TRAINING IN POLICY ENGAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS IN COTE DIVOIRE AND GUINEA

WORKSHOP REPORT

Trainers: Antoinette Lucky Mbrou & Constant Gnacadja

Venue: Hotel Bellecote, Abidjan, Cote DIvoire. Date: 26th - 30th March, 2010

INTRODUCTION The Local Government and Public Service Reform initiative of the Open Society Institute (LGIOSI), the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) and the West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI), formed a tripartite to enhance the capacities of West African civil society actors on policy advocacy and engagement. This workshop is among the series of workshops on the same theme which is being organized in four West African countries namely, Nigeria, Cote dIvoire, Senegal and Liberia. 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. Overall, the civil society sector is considerably weak and most CSOs have not developed a strategic approach for engaging State structures. Traditionally, the relationship between civil society and governments were strained and CSOs were generally unable to leverage influence on the State. This situation of disengagement has made CSOs unable to contribute significantly to governance processes. However, CSOs continue to make significant contributions to national and regional development processes, though their impact is still limited in scope, scale and sustainability. With increased democratisation, reductions in conflict, and advances in information and communication technologies, it has become imperative to build the policy influencing capacity of CSOs in the sub region. Thus, WACSI in collaboration with LGI and OSIWA seek to organise a series of policy advocacy trainings for civil society actors as part of its broader focus on strengthening policy advocacy initiatives. The five days workshop witnessed the participation of nineteen (19) participants drawn from both Cote dIvoire and Guinea. This last phase of the ToT process witnessed an enormous demonstration of energy and enthusiasm by both the trainers, participants and the organizing crew. There was a high level of participation by all, frequent contributions from participants and very quickening energizers which kept the group alive and functioning boisterously during the 5 day period. The very collaborative group members democratically named their group as BENSO meaning Village de la Paix or Village of Peace. They went on to crown Dione Dorcas Nema, one of the participants as queen of the village who had the task of overseeing group discipline. The group laid down norms which were to be respected during the training period. This code of conduct included aspects tabulated below.
Punctuality Discipline Obedience Indulgence Courtesy Attention Accepting differences Availability Assiduity Humility Good management of group contributions Phones on vibration Respect for time No laptops on the table Flexibility Respect for each others opinion 2

Failure to respect any of these ground rules will attract sanctions such as: A verbal warning; A dance; and Recounting a funny story. OBJECTIVES The objectives of the policy engagement and advocacy training are: 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. GOAL The overall goal of the workshop is to equip participants with the strategic insight, skills and resources relevant to design policy-relevant advocacy campaigns and communications tools that deliver a compelling policy position and so, achieve desired policy objectives. EXPECTATIONS OF PARTICIPANTS Given this goal, the learning expectations by the end of the workshop were outlined thus by the participants. This exercise was done in five groups and had the following expectations as per group: Group 1: JUSTICE To understand personal approaches towards policy advocacy and how to manage them; To be able to conceive an advocacy document; and To be able to develop an elaborate advocacy document. Group 2: LES BLEUS Participants expect to be able to conceive a practical and objective advocacy document which combines theory and practice. Acquire practical skills that will enable them to be trainers; and Understand how advocacy processes function in East and Central Europe based on case studies and to be able to adapt them to African situations. Group 3: LES ROSIERS Have a general understanding of policy advocacy; Understand the tools and mechanisms of elaborating policies; and Knowledge on how to develop and maintain durable networks.

Group 4: DEMOCRATIE Understand the context of advocacy in the domain of public policy and the process of implementing them; Gain skills in developing an advocacy document or plan; and Creation of a network of participants. Group 5: ESPERANCE Grasp communication skills required for effective policy advocacy; Understand the functioning mechanism of advocacy; and To have the practical experience of utilising advocacy in public policy. Given these expectations, the facilitators made a quick run down of the specific and overall expectations of this training. OVERALL EXPECTATIONS These expectations were a vivid showcase of the needs of civil society actors and their organizations. These expectations are embodied in the overall expectations of the training which includes: To gain insight into the public policy perspective central to framing policy advocacyoriented communication tools; To understand how policy papers, as the main example of policy communication tools, can support an evidence-based decision making process; To build insight into a strategic approach to planning an advocacy campaign: the advocacy planning framework; To analyse and reflect upon strategies for increasing the likelihood of achieving desired policy influence in the writing and using of policy papers; To build insight into the structure and advocacy purposes of the two main types of policy papers: the policy study and the policy brief; To compare the differences between traditional academic and applied real world policy writing; To deepen the understanding through analysis of relevant policy case studies and real world policy papers; To determine a suitable focus and objective for an advocacy campaign targeting the local policy context; To build insight into the nature of persuasive advocacy messages. TRAINING AREAS Topics dispensed during the five-day workshop are broadly categorized under the following themes; Understanding the context of policy advocacy and writing Structuring and developing a coherent policy paper Developing a targeted advocacy plan using the Advocacy Planning Framework

