WORKSHOP REPORT

FOR

THE POLICY ENGAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY TRAINING WORKSHOP FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS IN NIGERIA ORGANIZED BY WACSI, OSIWA AND LGI-OSI

Venue:

(DENIS HOTEL, WUSE 2, ABUJA. NIGERIA)

Date:

22ND 26TH FEBRUARY 2010.

Rapporteur: WACSI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Policy Engagement and Advocacy Training workshop targeted 30 Civil Society Actors in Nigeria. The workshop which was the 2nd in the workshop series (the first was held in Ghana in December 2009) drew 30 civil society actors in Nigeria to brainstorm on best practices to engage relevant stakeholders in ensuring an effective policy process in Nigeria and beyond. Four trainers and two Resource persons facilitated the 5 day workshop which started from 22 nd to 26th February 2010 at Denis Hotel, Abuja. Nigeria. Most of the participants were actors within NGOs, CBOs, FBOs, Womens groups and Youth networks who are deeply involved in policy advocacy, analysis, and engagement, and are conversant with the dynamics of West African policy and political environment and have relevant knowledge or experience in the area of policy/applied or academic research. The programme started on Sunday 21st February 2010 with an informal meeting of the participants with the trainers and organizers in order to acquaint themselves as well as provide a platform for early networking among participants. The event was flagged off by 8.00am on Monday 22nd February 2010 in Ihiala Hall, Denis Hotel with the Registration of participants and Opening Ceremony. The closing ceremony took place by 3.30pm on Friday 26 th February, 2010 and attracted partners and policy advocates across Nigeria. BACKGROUND: The advent of democratic governance in the region has generated high expectations about the role and capacity of CSOs to strengthen governance and foster democratic deepening. Nigerian Civil society actors are actively involved in policy processes but interestingly, few of them have relevant knowledge and expertise in policy engagement. Also, with increased democratization, reductions in conflict, and advances in information and communication technologies, it is imperative to build the policy influencing capacity of CSOs in Nigeria to bridge the identified gaps and prepare civil actors for effective engagement in policy process across the country and beyond. WORKSHOP ORGANIZERS AND PARTNERS As part of its mandate of strengthening policy advocacy initiatives, the West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI) in collaboration with the Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative of the Open Society Institute (LGI-OSI) and the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) organized a 5-days Training workshop in Policy Engagement and Advocacy in Abuja, Nigeria. The 5 day training aimed to develop the capacity of civil society actors in Nigeria and help them to hold their government accountable.

GOAL The overarching goal of the workshop was to build the advocacy capacity of participants and deepen their knowledge and skills in policy engagement/influence and advocacy, and share best strategies and approaches for required policy influencing in all stages of policy process in West Africa. The training also served as the final phase of the WACSI/OSIWA/LGI-OSI Training of Trainers (ToT) certification process in Policy Advocacy which commenced in December 2009. OBJECTIVES The objectives of the policy engagement and advocacy trainings were to: To enhance CSO knowledge of public policy networks and processes; To increase CSO understanding of the policy environment in West Africa and potential entry points; To enhance CSOs ability to write and use evidence-based and targeted policy papers; To build insight into the process of planning an effective policy advocacy campaign; and To provide the platform for civil society actors across the region to form advocacy networks and build alliances.

TRAINING THEMES The training focused on three major themes: Understanding the context of Policy Advocacy and writing Structuring and developing a coherent Policy paper Developing a targeted Advocacy Planning Framework

OPENING CEREMONY: 22nd FEBRUARY 2010 The programme started by 8.00am with registration and introduction of participants. The Opening Speech was given by Ms. Omolara T. Balogun the Policy Advocacy officer, WACSI, Ghana who congratulated participants and gave a brief historical background of WACSI and the execution of her mandate. She also gave a brief background to the conception of the policy advocacy project and its implementation thus far. Acting Country Director of OSIWA-Nigeria Mr. Oladayo Olaide in his address commended WACSI for the initiative and for the obvious gender balance demonstrated in the selected number of participant for the training. He congratulated and enjoined participants to stay active in the training all through. Mr. Eion Young (LGI-OSI representative and Course Director) gave an overview of the LGI-OSI programmes in Budapest and beyond. He said in his speech that the organization focuses mainly on Governance Reforms and democracy through decentralization process. It also focuses on effective

communication of policy ideas and research to improve governance. According to Mr. Young, LGI is currently working on an Advocacy Manual and conducts trainings in Advocacy in Eastern Europe, former Soviet Union and Africa. In collaboration with OSIWA, it runs a Research Fellowship programme. Ms. Lisa Quinn (another representative and Course Director for LGI-OSI) gave insight into the intensity of the TOT programme which will last for a period of 6 months. According to Ms. Quinn, the programme started in October 2009 and has 10 possible trainers selected across West Africa to participate in the ToT. She said the on-going training marked the final phase of the 6 months ToT for the training and also serves as the certification of the trainers-candidate to be qualified as full fledged Policy Advocacy trainers for West African Actors. Four of the ten trainer-candidate will go through the certification opportunity in Abuja, another set of four in Monrovia and the last two in Dakar, Senegal. She wished the participants a fun-filled and productive training. Introduction of Trainer Candidates: The four trainers introduced themselves: Mr. Mohammed Alhassan (Ghana), Ms. Margaret Brew-Ward (Ghana), Revd. Kaine Nwashili (Nigeria) and Paul Nyulaku Bemshima (Nigeria). In her Vote of Thanks, Ms. Balogun thanked the tripartite for supporting the projector in one capacity or the other. Specifically, she expressed her appreciation to OSIWA and LGI-OSI for funding the project since the pilot phase that held in October, 2008; the OSIWA office in Abuja, Nigeria for supporting the preparation/logistic stages of the project; Finally she recognised the effort and assistant of Mr. Peter Ocheikwu from OSIWA-Nigeria and also welcomed the two rapporteurs: Ms. Nkiruka Nnaemego and Mr. Tope Soremi NOTICE: The participants were divided into two groups of 15 each. located in Ihiala hall.

This report gives account of Group One

Trainers: Mr. Kaine Nwashili and Mr. Alhassan Mohammed Resource persons/Observer: Lisa Quinn and Eion Young

DAY ONE: 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 Session One: The session started by 9.30am with an activity by participants who were asked to draw the four most important things in their lives. Climate Setting: Participants set the following ground rules Phones on Vibration Respect Opinions Minimize Side Talks Time Management A chief whip (Mr. Joseph Izigbinini) was selected after participants agreed to adopt the Pandora Box system to punish defaulters. Expectations from the Workshop: Participants were asked to write down three expectations and two fears. They shared their experiences as a group. Summary of participants Expectations and fears as indicated by the participants are as follow: Expectations: Acquisition of new skills and techniques Networking among participants Gain technical expertise Ability to write persuasive policy briefs and papers that have an impact on policy and decision making Sharpen policy formulation in line with existing global standards Ability to identify issues and the right policy method of tackling same to achieve a workable blueprint Fears: Sustaining the network after the workshop Insufficient time to cover the syllabus Content of training may not sufficiently meet the needs of some participants Challenges in the implementation of skills acquired How to localize the content/context to meet needs

Technical Session: Developing effective strategies and communication tools for policy advocacy: Context of Advocacy Papers; Structure of Policy papers; Advocacy Plan using Advocacy Planning Framework (APF) Methodology: Practical and learning centered; Targets needs of workshop participants; Learning by doing approach; Analysis of sample policy papers, research case studies and advocacy tools; Participants experience in policy analysis and advocacy Breakout Session 1: Participants were divided into groups and asked to get a moderator and a rapporteur to discuss their previous experience of writing and/or policy-oriented reports; and the challenges of policy advocacy and policy paper writing they face in their work. Tea break: 10.30am - 11am Session 2: The Session started with the Plenary Session
GROUP Group 1 PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE CHALLENGES - Engaging the Police and Legal - Ignorance of the police System in Drafting Bills - Research Reports aimed at - Lack of Capacity to write Policy Papers; influencing policy - Unwillingness to engage with Civil society actors on such issues; - Ignorance of issues and inaccurate information on policy issues by Civil Society actors - Translate research reports into - Poor access to policy makers; policy briefs/writing; - Availability of Policy briefs and need for access to simpler - Use of policy think-tank group; policy briefs; - Build capacities of audience - Disconnect between federal and state legislators; - Lack of commitment by policy makers - Platform/Talking Point engage policy makers to - Some policy makers do not read much and are therefore not fully grounded; - Discontinuity in the legislative assembly

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Activity 1: Drafting an Effective Policy Paper Breakout Session 2: Participants were asked to discuss five basic characteristics of an Effective Policy Paper
Group Name The Change Agents Contents of an Effective Policy paper Must be clear to all; makes advocacy campaigns unanimous; provides strong links between the past and the present; builds confidence on advocates; builds capacity of CSOs AJEE Vanguard Targeted to a particular issue; Provides a workable method of addressing the identified issue; written in simple communication methods; be pro-active and futuristic; designed in a way that is implementable and acceptable at all levels Coherent, organized and clear message that emphasize the major issues; takes cognizance of the context within which the policy issue is developed and a good understanding of the target audience; draws on in-depth research, credible/verifiable data and information; action-oriented; acceptable format and attractive layout (structure) Based on qualitative and accurate data (well research); content must be in clear and unambiguous language (to enhance understanding by policy makers); content must address a specific issue (to aid proper implementation); must be derived from broad based consultation and participation of stakeholders; must be time sensitive to the policy development process

The Advocates

The Visionaries

Activity 2: Defining Public Policy Participants were asked to read the 6 definitions of Public Policy (see page 10 of the Workbook) and underline words from the definitions that they think are central to explaining Public Policy. The following words were chosen by participants: Decisions Cause of action

Do Government Population Political decisions Achieve societal goals Interrelated decisions Demand for change Key perspectives from the definitions of Public Policy: Authoritative government action Problem-solution relationship Addressing specific problems to achieve societal goals (i.e. outcome-oriented) A framework that guides decision-making A course of action or strategy (goals, decisions and means of achieving) Political (value-driven) The next activity commenced after lunch break Activity 3: The session started with a Role Play by participants on Policy Initiative Transfer of tertiary schools to private owners. Participants were to argue for or against based on the role. Participants agreed that the role play depicted the present crises situation in Nigeria in terms of policy and decision making processes. Participants were asked to consider the education policy network (the people who are commonly involved in trying to influence the education issue) in their context as well as brainstorm what they associate with the aspects of the policy network: goal/objective of the network, types of organizations, interests/values, and means of communicating.
Policy Communities/ Network NUJ,NAWOJ, MDAs Means of Communication What network members seeks to achieve when communicating Media, Letters CSOs, Media, Achieve a vibrant Influence and Memo, IEC Traditional educational Strategy Institutions system in Nigeria Transformation of Persuade Educational system Values/ Interests Goals/ Objectives

Activity 4:

Group

The Change Agents

The Advocates

Students Union, Town Criers, IEC The Liberals, the NANS, Faith Based Strategy used in Progressives Organizations, local languages, and the

Traditional Rulers, Strikes Development Partners The Visionaries Women groups, School Owners, PTA, Banks, Education focused CSOs Consultative Fora, Town Hall Meetings, Advocacy Visits and Lobbying, Press Conferences, Rallies, Policy Briefs Protests, NonViolent Demonstrations,

Conservatives

Capitalists, Government Apologists, Reformists, State Governments

Influence decisions and protect interests, gain visibility, induce policy change, preempt a course of action to guide decision making

Convince

AJEE Vanguard

Trade Unions: NLC, ASUU, NUT, NASU, SAANU, National Commission for Polytechnics and Colleges of Education; Ministry of Education, National Assembly, Social Media

Students, Faith Based Groups, Academia, Education Service Providers,

Achieve set objectives/results, provide information to government as well as engage policy makers

Advocate

Activity 5: Purpose of the Policy Paper Participants were asked to read the description of the purpose of the policy (page 15 of the workbook) and underline the words that they think is most suitable or key to defining the purpose as well as discuss their choice with their group.
Group Name The Change Agents The Advocates The Visionaries AJEE Vanguard Choice Key Words on the Purpose of the Policy Paper Justifying, Recommendations act as a decision making tool, problem-solution application Comprehensive and Persuasive Call to Action, Target Audience

Activity 6: Policy Papers used in the Policy Community Participants were asked to review the differences between the two main types of policy papers (policy briefs and policy study) and discuss with their groups.
Group The Change Agents The Advocates The Visionaries AJEE Vanguard Main points of difference between Policy Study and Policy Brief Policy Briefs are usually not more than 10 pages Size Policy Briefs are easier to use to engage policy makers than Policy Study Length of document (Policy study is sometimes very lengthy and often disseminated widely)

DAY 2: Tuesday, 23rd February 2010 The workshop started by 8.30am with a recap of Day 1 activities by participants. Participants were asked to write down four new words they learnt at Day 1. They had a game within their group to match the words with relevant meanings. Key words: identified by participants were advocacy, persuasive, decisions. New words: Policy Study, Policy Brief, Value Vs. Interest, Talking Points Most Interesting words: Strikes, Policy network mapping, Advocacy Planning Framework Activity 7: Common Structural Elements of the Policy Study Title Table of Contents Abstract/Executive Summary Introduction Problem Description Policy Options Conclusion and Recommendations Appendices Bibliography Endnotes

10

Participants were shared into four groups to look at the purpose of the element, the contents/main features of the element and other important points. The four elements are Introduction, Problem Description, Policy Options and Conclusion/Recommendations. References were made to the Training Guidebook.
Group Group 1 Element Introduction Purpose - Defines the main content, - gives an overview of the paper which serves to maintain the readers interests, brings out the nature of the policy problem, - it gives the reader a clear idea of the direction, focus and main ideas developed throughout the body of the paper - To identify, define and elaborate the nature of the problem focused on; - to convince the reader that the issue in focus requires government action, - provide a framework for a comprehensive policy response options - Outline, evaluate and compare the possible policy alternatives; - provide a convincing argument for the preferred policy alternative; - focus on reporting a decision made; Contents of the Element Context of the policy problem, definition of the problem, statement of interest, methodology and limitations of the study, roadmap of the paper Advice is context brief and focused on the problem, communication of nature and urgency of the problem, - clearly state purpose, introduction should be clear, introduction should be properly organized and clearly presented

Group 2

Problem Description

- Background of the problem, - problems within its current policy environment, organized based on Topic, Purpose and Audience

- Argument must be coherent, - convincing and easy to follow. - there must be clear links between and within all elements of your argument

Group 3

Policy Options

- Framework of analysis, Evaluation of policy alternatives

- A more writer driven focus; - less prominent use of primary or secondary sources in the argument; - coherent construction of the elements of the argument and paragraphing

- build a clear and coherent link to the conclusions and recommendations element of the paper Group 4 Conclusion and Recommendations - To crystallize/synthesize major findings; - to outline the course of action towards problem-solving; - to leave a lasting impression on the target audience; - to present a clear overview of the policy study - Synthesis of the major findings; - a clear set of policy recommendations; - practical steps needed for implementation; - a final/concluding remarks - Clarity, - Practicability, - Persuasiveness, - logicality, - comprehensive, - brevity/conciseness

The Problem tree was used to explain the relationship between the four elements and the timeline (Past, present and future). Activity 8: Policy Papers and Academic Papers Participants were asked to discuss the differences between policy papers and traditional academic papers.
Groups Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Academic Papers Evidence Based Objectivity Evidence Based Objectivity Evidence Based Objectivity Evidence Based Objectivity Policy Papers Issue driven Objectivity Evidence Based Subjectivity Specific policy designed to convince policy makers Specific Policy Purpose To provide general recommendation; call to a decisive action Influence policy changes for common good Deepen understanding of the issue in focus and provide policy options Contribute to policy & decision making and advanced the course of the interest group 12 Outcome Value Driven Advocate and lobby Provoke public debate about the issue and serve as reference points for policy makers, Policy Change

Group 4

The session started with an Energizer where participants were asked to choose partners. A partner dictates some sentences while the other writes down. The couple with the right words won the game. Activity 3: Contextual factors framing any policy project Participants were asked to match the 6 steps in the policy-making process (on page 12 of the Workbook) with their appropriate definition and put the 6 steps in the policy-making process in the appropriate order on the diagram (page 13 of the Workbook). Participants were also asked to work with their partners to answer the following questions: - Why do you think this model of the policy-making process is called the policy cycle? - Does the policy cycle model reflect the approach to policymaking in your country? - Describe the development of a current policy issue using the steps of the policy cycle - Which stages of the policy cycle do policy paper writers usually target?
Groups Group 1 Policy Cycle There is no end point to the cycle because its a revolving process Has to be religiously followed It is a complete process; each stage informs the previous and next stages Its a logical, inter-related cycle Policy Cycle Model Yes, to an extent. Development of a current Policy issue Stages 4 - 6 Stages targeted by Policy Paper writers Stage 4

Group 2

Yes

Stages 1 - 4

Stage 1 - 3

Group 3

Yes

Stages 1 3

Stage 3

Group 4

Yes

Stages 1 4

Stage 1 -6

The Kidneys and the Policy Window proposed by Kingdom were used to explain the stages of the policy cycle targeted by policy paper writers.

