Page | 1

Training Narrative Report

POLICY ADVOCACY AND ENGAGEMENT POST-TOT TRAINING WORKSHOP FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS IN

NIGERIA “A tailored Training for OSIWA-Grantees in Nigeria”

DATE: 27 – 30 SEPTEMBER, 2010.

VENUE: STARFIRE, G.R.A, IKEJA, LAGOS, NIGERIA.

SEPTEMBER 2010.

Page | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of acronyms ………………………………………………………………………………… 3

1.0 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………4

1.1 Objectives………………………………………………………………………………....4

1.2 Opening Remarks …………………………………………………………………........6

1.3 Expected Outcomes……………………………………………………………………7

2.0 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………..4

3.0 Training content………………………………………………………………………… 4

3.0 Conclusion and Way Forward………………………………………………………..18

Annex: Programme Agenda………………………………………………………………….19

List of Participants………………………………………………………………………20

Page | 3

LIST OF ACCRONYMS

APF Advocacy Planning Framework

CBOs Community Based Organisations

CSOs Civil Society Organisations

FBOs Faith Based Organisations

LGI Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative

NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations

OSI Open Society Institute

OSIWA Open Society Initiative for West Africa

TOT Training of Trainers

WACSI West Africa Civil Society Institute

Page | 4

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 | 5

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 | 6

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 | 7

LGI for providing another platform for them to put their acquired skills and knowledge into

practice. They thanked WACSI for coordinating the training, and congratulated the

participants for making the OSIWA nomination list. Above all, they appraised the richness of

the participants’ and commended the depth of policy knowledge, practical advocacy

experiences, and excellent academic portfolio.

Trainers, stated that, the four days training will not only offer them the opportunity to learn

from the experiences of the participants, but will create a practical platform for both trainers

and participants to explore, discuss and share knowledge, good practices and strategies to

construct effective policy advocacy framework, and to enhance individual knowledge in

policy advocacy, engagement, formulation, and analysis.

WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES

Day One

Aims of the Training and Introduction of Participants

The trainers introduced participants to the aims of the training and the possible values it

could add to their respective organizational mandates and individual development. The

trainers enjoined participants to form a community for the four days in which they would be

working together, emphasizing the impact of participation and interaction as well as sharing

experiences. The trainers explained the benefits of learning from one another’s experiences

as well as creating new ideas and solutions together to guide the work, exercises and case

studies analysis.

Participants were given the opportunity to introduce themselves succinctly, including a few

words in their thematic areas of operation, organizational mandates, goals and objectives,

work experience amongst others. Participants revealed the diversity of their high level

practical experience, talents and resources.

The participants worked together, in groups of four, to define their expectations and

concerns for the workshop as well as their personal objectives. This exercise highlighted the

priority given by participants to exploring an understanding of policy issues and how to

present and address those issues in the Nigeria context. Conducting effective policy

advocacy and best strategy in engaging policy makers were two leading issues identified by

the participants in during the session. Some of the specific concerns and expectations raised

are illustrated in the table below:

Page | 8

Table 1: Expectations and Concerns of participants for the training

Group Number Expectations

Group One:

STAR

To acquire new knowledge and skills in policy advocacy.

To learn new things and share knowledge.

Group Two:

INNOVATIVE

Understanding why policies fail in Nigeria.

In-depth interactions in policy formulation procedures.

Group Three:

DYNAMIC

How to develop persuasive advocacy briefs

To know about good policy engagement and advocacy

processes

Group Four:

SUPREME

Learn how to structure and implement advocacy campaign

within the Nigerian framework.

Setting Ground Rules

As a next step, participants drew up a list of ground rules for the meeting. Working in small

groups, the participants suggested a variety of useful rules. The rules could be practical or

deal with the attitude of participants. Their suggestions included the following:

Listening to what each person had to say without interruption;

Respecting divergent views and opinions;

Turning off mobile phones or putting it permanently on silent;

Speaking concisely and refraining from making speeches;

Avoiding repetition of previously made-points;

Prompt resumption to training room in the morning;

Keeping to time, including in lunch, tea breaks, group works etc.

