Respecting divergent views and opinions;
Turning off mobile phones or putting it permanently on silent;
Speaking concisely and refraining from making speeches;
Avoiding repetition of previously made-points;
Prompt resumption to training room in the morning;
Keeping to time, including in lunch, tea breaks, group works etc.
Table 2: Workshop Goals, Outlines and methodology
Workshop Goal
To equip participants with :
- strategy and insight on conducting advocacy campaigns
- effective skills to engage policy makers
- effective plans to achieve desired/set policy objectives
- how to write effective policy briefs, and make it an action tool for policy
makers etc.
Outline
Context of policy advocacy and writing
Structuring and developing a coherent policy paper
Developing a targeted advocacy plan using the advocacy planning
Page | 9
framework
Methodology
Will be practical and learning centered
Learning by doing approach
Participants experiences in policy advocacy/processes
The participants were the task to define Public Policy and share the attribute of an effective
policy advocacy paper. Having being divided into four groups with the opportunity to
choose a preferred group name, participant shared the different attributes of a policy paper
in the table below:
CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY PAPER
Group Name 5 characteristics of an Effective Advocacy Paper
STAR 1. Present an argument that urgent problem exists.
2. Present a problem within its context.
3. Build a problem within its context.
4. Outline the past and present problem
5. Provide background of problem:
- When and how problem arose
- Causes of the problem
- Historical, legal, political, social and economic contexts
- Affected target audience.
- Problem description should suit topic, purpose and audience.
- There should be clear links between and within all elements of
arguments
- Coherence argumentation.
- Paragraphing, proper referencing.
INNOVATIVE 1. It should be brief, concise, coherent and reader friendly
2. It should have a target audience.
3. It must address a specific issue
4. It must be professionally drafted/properly structured.
Page | 10
5. It should have reliable and verifiable data.
DYNAMIC 1. Clear presentation of the issue to be addressed.
2. Background, theory, and experience data
3. User friendly/ speak to your audience.
4. Problematizing the issues.
5. Recommendations and way forward.
SUPREME 1. Structure: well structured to observe the rule of drafting.
2. Content: focused in what it intends to cure or provide.
3. Background: well researched with proper data; factual and
unambiguous.
4. Target Group: concerns and interest of target group must be
considered.
5. Must be supreme- backed with authority.
Activities: Some of the activities used in facilitating the 3 sessions includes 1) the Network
threads role play 2) Policy network- activity 4, and 3) Purpose of policy paper – activity 5.
Day two:
The previous day was recapitulated through an exercise (the card game) where all
participants were required to give definitions to various concepts within a policy process
through a card playing game. Concepts such as Advocacy, policy option, policy dialogue,
persuasive, influencing, lobbying, engagement, target-audience etc. were well defined.
Trainers led participants to recall other key points to be mastered from previous sessions. The
general feedback on day one ignited an enthusiastic and rich discussion.
In the second day, the objective was to identify essential element of a policy brief and
paper. Participants were engaged in a stiff debate on the essential element of a good
policy study vis-à-vis a policy brief, the participant reached on consensus on the following as
ideal structural element of a Policy study and policy brief.
Table 3: Common Structural Elements of the Policy Study/Brief
POLICY STUDY POLICY BRIEF
1. Title
2. Table of content
3. Abstract/Executive
1. Title
2. Introduction
3. Problem description
Page | 11
Summary
4. Introduction
5. Problem description
6. Policy options
7. Appendices
8. Bibliography
9. Endnotes
4. Policy Option
In a group of four, participants shared their ideas on the different elements of a policy paper
and policy study. They identify the purpose of each element in the different types of papers,
main feature, the organizational structure and factors to consider when writing that element.
The summary of the report from the four groups are:
1. COMPREHENSIVE PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
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
Focus in outlining the problem within its environment
What is included?
Background of the problem
Problem within its current policy environment
Organizing your problem description
Other feature to consider
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
2. POLICY OPTIONS FOR POLICY ACTIONS
Purpose of the element
It presents an argument for the preferred policy alternative based on the evaluation
of all possible alternatives
What is included?
Framework of analysis
Evaluation of policy alternatives
Other feature to consider
Page | 12
Adoption of verifiable facts/data
coherency and adequate paragraphing
Provide practical and “SMART” options
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Purpose of the element:
Summary and analysis of research report/findings
Snapshot of provided policy options
Final submission/remarks
What is included?
Avoidance of lengthy repeating of major findings
Good and clear presentation format (of actions especially)
Other feature to consider
Structure and content of the element
Effectiveness of both samples as decision making tools
The analysis was followed by an interactive discussion on what an ideal policy cycle should
be. Participants discussed how to plan and effectively engage a policy cycle from the
beginning to achieve the set policy goals or policy objectives. Trainers then broadened the
scope of the discussion.
THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS (THE POLICY CYCLE): The figure below was used to depict and
outline an ideal policy making process:
Problem definition/Agenda setting (step 1)
Constructing the policy/Alternatives/Policy Formulation (Step 2)
Choice of solution/Selection of preferred policy option (Step 3)
Policy design (step 4)
Evaluation (Step 5 /beginning of another cycle)
Page | 13
Most participants confirmed that the presented cycle had not been the norm in their
respective organizations. They raised concerns about the implication(s) of not following the
presented steps whilst implementing a project. Participants echoes the challenges usually
encountered due to the closed-nature of the Nigerian policy environment, specifically the
unwillingness of the policy makers to open windows of engagement (open-door policy) that
to could provide opportunity for other sectors of the society e.g. civil society, to make input
into a policy formulation processes.
Day Three
Following a welcoming and warming energizing, an activity was adopted to recapture the
lessons of the previous day. Participants sought for clarity in areas in some blur areas,
specifically there was re-call on the ideal stages of a policy making process. The use of time
was re-emphasized to be critical to every policy planning, as well as providing adequate
information to the target group as the case progresses. The trainers reiterated the need to
base all judgment, comment, finding on empirical date, which mean, in-depth research into
the subject matter must be conducted before engaging in any policy process. Having
absolute background information to the social problem is critical to determining an
appropriate solution (policy option) before an effective change can occur.
The objectives of the day were to identify the purpose of a policy research in comparison
with an academic paper and to technically distinguish between a policy paper and
academic paper. Participants were given an exercise to spot differences between the two
papers, as highlighted in Activity 8 of the workbook, while the following exercise required
participants to conduct an in-depth analysis of the policy brief and study.
Table 5: differences between and academic research and a policy paper
Policy Paper Academic paper
a call to action in a persuasive approach
Not necessarily aimed at a calling to action
targeted at certain group of people
Meant to change thinking and influence
disciplinary and educational issues.
time is of the essence as regards policy
paper
are not timed bound
may not follow such strict methodology
Strict methodology applies including primary
and secondary papers
do not necessarily follow structural guidelines
have some very strict structural guidelines
more content Straight to the point and brief.
Page | 14
Closed ended Open ended
Day Four
The day began with a recap, followed by an exercise in which participants were required to
qualify “Advocacy” using associated words learnt in the previous 3 days. The main objective
of the session was for participants to respond to the concept of “Advocacy” in a broader
view. Some of words used in defining the concept of “Advocacy” include:
Persuading
Appealing
Supporting
Driving
Campaigning
Voicing
Influence
Convincing
Arguing
Presenting
Demanding
Pressuring
Trainers agreed that the words enlisted above have component of advocacy structure in
them, however, it was buttressed that every advocacy moves are always implemented
through a preconceived and pre-planned strategy, coupled with designed methodologies
and actions. Thus, an advocacy is a combination of strategy, methodology and actions.
Participants were asked to identify key elements in defining advocacy, and they include:
An approach/policy to create a social change
Identified target audience, stakeholders, decision-makers etc.
Convincing needs for a change, and the expected benefit from the change
Generating support for a social course, gathering momentum and building support
Passing relevant messages and information to decision makers, and public
Creating a tool for action for policy makers etc.
Trainers concluded by reinstating Advocacy to be a two way process of negotiation,
discussion, give and take, win-some/lose-some process which requires commitment,
resources and time. This was followed by a discussion on strategy to get a message across to
policy maker. Lobbying, mobilizing, campaigning, were considered as informal ways of
getting the attention of policy maker within a particular context, while adopting an
advocacy strategy was considered to be most critical to the process. A strategy should
consider satisfying factors such as issue, relevance, audience, location, stakeholders,
possibilities etc before being adopted as an advocacy tool. To conclude the session, trainers
reinstated the need to establish and include the following components into the planning an
advocacy process i.e. 1) the entry into the process 2) the messenger 3) the message and 4)
the overall Advocacy Planning Framework (APF).
Page | 15
The participants shared the outcome of their group work with the larger group. The below table illustrate the summary of the
group presentations.
Table 6: Constructing and mapping the elements in an advocacy process using the APF
Constructing a persuasive
Message
(The Message)
Way into the process
(The process)
Attribute of the messenger
(The Messenger)
The message should be of a
clear objectives demand at all
levels;
Having a targeted audience;
and
Calling for a social change.
Making a good choice or mode of entry is very crucial to the
success of an advocacy process i.e. having access to new
evidences and argument that could move the process
forward
One important component to consider in choosing a mode
entry is the Levers. These are tools to facilitate the process;
strategies to be adopted; including advocacy measures –
media, lobbying, advising, support building, inside track
approaches, best way or strategy to get into the process.
Other things to consider are:
issues on the agenda (demand);
value and interests;
current thinking, position, cultural/religions deadlock or state
of the issue;
Procedure and right languages to present the solution;
Entry timing should be right and suitable for the process;
Possible obstacles to the process should also be considered;
and
A broad stakeholder mapping is also essential in choosing a
mode of entry.
The presentation on the “messenger”
depicts that the messenger is often more
Important than the message based on
the following philosophy:
Credibility to push the agenda;
Visibility and accessibility;
Having in-depth understanding on the
subject matter;
Have the personality and reputation
to attract the targeted audience;
Availability of basic resources to bring
the advocacy objective into reality.
Page | 16
FEEDBACK/REFLECTION SESSION
Part One: The workshop in one WORD
The session (recommendation session) was facilitated by WACSI represented by the policy
Advocacy officer. The objective of the session is to receive immediate feedback from
participants with respect to the relevance of the training to their respective organizational and
individual development; how they intend to utilize the skills, knowledge and capacity
acquired in the course of the training, as well as give insightful recommendations that
enhance future delivery and packaging of the training. The session also require participant to
comment briefly on the areas that met their expectation and point out others which require
improvement.
The first exercise is for all participants to use a word in qualifying the four day workshop. Some
of the words/responses gathered in this session include:
Knowledgeable
Enhancing
Worthwhile
Interesting
Excellent
Educative
Revealing
Striking
Supreme
Captivating
Eye-opening
Instructive
Satisfactory
Good
Part Two: Immediate Impact
The second part required participants to state briefly what, how, and when, they would be
drawing from the newly acquired skills. The objective of the part is to having a quick
understanding of which of the training component (contents/session) is most relevant to the
group and how soon they will put it into practical usage. Some of the responses are captured
below:
1. Redesign/redraft an ongoing policy brief for a project;
2. Organise a step-down training for middle/senior management officers in the
organization focusing on key issues such as:
a. structural elements of a policy paper/briefs
b. the major content of policy papers
c. differences between a policy paper and a brief
3. Begin to engage policy issues from a different and technical perspectives
4. Considering adopting and adapting the use of the APF
5. Begin to consider target audience as a important stakeholder of a policy process
6. Begin to technically review and critique documents developed by consultants for the
organization; and
7. Re-strategize the pattern of writing public paper, policy research, report and options
Page | 17
In this part, participants agreed with the idea to establish an advocacy group called
“Coalition for Policy Change” with the objective to: coordinate efforts of the Civil Society
Organizations on policy change advocacy in Nigeria
“ABOUT COALITION FOR POLICY CHANGE IN NIGERIA” The coalition for policy change is a composition of civil society organizations and partners whose agenda is to effect policy change. The coalition is a network of NGO’s that seek to trap the emerging legal, economic and development order around which policy makers may engineer the future of governmental and non-governmental decision making. It also seeks to impact on public policy making through expert interventions that seek to align national level policy making with national, regional or international instruments and obligations and update the regulatory, legal, ethical or administrative frameworks in specific policy areas, taking account of developments in international public policy. In ensuring its objectives the coalitions work by engaging in public advocacy, analyze policy issues, mobilize constituencies in support of policy dialogue, serve as watchdogs in ensuring accountability in performance of government functions and most importantly, act as agents of reforms in strengthening and broadening democratic governance. Vision Achieve good governance and human rights promotion in Nigeria. Mission Bridging CSO’s communication gap in responding effectively on public policies Aims and Objectives: To enhance awareness of democratic values and processes for good governance
and promotion of human rights. To coordinate efforts of the Civil Society Organizations on policy change
advocacy in Nigeria. To strengthen the Civil Society Organizations participation in the policy making in
Nigeria. To engage into research and documentations of policies. To engage into other advocacies towards Africa’s development and good
governance.
Part Three
The third part requires participants to share with the larger group of what went/worked well
during the four days, and what should be improved upon in organizing future training for
similar group.
Participant reiterated the usefulness/relevance of the training to their respective
Page | 18
organizational mandate and individual capacity development. Some of the participant
(grantees) who have ongoing project being funded by OSIWA highlighted the timeliness of
the training to their organization. Participants commended the methodology to be most ideal
for the selected level of participants- highly interactive, learning by-doing, and provide
opportunities for experience sharing which resulted to insightful discussions.
The content of the training was said to be highly technical and vague to individual
understanding except when facilitated by the trained trainers. The connection and linkages
between exercises/group work and the learning objectives was to be intriguing and highly
professional. Above all, the session on “developing Effective Advocacy Campaign”, using the
APF including lobbying skills proved invaluable to this group. Participants were keen to
understand how to technically plan and present their message to the public and policy
makers, as well as design initiative and strategies to influence policy agendas and promote
positive change. A participant remarked “I never knew I have using the wrong approach in
engaging policy maker, henceforth, my strategies will change”. Another said, “APF is the best
technical tool to plan for any advocacy process, I will ensure my staff get to know and adopt
this tool”. During this session, participants worked on issues considered prime to the different
organization represented including: gender equality/women’s rights, governance and anti-
corruption campaign/transparency and accountability amongst other pressing issues in
Nigeria.
Part four
This part focuses on obtaining input from the participants on most suitable group of actors that
the training could target in the future. Participants advised that the training should be
packaged for three (3) different categories of participant i.e. senior managerial level
(Advance) with immense practical experience in engaging policy issues, who might not
necessarily require going through the entire training package but concentrate on the use of
APF in planning advocacy strategy. The second target-group recommended was- the middle
managerial level (intermediate) with a minimal experience in policy advocacy issues. In this
case, it will be ideal to run the complete module of the course to have maximum impact on
their advocacy capacity. The group advised that the course should not be delivered to
fresh/entry level civil actors with less than 3 years work experience, except where the package
will include a basic of policy knowledge.
Part Five
Participants gave a brief comment on the trainers who has facilitated the training for four days
i.e. Ms. Maggie Brew-Ward and Mr. Paul Bemshima. Participant commended the level of
professionalism displayed in facilitating the group and delivering all components of the
workshop in pair. Amongst other words used in qualifying the trainers include: good,
professional, informed, technical, responsive, respective, perseverance, and prompt.
Participant confirmed the connection between trainers, specifically in switching sessions and
responsibilities to be excellent. In addition, participants appreciated the depth of knowledge
and understanding of the subject matter by the trainers as well as the respect given to other
Page | 19
opinions. In conclusion, the trainers were rated adequate, equipped and professional in
delivering the training to all levels of civil society actors across and beyond the sub-region.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall, participants were energetic, articulate and motivated. The level of interest was quite
high as demonstrated during each group works in which they requested extra time to
complete. Despite the high level of experience displayed, participants were eager to absorb
new concepts, skills and knowledge on policy processes. The group dynamics including
executive directors, programme officers, legal practitioners, university lecturer from the higher
and middle management levels, coupled with the gender-balance (60%:40%)female to male,
and good representation of the different sectors: civil activist, academia, policy strategist etc.
worked extremely well in sharing experiences and ideas.
The participants confirmed to have been introduced and received a balance of knowledge,
information, and practical skills for effective policy advocacy, advocacy planning framework,
writing and differentiating between policy briefs and studies, requisite skills to conduct
effective policy analysis, formulation, influencing, as well as engage and advocate for policy
changes. Finally, participants reaffirmed the relevance of the workshop, to their organizations,
project and individual development. They said, the skills acquired will be help to better
facilitate maximum output and impact of all on-going OSIWA-funded projects.
In addition, participant enjoined the project partners to consider organising future trainings in
the outskirt of town in order to receive maximum concentration and commitment of trainees
to the workshop objectives and as well avoid engagement in other responsibilities.
Another major concern of participants was on the number of days scheduled to cover the
training. Over 80% of the participants were of the opinion that four days is quite inadequate to
cover such a comprehensive training. They recommended that, the number of days be
extended to a week or two in order to provide sufficient time for strategic planning using the
APF. In addition, participants called for further training on negotiation and lobbying skills and
media engagement techniques.
With materials and content, participant pointed to the need for all part of the materials to be
completely West Africanised. They appreciated the localization process thus far, as depicted
in the case studies, exercises, and sample policy brief. It was proposed that partners and
trainers work towards completing the West Africanisation process to include - a localised
policy study sample, replacement of personalities in the “pictures for the striking features”, with
West African figures with similar portfolios, as well localizing the few existing europenised slides.
WORKSHOP AGENDA
Page | 20
POLICY ENGAGEMENT ND ADVOCACY TRAINING WORKSHOP FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS IN
LAGOS, NIGERIA
DATE: SEPTEMBER 27 - 30, 2010
VENUE: STARFIRE HOTEL, GRA, LAGOS, NIGERIA
SCHEDULE September 27
Date TIME ACTIVITY RESOURCE PERSONS
Sept 27th
8.00- 9:30
REGISTRATION
9:30-10:00
WELCOME MESSAGES/ INTRODUCTION
OF PARTICIPANTS
OPENING SPEECH
(Group Picture)
Policy Advocacy officer
WACSI
Country Director, OSIWA-
Nigeria
10:00-11:00
SESSION ONE
Maggie Brew-Ward
Paul B. Nyulaku
11:00-11:30 TEA BREAK 1
11.30 – 13.30
SESSION TWO
Maggie Brew-Ward
Paul B. Nyulaku
13:00-14:30 LUNCH BREAK
14:30-16:30
SESSION THREE
Maggie Brew-Ward
Paul B. Nyulaku
16.30 – 17.00 TEA BREAK 2
DAILY SCHEDULE from September 28 - 30, 2010.
Date TIME ACTIVITY RESOURCE PERSON
8.30 - 11:00
SESSION ONE
Maggie Brew-Ward
Paul B. Nyulaku
11:00-11:30 TEA BREAK 1
11:30 -13:00
SESSION TWO
Maggie Brew-Ward
Paul B. Nyulaku
13:00-14:30 LUNCH BREAK
14:30-16:30
SESSION THREE
Maggie Brew-Ward
Paul B. Nyulaku
Page | 21
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
THE WACSI/OSIWA/LGI POLICY ADVOCACY TRAINING IN LAGOS, NIGERIA
27 – 30, LAGOS, NIGERIA.
No NAME OF ORGANISATION Attendee Position EMAIL ADDRESS Phone Sex