DAY 3: WEDNESDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 The workshop started with a warmer- The participants were asked to write down and share 2 truths and 1 lie about themselves. Participants were made to sit in groups according to the colours of paper-sticks given for the exercise. The groups were divided based on the different part of a policy study they will be examining. These includes: Problem Group (Yellow), Options Group (Pink), and Conclusions & Recommendations Group (Orange). Participants were later shared into four groups to share lessons learnt. Recap of Day 2 activities: Policy cycle is not an end in itself; it is ongoing Policy cycle is a complete cycle, one stage leads to another Policy window or policy moment involves the problem description, solutions and political will Activity 9: Common structural elements of a Policy Study and Policy Brief Participants were asked to get some arguments/data on policy study and policy brief using the Lithuania Policy paper provided as Sample Political Economy Towards results based governance Reformation Performance management Practicable/tangible policies Plenary Session: The following observations were made by participants from the sample papers on Lithuania and Guinea given to them. - The conclusions and recommendations of the policy study are well laid out unlike the policy brief; - Problems addressed in the policy brief are comprehensive but not well captured (font-size usage) - Policy brief was a bit detailed and more direct (no preamble) when compared with the Policy study. - Policy Study gave two sides of the problem and is more of an academic exercise; - Policy study did not make any strong call for action; - Policy study was more convincing and the arguments were technically advanced with the use of graphs - Policy brief was analytical and had an urgent call for action - Policy brief appeared more like a flag sheet; its target audience is - Policy study is restrictive and appeared like an academic exercise trying to inform a decision

14

Policy brief is more appealing than the policy study because the former has a call for action while the latter is more of an academic exercise Policy study is proactive while policy brief is reactive Policy study focuses more on Stages 1 -4 (Problem Definition to Policy Design) Policy Brief covers Stages 1 3

Participants were also exposed to contextual factors framing any policy project. Ways of disseminating Policy Study and Brief: Newsletters, Post, Website, Print Media, Fact Sheets, Consultative fora, Press Conferences, Seminars/workshops Target Audience of Policy Study/Policy Brief: ECOWAS, AU, UN, Military Junta, CSOs, Opinion Leaders, Activists, Media, Foreign Embassies, Legislators

DAY 4: 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 The days activities started with a recap. Participants were asked to write down three words that are interesting to them. They had a competition to determine their level of IQ and retention of things they have been taught from the first day of the training till date. Activity 10: Defining Advocacy: Concepts, actors and roles Participants were asked to use the spidergram to brainstorm words they associate with the term advocacy. The following words were identified by participants: Plead, campaign, argue, influence, change, persuade, lobby, position, convince, propose, support, action, issue, recommend, legislate, propagate, canvass, educate, demonstrate, communicate, policy, threaten, disobey, defend, aid, dissuade, conscientize, mobilize, etc. Participants were exposed to the key elements of advocacy and developing effective advocacy strategies and communication tools for policy action.

15

Participants were paired to share one sentence definition of advocacy in a policy context using three scenarios stated on page 29 of the Workbook. They were also asked to describe the advocacy activities of three Organizations on page 29 of the Workbook. Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa: This is a Think Tank Group Dissemination Advising Capacity Building Research/Evidence-based work Think Tank work International Crises Group: This is a Lobbyist Group Activism Dissemination Negotiation Lobbying Mediation Campaign Coalition for Domestic Violence Legislative in Ghana (DV Coalition): This is the Service Delivery & Activist Group: Activism Advising Lobbying Campaigning Dissemination Mobilizing Service Delivery Consultation Participants were asked to put the three organizations on the graph of co-operation vs evidence on the handout. Activity 11: Introduction to the Advocacy Planning Framework (APF) Participants were asked to bring out three main points from their section of the reading Introduction to the Advocacy Planning Framework and give a short presentation to the group on their assigned element of the Advocacy Planning Framework.

16

Game: Participants were asked to write down and share with their group 3 adjectives that start with their names and match with their personality Plenary Session: Finding the most suitable way into the process using the Advocacy Planning Framework: Group 1: The Process - The process focuses on the following points: - Mobilize advocates for mapping out work around planned policy advocacy efforts - Provide series of guiding questions for the mapping out work (i.e. demand openings) - Guide advocates to the most suitable route and timing into the process Group 2: The Message - The essence of the message is to find the right focus and the right means of communication to persuade the target audience. The message must be: - Understandable: Written in simple language, have new & interesting things, be short and direct - Attractive: in Format and Packaging - Convincing: to the Target audience, mode of presentation using pictorials, graphics, translations Group 3: The Messenger - The messenger is as important as the message. He is the face of the messenger, he is the soul of the message; - The messenger could be a person, organization or a coalition; - The messenger must have enough credibility, power, resources, clout to carry people along, support within his coalition. He must be legitimate for the message to be taken serious. Group 4: Advocacy Planning Framework - The group focused on the following: - Leverage: is the entry point to consider the main issues. The following processes are involved to bring alternatives and choose the best solutions: - The lever: this is where the messenger is and where all relevant stakeholders are brought together to discuss strategies to move the process forward (resource mobilization). These are the strategies to help move the process ahead. - The Message: This involves what is being communicated and how to communicate it .e.g. through conferences, policy briefs, newsletters, etc Data gathering applies to all the processes to show enough evidence for choosing the type of solution. Also, evaluation has to be conducted to track and measure progress. Participants were asked to read pages 45 49 of the Workshop on the APF.
17

Activity 13: Constructing a persuasive message for your target audience Participants were asked to choose the areas to prioritize in constructing a persuasive message for a particular target audience and come up with four options from the 12 options on page 41 of the Workbook. Group 1: Possibility of getting funding from ECOWAS, AU and the UN to strengthen the countrys military May get advance military training and up-date weapons for your military Your country may gain recognition and respect from the African Union and United Nations for its direct participation Has greater chances to reduce human deaths and the destruction of properties in the event that civil conflict broke in any ECOWAS member state Group 2: Possibility of getting funding from ECOWAS, AU and the UN to strengthen the countrys military May get advance military training and up-date weapons for your military Your country may gain recognition and respect from the African Union and United Nations for its direct participation Will help in making decisions about how to develop security services at the national level Could allow your military to work closely with relatively advanced, prestigious and experienced militaries like the Nigerian, Ghanaian and Senegalese The Correct Options: Participants were given the following options as the four correct options: May get advance military training and up-date weapons for your military Possibility of getting funding from ECOWAS, AU and the UN to strengthen the countrys military Your country may gain recognition and respect from AU, Military and Police Could allow your military to work closely with relatively advanced, prestigious and experienced militaries like the Nigerian, Ghanaian and Senegalese. Exercise: Participants were asked to say constructing persuasive advocacy messages and make notes about their conclusions. They were taught the 7 processes for constructing effective advocacy messages 1. Have a clear objective 2. Know the process 3. Know your audience 4. Present the tip of the iceberg

18

5. Keep it simple, at the beginning, questions will come after 6. Get them into the research 7. Overall message must be consumable, plausible and striking

DAY 5:

26TH FEBRUARY 2010

The days activities started with a game where participants were made to say the names of other participants and facilitators. Resource 1: Guidelines for your advocacy plan Participants were asked to read pages 45 49 and do the practical exercise on page 50. 1. Impact of the Training. The training was contagious Improved skills and knowledge in policy process New lessons and experience learning about policy briefs New words were learnt New approach and strategy involved in policy process More knowledge acquisition How do you intend to use materials from the training? - As a resource material to design and develop policy briefs and policy study - As a reference material for individual and group use - As a Step-down Training Guide - Materials for Policy experts and Consultants - As a Real Companion to gain more understand and training manual 2. Follow-Up Activities: Policy writing and advocacy by participants at organizational level feedback to workshop organizers on how to make the training practicable in our organizations Effective Network mechanism among participants, organizers and trainers. E.g. Listserve Follow up trainings and networking meetings by organizers for participants Partnership building among participants to share ideas and projects, advocate and lobby policy makers

19

Prompting questions by organizers to participants to clarify issues and bridge communication gaps Draw up Policy Case study on Nigeria 3. Suggest what can be added to the training manual Training on Policy Analysis should be conducted for Policy Advocates to empower them Icebreakers and Energizers 4. What is your experience in using the APF as a planning tool A good guideline for aggregating points Provided a platform to know various areas to focus on Putting the message together was a bit tasking for some participants especially in terms of convincing others The APF simplified and made the process clearer It is thought-provoking It allows a lot of people to contribute their ideas based on their understanding of issues 5. Were the expectations meant? Most of the expectations were met. Skills and techniques were enhanced 6. Were Participants Fears addressed? Most challenges and fears expressed by participants were addressed by the training. Contents of syllabus were covered

Closing Event: The closing event was facilitated by the Policy Advocacy officer- Ms. Balogun. Having expressed her gratitude for the commitment and dedication demonstrated by all participants, trainers, resources persons, rappouteurs present all through the training period. She specially thanked Mr. Oladayo Olaide (Acting Director, OSIWA-Nigeria) for his availability to close the 5 days workshop. She appreciated the technical support provided by the LGI resources persons/Course Director Ms. Quinn and Mr. Young for the trainers and participants, particularly in giving advance clarification on few sessions in the training. Ms. Balogun, commenced the review of the 5days workshop by calling on the participants to give their opinion on the entire workshop from contents to context, materials, trainers, resources persons, partners and fellow participants. She requested that participant also includes in their submission critical comment on areas where they thought the workshop package should have been better.

20

General Comments: Participants submitted that the Trainers were adequate and well prepared for the training; they used good communication skills and teaching method to ensure that participants learn in a relaxed manner. They commended the experiential learning method used as being very strategic and just right for the group of participant present mostly adult learning method. Other comments on the trainer are highlighted below; Trainers were outstanding; humble and patient with participants; Trainers adopted excellent training methodology; and Posses good contextual knowledge of the Nigeria political and policy environment The types of Energizers and group works adopted during the training were also very innovative and inspiring according to the participants from the two groups (Group A and B); Training Materials provided were very comprehensive, easy to understand, thought-provoking and appealing to senses. The participant appreciated the conscious effort of gender equity on the part of the partners, especially WACSI who was responsible for the shortlisted participants. They commended the balancedratio in Gender representation; Good and complete welfare package including feeding, accommodation and training venue; and respect for time management. Critical Comments: Participants emphasized the need to respect cultural/religious values of participants especially with regards to faith based issues and institutions. According to Mr. Joseph Izigbine, there is need to have more localized case studies in the manual; The need to foster relationship and interaction between groups was emphasized. Mr. Tony Ojukwu offered; Mr. Uso Excellence submitted that trainers need to adopt group management skills for effective participation of every member in a group. He further reiterated the need to introduce Tourist/Pleasure trips and Relaxation activities that will ease the intensity of the training; and Ms. Aisha appreciated the trainers, organizers especially staff of WACSI and the rapporteurs, she however enjoined the organizers to always include in a space for opening/closing prayers before and after workshops. Ms. Balogun opened the floor for participants to propose best follow-up mechanisms, which partners could adopt to establish a networking among the different parties present at the workshop. She also requested the participants to highlight areas in which they might require further assistance from the workshop partners i.e. WACSI, OSIWA and or LGI-OSI. In this regards, participants offered the following suggestions:

21

Recommendations: Overall, participants commended the organizers for a great workshop; they however made some recommendations to target at improving the implementation of similar workshops in future. Other recommendations include: - It was recommended that the training be scared-up for participants to enhance competence in policy strategy/paper writing (Ms. Balogun assured participants that WACSI is mandated to building the individual capacity of civil society actors in order to strengthen their organizations) Organisers, especially WACSI requested to maintain contacts with and among participants to influence policy decisions making processes in Nigeria. Participant agreed that future training should include a practical session where participant can have Orientation/tour to the National Assembly, and possibly witness a decision making process It is adviced that, due to the centrality of communication to Policy engagement, advocacy and campaign/lobbying, the training should include amongst other session, a Core Communication Skills session that will give detail expertise strategies needed for effective policy analysis and influencing. The training handbook should also integrate a comprehensive communication module into it before final publishing. The Soft copies of the Training materials was advised to be made available to the participants prior to the training (this was rejected by the two partners WACSI and LGI-OSI present, on the ground that, the manual are still going through stages of review process and will surely be published and disseminate). This will help to instill quality control measure and minimize the number of versions to exit.

Trainers Experience: At the end of the 5days training workshop, the trainers were given opportunity to make brief comments about the training. The following comments were made: - Learnt a lot from participants and enjoyed the workshop - Participants were resourceful - Participants are deep in knowledge and enthusiastic - Participants were easy to work with - Participants asked good questions and gave constructive feedback to trainers - Participants were very cooperative

22

Lisa & Eion: The representative of LGI also gave a brief comment about their impression of the 5day training. They commended - the four trainers for excellent training method - WACSI, OSIWA and all participants for their support and active participation Mr. Dayo Oladayo Olaide, Acting Director, OSIWA-Nigeria: The Acting Director of OSIWA-Nigeria graced the closing ceremony with his presence. According to him, Mr. Olaide commended the trainers, the partners (especially WACSI) for playing the most critical of roles in the implementation of the project. He went further to congratulate the participants for their commitment and dedication demonstrated through the 5days training. He enjoined participants to step the training through feedback and follow-up mechanisms. In his final words, Mr. Olaide encouraged participants to put into practice the skills and knowledge acquired into their daily activities and actively participates in the online forum created and managed by WACSI. Ms. Omolara Balogun, Policy Advocacy Officer, WACSI: Ms. Balogun rounded up the closing remarks, first by commending the former Executive Director of WACSI Ms. Thelma Ekiyor for conceiving and pushing for the initiative behind the Policy Advocacy Project. Specifically, she commended on her exhibiting great zeal which resulted at the implementation of this project. She thanked the Executive Director of OSIWA-regional based in Dakar, Dr. Nana Tanko for supporting project, both financially and morally. She expressed her appreciation to the management and staff of OSIWAs country office in Nigeria, especially, her Acting-Country Director, and specially, Mr. Peter Ocheikwu, for mapping out general logistics prior to the commencement of the training. Ms. Balogun appreciated LGI-OSI for co-financing the project with OSIWA. In her words, she specially thanked Eoin and Lisa for supporting the project, all through the implementation stages, particularly for acclimatizing to the West African weather during their stay. She encouraged the trainers by appreciating the high level of commitment demonstrated throughout the six month ToT process. Ms. Balogun expressed her gratitude to the entire staff and management of WACSI. She thanked the interim-executive Director, Dr. Esi Sutherland Addy for her support and leadership direction through the leadership gap in the organisation. She thanks all management and staff, especially Mr. Yaya Ramde for his support. Finally, she thanked the participants and rapporteurs for their absolute commitment.

23

Follow-Up strategy and Networking: The Policy Advocacy officer stated the importance of following up with the participants, trainers and all partners to the project. She mentioned that WACSI as the implementing partner of the tripartite has put together a communication link, through which information will be disseminated; avenue to continue sharing idea and experiences on the Nigerian political environment and policy processes; sharing policy , studies and briefs. In this regard, WACSI created yahoo group to ensure this relationship building among participants; Group name: Group home page: Group email: policyadvocacy_westafrica@yahoogroups.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/policyadvocacy_westafrica policyadvocacy_westafrica@yahoogroups.com

Make conscious effort to establish Network with organization and co-participants Frequently contact trainers and facilitators for guidance

Participants Certification Process: Ms. Omolara Balogun apologized to participants for the inability to provide suitable certificates due to some unexpected constraints. She however promised that the certificates will be ready in few days and will be present at the OSIWA-Nigeria country office for participants to collect. Meanwhile the available certificates were the LGI representatives, Mr. Young and Ms. Quinn while the last set was presented by Mr. Olaide, OSIWA-Nigeria, acting country director. Vote of Thanks: In her remarks, Ms. Omolara congratulated participants. She also enjoined them to submit their evaluation forms.

Observations: The workshop was very successful; the training manuals were comprehensive and addressed key areas for intervention. In Nigeria, due to current political instability and conflict situations, it is highly recommended that next phase of the training in Nigeria should target policy advocates from conflict prone areas such as Niger Delta region, Plateau State, Bauchi. Also, the workshop should also be designed such that it will provide a platform for both Policy makers and policy advocates to meet and discuss. This will help facilitate policy engagement as well as provide partnership opportunities for policy makers and advocates to work towards an effective policy system in Nigeria. There is also need to do more Training of Trainers for Nigerian Policy advocates so they can use their experience and background knowledge about Nigeria to effectively deliver the training across Nige ria.

24