Table 2: Workshop Goals, Outlines and methodology

Workshop Goal

To equip participants with :

- strategy and insight on conducting advocacy campaigns

- effective skills to engage policy makers

- effective plans to achieve desired/set policy objectives

- how to write effective policy briefs, and make it an action tool for policy

makers etc.

Outline

Context of policy advocacy and writing

Structuring and developing a coherent policy paper

Developing a targeted advocacy plan using the advocacy planning

Page | 9

framework

Methodology

Will be practical and learning centered

Learning by doing approach

Participants experiences in policy advocacy/processes

The participants were the task to define Public Policy and share the attribute of an effective

policy advocacy paper. Having being divided into four groups with the opportunity to

choose a preferred group name, participant shared the different attributes of a policy paper

in the table below:

CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY PAPER

Group Name 5 characteristics of an Effective Advocacy Paper

STAR 1. Present an argument that urgent problem exists.

2. Present a problem within its context.

3. Build a problem within its context.

4. Outline the past and present problem

5. Provide background of problem:

- When and how problem arose

- Causes of the problem

- Historical, legal, political, social and economic contexts

- Affected target audience.

- Problem description should suit topic, purpose and audience.

- There should be clear links between and within all elements of

arguments

- Coherence argumentation.

- Paragraphing, proper referencing.

INNOVATIVE 1. It should be brief, concise, coherent and reader friendly

2. It should have a target audience.

3. It must address a specific issue

4. It must be professionally drafted/properly structured.

Page | 10

5. It should have reliable and verifiable data.

DYNAMIC 1. Clear presentation of the issue to be addressed.

2. Background, theory, and experience data

3. User friendly/ speak to your audience.

4. Problematizing the issues.

5. Recommendations and way forward.

SUPREME 1. Structure: well structured to observe the rule of drafting.

2. Content: focused in what it intends to cure or provide.

3. Background: well researched with proper data; factual and

unambiguous.

4. Target Group: concerns and interest of target group must be

considered.

5. Must be supreme- backed with authority.

Activities: Some of the activities used in facilitating the 3 sessions includes 1) the Network

threads role play 2) Policy network- activity 4, and 3) Purpose of policy paper – activity 5.

Day two:

The previous day was recapitulated through an exercise (the card game) where all

participants were required to give definitions to various concepts within a policy process

through a card playing game. Concepts such as Advocacy, policy option, policy dialogue,

persuasive, influencing, lobbying, engagement, target-audience etc. were well defined.

Trainers led participants to recall other key points to be mastered from previous sessions. The

general feedback on day one ignited an enthusiastic and rich discussion.

In the second day, the objective was to identify essential element of a policy brief and

paper. Participants were engaged in a stiff debate on the essential element of a good

policy study vis-à-vis a policy brief, the participant reached on consensus on the following as

ideal structural element of a Policy study and policy brief.

Table 3: Common Structural Elements of the Policy Study/Brief

POLICY STUDY POLICY BRIEF

1. Title

2. Table of content

3. Abstract/Executive

1. Title

2. Introduction

3. Problem description

Page | 11

Summary

4. Introduction

5. Problem description

6. Policy options

7. Appendices

8. Bibliography

9. Endnotes

4. Policy Option

In a group of four, participants shared their ideas on the different elements of a policy paper

and policy study. They identify the purpose of each element in the different types of papers,

main feature, the organizational structure and factors to consider when writing that element.

The summary of the report from the four groups are:

1. COMPREHENSIVE PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Purpose of the element:

Identifies, defines and elaborates the nature of the problem

The need to convince the reader that the issue in focus requires government action

Focus in outlining the problem within its environment

What is included?