METHODOLOGY The training utilized a practical approach in all activities. The active participation of participants was used to meet the policy advocacy and writing needs of participants. Other main aspects of the methodological approach adopted in the workshop are: A learner-centred, interactive environment; Leaning by doing; Pair and small group work to facilitate peer interaction; Role of participants as informed and responsible adult learners and the role of trainer as facilitator. Through this approach, the training was based on a jig-saw interactive process between participants and trainers. In the course of the training, the participants were frequently divided into groups of four and/or five to share their ideas and experiences in policy issues and outline the challenges facing policy processes in which their respective organizations have been involved in. in these groups, they were given specific tasks based on specific activities stipulated by the training manual. The different activities enabled participants to reflect on the entire policy advocacy process and put in their contributions as to why the process achieves limited success. DEFINING PUBLIC POLICY The next session enabled participants to understand what policy advocacy is all about through its definition. Studying from activity 2, page 10 of the training manual, participants elaborated under the guidance of trainers on the various definitions outlined. From this exercise, the following key perspectives from the definitions were enumerated. These perspectives are of the opinion that policy advocacy is: An authoritative government action; A problem-solution relationship; Addressing specific problems to achieve societal goals, that is, it is outcome oriented; A framework that guides decision making; A course for action or strategy (goals, decisions and means of achieving); and Political or value-driven. Having an understanding of what policy advocacy is, the next exercise engaged participants to propose the characteristics of an effective policy paper. From this, the following characteristics were outlined: It should have well researched information; It should attract the attention of many stakeholders; It should have a legal backing; It should be feasible; It should address a problem; It should have recommendations.
5

Participants were enlightened on the policy advocacy network. This network comprises: The goal or objective of the network Types of organizations involved in the network Interests and values shared by those involved in the network Means of communicating. The various means of communicating which participants enumerated included consultative meetings, media, lobbying, strike actions, petitioning, demonstration, IEC materials, text messages, emails, press releases, one-on-one meetings and social media among others. From the definition of a policy paper, participants were asked to underline words which are key to defining policy papers. The policy paper seeks to provide a comprehensive and persuasive argument justifying the policy recommendations presented in the paper and therefore, to act as a decision-making tool and a call to action for the target audience. From this exercise participants were made to understand that policy papers are close to but arte not Research papers Consultancy reports Programme implementation plans. The next session emphasized on a policy paper as being; A decision making tool A call to action A persuasive document. The two kinds of policy papers; the policy study and the policy brief was the next topic on the agenda. These two main types of policy papers have some major characteristics which include the audience, focus, context of issue, methodology, ideas/language used and the length. Both papers have peculiarities in these areas which also bring out the differences between the two types of papers. The structure of both papers is made up of an introduction, a problem description, an elaboration of the policy options and a conclusion and some recommendations. Participants were divided into three groups, representing each of these categories of both policy papers. Both groups raised ideas for the purpose, what is included and advice for their respective assigned categories. From this exercise, the following body of knowledge constituted the group presentations. INTRODUCTION Purpose: The introduction gives an overview of the context, the problem and the policy study. What is included? The context of the policy problem;
6

Definition of a policy problem; Declaration of intention; Methodology and study limits; and Strategic plan for the document.

