Training Narrative Report

“A tailored Training for OSIWA-Grantees in Nigeria”

DATE: 27 – 30 SEPTEMBER, 2010.



Page | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of acronyms ………………………………………………………………………………… 3 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………4 Objectives………………………………………………………………………………....4 Opening Remarks …………………………………………………………………........6 Expected Outcomes……………………………………………………………………7 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………..4 Training content………………………………………………………………………… 4 Conclusion and Way Forward………………………………………………………..18

Annex: Programme Agenda………………………………………………………………….19 List of Participants………………………………………………………………………20

Page | 2

LIST OF ACCRONYMS APF CBOs CSOs FBOs LGI NGOs OSI OSIWA TOT WACSI Advocacy Planning Framework Community Based Organisations Civil Society Organisations Faith Based Organisations Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative Non-Governmental Organisations Open Society Institute Open Society Initiative for West Africa Training of Trainers West Africa Civil Society Institute

Page | 3

INTRODUCTION This report highlights activities of the “Policy Engagement and Advocacy Training Workshop for Civil Society Actors”: A tailored training for OSIWA-Grantees in Nigeria held in Lagos, Nigeria, 27 – 30 September, 2010. The workshop was organised by the project partners - The West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI), the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA), the Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (LGI) of the Open Society Institute (OSI) and specifically the OSIWA-Nigeria office. The workshop which was tailored for OSIWA grantees in Nigeria had the overall objective to enhance the ability and capacity of the grantees to engage in constructive policy discourses, interact with policy makers and influence policy formulation processes. The workshop also aimed at increasing the grantees practical skills and techniques in policy analysis, influencing and formulation, as well as in writing effective policy briefs and conduct policy research and studies. The workshop was held over a four-day period to thoroughly explore three (3) sessions of the training. Two (2) members of the newly established pool of West African trainers were called on to deliver the training: Ms. Margaret Brew-Ward and Mr. Paul Bemshima Nyulaku. The workshop attracted fifteen (15) OSIWA grantees from across Nigeria – Nine (9) of whom were Lagos-based civil society organizations (CSOs), and Six (6) others from Bauchi, Abuja and Owerri. (See list of participants on annex 1) WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES: The specific objectives of the workshop were to:  Build the insight of OSIWA grantees’ into the process of planning an effective policy advocacy campaign and in designing collaborative networking, alliances and lobbying frameworks;  Enhance the ability of OSIWA grantees’ to write and use evidence-based and targeted policy papers and briefs to influence policy-making processes;  Preserve the momentum and consolidate the ultimate transfer of knowledge and capacity of the training team to deliver training;  Maximize the dissemination (onward replication) of the training/workshop and facilitate platforms for partners to retain ownership of the product; and  Support WACSI’s process of institutionalizing and internalizing the training intervention. WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY The four day training employed the experiential learning approach including:  A learner-centered/ interactive method;  A learning by doing;  Pairing, group works, and plenary discussions; and  Role of participants as informed and responsible adult learners.

Page | 4

TRAINING CONTENT The training contents containing twelve (12) sessions and three (3) main aspects were tailored at building the skills of OSIWA grantees working on advocacy related projects and as well empower them to undertake policy-oriented research and productively interface with decision makers at all levels. In the course of the training, grantees were exposed to techniques in the following areas:  Effective Strategies and Communication Tools for Policy Advocacy;  Analytical Skills in Policy Development;  Appreciation and Understanding of Policy Formulation and Influencing; and  Writing Effective Policy Papers to Influence Decision-Making. OPENING SESSION The workshop commenced with a welcome message by the Policy Advocacy officer of the WACSI, Ms. Omolara Balogun, who appreciated the participants for making out time to a attend the workshop despite the short notice given to fulfill the application and preparation process. She congratulated the participants for ranking top-most 15 to be nominated for the training among hundreds of OSIWA grantees in Nigeria. Ms. Balogun recognized the presence of the Acting Country coordinator of OSIWA-Nigeria office, Mr. Oladayo Olaide for creating time to open the workshop considering his tight schedule. She specifically appreciated the Nigeria office for its financial commitment towards the implementation of the training. Ms. Balogun, thanked the newly established pool of West African Trainers, specifically Ms. Margaret Brew-Ward and Mr. Paul Nyulaku trainers for their commitment towards the localization and replication process of the training. Ms. Balogun stated that the “Policy Engagement and Advocacy Training for Civil Society Actors in West Africa” was conceived as part of the institutes’ broader focus on strengthening policy advocacy initiatives of civil society actors in West Africa, through a specialized capacity enhancement initiative. She gave a brief presentation on background, goal and objectives of project as conceived by WACSI in 2008 as a response tool to the dearth of policy influencing, formulation, engagement, analysis and advocacy capacity identified following the outcome of a comprehensive regional need assessment conducted on civil society organizations in West Africa at the inception of WACSI in 2007. Ms. Balogun stated, that the project has passed through different phases including -the pilot phase organized in Accra in October 2008, followed by a six month ToT process held in December, 2009 with the objective to establish a pool of local trainers who could replicate the training to other actors across the sub-region. She said, the Lagos training was specifically tailored for OSIWA-grantees in Nigeria with the aim to enhance their practical skills and techniques in policy analysis, influencing and formulation, and to build on their individual and institutional ability to engage in policy