Background of the problem

Problem within its current policy environment

Organizing your problem description

Other feature to consider

Coherence; make clear links

Arguments must consist of claims, support and warrant (implementation)

Use of paragraphs effectively

Basic arguments on wide variety of sources into your argument (use of sources)

Make reference to tables and figures

2. POLICY OPTIONS FOR POLICY ACTIONS

Purpose of the element

It presents an argument for the preferred policy alternative based on the evaluation

of all possible alternatives

What is included?

Framework of analysis

Evaluation of policy alternatives

Other feature to consider

Page | 12

Adoption of verifiable facts/data

coherency and adequate paragraphing

Provide practical and “SMART” options

3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Purpose of the element:

Summary and analysis of research report/findings

Snapshot of provided policy options

Final submission/remarks

What is included?

Avoidance of lengthy repeating of major findings

Good and clear presentation format (of actions especially)

Other feature to consider

Structure and content of the element

Effectiveness of both samples as decision making tools

The analysis was followed by an interactive discussion on what an ideal policy cycle should

be. Participants discussed how to plan and effectively engage a policy cycle from the

beginning to achieve the set policy goals or policy objectives. Trainers then broadened the

scope of the discussion.

THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS (THE POLICY CYCLE): The figure below was used to depict and

outline an ideal policy making process:

Problem definition/Agenda setting (step 1)

Constructing the policy/Alternatives/Policy Formulation (Step 2)

Choice of solution/Selection of preferred policy option (Step 3)

Policy design (step 4)

Evaluation (Step 5 /beginning of another cycle)

Page | 13

Most participants confirmed that the presented cycle had not been the norm in their

respective organizations. They raised concerns about the implication(s) of not following the

presented steps whilst implementing a project. Participants echoes the challenges usually

encountered due to the closed-nature of the Nigerian policy environment, specifically the

unwillingness of the policy makers to open windows of engagement (open-door policy) that

to could provide opportunity for other sectors of the society e.g. civil society, to make input

into a policy formulation processes.

Day Three

Following a welcoming and warming energizing, an activity was adopted to recapture the

lessons of the previous day. Participants sought for clarity in areas in some blur areas,

specifically there was re-call on the ideal stages of a policy making process. The use of time

was re-emphasized to be critical to every policy planning, as well as providing adequate

information to the target group as the case progresses. The trainers reiterated the need to

base all judgment, comment, finding on empirical date, which mean, in-depth research into

the subject matter must be conducted before engaging in any policy process. Having

absolute background information to the social problem is critical to determining an

appropriate solution (policy option) before an effective change can occur.

The objectives of the day were to identify the purpose of a policy research in comparison

with an academic paper and to technically distinguish between a policy paper and

academic paper. Participants were given an exercise to spot differences between the two

papers, as highlighted in Activity 8 of the workbook, while the following exercise required

participants to conduct an in-depth analysis of the policy brief and study.

Table 5: differences between and academic research and a policy paper

Policy Paper Academic paper

a call to action in a persuasive approach

Not necessarily aimed at a calling to action

targeted at certain group of people

Meant to change thinking and influence

disciplinary and educational issues.

time is of the essence as regards policy

paper

are not timed bound

may not follow such strict methodology

Strict methodology applies including primary

and secondary papers

do not necessarily follow structural guidelines

have some very strict structural guidelines

more content Straight to the point and brief.

Page | 14

Closed ended Open ended

Day Four

The day began with a recap, followed by an exercise in which participants were required to

qualify “Advocacy” using associated words learnt in the previous 3 days. The main objective

of the session was for participants to respond to the concept of “Advocacy” in a broader

view. Some of words used in defining the concept of “Advocacy” include:

Persuading

Appealing

Supporting

Driving

Campaigning

Voicing

Influence

Convincing

Arguing

Presenting

Demanding

Pressuring

Trainers agreed that the words enlisted above have component of advocacy structure in

them, however, it was buttressed that every advocacy moves are always implemented

through a preconceived and pre-planned strategy, coupled with designed methodologies

and actions. Thus, an advocacy is a combination of strategy, methodology and actions.

Participants were asked to identify key elements in defining advocacy, and they include:

An approach/policy to create a social change

Identified target audience, stakeholders, decision-makers etc.

Convincing needs for a change, and the expected benefit from the change

Generating support for a social course, gathering momentum and building support

Passing relevant messages and information to decision makers, and public

Creating a tool for action for policy makers etc.

Trainers concluded by reinstating Advocacy to be a two way process of negotiation,

discussion, give and take, win-some/lose-some process which requires commitment,

resources and time. This was followed by a discussion on strategy to get a message across to

policy maker. Lobbying, mobilizing, campaigning, were considered as informal ways of

getting the attention of policy maker within a particular context, while adopting an

advocacy strategy was considered to be most critical to the process. A strategy should

consider satisfying factors such as issue, relevance, audience, location, stakeholders,

possibilities etc before being adopted as an advocacy tool. To conclude the session, trainers

reinstated the need to establish and include the following components into the planning an

advocacy process i.e. 1) the entry into the process 2) the messenger 3) the message and 4)

the overall Advocacy Planning Framework (APF).

Page | 15

The participants shared the outcome of their group work with the larger group. The below table illustrate the summary of the

group presentations.

Table 6: Constructing and mapping the elements in an advocacy process using the APF

Constructing a persuasive

Message

(The Message)

Way into the process

(The process)

Attribute of the messenger

(The Messenger)

The message should be of a

clear objectives demand at all

levels;

Having a targeted audience;

and

Calling for a social change.

Making a good choice or mode of entry is very crucial to the

success of an advocacy process i.e. having access to new

evidences and argument that could move the process

forward

One important component to consider in choosing a mode

entry is the Levers. These are tools to facilitate the process;

strategies to be adopted; including advocacy measures –

media, lobbying, advising, support building, inside track

approaches, best way or strategy to get into the process.

Other things to consider are:

issues on the agenda (demand);

value and interests;

current thinking, position, cultural/religions deadlock or state

of the issue;

Procedure and right languages to present the solution;

Entry timing should be right and suitable for the process;

Possible obstacles to the process should also be considered;

and

A broad stakeholder mapping is also essential in choosing a

mode of entry.

The presentation on the “messenger”

depicts that the messenger is often more

Important than the message based on

the following philosophy:

Credibility to push the agenda;

Visibility and accessibility;

Having in-depth understanding on the

subject matter;

Have the personality and reputation

to attract the targeted audience;

Availability of basic resources to bring

the advocacy objective into reality.

Page | 16

FEEDBACK/REFLECTION SESSION

Part One: The workshop in one WORD

The session (recommendation session) was facilitated by WACSI represented by the policy

Advocacy officer. The objective of the session is to receive immediate feedback from

participants with respect to the relevance of the training to their respective organizational and

individual development; how they intend to utilize the skills, knowledge and capacity

acquired in the course of the training, as well as give insightful recommendations that

enhance future delivery and packaging of the training. The session also require participant to

comment briefly on the areas that met their expectation and point out others which require

improvement.

The first exercise is for all participants to use a word in qualifying the four day workshop. Some

of the words/responses gathered in this session include:

Knowledgeable

Enhancing

Worthwhile

Interesting

Excellent

Educative

Revealing

Striking

Supreme

Captivating

Eye-opening

Instructive

Satisfactory

Good

Part Two: Immediate Impact

The second part required participants to state briefly what, how, and when, they would be

drawing from the newly acquired skills. The objective of the part is to having a quick

understanding of which of the training component (contents/session) is most relevant to the

group and how soon they will put it into practical usage. Some of the responses are captured

below:

1. Redesign/redraft an ongoing policy brief for a project;

2. Organise a step-down training for middle/senior management officers in the

organization focusing on key issues such as:

a. structural elements of a policy paper/briefs

b. the major content of policy papers

c. differences between a policy paper and a brief

3. Begin to engage policy issues from a different and technical perspectives

4. Considering adopting and adapting the use of the APF

5. Begin to consider target audience as a important stakeholder of a policy process

6. Begin to technically review and critique documents developed by consultants for the

organization; and

7. Re-strategize the pattern of writing public paper, policy research, report and options

Page | 17

In this part, participants agreed with the idea to establish an advocacy group called

“Coalition for Policy Change” with the objective to: coordinate efforts of the Civil Society

Organizations on policy change advocacy in Nigeria

“ABOUT COALITION FOR POLICY CHANGE IN NIGERIA” The coalition for policy change is a composition of civil society organizations and partners whose agenda is to effect policy change. The coalition is a network of NGO’s that seek to trap the emerging legal, economic and development order around which policy makers may engineer the future of governmental and non-governmental decision making. It also seeks to impact on public policy making through expert interventions that seek to align national level policy making with national, regional or international instruments and obligations and update the regulatory, legal, ethical or administrative frameworks in specific policy areas, taking account of developments in international public policy. In ensuring its objectives the coalitions work by engaging in public advocacy, analyze policy issues, mobilize constituencies in support of policy dialogue, serve as watchdogs in ensuring accountability in performance of government functions and most importantly, act as agents of reforms in strengthening and broadening democratic governance. Vision Achieve good governance and human rights promotion in Nigeria. Mission Bridging CSO’s communication gap in responding effectively on public policies Aims and Objectives: To enhance awareness of democratic values and processes for good governance

and promotion of human rights. To coordinate efforts of the Civil Society Organizations on policy change

advocacy in Nigeria. To strengthen the Civil Society Organizations participation in the policy making in

Nigeria. To engage into research and documentations of policies. To engage into other advocacies towards Africa’s development and good

governance.

Part Three

The third part requires participants to share with the larger group of what went/worked well

during the four days, and what should be improved upon in organizing future training for

similar group.

Participant reiterated the usefulness/relevance of the training to their respective

Page | 18

organizational mandate and individual capacity development. Some of the participant

(grantees) who have ongoing project being funded by OSIWA highlighted the timeliness of

the training to their organization. Participants commended the methodology to be most ideal

for the selected level of participants- highly interactive, learning by-doing, and provide

opportunities for experience sharing which resulted to insightful discussions.

The content of the training was said to be highly technical and vague to individual

understanding except when facilitated by the trained trainers. The connection and linkages

between exercises/group work and the learning objectives was to be intriguing and highly

professional. Above all, the session on “developing Effective Advocacy Campaign”, using the

APF including lobbying skills proved invaluable to this group. Participants were keen to

understand how to technically plan and present their message to the public and policy

makers, as well as design initiative and strategies to influence policy agendas and promote

positive change. A participant remarked “I never knew I have using the wrong approach in

engaging policy maker, henceforth, my strategies will change”. Another said, “APF is the best

technical tool to plan for any advocacy process, I will ensure my staff get to know and adopt

this tool”. During this session, participants worked on issues considered prime to the different

organization represented including: gender equality/women’s rights, governance and anti-

corruption campaign/transparency and accountability amongst other pressing issues in

Nigeria.

Part four

This part focuses on obtaining input from the participants on most suitable group of actors that

the training could target in the future. Participants advised that the training should be

packaged for three (3) different categories of participant i.e. senior managerial level

(Advance) with immense practical experience in engaging policy issues, who might not

necessarily require going through the entire training package but concentrate on the use of

APF in planning advocacy strategy. The second target-group recommended was- the middle

managerial level (intermediate) with a minimal experience in policy advocacy issues. In this

case, it will be ideal to run the complete module of the course to have maximum impact on

their advocacy capacity. The group advised that the course should not be delivered to

fresh/entry level civil actors with less than 3 years work experience, except where the package

will include a basic of policy knowledge.

Part Five

Participants gave a brief comment on the trainers who has facilitated the training for four days

i.e. Ms. Maggie Brew-Ward and Mr. Paul Bemshima. Participant commended the level of

professionalism displayed in facilitating the group and delivering all components of the

workshop in pair. Amongst other words used in qualifying the trainers include: good,

professional, informed, technical, responsive, respective, perseverance, and prompt.

Participant confirmed the connection between trainers, specifically in switching sessions and

responsibilities to be excellent. In addition, participants appreciated the depth of knowledge

and understanding of the subject matter by the trainers as well as the respect given to other

Page | 19

opinions. In conclusion, the trainers were rated adequate, equipped and professional in

delivering the training to all levels of civil society actors across and beyond the sub-region.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall, participants were energetic, articulate and motivated. The level of interest was quite

high as demonstrated during each group works in which they requested extra time to

complete. Despite the high level of experience displayed, participants were eager to absorb

new concepts, skills and knowledge on policy processes. The group dynamics including

executive directors, programme officers, legal practitioners, university lecturer from the higher

and middle management levels, coupled with the gender-balance (60%:40%)female to male,

and good representation of the different sectors: civil activist, academia, policy strategist etc.

worked extremely well in sharing experiences and ideas.

The participants confirmed to have been introduced and received a balance of knowledge,

information, and practical skills for effective policy advocacy, advocacy planning framework,

writing and differentiating between policy briefs and studies, requisite skills to conduct

effective policy analysis, formulation, influencing, as well as engage and advocate for policy

changes. Finally, participants reaffirmed the relevance of the workshop, to their organizations,

project and individual development. They said, the skills acquired will be help to better

facilitate maximum output and impact of all on-going OSIWA-funded projects.

In addition, participant enjoined the project partners to consider organising future trainings in

the outskirt of town in order to receive maximum concentration and commitment of trainees

to the workshop objectives and as well avoid engagement in other responsibilities.

Another major concern of participants was on the number of days scheduled to cover the

training. Over 80% of the participants were of the opinion that four days is quite inadequate to

cover such a comprehensive training. They recommended that, the number of days be

extended to a week or two in order to provide sufficient time for strategic planning using the

APF. In addition, participants called for further training on negotiation and lobbying skills and

media engagement techniques.

With materials and content, participant pointed to the need for all part of the materials to be

completely West Africanised. They appreciated the localization process thus far, as depicted

in the case studies, exercises, and sample policy brief. It was proposed that partners and

trainers work towards completing the West Africanisation process to include - a localised

policy study sample, replacement of personalities in the “pictures for the striking features”, with

West African figures with similar portfolios, as well localizing the few existing europenised slides.

WORKSHOP AGENDA

Page | 20

POLICY ENGAGEMENT ND ADVOCACY TRAINING WORKSHOP FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS IN

LAGOS, NIGERIA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 27 - 30, 2010

VENUE: STARFIRE HOTEL, GRA, LAGOS, NIGERIA

SCHEDULE September 27

Date TIME ACTIVITY RESOURCE PERSONS

Sept 27th

8.00- 9:30

REGISTRATION

9:30-10:00

WELCOME MESSAGES/ INTRODUCTION

OF PARTICIPANTS

OPENING SPEECH

(Group Picture)

Policy Advocacy officer

WACSI

Country Director, OSIWA-

Nigeria

10:00-11:00

SESSION ONE

Maggie Brew-Ward

Paul B. Nyulaku

11:00-11:30 TEA BREAK 1

11.30 – 13.30

SESSION TWO

Maggie Brew-Ward

Paul B. Nyulaku

13:00-14:30 LUNCH BREAK

14:30-16:30

SESSION THREE

Maggie Brew-Ward

Paul B. Nyulaku

16.30 – 17.00 TEA BREAK 2

DAILY SCHEDULE from September 28 - 30, 2010.

Date TIME ACTIVITY RESOURCE PERSON

8.30 - 11:00

SESSION ONE

Maggie Brew-Ward

Paul B. Nyulaku

11:00-11:30 TEA BREAK 1

11:30 -13:00

SESSION TWO

Maggie Brew-Ward

Paul B. Nyulaku

13:00-14:30 LUNCH BREAK

14:30-16:30

SESSION THREE

Maggie Brew-Ward

Paul B. Nyulaku

Page | 21

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

THE WACSI/OSIWA/LGI POLICY ADVOCACY TRAINING IN LAGOS, NIGERIA

27 – 30, LAGOS, NIGERIA.

No NAME OF ORGANISATION Attendee Position EMAIL ADDRESS Phone Sex

1. WACSI OMOLARA BALOGUN

Advocacy

officer

obalogun@wacsi.org +233 243 746790 F

2. TRAINER/CENTECS, UNIPORT PAUL BEMSHIMA

NYULAKU

Trainer bemreen@yahoo.com 08036301347 M

3. TRAINER/GENDER CENTRE MARGARET BREW-WARD

Trainer abawardgh@yahoo.com +233 208171563 F

4. THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC

RIGHTS AND

ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

UGOCHI OKPE Staff Attorney info@serap-nigeria.org

mercygo@yahoo.co.uk

08033424664 F

5. THE LEGAL DEFENCE AND

ASSISTANCE PROJECT

EGBOKA ADAOBI

NKIRUKA

Legal officer info@ledapnigeria.org ;

adaobi@ledapnigeria.org

+234 1 7611852/

070 31867663/

2802009

F

6. CENTRE FOR

CONSTITUTIONAL

GOVERNANCE

DR. BALOGUN PETER

ADEWALE

Ex. Director a.pbalogun@yahoo.ca

08034040009 M

7. WADCR GRACE KEFETE Programmes

Director

womenadvocate@yahoo.c

om

234-1-8197344,

08027592145

F

8. PARTNERSHIP FOR JUSTICE

ITORO EZE-ANABA timayen@yahoo.com 08062828484 F

9. PROJECT ALERT ON

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

JOSEPHINE CHUKWUMA Ex. Director projectalert@projectalertnig

.org

josephine@projectalertnig.o

rg

jeffahchukwuma@yahoo.co

m;

08069839295,

0803304771,

08033016027

F

10. RESOURCE CENTRE FOR

HUMAN RIGHTS & CIVIC

EDUCATION (CHRICED)

ZIK IBRAHIM Ex. Director zikibrahim@hotmail.com 08023 133924 M

11. LEGAL RESOURCES

CONSORTIUM

NATHANIEL N. NGWU Legal officer lrclagos@yahoo.com

nathngwu@gmail.com

08038739781 M

12. KIND AMY OYEKUNLE Ex. Director amyoyeks@yahoo.com 08034540311 F

Page | 22

kindnigeria@yahoo.com

13. TAMTASS DEVELOPMENT

INITIATIVES

DR. JAMES H. LANDI

Ex. Director Jamland55@yahoo.com

tammtass@yahoo.com

+2348035982095

M

14. THE ANCHOR

OTUNBA GBAKINRO

ADEWALE

Ex. Director agbakinro@yahoo.co.uk

theanchor@ymail.com

+2348037220122

M

15. ELECTORAL REFORM

NETWORK (ERN)

OLUCHI ANOZIE C. Asst. Prog.

Officer

Electoralreform2001@yahoo

.com/oluchi@electoralrefor

mnetwork.org

08067740021

F

16. COMMUNITY ACTION FOR

POPULAR PARTICIPATION

(CAPP)

KYAUTA GIWA

Ex. Director kyauiliya2k4@yahoo.com

+2348032857684

F

17. CLEEN FOUNDATION KEMI OKENYODO

Dep. Ex.

Director

asiwaju@cleen.org

www.cleen.org

+234 9 7817025/

+2348052004590

F

ABSENT

1. WISDOM UCHE DURUEKE Ex. Director M