Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DATE: 23rd
– 26TH
AUGUST, 2011.
VENUE: OSIWA CONFERENCE ROOM, DAKAR,
SENEGAL.
Facilitators
Constant Gnacadja & Lucky Mbrou
By: Franck Arthur SOMBO
1
Table of Content
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….. 2
Objectives of the workshop…………………………………………………………….. 2
The workshop methodology……………………………………………………………. 2
Training content………………………………………………………………………... 2
Opening Ceremony……………………………………………………………………... 3
Training Development…..………………………………………………………………. 6
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………... 16
Appendix: ………………………………………………………………………………. 17
- Participants’ list
- Training Agenda
- Training Syllabus
- Pictorial illustration.
2
INTRODUCTION
The West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI) with the Open Society Initiative for West Africa
(OSIWA), organized a four (4) day Training Workshop in Policy Engagement and Advocacy. The
workshop was specifically designed to respond to the policy influencing and advocacy gaps
identified amidst Civil Society Organisations in Senegal. Since the commencement of WACSI in
2007, the institute has been committed to championing the course of strengthening the
governance and development of Civil Society Actors across West Africa through regular individual
capacity development and institutional strengthening training programmes.
The four day workshop which was held from the 23rd - 26th of August, 2011 in Dakar, Senegal
attracted 20 representatives from different CSOs and networks in Senegal.
WORKSHOP GOAL
The main goal of the workshop was to build the advocacy capacity of Civil Society Actors in
Senegal, and deepen their knowledge and skills in planning and conducting effective policy
engagement, influencing and advocacy. The workshop was structured around three thematic
areas: understanding the context of policy advocacy and writing; structuring and developing a
coherent public policy paper; and developing a targeted Advocacy Planning Framework.
OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP
The objectives of the Policy Engagement and Advocacy Training were to:
To enhance Civil Society Organizations’ ability in writing and utilizing targeted and
evidence-based policy documents;
To reinforce the comprehension of planning process for effective policy Advocacy
campaign
To consolidate Civil Society Organizations’ knowledge in public policy networks and
processes in Senegal;
To increase understanding of the policy environment in West Africa and potential entry
points;
To provide a platform for Civil Society Actors within the sub-region to form advocacy
networks and build alliances.
WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY
The Training was practices-based. It was composed of experience sharing, Learning by doing,
group exercises, case studies, testimonies, role play, etc. The workshop methodology is founded
on interaction and insightful commitment. It takes heed of the workshop participants’ needs to
target them. Also, a Manual, served as a guiding tool to the entire training for each participant,
under the direction of the Trainers.
As the participants had very good insights and were very committed, the interaction was so
constructive and excellent!
TRAINING CONTENTS
The pedagogy of the training was planned in such a way that throughout the workshop we went
through three main sessions:
3
Session 1: Understanding the context of Policy Advocacy and writing
Session 2: Structuring and developing a coherent Policy paper
Session 3: Designing a targeted Advocacy Planning based on the Advocacy Planning
Framework.
They depart the basic comprehension of the context of Policy Advocacy to the pragmatic way of
conceptualizing a targeted Advocacy Plan on the basis of the Advocacy Planning Framework
(APF). Thus, these sessions were spread over all the 4 days of the workshop.
OPENING CEREMONY
The workshop started with an opening word from the Administrative Director of Open Society
Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA), Mrs. Aita SARR. Mrs. SARR started by greeting the
participants and welcoming them. She then recalled the creation story of WACSI by OSIWA. She
used the image of a mother and her daughter to express the relationship between OSIWA and
WACSI. In 2005 WACSI was brought in existence by OSIWA in order to strengthen civil society
actors’ capacities in the process of empowering democratic states within West Africa. She
encouraged the participants not only to follow and participate in the workshop but be able to
ensure restitution of the Training outputs to their fellows and partners.
Taking the floor, Ms Balogun Omolara on behalf of WACSI greeted the participants and the
Trainers and thanked them for their presence. She also expressed her gratefulness towards
OSIWA for having opened the doors for WACSI to host the Training in her venue. Emphasizing on
WACSI creation story, she stated that although instituted in 2005, WACSI became operational in
2007. The purpose for its inception is to bridge the institutional and operational gap among civil
society in West African countries. Indeed the need for CSOs capacity building was proved after a
need assessment conducted by OSIWA. Since then WACSI is committed to civil society
development through a triangular approach, that is, Training and Capacity Building (1), Policy
Advocacy (2) and Research and Documentation (3). She added that so far WACSI has trained
over 1800 civil actors in 8 West African countries. With regards to the current Training, she
specified that this course which is running in partnership with Open Society Initiative for West
Africa (OSIWA) and Local Governance and public Services Reform Initiative (LGI) has been
delivered to over 150 CSOs in 6 countries.
She added that this was the second time the training was being held in Senegal and that the
current expectation was to engage policy makers more effectively and resourcefully. She ended
her speech by wishing all a good Training session and invited the participants to an active
contribution since the Training was practical enough.
Coming to the Facilitators they introduced themselves to the audience; respectively Lucky
Antoinette MBROU and Constant GNACADJA. MBROU Antoinette is a qualified Lawyer.
GNACADJA Constant is currently the WANEP Zone 4 Coordinator, Peace and Conflict
Prevention. They are both involved in Development work and engaged with WACSI as French
countries Trainers for policy Advocacy Trainings. Afterwards they recalled the theme and its
4
relevance to the participants, especially in Senegal where the Civil Society is so active and
brilliant, but lack key elements to achieve their goal in policy influencing and causing change.
TRAINING WORKSHOP DEVELOPMENT
Dynamic Introduction
The proper workshop started by an amazing way of introducing one to another. The Facilitators
asked each participant to write the name he/she prefers to be called by during the workshop on a
post stick; and, all around it, put what he/she likes in the four (4) corners of the paper divided into
four (4) square boxes. Each person was then told to share this information with another person to
better introducing him/herself. At the end of the day the participant began discussing with his/her
new found friend. This was a good play to break the ice and bring openness between the people
who were each in his corner; hence the start of networking and opportunity for furtherance
partnership. Afterwards, they were divided in four (4) groups according to the four (4) colors of
post sticks they used; yellow, green, red and orange.
Internal Organization
For the sake of order and best environment for the Training Workshop, the participants were
allowed to set an internal regulation charter with an appropriate leadership.
Here are the rules erected:
- No mobile phone shall ring all the four (4) day workshop long: they should be off or on
silent mode so as not to disturb other participants.
- None of the participants is entitled to be late when starting the sessions. Any offender to
this particular rule is exposed to the risk of loss of certification at the end of the
programme; and whoever is late for some reason shall be “fined”: choosing between
dancing, or to tell a joke.
- Chatting during the Training is not permitted. Any offender would rise up and speak out for
the others to know what he was talking about;
- All the laptops shall be off during the Workshop
Leadership appointment:
- 01 Time-Keeper: Pape Arona Traoré
- Chief of the Village: Mbeinda Lamotte
- Name of the Village: Teranga.
Following these agreements, the “Constitution” was put up to be “popularized”.
Such an organization was useful to the Training to regulate the internal functioning. It also helped
to involve the participants in decision-making and leadership.
Participants’ Expectations and Concerns
Participants were asked to highlight their needs to be addressed and cross it with the objectives of
the training. This was done to help the Facilitators know more about the specific needs of
everybody take heed of them in the course delivery. For this, they were asked to refer to pages 5–
7 of the Manual. Each participant was to outline three expectations and share it with the other
5
members round the table. There were five (5) people per table. Every group then wrote its
collated expectations on a flip.
EXPECTATIONS
Understand the process of planning, design and implementation of advocacy;
Master public policy papers writing;
Know more about advocacy comparatively to other concepts/approaches;
Master strategies, skills and resources to undertake useful advocacy campaigns towards
public policy and communication in local context;
Master policy advocacy paper writing methodology;
Create networking dynamic among Civil Society Organizations to influence public policy;
Identify advocacy uniqueness relatively to other approaches;
Equip with pertinent tools for the purpose of advocacy paper writing;
Strengthen policy environment analysis competencies;
Share individual experiences.
In the second exercise, participants were given the opportunity to outline their questions and
concerns as a group. The stated concerns were unanimously discussed. These included:
shortness of the time allowed for the Training, four (4) days duration and the need of clarification
of some main concepts.
Workshop Goal
The overall goal of the workshop was to equip participants with the requisite skills, knowledge and
resources to design policy relevant papers, and build strategic insights into developing an
effective advocacy campaign and engagement.
Workshop Outline:
The workshop was divided into three (3) major pronged sessions. These are:
Understanding the context of policy advocacy and writing: i.e. understanding the
nature of public policy processes and strategies to engage all stakeholders concerned in
public policy making in Liberia;
Structure and develop a coherent public policy paper: i.e. to gain understanding in the
different types of communication tools available to pursue a successful advocacy
campaign. This session focused on the important and effectiveness of a policy paper in
influencing policy process. It highlighted requisite structure of an advocacy paper, types of
papers, how to write a compelling paper, and be adopted as an advocacy and
communication tool and a ‘call to action’ for decision makers.
Develop targeted advocacy plan using the advocacy planning framework (APF): this
session sought to put participants through how to design and use the APF for all advocacy
engagement. This session was duly covered in the second phase of the training, though
participants were introduced to it at the first phase.
6
GROUP DISCUSSION
To kick start the workshop, the participants were divided into four (4) different groups to share
their experience in writing and using policy papers in conducting Advocacy activities.
During this activity participants shared their excitement from the work they performed through
Advocacy practices. They talked about their commitment and their perseverance. Besides, each
group was invited to share their challenges when implementing their Advocacy programme.
Among others, the listed deeds were directed towards:
- Public Administration Decentralization;
- plea for salary increasing;
- youth and women participation;
- Polygamy fighting.
The challenges faced by the participants in implementing their Advocacy programme were
outlined as follow:
- Shortness of the message;
- Choice of the message;
- Disagreement on the message content;
- Mastering of Advocacy process;
- Participatory approach.
ACTIVITY 1: What is an effective Policy Paper?
For this activity participants had to state the characteristics of an effective Policy paper. The
characteristics listed by the four (4) groups had some similarities and differences. Three
adjectives were commonly used to express the characteristics of an effective Policy Paper:
- Clear
- Coherent
- Pertinent.
Certain words were differently considered as part of the characteristics. Here they are:
- Contextual
- Reason-why
- Consensual
- Convincing
- Short/Precise
- Realistic
- Simple
- Accessible.
The Facilitators invited each group to justify the use of the characteristics they raised, exposing
them for comments and criticisms from others. The Facilitators did not comment but congratulated
the participants for their insight and assured them that their comments and criticisms would either
be confirmed or rejected from what would happen subsequently.
7
ACTIVITY 2: Defining Public Policy
The fourteenth page of the workbook was used to serve as a support to help participants define
what Public policy in their own words was. Prior to that exercise the Facilitator stated that the
stake of this was not to give an exact definition because there is no a formal definition of Public
Policy. However there are key items which appear in the attempting a definition. This activity
consisted in a brainstorming, i.e. there is no error from what one would define as Public Policy.
Thus some main expressions were quoted to refer to Public policy:
- Governmental action which is of authority;
- Establishes link between problem – solution;
- Examine some specific issues and suggest social purposes to reach;
- A framework which guide decision;
- A guideline or strategy;
- Decision making based on interaction between stakeholders.
The Facilitators commented that we could obtain a definition from each of the above mentioned
words. Public Policy can be a mix up of all these things. But they also noticed that it is important in
envisaging Advocacy to identify who are primary and secondary target.
ROLE PLAY
In order to simulate what can be the interaction and the communication circuit in real life the
participants were distributed certain roles to incorporate. The play put together different actors
from the domain of education to discuss the need to ”shift to university into a trade center”. Each
of the stakeholders should pretend either this project was of more benefit to the state and the
community. The participants then embodied the role of: School Headmaster, Students, Parents,
Minister of Education, Journalist, etc. Each participant regarding his/her role should identify whom
to address to and expose his/her request, then all together, each asking for his/her request to be
addressed. The information circuit was represented by a rope every time someone addressed to
the other; and so on. Finally, a network was created and all were interlinked.
After the play the participants commented:
- It appeared noisy
- Some do not address to the right person/Institution
- Everybody wants to speak to the Prime Minister/state representative
- Some people are not convincing and not perseverant.
The stake of such an interaction was to show how things are in daily life; and how we should
address issues. It helped simulate communication trend between CSOs and decision makers.
How to engage and relate with others to create strong networks. One important lesson was to
identify the proper addressee in your Advocacy so as not to misdirect it. It is also important to
know who are your partners; then find the best message to and way to express your concern.
This Role Play was a very exciting and expressive exercise which helped the participants to
identify their own weaknesses.
8
POLICY COMMUNITY
Next to the Role Play, the participants were invited to gather according to their interest (stakes). In
each group they designed an intervention plan and started discussions on topic related to their
stake, according to the role play assignments.
Debriefing from the discussions related to the role play as well:
- Interaction created
- Chaos
- Mess
- Networking
- The most solicited were the state authorities and World Bank representative: power
holders.
- Nobody seemed interested in research
- There was lack of solidarity.
The Facilitators invited the participants to undertake more strategic actions, to better order and
formulate their request. They should also know protocol.
STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION TEMPLATE FOR ADVOCACY
The Facilitator came to ask the participants what they think are the reasons why we advocate.
Some reasons were enumerated: to inform, to influence, to convince, to persuade, to act, to
adhere.
Then the Facilitators showing the model of a strategic communication should look like, stressed
that Advocacy is not only the matter of information but goes beyond. An advocacy message
should be well articulated to present good information, moreover to “persuade” in order to push
the policy makers to “action”. You have to arouse their emotion. However the paper should base
on an analytical work.
Participants also commented that you can even put figures, iconographic items, and illustrations
to highlight the pertinence and give evidence of what you are saying. One participant shared an
experience from one NGO who engaged in environment protection sensitization. They asked the
permission from a Football Club to use the image of one Senegal football player to back their
campaign. They obtained that permission and were in the process to launch the messages. But it
happened that the football player spat on the face of a supporter after a game. Since then the
NGO was told by the funding organization to remove the portrait of that player from their
campaign. The lesson is that the illustration you put on your policy advocacy paper could be of an
advantage or a disadvantage to you. So you have to beware of what you associate with your
advocacy.
PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC POLICY PAPER
In an attempt to explain the purpose and importance of a policy paper, participants were tasked to
read a passage in the workbook (pg. 18) and identify the purpose of a policy paper. The following
key words were identified:
Comprehensive and convincing arguments;
9
Decision making tool;
Call to action;
Target group.
The Facilitators gave illustration to help understand how comprehensive and persuasive the policy
paper should be. They emphasized on “striking facts”. Then a case was given from EU aid
funding towards Serbia and Bulgaria from 2003-2009. Whilst both countries had 8 million
inhabitants and were promised the same aid from EU, Serbia was receiving less than their
neighbor Bulgaria until the date they showed the evidence during their presentation, using
graphics. That moved EU to confess their imbalance support and then, decided to correct it.
Day Two (Day 2)
The morning session of that day started with a game to help participants remember key words
from the previous day. Participants were randomly put into four (4) groups based on the number
on the cards they were made to choose; 1, 2, 3 or 4. Each group received 3 cards per participant,
whereon the participant was expected to write a word or phrase each from what s/he remembers
from the previous day’s session. Each group collated its cards and the game started by one
participant picking a card and exhibiting something describing the card content for the others to
know what he is trying to show. The game exposed the key concepts participants got well or not,
giving the facilitators the opportunity to help them have a better understanding.
TYPES OF POLICY PAPERS
POLICY PAPERS TYPES WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT
Policy papers resemble but are not:
- research document nor research reports
- consultation reports nor situation analysis followed by recommendations
- Implementation plan of programmes.
MAIN TYPES OF PUBLIC POLICY PAPERS
Participants learnt that in Advocacy there are two main types of policy papers. There are Policy
Study and Policy Analysis/Brief. The manual was used to state each of them with their
characteristics. So it appears that Policy Study papers are more appropriated for specialists
while the Policy Analysis paper is addressed to decision makers. The targets are different and
functionality is not the same; even though the context affects each differently.
COMMON STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF A POLICY STUDY PAPER
After the tea break, participants were divided into four (4) according to the name of animal each
liked more between lion, cat, parrot and whale. Referring to the page 22 of the manual, every
group was tasked to choose one of the four (4) main components of a policy paper table of
content and apply to it in three followings:
- Purpose of the item
- Content
- Other advice tied to the item.
10
This was to help the participants learn how to structure and develop a Public Policy Paper.
Table 1.0: In-depth analysis of sample policy study & policy brief
Policy study Policy Brief
Title Title
Table of contents
Abstract/Executive summary Executive summary
Introduction
Problem description Context and importance of the problem
Policy options Critique of policy option(s)
Conclusion and recommendations Policy recommendations
Appendices Appendices
Bibliography Sources consulted or recommended
Endnotes
Following the lunch break the various groups took turns to present their work to the rest of the
class, and gave detailed explanations to the points raised by the group. As a usual expectation,
participants critiqued each other’s presentations and made substantive contribution to the
presentations. In fact, in the presentations and discussions the participants exhibited
professionalism and brought to the fore their level of understanding and engagement in
advocacy work. This was evident in the practical local examples cited by them. The facilitators
elaborated further on the presentations of the group, simplifying some of the points raised to the
understanding of all the participants. Below are the group presentations on the contents of a
policy paper:
11
Groups Purpose What’s Included Other Advice
Introduction Give a brief and targeted description of a policy problem context with a striking beginning which attracts the readers.
Context of the policy problem
Definition of the policy problem
Statement of intent
Methodology and limitations of the study
Road map of the paper
Is the context brief and problem-centered?
Did you clearly communicate on the nature and urgency of the policy problem?
Was the paper purpose clearly stated?
Did you show your methodology and limits in your study vision?
Is your paper organization well presented?
Problem Description Group
Provide the information which help understand the problem within its environment
Background of the problem: history of the problem, that is, causes, groups affected, legal, political, economic and social part of the problem;
Problem within its current policy environment: current context (legal, political, social), consequence, impact of the problem, extent of the problem.
Should focus on the main aspects of the problem within its own environment
Should immediately focus on a targeted description of the problem
Should analyze root causes of failure in case it happens,
Policy Options
Present an argument for the preferred policy alternative based on the evaluation of all possible solutions.
Analysis framework: ideal statement and values which guides the evaluation;
Policy alternatives assessment, presentation and justification of policy options’ evaluation useful to analysis framework;
What to do and not to do
Mention strength and weakness of the chosen option;
Suggest solutions for attenuation.
Recommendations
To synthetize the policy or policy strategic options and suggest practical orientations (as tool helping in decision, making)
Synthesis of major findings;
Set of policy recommendation;
Concluding remarks.
Get the good information from the good source;
Prioritize strategic choices;
Watch the good layout and format of the paper;
Synthetize the main findings of the Study;
Logically divided Recommendations.
12
Returning from Lunch break the participants were invited to match the process of public policy
making with their appropriate definitions. This exercise, based on the Manual, p.15, was done in
each group by comparison among the group members and then discussed together.
Following the exercise (a) they switched to the next exercise (b) on page 16 which derived from
the previous one. Here participants had to put the different steps of decision making in the right
order. Next to that, the Facilitators asked them why the process of decision making is also
called the POLICY CYCLE. As answer, participants said that it is because there is a start and
an end of the process. And once the evaluation (last step) is reached you may start a new cycle.
POLICY MAKING CYCLE
The Facilitator asked the participants about their opinion on how we apply those principles and
steps in the implementation of our Advocacy policy in our local context. Everybody recognized
the fact that there is a gap between the must and practice.
Why then? These are some reasons among others:
- Governmental emergencies (electoral agenda, electoral pressure);
- Technical and financial partners constraints;
- Lack of planning;
- Lack of financial resources.
As result, we have what is called the worst scenario of public policy decision making.
Day three (Day 3)
In order to recapitulate the lesson learnt from the previous day the Facilitators initiated a game.
For that matter the participants were divided into three (3) groups, formed by a random count of
1. Problem Definition/
Agenda Setting
2. Constructing the Policy
Alternatives/ Policy Formulation
3.Choice of Solution/
Selection of Preferred Policy Option
4. Policy Design
5. Policy Implementation
and Monitoring
6. Evaluation
Figure 3.1 The Policy Cycle
13
1, 2 and 3 respectively. All the persons who counted 1 were put together, and so on. The game
required each participant to put down a word or concept he recorded or needed to understand
better. Then each group had to have one member on a chair called the “electric/hot chair”. The
Facilitator wrote the words from the cards on the flip chart while the person on the chair faced
the rest of the group members who had to find a way of describing the word on the flip chart to
their member on the chair. Once he got their meaning, he was supposed to speak out. This
game was so funny and instructive at the same time. It showed the level of participants’
understanding and how simply they could express this. It was very helpful for them to remember
the key points of the Training.
To practicalize the course an exercise was given to the participants to analyze some policy
paper samples: Case study on “Performance management reform in Lithunia” and “Policy brief
on Cote d’Ivoire”.
Step 1: The groups analyze the item.
Step 2: The groups share what their case analysis.
After the break, the participants came in for the restitution. With some guiding questions from
the Facilitators, participants discussed some differences and relations between Policy Study
and Policy Analysis.
Here are some main points brought forth:
- Which of the two Policy documents is the most appropriated for Advocacy?
- What is the role of evidence in the document?
ANS: Evidence makes document more credible
- What step of the policy cycle each follows:
Policy Study:
Policy Analysis:
- How do you disseminate an Advocacy paper?
For this question, participants listed many ways to advocate: vulgarization campaign, Internet
publication, restitution workshops, paper sending towards leaders, organizing forum and paper
distribution, work with communication agencies with the expertise to publicize your message.
Afterward, referring to page 28 of the Manual participants were tasked to choose one word
which evokes the concept Advocacy.
One after the other, the participants gave their opinion:
14
ADVOCACY
- Communication
- To convince
- To influence
- Decision
- Action
- Change
- Channels
- Network
- Alliances
- Political community
- Primary decision makers
- Sensitization
- Social mobilization
- Message
- Campaign
- Pressure
- Electoral reforms
- Claim.
Day Four (Day 4)
Prior to starting the agenda of the day the Facilitator asked the participants to list some main
expressions got from the previous days of the training. Thus participants shared the following
words: Advocacy, dissemination, lobbying, vulgarisation, advice and activism. This showed in
the least that up to this stage, participants had got something from the training they would be
able to improve and share as well.
Then, in order to define concepts, actors and their roles in Advocacy, the Facilitators directed
the participants to pages 28, 29 and 30 of the work book to mention which of the above listed
expressions can apply to the three (3) cases into the manual.
- The case 1 was about African Economics Study Center (Centre d’Etudes de l’Economie
Africaine – CEEA).
- The case 2 was about International Crisis Group
- The case 3 was about Coalition for Domestic Violence Legislation in Ghana (Coalition
pour la législation contre les violences domestiques au Ghana – DV Coalition)
15
Below are the correspondent words quoted by the participants regarding each case:
CEEA International Crisis Group DV Coalition
Correspondent
expressions
LOBBYING COUNSEL
MEDIA CAMPAIGN
LOBBYING/COOPERATION
ADVOCACY
From the above, a graphical representation was made; highlighting the role of political actors in
Advocacy.
Afterwards the training focused on the elaboration of targeted Advocacy Plan based on the APF
(Advocacy Planning Framework). This was done through exercises, using the manual from p.
32-35. For this purpose the participants were divided into four (4) groups.
ADVOCACY PLANNING FRAMEWORK (APF)
Four (4) main points were evoked here:
1. The Advocacy Planning Framework (APF)
2. The way into the process
3. The messenger
4. The message.
The Facilitators noticed that APF is an Advocacy planning tool. Also they asked why the APF
asks question and does not suggest answers. Participants argued that this is because every
single advocacy programme depends on the context such that you cannot have standard
solutions for every problem. They explained further that the APF only asks questions to guide
your own responses and to plan your activity accordingly.
Based on an exercise from p.37-38 the Facilitators invited each group to construct persuasive
message addressed to a specific targeted audience. In this discussion, each group gave its
opinion on the construction of the message to convince the Chief of Defense, Battalion
Commanders and Head of Police to support the setting-up and working of the ECOWAS
Standby Force (Force Africaine en Attente de la CEDEAO - FAA) in order to promote peace and
stability in the sub-region.
16
CONCLUSION
Dakar 2011 Policy Advocacy Training Workshop was great and successful. The participants had
an impressive commitment; they were very dynamic and insightful. Besides, the
Trainers/Facilitators endeavor was well appreciated by the participants as well as their
complicity. Even though the Muslim fasting period to some extent affected the ability of the
participants to free themselves, the workshop was generally held in a very good mood.
The methodology used by the Facilitators was very inclusive and participatory. It enabled
participants to express their needs, share ideas, experiences, case studies and testimonies and
so on. With regard to the content the Training empowered the participants through three (3)
main points according to the three (3) sessions of the Work Book entitled “Policy Advocacy and
Engagement Training for Civil Society Actors in West Africa, Developing Effective Strategies
and Communication Tools – TRAINING HANDBOOK”.
First, the Training increased participants’ knowledge and understanding of advocacy context
and writing (session1). Indeed the Facilitators led the participants in exploring the definition,
characteristics and relevance of key concepts and basic notions such as public policy, effective
policy paper, political community, etc.
Then the participants were brought to the point of structuring a policy paper, making it coherent
and persuasive. For that purpose the participants worked in exercise groups to outline the
objectives, the content and other advice related to each of the main policy paper points which
are: Introduction, Problem Description, Policy Strategic Options, Conclusion and
Recommendations.
At last, the participants were trained in using a fundamental tool in conducting advocacy project
which is the Advocacy Planning Framework. This instrument serves as a guide for advocacy
planning in order to build a targeted advocacy plan which is a guarantee toward a successful
advocacy.
The participatory approach initiated helped the participants to involve the more and obtain
satisfactory output from the Training. This was evident in the post-workshop evaluation, wherein
many rated the workshop as very satisfactory. Moreover the participants agreed on establishing
a Policy Network for further initiative in Policy Engagement and Advocacy, a direct result of the
workshop.
Finally, the Facilitators encouraged the organizations not be like a “kitchen sink”, that is, not to
embrace any incoming opportunity or mission but to target their goal to ensure efficiency and
make an impact.
No. Nom du candidat Organisation Poste Actuel Email/Téléphone
1. Oumy Cantome Sarr Fédération des Associations Féminines de Sénégal
Secrétaire Exécutive [email protected] +221 338 272 254
2. Malick Gueye Tostan Membre de l’association LEAD Sénégal
Communication en Afrique [email protected] +221 779 036 117, 775 326 386
3. Souleymane Barry Mouvement Citoyen Chargé de Programme/ Coordinateur du (PAGICTIC)
[email protected] +221 774 482 713
4. Ndeye Astou Sylla FEMNET Présidente FEMNET, Sénégal
[email protected]/ [email protected] +221 775 313 538, 338 229 455
5. Papa Daouda Diop ONG Action et Développement Chargé de Projet [email protected]/+221 775 569 614
6. Pape Arona Traoré RESOPOPDEV Secrétaire Exécutif [email protected] +221 775 588 672
7. Mbeinda Lamotte Diop
Collectif Sénégalais des Africaines pour la Promotion de l’Education Relative a l’Environnement
Présidente [email protected] +221 776 467 615
8. Diagne Mamadou Mansour
ENDA Tiers Monde ECOPOP
Chargé de Programme Décentralisation et Gouvernance locale participative
[email protected] +221 776 315 583, 338 596 411
9. Alioune Badara SY. Centre de Recherches et d’Etudes pour le Développement en Afrique
Présidente [email protected] +221 773 804 549, 771 464 152
10. Seynabou Ndour Pole de jeunes dans la commission
Commissaire aux Comptes [email protected] +221 776 402 000
11. Youssoupha Badji ONG RABEC Secrétaire Exécutif
[email protected] +221 775 511 516, 338 642 736
12. Banding Fossar Souane
Korea International Cooperation Agency /Association Action Civique pour le Développement
Responsable des Projets [email protected], [email protected] +221 775 327 459, 338 240 672
13. Raby Moussa Diallo Goree Institute Semi-Facilitatrice Bridge
[email protected] +221 77 523 37 33, 76 654 09 43
14. Coura Ndiaye Alliance JEF JEL Secrétaire Administrative de Mouvement National des Femmes
[email protected] +221 775 454 341, 338 642 300
15. Alégnesy BIES WADR Coordonnateur de Programme [email protected] +221 33 869 1569
16. Aboubakrine SAMB AWANA Responsable des Projets [email protected]
+221 77 513 98 12
17. Ndeye Marieme Ly Diagne
Gorée Institute Project Officer
[email protected]/ +221 77 169 10 52
18. Ibrahima FALL (O.P.D.E) Président [email protected] +221775505302
19. Ndeye Marie Sagna Le Caer
KABONKETOOR Chargée de Programme [email protected] +221 775 492 183
20 Marie Pierre Diop Réseau Africain pour le Développement Intégré
Coordinatrice du RADI de Thiès [email protected] +221 778 116 332, 339 5116 984
1. Omolara Balogun WACSI Policy Advocacy Officer +233 243746790
2. Franck Sombo WACSI Programmes Assistant +233 271366235
3. Constant Gnacadja WANEP Regional Coordinator +229 95065615
4. Antoinnette Mbrou GOREE Institute Researcher +228 0746979
LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS FORMATION SPECIALISEE SUR LE PLAIDOYER ET L’ENGAGEMENT DE POLITIQUE POUR
LES ACTEURS DE LA SOCIETE CIVILE AU SENEGAL 23-26 Aout, 2011, OSIWA, DAKAR.
APPENDIX I :
PROGRAMME DE L’ATELIER
ATELIER DE FORMATION SPECIALISEE SUR LE PLAIDOYER ET L’ENGAGEMENT DE POLITIQUE POUR LES
ACTEURS DE LA SOCIETE CIVILE AU SENEGAL
DATE: Du 23 au 26 aout 2011
LIEU : SALLE DE REUNION DE OSIWA, DAKAR, SENEGAL
PROGRAMME DU 23 AOUT
Date HEURE ACTIVITE PERSONNES
RESSOURCES
23 AOUT 8.00- 9:30 INSCRIPTION
9:30-10:00
MESSAGE DE BIENVENUE/PRESENTATION DES
PARTICIPANTS
(Photo d’ensemble)
Responsable Plaidoyer
de Politique de WACSI
10:00-11:00
SESSION 1
Constant GNACADJA
Lucky A. MBROU
11:00-11:30 PAUSE-CAFE
11.30 – 13.30
SESSION 2
Constant GNACADJA
Lucky A. MBROU
13:00-14:30 PAUSE DEJEUNER
14:30-16:30
SESSION 3
Constant GNACADJA
Lucky A. MBROU
16.30 – 17.00 PAUSE CAFE
PROGRAMME JOURNALIER (DU 24 AU 26 AOUT 2011)
Date HEURE ACTIVITE PERSONNES
RESSOURCES
8.30 - 11:00
SESSION 1
Constant GNACADJA
Lucky A. MBROU
11:00-11:30 PAUSE CAFE
11:30 -13:00
SESSION 2
Constant GNACADJA
Lucky A. MBROU
13:00-14:30 PAUSE DEJEUNER
14:30-16:30
SESSION 3
Constant GNACADJA
Lucky A. MBROU
16.30 – 17.00 PAUSE CAFE
APPENDIX II :
ATELIER DE FORMATION SUR LE PLAIDOYER ET L'ENGAGEMENT DE POLITIQUE POUR LES ACTEURS DE LA
SOCIETE CIVILE AU SENEGAL Un cours élaboré pour les Acteurs de la Société Civile en Afrique de l’Ouest
Lieu : OSIWA, Dakar, Senegal
Date: 23 – 26 Août, 2011.
Formateurs: Ms. Lucky Antoinette Mbrou et Mr. Constant Gnacadja
BUT & OBJECTIFS
Cette formation particulière a été élaborée pour faire prendre conscience des différents aspects des
défis liés à un Plaidoyer de Politique efficace. Ce cours aidera les participants à aiguiser leur vision,
leur langage ainsi que les outils qui leur permettront de progresser dans la réalisation des buts de leurs
organisations respectives et par la même occasion d’améliorer leurs compétences individuelles en
Plaidoyer et Engagement de politique ; en accomplissant ce qui suit :
L'objectif de cet atelier est de donner aux participants un aperçu stratégique, des compétences
et des ressources pour élaborer des campagnes de plaidoyer utiles en matière de politique ainsi
que des outils de communication qui expriment une position politique convaincante et qui
permettent de réaliser des objectifs politiques souhaités.
À cette fin, les participants à l'atelier auront à : Maîtriser les enjeux du point de vue de politique publique qui déterminent les moyens de
communication à utiliser dans la formulation de la politique de plaidoyer ; Comprendre comment les documents de politique à travers l’exemple principal de politique de
communication, peuvent soutenir une décision factuelle du processus décisionnel; Elaborer une vision dans une approche stratégique de planification d'une campagne de
sensibilisation: le cadre de planification de plaidoyer (CPP); Analyser et réfléchir sur des stratégies pour accroître la probabilité d'atteindre l’impact souhaité
dans la rédaction et l'utilisation des documents de politique; Avoir une compréhension sur la structure et les objectifs de plaidoyer des deux principaux
types de documents de politique : l’étude politique et la note de synthèse et d’orientation ; Comparer les différences entre le style académique traditionnel et le style du monde réel
appliqué à la politique;
APPENDIX III :
Approfondir la compréhension à travers l'analyse des études de cas pertinents et les réels documents de politique universelle;
Déterminer une attention appropriée et objective pour une campagne de sensibilisation ciblant le contexte des politiques locales;
Avoir un aperçu sur la nature des messages de plaidoyer convaincants. L'atelier vise également à:
Promouvoir le développement des compétences autonomes grâce à l'utilisation du guide LGI « Rédiger des documents pertinents de politique publique» comme un document de référence;
Créer un environnement de travail collaboratif entre les participants de l'atelier.
APERÇU DE L'ATELIER
L'atelier de cinq jours est composé de 15 sessions reparties en 3 phases principales :
1. Comprendre le contexte du plaidoyer en politique publique et de son élaboration Cette section examinera les facteurs contextuels qui structurent les campagnes de plaidoyer politique
et qui articulent les documents de politique publique comme des outils de communication utilisés dans
le processus de mise en œuvre de décision politique. Nous examinerons la nature de la politique
publique dans son contexte, les approches pour l'élaboration des politiques et les différents aspects de
la communauté politique comme un moyen de formuler les documents politiques. Enfin, les différents
types de documents politiques couramment utilisés dans l'élaboration des politiques communautaires,
à savoir les études politiques et les notes de synthèses et d’orientation seront mises en place.
2. Structurer et développer un document cohérent de politique publique
Le but de cette section est d’élaborer une vision autour de l'objectif et des caractéristiques des
éléments structurels communs au niveau des recherches politiques et des synthèses politiques.
L'accent sera mis sur la maîtrise de la compréhension totale des principaux éléments structurels qui
sont essentiels pour atteindre l'objectif du document de politique à savoir : la description du problème,
les options politiques, les conclusions et recommandations. Les participants pourront effectuer une
analyse comparative du contexte, du but et de la structure d'un cas d’étude politique et de note de
synthèse et d’orientation. Le principal document de rédaction utilisé pendant l’atelier sera le guide LGI
"Rédiger des documents pertinents de politique publique"1.
Dans l'élément final de cette section, nous allons examiner les différentes approches de la structuration
1 Young, Eóin et Lisa Quinn (2002) Writing Effective Public Policy Papers: A Guide for Policy Advisors in Central and Eastern
Europe. Budapest: OSI/LGI.
des documents de politique en termes d'efficacité dans le seul but d’attirer l'attention des cibles
potentielles et de faciliter la délivrance des messages désirés.
3. Élaborer un plan de plaidoyer ciblé en utilisant le cadre de planification du plaidoyer (CPP)
Le but de cet élément de l'atelier est d'examiner les éléments clés pour mettre sur pied un plan de
plaidoyer afin de maximiser les chances de parvenir à influencer la politique. Cette session commence
par la définition de la notion de plaidoyer dans un contexte politique et l'analyse des différents rôles que
les acteurs politiques choisissent de jouer dans leurs activités de plaidoyer. Les participants pourront
également réfléchir sur le rôle qu'ils jouent ou qu’ils entendent jouer dans leurs propres activités de
plaidoyer.
Après cette étape initiale, le Cadre de Planification de Plaidoyer introduira les grands axes clés de la
planification pour une campagne de sensibilisation ciblée. Les participants auront alors l'occasion
d'utiliser ou d’appliquer cet outil important dans la planification du plaidoyer en se basant sur des
études de cas. Enfin, nous allons analyser les approches pour l’élaboration des messages
convaincants de plaidoyer à l’endroit des parties prenantes ciblées. Toutes les questions les plus
importantes qui doivent être abordées dans la planification d'une campagne de sensibilisation efficace
sont prises en compte en tant que ressource à l’usage des participants.
METHODOLOGIE DE L'ATELIER
Cet atelier est de nature pratique et vise la rédaction des documents de politique et les besoins en
plaidoyer au profit des participants des ateliers. La participation active est la pierre angulaire de la
méthodologie utilisée avec un accent particulier mis sur l'analyse des documents authentiques de
politique, des études de cas et l'application des connaissances et des compétences au plaidoyer
politique et au contexte rédactionnel propre des participants.
Autres principales approches méthodologiques adoptées au cours de l'atelier :
Approche basée sur l'apprenant dans un environnement interactif; Approche basée sur l'apprentissage par la pratique; Travail en paire ou en petit groupe pour faciliter l'interaction avec les paires; le rôle des participants comme des apprenants adultes avisés et responsables, et le rôle du
formateur comme facilitateur.
PROGRAMME DE LA FORMATION
Le calendrier journalier des 4 jours de l'Atelier se présente comme suit:
Le calendrier journalier de
l’atelier
Dates
Inscription et présentation : Mardi 23, 8h00 – 9h00
08.30 – 10.30 Session 1 A partir du
Mercredi 24 au
Vendredi 26 10.30 – 11.00 Pause café
11.00 – 13.00 Session 2
13.00 – 14.00 Déjeuner
14.00 – 16.00 Session 3
FORMATEURS
Constant C. GNACADJA : Béninois, marié et âgé de 46 ans, a un Master en gestion des projets et
une expérience très riche en édification de la paix et en organisation institutionnelle dont le plan
stratégique. Il est formateur international en plaidoyer. Il est Consultant sur les questions électorales.
Ses expériences de travail depuis 2003 avec le réseau WANEP (West Africa Network for
Peacebuilding) et la CEDEAO lui ont permis de collaborer avec d’autres personnes venant d’autres
pays. M. GNACADJA a la capacité de travailler en anglais et en français.
Avec le réseau WANEP, il a eu à diriger le programme de renforcement des capacités des
organisations de la société civile en prévention des conflits et la bonne gouvernance pour sept (7) pays
francophones (le Bénin, le Burkina Faso, la Côte d’Ivoire, la Guinée, la Guinée Bissau, le Sénégal et le
Togo) et continue de diriger le programme d’alerte précoce et de réponses rapides pour le Bénin, le
Nigéria et le Togo. La gestion de ces programmes lui a permis de renforcer ses capacités de facilitateur
de session et médiateur dans des conflits. Aussi a-t-il participé à des consultations au Bénin et dans la
sous-région pour le compte de différentes organisations. Son intérêt sur les questions électorales lui a
permis d’observer les différents processus électoraux au Bénin, au Togo, en Côte d’Ivoire, en Guinée
et en Afrique du Sud.
En réseau avec d’autres organisations de la société civile au Bénin M. GNACADJA est membre du
Front des Organisations de la Société Civile pour la Liste Electorale Permanente Informatisée (FORS
LEPI 2011) et de FORS-ELECTIONS. Il est le Président de l’Association Droits de l’Homme, Paix et
Développement (DHPD).
Antoinette L. Mbrou : Togolaise et Juriste.
TRAINING ILLUSTRATION
Group Picture
APPENDIX IV :
OSIWA Administrative Office, Aita SARR delivering her opening speech
WACSI Introduction speech from the Policy Advocacy Officer, Omolara Balogun
Trainers’ Introduction
Participants’ dynamic Introduction activity
Role Play on Network establishing and Dynamic of Communication in Advocacy
Ice Break Exercise
Trainer leading in ‘locomotive clap’
Group Activities
Participants notes on case study
An attempt of Advocacy definition through
Policy Advocacy Officer, Omolara Balogun – interviewed by West Africa
Democracy Radio (WADR) representative
WACSI’s Publications availed for Participants
