This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
DATE: 20th – 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2011.
VENUE: SAINT THOMAS HOTEL, LOME, TOGO.
Facilitators Constant Gnacadja & Lucky Mbrou
By: Franck Arthur SOMBO
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.
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. 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.
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.
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
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▼
Targets decision-makers and a broad but knowledgeable audience Audience-driven: Specific policy message designed to convince key stakeholders Used for advocating and lobbying purposes Rarely includes primary research Must be very clear and simple Between 4 and 10 pages
Audience Focus Context of use
Targets other policy specialists Issue-driven: Broad recommendations and analysis of policy issues Dissemination and debate on results of policy research, informs the policy brief Can include much primary research specific/technical Up to 60 pages
Methodology Ideas/Language used Can be quite discipline Length
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 Present the topic, problem to be solved. Content
Problem Description Describe the problem regarding its origin and environment 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.
Policy Options Presents an argument for the preferred policy alternative based on the evaluation of all possible solutions. Analysis framework: ideal statement and values which guides the evaluation. It gives a direction and clear justification of positions taken. Policy alternatives assessment.
Conclusion & Recommendations Synthetize the results; List all policy recommendations Make final remarks. 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. Final remarks. Additional information Other sources.
Context of the policy problem Definition of the policy problem Statement of intent Methodology and limitations of the study Road map of the paper
Writing of the checklist Brief context and problemcentered 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.
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
1. Problem Definition/ Agenda Setting
2. Constructing the Policy Alternatives/ Policy Formulation
5. Policy Implementation and Monitoring
3.Choice of Solution/ Selection of Preferred Policy Option
4. Policy Design
Figure 3.1 The Policy 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.
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 Decision Alliances Primary decision makers Pressure Social mobilization Action
To convince Change
To influence Channels Network
Claim Electoral reforms
Sensitization Message Campaign
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.
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. 1. Nom du candidat AGOUNKEY ELISE ADJOA AKUE ADOUDE A. MIKAFUI Organisation GROUPE INTERNATIONAL POUR LE RENFORCEMENT DES CAPACITES FEMINIES (GIRCAFEM) GROUPE DE REFLEXION ET D’ACTION FEMME DEMOCRATIE ET DEVELOPPEMENT (GF2D) COLLECTIF DES ASSOCIATIONS CONTRE L’IMPUNITE AU TOGO TERRE DES HOMMES - TOGO CERCLE DES JEUNES POUR UNE SOCIETE DE PAIX (CJSP) CARREFOUR DE DEVELOPPEMENT FLORAISON CONSEIL POUR LE DEVELOPPEMENT DE KLOTO (CODEK) INTIC4DEV & ESTETIC JOURNALISTES POUR LES DROITS DE L’HOMME (JDHO) CERCLE DES JEUNES POUR UNE SOCIETE DE PAIX (CJSP) CERCLE DES JEUNES POUR UNE SOCIETE DE PAIX (CJSP) Poste Actuel Présidente du Conseil d’Administration Assistante de programme – Programme d’éducation civique à l’endroit des Femmes (PECIF) Directeur Exécutif Juriste, Personne Ressource Secrétaire General Email/Téléphone firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com +228 99 36 15 53 firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com +228 90 28 06 96 firstname.lastname@example.org +228 90 02 10 38 email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org +228 90 25 71 07 email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org +228 927 58 25 email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org +228 90 07 68 04 email@example.com +228 99 40 59 57 firstname.lastname@example.org +228 90 31 18 79 email@example.com +228 90 98 86 50 firstname.lastname@example.org +228 91 96 59 56 email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org +228 90 03 92 76 /23 38 79 28 email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org +228 90 03 92 76 /23 38 79 28 email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org +228 99 45 96 14 email@example.com +228 90 04 18 20 firstname.lastname@example.org +228 22 61 26 79 email@example.com +233 243 746 790 firstname.lastname@example.org +233 540 495 186 email@example.com +228 91 74 69 79 firstname.lastname@example.org +229 21 30 99 39 email@example.com +228 90 27 96 53
ANDRÉ KANGNI AFANOU AVEGNON KOFFI EDEM
AYETAN Kodjo Ognandou
6. 7. 8.
DOGBE YAO ECCARIUS-ACHILLE LYDIA EDEM KOMI AMOUDOKPO KOUAMI OLÉVIÉ AGBÉNYO KOUASSI HOUEFA AKPEDJE KPELA AZOUMA YAOSSIM KOFFI KPELA AZOUMA YAOSSIM KOFFI KPODJRATO KOFFI MAWULÉ MME GNAZOU R. EYOUNA BENEDICTE NICOLE DAGAWA OMOLARA BALOGUN SOMBO ATSE FRANCK ARTHUR MBROU ANTOINETTE LUCKY GNACADJA CONSTANT MOUVY BIOVA
charge de programmes Présidente Secrétaire Général Directeur Exécutif / Secrétaire Général Trésorière Générale Président
9. 10. 11.
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20
FLORAISON CEG TOKOIN WUITI WILDAF WEST AFRICA WACSI WACSI GOREE Institute WANEP OBSERVATEUR
Chargé de Programmes Directrice
Responsable Programme de Plaidoyer de Politique Assistant aux Programmes Chercheur Coordonnateur Régional
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
8.00- 9:30 9:30-10:00
INSCRIPTION MESSAGE DE BIENVENUE/PRESENTATION DES PARTICIPANTS (Photo d’ensemble) SESSION 1 PAUSE-CAFE SESSION 2 PAUSE DEJEUNER Responsable Plaidoyer de Politique de WACSI
10:00-11:00 11:00-11:30 11.30 – 13.00 13:00-14:30 14:30-16:30
Constant GNACADJA Lucky A. MBROU Constant GNACADJA Lucky A. MBROU
SESSION 3 FIN DE LA JOURNEE
Constant GNACADJA Lucky A. MBROU
PROGRAMME JOURNALIER (DU 21 AU 23 SEPTEMBRE 2011)
Date HEURE ACTIVITE PERSONNES RESSOURCES Constant GNACADJA Lucky A. MBROU
8.30 - 11:00 11:00-11:30 11:30 -13:00 13:00-14:30 14:30-16:30
SESSION 1 PAUSE CAFE SESSION 2 PAUSE DEJEUNER SESSION 3
Constant GNACADJA Lucky A. MBROU Constant GNACADJA Lucky A. MBROU
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 1 de politique publique" .
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 10.30 – 11.00 11.00 – 13.00 13.00 – 14.00 14.00 – 16.00 Session 1 Pause café Session 2 Déjeuner Session 3 A partir Mercredi 21 Vendredi 23 du au
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
Opening Speech from WACSI Staff – interpreting from English into French.
Facilitators, Lucky and Constant
Participants working in group
Group Discussions - Active participation
Role play – showing communication dynamic and Networking (1)
Role play – showing communication dynamic and Networking (2)
Final Group Picture
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.