Other advice: Brief introduction and definition of the target; State the goal of the document, the argument and the pertinence; and State the plan of the document PROBLEM DESCRIPTION (why) Purpose: To identify, define and exploit the nature of the problem; It seeks to convince in order to facilitate the taking into account of the problem so that it could be resolved; It focuses on the most pressing challenges in the specific environment; and It gives a detailed view of the nature of the problem. What is included? The origin of the problem; The nature of the problem as it exists; and Actors, conditions, constraints, causes, interests and values, roles and responsibilities, outcomes and impact. Other advice: Use appropriate sources; The problem description should be targeted within its past and current environment and contexts than starting with a discussion of the environment and then moving to the problem. POLICY OPTIONS (what to do and what not to do) Purpose: To highlight possible alternatives which should be prioritized based on all possible options. To build a comprehensive and convincing argument. What is included? Different orientations and succinct justification of positions; Framework of analysis; and Evaluation of policy analysis. Other advice: Coherence and clarity of chosen options;
7

Pertinence of arguments; and Should be based on ideas and values which guide evaluation.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS (how) Purpose: Serves as a tool for putting in place a decision and a call for action; It leaves a durable impression and gives a succinct understanding of the document to readers. What is included? Concise synthesis of major findings ( states pertinent points, description of problem and strategic policy options); Sets of policy recommendations (presents proposed measures to solve the problem); and Concluding remarks (completes and closes the document). Other advice: The conclusion have to be clear, practical, persuasive, logical, comprehensive; It should separate and present proposed solutions in a clear manner. After gaining an in-depth understanding of the qualities, characteristics and content of policy papers, participants were tasked to distinguish a policy paper from an academic paper. Participants formed groups to brainstorm on these differences. The differences which emanated from the group discussions are as below. Table 1: Differences between an academic paper and a policy paper Category Academic paper Policy paper Typical perspective Evidence based Issue based or issue driven Objectivity Focus Focus is on theoretical phenomena Focus is on practical real world problems Purpose Contributes to theory and advances Contributes to policy debates academic debates and bringing about change Outcome Reflections, questions and/or Stimulates policy change and proposed changes to current brings about debate disciplines The next aspect relating to policy advocacy on which participants shared ideas and gained new knowledge was on the structural components of the policy study and policy brief. These structural components have some similarities as evident in the table below.

Table 2: Structural components of policy brief and policy study Policy study Policy brief Title Title Table of contents Not applicable Abstract/ Executive summary Executive summary Introduction Not applicable Problem description Context and importance of the problem Policy options Critique of policy options Conclusion and recommendations Policy recommendations Appendices Appendices Bibliography Sources consulted or recommended End notes Not applicable THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS The policy making process involves six steps. These steps are: a. Problem definition: to identify a particular policy issue and attempt to get it onto the governments political agenda as priority. b. Construct policy alternatives: to determine a number of feasible and realistic ways of solving the problem. c. Choice of preferred solution: to decide on the most suitable policy option based on comprehensive evaluation of all the alternatives. d. Policy design: government decides how to most effectively implement the accepted policy. e. Policy implementation and monitoring: the policy is put into practice and the policy outcomes are continuously measured. f. Evaluation: the effectiveness in achieving the policy objectives is determined using a comprehensive assessment procedure. These steps flow in a cyclical manner from the problem definition (1) to evaluation (6) and back to the problem definition. This is termed the policy advocacy process. THE ADVOCACY PLANNING FRAMEWORK The challenge in advocating for policy research/analysis is to have findings, at a minimum, get a response from the intended target audience, all the way to leading a new policy change. This theme sought to empower participants with the most effective ways to bringing research into policy making in developing and transition contexts. This topic also focused on the multi-linear channel of policy advocacy. Effective advocacy is generally not 1 way linear transfer. Not simple transportation of research to policy sphere Not just demonstration the facts generally do not speak for themselves
9

Not research it, write it and they will find it.

But, a 2 way process of mediation and negotiation that is messy and generally, takes time, persistence and commitment. Policy advocacy has generally been implemented in three most ineffective ways which include: Traditional/ academic approaches publish, present a conference, meet someone in the target ministry and this is very similar to the one way linear transfer. Ad-hoc approaches minimal dissemination and whatever response comes back leads the advocacy. This approach does not outline any actual objectives for the advocacy project which are set at the beginning. Project management approaches this approach involves a replication of the recommendations from a policy paper and simply transforming them into policy objectives.

Policy research and analysis is an in-depth process of reflection and reflection on policy problems, societal goals and feasible, implementable solutions. Advocacy is about target audiences and policy-making processes and how to get your voice into the target debates in a convincing way. The basic idea behind the Advocacy Planning Framework is that advocates need to identify how they can move the policy making process in a direction they desire and to what extent they can move it. This could be new research evidence, an evaluation of a government programme, a new solution to an old problem and/or strong support from influential or powerful individuals or groups. The Advocacy Planning Framework is an appropriate tool which can be used to develop a pragmatic and feasible targeted advocacy plan. This strategic tool focuses on three focal components: the way into the process, the messenger and the message. The way into the process what is the best way to get into the target policy debate? This also identifies issues related to the demand, openings and timing, audiences, current positions, current thinking and obstacles. The messenger does the advocating body have the credibility needed to be listened to and taken seriously by the key players? Who should lead or be the face of the campaign and what kind of other support or coalitions do we need? This component addresses issues concerning credibility, the face of the campaign and other coalitions. The message what can we say to the key target audiences that will convince them of our ideas/ positions and how can we best communicate to them? The message also addresses aspects regarding to audience profile shaping for audiences, mode of delivery, and the expected responses.
10

The main components of the advocacy planning framework: the way into the process, the messenger and the message all represent aspects of the planning process. These jointly contribute to the attainment of the objectives of an advocacy campaign. The APF raises contextual questions about the issue at hand. Most importantly, the questions end up as the solution of the problem. CONSTRUCTING A PERSUASIVE MESSAGE Constructing a persuasive message is key to the policy advocacy process. To construct a persuasive message, the author needs to capture the interest of the target audience, the message should: Have time options. The message should elucidate on a variety for the possibility of making a choice. Highlight on the interests of the target audience. The message should situate the interest of stakeholders. Interest reflects the phrase; whats in for me. Mention dangers associated. The message should raise the issue of fear. It should vividly show how things can go bad if the core aspect of the message is not addressed.

The class was divided into groups to implement the knowledge gained by applying the Advocacy Planning Framework. A sample outline is as below. FEED BACK FROM TRAINING With the energy and commitment demonstrated during the training by the participants and the trainers, the participants were asked to qualify the training using one word. Adjectives enumerated included: Interactive Participatory Very tiring Imaginative Active Constructive Brainstorming Comprehensive Innovative Satisfactory Instructive Busy Efficient Relevant Perfect Formidable Practical Fascinating Convincing Intensive Exceptional

CONCLUSION The 5 day training workshop witnessed an overwhelming success. The subject matter was quite pertinent to the target beneficiaries (civil society actors in Cote dIvoire and Guinea) who devoted the required attention and concentration towards the training. Participants then explained how this training would be beneficial to their organization. Participants affirmed that this training enabled them to be familiar with policy advocacy tools.
11

The training enabled participants to gain the know how on how to carry out an advocacy campaign. They will be able to share the knowledge gained in the training and to establish a pool of policy advocates in the sub-region. Participants benefitted from the rich training skills exhibited by the trainers and were able to grasp some training techniques. Participants were enlightened that policy advocacy is a process and the practical contextual aspects of the target population are a vital component in developing a policy paper or campaign.

In furtherance to this, participants expressed their satisfaction to LGI-OSI, OSIWA and WACSI for bringing this initiative to fruition. They further appealed to the tripartite to conduct more of such capacity building programmes across the sub-region. This successful ending of the entire ToT process is not the end but the beginning of a new and more agile process of policy advocacy in the life wire of civil society actors in West Africa who benefitted from the training. Reactions gathered from all five countries which saw the participation of civil society actors from all over Africa (Rwanda, Benin, Guinea Conakry, Cote dIvoire, Liberia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Ghana) working in these countries where the training was held; hold that there is a more dire need to get more civil society actors and policy stakeholders to benefit from this training. In response to this unanimous demand from all the countries, Lisa Quinn, Course Director assured participants that OSIWA is building a fellowship in policy advocacy to lead to research writing and the writing and dissemination of policy study and policy brief in a supported manner. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM TRAINING WACSI should follow up participants in the training to ascertain how useful the knowledge and skills gained in the training have been useful to their organization. The training should be replicated in other countries so that more civil society actors could benefit from it. WACSI, OSIWA and LGI should support local civil society organizations to share the training with other stakeholders in their respective countries. WACSI, LGI should encourage and support the development and publication of many policy briefs and policy studies in West Africa. They should provide technical supervision and coordination in the process involving local actors.

12