Page | 5

discourse, interact with policy makers, influence policy formulation processes and to write effective policy papers and conduct policy oriented research. In final her words, Ms. Balogun expressed her gratitude to the foundation partners of the project- WACSI, OSIWA and LGI for their commitment towards building the technical abilities of CSOs to engage existing state structures and respond to the dynamics of the policy and political environment in West Africa. She, admonished the participants to cooperate with the trainers through the four days in order to maximize the goal of the workshop and as well gain practical skills and knowledge from the process. OPENING SPEECH The opening speech was delivered by Mr. Oladayo Olaide, the Acting Country Coordinator of OSIWA-Nigeria office. In his speech, Mr. Olaide appreciated the grantees for accepting OSIWA’s nomination to attend the training within a short notice. He said, the workshop has been put together in collaboration with WACSI and LGI, as part of OSIWA’s strategy to support and enhance the capacity of its grantees in Nigeria. Mr. Olaide said, is not only tailored to provide grantees with requisite skills that will facilitate the successful and constructive implementation of on-going OSIWA-funded projects, but to also expose grantees to other contemporary strategies of engaging policymakers such as techniques to conduct policy-oriented research, write policy briefs, providing action tools for government, 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 | 6

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 | 7

Table 1: Expectations and Concerns of participants for the training Group Number Group One: STAR Group Two: INNOVATIVE Group Three: DYNAMIC Group Four: SUPREME Expectations  To acquire new knowledge and skills in policy advocacy.       To learn new things and share knowledge. Understanding why policies fail in Nigeria. In-depth interactions in policy formulation procedures. How to develop persuasive advocacy briefs To know about good policy engagement and advocacy processes 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  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. Context of policy advocacy and writing Structuring and developing a coherent policy paper Developing a targeted advocacy plan using the advocacy planning

Workshop Goal


  

Page | 8

framework    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 5 characteristics of an Effective Advocacy Paper 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.

Group Name STAR


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 | 9

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 1. Title 2. Table of content 3. Abstract/Executive POLICY BRIEF 1. Title 2. Introduction 3. Problem description

Page | 10

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Summary Introduction Problem description Policy options Appendices Bibliography 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

  

     2.

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

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 | 11

  

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 | 12

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 a call to action in a persuasive approach targeted at certain group of people Academic paper Not necessarily aimed at a calling to action Meant to change thinking and influence disciplinary and educational issues.

time is of the essence as regards policy are not timed bound paper 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 | 13

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 | 14

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) The message should be of a clear objectives demand at all levels; Having a targeted audience; and Calling for a social change. Way into the process (The process) 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. Attribute of the messenger (The Messenger) 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 | 15

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 | 16

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 Page | 17 reiterated the usefulness/relevance of the training to their respective

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 anticorruption 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 | 18

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.

Page | 19

Sept 27th

8.00- 9:30 9:30-10:00



Policy Advocacy officer WACSI Country Director, OSIWANigeria Maggie Brew-Ward Paul B. Nyulaku Maggie Brew-Ward Paul B. Nyulaku Maggie Brew-Ward Paul B. Nyulaku

10:00-11:00 11:00-11:30 11.30 – 13.30 13:00-14:30 14:30-16:30 16.30 – 17.00


DAILY SCHEDULE from September 28 - 30, 2010. Date TIME
8.30 - 11:00 11:00-11:30 11:30 -13:00


RESOURCE PERSON Maggie Brew-Ward Paul B. Nyulaku

Maggie Brew-Ward Paul B. Nyulaku

13:00-14:30 14:30-16:30

LUNCH BREAK SESSION THREE Maggie Brew-Ward Paul B. Nyulaku

Page | 20



Legal officer

Ex. Director

+234 1 7611852/ 070 31867663/ 2802009 08034040009



Programmes Director

womenadvocate@yahoo.c om

234-1-8197344, 08027592145 08062828484 08069839295, 0803304771, 08033016027







Ex. Director Legal officer Ex. Director

projectalert@projectalertnig .org josephine@projectalertnig.o rg m;

08023 133924 08038739781 08034540311


Page | 21



Ex. Director Ex. Director Asst. Prog. Officer Ex. Director

KYAUTA GIWA Electoralreform2001@yahoo .com/oluchi@electoralrefor

+2348035982095 +2348037220122 08067740021







Dep. Ex. Director ABSENT Ex. Director

+234 9 7817025/ +2348052004590



Page | 22

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful