1

TRAINING NARRATIVE

REPORT

DATE: 12th

– 15th

DECEMBER, 2011.

VENUE: HOTEL BARMOI, ABERDEEN, SIERRA LEONE.

Facilitators

Paul Bemshima Nyulaku & Omolara Balogun

SPECIALISED POLICY ADVOCACY AND ENGAGEMENT

TRAINING FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS IN SIERRA LEONE

2

Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...............3

Objectives of the workshop………………………………………………………………….....3

The Workshop methodology………………………….……………………………………..…3

Training content………………………………………………………..……………………..…4

Training Goal……………………………………………………………...……………….…….4

Opening Ceremony………………………………………………………………..….…..........5

Training Workshop Development……………………………………………………….….....6

Training Sessions...……………………………………………………………………….......10

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………....................23

Appendix:……………………………………………………………………………………….26

- List of Participants

- List of Acronyms

- Pictorial illustration.

3

LIST OF ACRONYMS

APF Advocacy Planning Framework

CSO’s Civil Society Organizations

LGI Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

OSI Open Society Institute

OSIWA Open Society Initiative for West Africa

WACSI West Africa Civil Society Institute

4

INTRODUCTION The West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI) with the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) organized a four (4) day Specialised Policy Advocacy Engagement training - for Civil Society actors in Sierra Leone. The workshop was specifically designed to respond to the policy influencing and advocacy gaps identified amidst Civil Society Organisations and to help them hold government accountable. 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 12th – 15th of December, 2011 in Sierra Leone attracted 20 representatives from different CSO’s and networks within the country. OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP The objectives of the Policy Engagement and Advocacy Training were to:

To enhance Civil Society Organisations knowledge of public policy networks and processes;

To enhance Civil Society Organisations ability to write and use evidence-based and targeted policy papers;

To build insight into the process of planning an effective policy advocacy campaign;

To increase Civil Society Organisations understanding of the policy environment in West Africa and potential entry points; and

To provide a platform for Civil Society Actors across the sub-region to form advocacy networks and build alliances.

WORKSHOP METHODOLOGY The workshop was practical in nature and targets the policy writing and advocacy needs of workshop participants. It was done using experience sharing, learning by doing, group exercises, case studies, testimonies, role play, etc. The workshop methodology was founded on interaction and insightful commitment, based on participants’ specific individual and organisational needs. The workshop methodology also used a Manual, which served as a guiding tool to the entire training for each participant, under the direction of the Trainers. The participants had very good insights and were very committed; the interaction was constructive and excellent. TRAINING CONTENTS 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.

1) 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 Sierra Leone;

5

2) Structure and develop a coherent public policy paper: i.e. gaining in-depth insight into the key structural elements which are central to achieving the purpose of policy paper such as problem description, policy options, conclusion and recommendations. Also exploring different approaches to the lay-out of policy papers to be effective and concise to attract potential audiences and facilitate delivery of message.

3) 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 training and brought a lot of personal and professional re-evaluation from participants.

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. After this, the participants concluded with the followings:

- Advocacy comes from analysis. - Advocacy is evidence based

TRAINING -GOAL The overall goal of the workshop was designed to raise awareness of the various aspects of the challenges of effective policy advocacy for civil society actors in Sierra Leone. Thus, the Training aimed at sharpening participants’ vision, language and tools to advance the respective goals of their organisations and improve their individual policy advocacy skills. This will be possible by equipping participants with strategic insights, skills and resources to design policy-relevant advocacy campaigns and communication tools that deliver a compelling policy position to achieve desired results. OPENING CEREMONY The workshop started with the delivery of the WACSI’s Policy Advocacy Officer opening speech. Ms Omolara Balogun stated that it was a great pleasure to welcome the participants at this Training; even though they had a busy schedule they made time to participate. It was obvious judging from their CVs that they have competencies and are experienced. Although they are already used to engaging in advocacy programmes there is a need for innovative strategies to enhance their work and approach, she stressed. She introduced the training module as one that was developed by OSIWA (Open Society Initiative for West Africa), LGI (Local Governance and Public Sector Reform Initiative) and WACSI (West Africa Civil Society Institute) to enhance innovativeness in the policy advocacy work and approaches. This programme, she added, began in 2008, implemented across West Africa. It had been adapted from East Europe region where work on democracy and good governance is currently more advanced, and where the modules had been sufficiently tests to contribute to the strengthening of policy advocacy to advance democracy So far the module has been used in Benin, Cote

6

d’Ivoire, Liberia, Nigeria, Togo and Senegal. This is the first time the Module is being used to train civil society actors in Sierra Leone. She gave a brief introduction of WACSI, established in 2005 and became operational in 2007. Its creation was driven by the need to contribute to bridge the gaps/ needs existing within Civil Society sector across West Africa sub-region. For this purpose the Institute acts through three (3) dimensions. The Training and Capacity Building Unit (1.0) works to strengthening technical and institutional capacities of civil society actors in many areas such as NGO management, Corporate Governance and Fundraising and Resource Mobilization. The Research and Documentation Unit (2.0) is in charge of conducting the Institute research on issues facing civil society; in this sense, publications are produced, monographs are published and press-release disseminated on several topics. With respect to the Policy Advocacy Unit (3.0), there are two main aspects; a theoretical and a technical aspect. Ms Omolara stated that WACSI cannot engage directly in advocacy action but WACSI is primarily responsible for working with civil society actors to facilitate how they can strategically and better engage in advocacy. The Institute also provides critical space/facilitating role for civil society organisations to advocate and cited the examples of some of such initiatives in the past, including the Political Dialogues between CSO’s, Parliaments and the Private Sector. Ms. Omolara Balogun, WACSI’s Policy Advocacy Officer ended her speech by encouraging participants to actively participate in the training by following instructions given by her and the co-facilitator (Paul) who came out of a tough Training of Trainers programme as the qualified Trainers for this course in the sub-region. She thanked the participants once more; then expressed her gratitude to her co-facilitator, showing special acknowledgement to him on behalf of WACSI for his endurance and qualification to deliver such a strong course even after the tiresome journey. She affirmed WACSI staff availability throughout the Training; for any questions, problems or any concern participants can refer either to her properly or to Olalekan, the intern present with her to facilitate organisational and logistical aspect of the training. Mr Paul Bemshina Nyulaku was introduced to the participants. Paul is a lecturer at the University Of Port Harcourt, Nigeria and one of the people trained specially to give this module to CSO. He confirmed how stiff the selection process which qualified them for this programme was. Since then they all have been committed to Policy Advocacy Trainings with WACSI to train civil society actors. TRAINING WORKSHOP DEVELOPMENT Dynamic Introduction The workshop began with a short exercise. The Facilitators told the participants to all stand up and walk round the conference room while interacting with other participants to know at least two things about each person in the room and that whoever come up with the highest number of people would be the winner. This was a good exercise as it brought about a dynamic openness between the participants and facilitators. It was an opportunity to start networking and creating space for future alliances.

7

Following the conclusion of the introductions, they were divided into four (4) groups according to the prior sitting arrangement for an exercise. Internal Organization In order to arouse participants’ ownership and sense of responsibility in running the programme, the Facilitators asked them to establish an order for the Training Workshop internal regulation. Thus, the participants agreed on the following code of conduct during the training workshop:

- Mobile phone should be on silent mode;

- Participants should indicate when they want to talk;

- Respect each other’s opinion; - Punctuality; - Time management;

- Be alert. No meditations - Limited movement during the

training - Active participation from everyone - Focus on discussion

Note: Offenders to any of these rules will pay a fine of 5000leones;

Leadership appointment: The leadership went to Irene Kargbo. Participants’ Expectations and Concerns Participants were asked to give their expectations and in line with the Training objectives. This was to help the Facilitators better know the expectations of everybody and consider them in delivering the course. Each participant was given a post-it and each wrote their expectations and it was posted on the wall to always be a reminder to them.

SUMMARY OF EXPECTATIONS

To understand policy framework, including theoretical and do analysis on policy

To be able to carry out policy advocacy where civil society is fragmented

To be able to do good analysis and ability to repeat it advocacy again

To be able to engage state actors on issues that has to do with advocacy

To be able to conduct research and develop reports and papers that support

policy formulation, review and implementation

To be able to learn the methodology involved in advocating for traditional issues

To build more insight into the nature of persuasive advocacy messages

To improve and enhance personal capacity in policy advocacy

To learn and understand relevant advocacy tool rather than the usual academic

writing

8

Afterwards, the Facilitators unfolded the programme objectives, methodology and

contents to the participants and were also told to go through it by reading and share

their opinions.

GROUP DISCUSSIONS

During this activity, participants were told to share their advocacy experiences. They

shared their excitement and past experiences in advocacy work. They talked about their

commitment, the challenges faced and what they do to overcome those set of

challenges. A few examples were taking in the experience sharing:

Ms Theresa Cooper shared one of the experiences her organisation (Shepherd

Hospice) which deals in health issues and terminally ill patients such as cancer, hiv/aids

had a case of a child who was entitled to child health care benefit but was denied

because the parent could not pay the green note (10,000leones). They advocated for

the child and other people in the same predicament through media and public

demonstration.

Following exposure of such challenges participants differently commented. They

encouragement one another to cultivate perseverance; though they have to take heed

of government priorities as well. All results are good from one’s perspective, either be

positive or negative the best is to draw lesson from it. They also shared the need for

monitoring and evaluation; otherwise, even a fight for charge-free service won can turn

into more costly due to subsidiary charges.

The Facilitators expressed their appreciation to all these comments. They emphasized

on the need for endurance and monitoring throughout the process for advocacy. One

should not give up even after gaining a result. Advocacy never ends; it needs focus and

monitoring on a long term, insisted the Facilitators.

TRAINING SESSIONS: Understanding the content of Policy Advocacy and writing

ACTIVITY 1: What is an effective Policy Paper?

During this activity participants had to state the characteristics of an effective Policy

paper. Participants were shared into four groups. 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:

Certain words were differently considered as part of the characteristics. Below are the

group presentations:

9

Afterwards, each group had finished their assignments, there was presentations of each

group work to justify the characteristics raised exposing them to comments and

criticisms from others. The facilitators congratulated the participants for their insights

and contributions. Furthermore, they were assured that their comments and criticisms

would be confirmed or rejected from what would happen subsequently and were also

encouraged that they should be persistent and learn to persevere and bear in mind that

in disseminating information, there is need for it to be accurate, precise, and straight to

the point and to catch policy maker attention.

GROUP 1

Title/ Heading

Problem statements/ Policy issues

Aims/Objectives

Discussion points/Key messages

Recommendations/Conclusions

GROUP 2

Situational Analysis

Goal and Objectives

Implementation Strategy

Target/Actors

Clear Message

GROUP 3

Identification of the policy issue

Set of activities

Focused

Evidence Based

Signatories/MOU

GROUP 4

Timeframe/Bound

Evidence Based

Policy Focused

Brief and to the point

Options/Recommendations

GROUP 5

Identification of the issue/problem

Well Researched and detailed analysis of problem

Evidence participation of Target group

Advocacy plan with clear timelines

Impact of advocacy work

10

ACTIVITY 2: Defining Public Policy

The facilitators stated first that the objectives of the exercise were to show that there are

no specific definitions of public policy but many common points or issues. Participants

were then directed to page 14 of the manual for an exercise in the attempt to define

what policy is. The facilitators added that there are three (3) main items to consider in

defining policy, which are Perspectives, Process and Policy community.

Perspectives

(Public Policy)

Policy Advocacy & Writing

People Process

(Policy Network) (Policy Making)

Some expressions were quoted to refer to public policy;

- Policy based on values or morals

- A framework which guides decision making

- Agreeing on a common point between citizens and government

- Rule of law from government

- Establishes link between problem and solution

- Identification of an issue, approaching it and finding adequate solution

The facilitators commented that definitions could be obtained from each of the above

mentioned words. Public Policy can be a mix up of all these things. But they also

advised that it is important in envisaging Advocacy to be able to identify who are

primary and secondary targets.

ACTIVITY 3: Structure of a Policy paper

This exercise was given to participants where they were divided into four groups,

namely the introduction group, problem description group, policy options group and the

conclusion and recommendation group. The table below was given to them to give them

an insight into what they are expected to do.

11

At the end of the group work, these were the summaries from each group:

Structure of a Policy Paper Introduction Purpose

To strengthen the reader’s interest at the initial stage while defining the main content of the policy paper in focusing on specific issues. Also to prepare the reader by setting the scene. What is included

Context of the policy problem

Definition of the policy problem

Statement of intent

Methodology and limitation of the study

Road map of the paper Other Important Points: Writers position should be clearly stated and clearly Stated goals and objectives

Problem Description

Purpose: To present an existing problem within a context that requires government action. What is Included:

Structural Features: this includes background on the problem and the problem within its current policy environment

Text and Augmentation: coherent problem that is convincing and easy to follow

A claim, support and warrant

Organised to suit topic, purpose and audience Other Important Points: Include a reference for all sources unless data is considered a common knowledge.

Elements of Policy

Brief

Movement in the argument Questions answered in each

part

Problem Description Problem Why Act?

Policy Options Solution What Strategy? (And what

not?)

Conclusions and

Recommendations

Application How to implement

12

Policy Options Purpose: The policy options elements presents various positions of preferred policy alternatives based on an assessment of all possible alternatives What is included:

Framework of analysis: this is a statement of the ideals of the values which guides the evaluation

Evaluation of policy alternatives: this provides a clear statement of and justification for positions taken

Other Important Points: In the policy option element, the writer’s voice should dominate. The way the options are evaluated depends on the expertise and creativity of the writer.

Conclusion Purpose:

To outline the measures proposed to solve the policy problems while fulfilling the role of a policy paper as a decision making tool.

To leave a lasting impression of the policy paper in the minds of the readers and help them to get a clear over view of the whole policy paper.

What is included:

Synthesis: - which highlights main points from the problem description and policy options.

Comparison to draw lessons learnt from the policy paper.

Personal opinion of the writer based on findings.

Concluding remarks completes and close the paper. Other Important Points: Structure of conclusion and recommendations varies from one writer to another.

Recommendations Recommendations are logical proposal and what approach could be used to make them clearly identifiable.

DAY TWO

Participants’ were given post- it to fill in what new thing or statement they had learnt on

the first day. It could be a sentence or just a word. This exercise took place for 5

minutes. The post-it filled were then submitted and distributed around each table such

that at least one that was filled by a participant on a particular table comes back to the

same table. A participant will then pick the paper and describe what word was written on

the paper while other members tried to guess what the word could be exactly. This

process goes round until all members of the table have picked a paper. This exercise

was done to make participants remember what they learnt individually and as a group.

After the exercise, there was a round-up on the whole exercise with every participants

13

reflecting on the first day and the following words were noted and which they elaborated

more on:

Analytical, purposive, course of action, goals, objectives, values, interest,

communication, policy cycle, policy making, policy meeting process,

interest, policy brief, policy study, engagement, Mobilisation, demonstration.

1. To move to

2. To trigger to/systematic steps – it usually has a direction and aware of

target in addressing the situation

3. Goal – intended or overall achievement

4. Advocacy objective – to influence a situation, policy process, policy

formulation or the policy maker

5. Values – one’s belief

6. Interest – one’s motives

7. Communication – to inform such as marching on the street, carrying of

placards, using media to pass message

8. Policy cycle – the stages policy passes through

9. Policy brief/study – which is one means of communication in advocacy

10. Engagement – consultative arbitration forum, social media, round table

discussion

11. Mobilisation – bringing people together (the actors, Stakeholders)

12. Demonstration – a form of communication

ACTIVITY 4

ROLE PLAY

To experience Advocacy in practice the participants were engaged in a role play. The

game was to represent communication dynamic amongst actors from education sector

and governmental representatives around topics of concern to them. The main topic

was about the need for ‘privatizing the university'. Regarding the fact that either they

were policy community or decision makers, the stakeholders had to support or reject the

project. Students, Parents, Traditional leaders, Bankers, Minister of Education, Minister

of finance, Prime minister, CSO’s, and Journalist were the different roles the

participants were given. Thus each would identify who to address and expose his/her

demand. They started by signifying whom they wanted to communicate with. The game

was made with threads in such a way that the one having the flow holds the wire and

directs it to the one s/he is speaking to and this was done collectively and at the same

time. Then all together, each speaking to his/her identified addressee(s) until all the

14

participants were involved and held at least one rope showing the information circuit. At

the end an interconnected assembly was created with all the stakeholders.

As for commentaries, participants diversely expressed their opinion on the interaction

just held.

Afterwards the Facilitators asked participants about what was missing in this exercise. It

obviously appeared to be lack of hierarchy line.

DAY THREE

ACTIVITY 5

Participants were asked to take their manual and go to page 28 to define concepts,

actors and their roles in advocacy. They were asked to brainstorm with words they

could associate with advocacy.

To speak to Make known Call to action Motivate To convince

Demonstration Persuade Educate Inform Influence

Communicate Change Action

Draw attention Mobilize Engage Dialogue Intentional

Deliberate Identity gap Antagonize Concientise Mediate

Building relationship Empower Stimulate

ACTIVITY 6

After brainstorming of words for advocacy, participants were given another group work

which was a continuation of the exercise about on page 28 of their manual.

- Case 1: Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa

ADVOCACY

Some felt confused, not really knowing whom to target to effectively reach their

purpose. Others were waiting for their neighbours to finish speaking instead of claiming

their need. Most of the people wanted to go straight to government representatives.

Everyone also blamed the minister of education and never considered if he was acting

on orders. The process was also chaotic because everyone was talking at the same

time. No one felt traditional leaders and religious bodies had a role to play. Journalist

was not asking strategic questions. In all, everyone had were their interest was and was

evident in the bankers position. Those are the main cases and comments made by

participants.

15

LOBBYING

- Case 2: International Crisis Group

COUNSEL/ MEDIA CAMPAIGN/ COOPERATION

- Case 3: Coalition for Domestic Violence Legislation in Ghana

ADVOCACY

Policy Cycle

Participants were tasked to match the policy making steps outlined on page 12 of the

work book with their definitions. They were to do this exercise individually, then

compare their answers with their partners and finally compare and reach consensus as

a group. Participants were required to compare their answers from the exercise in the

policy cycle. Discussions ensued among participants in relation to practical policy

making process particular to the Sierra Leonean context. The facilitators acknowledged

that the diagrammatical representation of the policy making cycle is an ideal way which

is different from the reality often seen in policy making. Thus the diagram gives “what

should be” rather than “what it is”. A better approach to ease participants pace of

understanding was illustrated in an example which also seeks to buttress the statement

given an ideal policy process.

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

16

After the whole exercise, there was general discussions among participants with

facilitators were some key points were noted such as:

- At the first step, most NGOs do this. They get involved but after this stage, they

are always nowhere to be found.

- At the fourth step, there is always a worst case scenario because NGOs are

pushed out of the process, which then have impacts with the next stage.

- At the fifth step, institutions are usually not involved and there is capacity

deficiency with no focal point. Also information is not well disseminated.

- In the policy making process, its good every organisation should be participating

at every level of the circle, however it doesn’t matter if an organisation is involved

at one of the stage which may be due to their strength.

ACTIVITY 7: THE POLICY NETWORK

Access to education. Change in

policy. Girl child education. Cost

management. Quality education.

Affordable education

Quality. Affordability. Efficiency.

External influence. National

interest. Access. Cost

effectiveness. Profit driven.

Political standing.

Civil Society Organisations.

Government representatives.

Technocrats. Media. Parent.

Student. Member of Parliament.

Bank. Opposition Party.

Traditional Ruler. Journalist.

Educational institution.

Intermediary. Confrontation.

Media. Writing position paper.

Fact sheet. Policy Briefs and

study. Press release. Peace

demonstration. Social media.

EDUCATION POLICY NETWORK

Goal/Objective of the network Types of people/Organisations

Interests/Value Means of Communicating

17

During this exercise, some conclusions were made, such as not all organisations have

strengths as much as others. So each organisations needs to know their weakness and

strengths – and to also know that there should be team work with and within

organisations on policy advocacy. Also, even though it’s good every organisation

should be participating

DAY FOUR

ACTIVITY 8: Developing a targeted advocacy plan using the Advocacy Planning

Framework (APF)

To introduce the topic, the participants were directed to page 32 of the workbook.

Participants were tasked to read the text on page 32 – 33 and list three main points per

group according to the section they will be given to treat, and then discuss it with the

others.

Afterwards, the facilitators explained the basic idea behind APF which is to identify the

policy making process in a direction they desire and to what extent they can move it. In

trying to move the process, there is need for something to start and lead the push, i.e.

leverage. The lever is the activation key to influence the process and get to realistic

objectives. It is a key tool to access the way forward. In conducting advocacy, civil

society actors must know how to strategically design approach to put together

necessary inputs including stakeholders to successfully achieve desired goals.

- The way into the process: it starts by questioning the issue on the agenda and then

targets the best way to get into the policy debate by managing and involving

stakeholders, knowing interest and values

- The messenger: this is the determinant of the success in the advocacy. The

messenger must bear credibility; possess power, resources and a big influence. The

messenger is the face of the campaign.

- The message: the content of the message is very important. The message should

be clear, attractive and convincing for the target audience. The content of the

message and the mode of delivery to the audience must be research based.

- APF (Overall): that the writers desires are included in the policy. Strategies also

must also be identified your views are heard and there has to be in depth

knowledge of the issue so as to guide for type of audience, type of message and to

give credibility.

The facilitators asked why the APF is called a tool. Participants answered that because it is

used forehand to serve for the preparation of the advocacy and on another hand it helps to

implement advocacy programmes. To get more practical understanding and insight of the

18

APF, participants were asked what the issues in the country were at the moment which is

generating a lot of controversies and asked to use the APF to tackle it. Below are the

issues carried out in the groups.

30% QUOTA FOR WOMEN

Issue: Gross under-representation of women in governance structures at the macro,

mezzo and micro levels.

Status/Facts: TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Committee) recommendation. Women 52%

total population. Cabinet 0.4%. Parliament 13%. Local Council 26%

Audience: Women. President. Political parties. Local councils. STRAT. Lobbying.

Meetings etc.

Messenger: Chief Justice P.C Vibbo. James Jonah. Campaign for Good Governance.

50/50 Group of Sierra Leone. Human Rights Commission.

Message: 30% quota reserved for women.

MINING AND EXTRACTIVE

Issue: Non-compliance of mining companies to EIA’s recommendations e.g. land

reclamation

Ways into the process: Access, critique and assess adherence to the EIA. Undertake

stakeholder analysis. Provide leadership to move the process forward. Identify key allies.

Messengers: Selection of messengers. Orientation. Build/address capacity gap. Package

the content.

Message: Identifying and agreeing on communication advocacy strategies. Putting Mining

and extractive framework for the purpose of feedback and reflection.

After the practical exercise to enable participants get in-depth knowledge on how to use

the APF, the facilitators then outlined the following to build effective advocacy message

which includes having a clear objective, knowing the process, knowing one’s audience in

the following ways – perspectives, interests, positions, hopes and fears and their passion

about the issue. Also presenting the tip of the iceberg from all the research data/evidence

collected and keeping it simple at the beginning to make room for more when audiences

have been convinced.

19

CONCLUSION

The training in Sierra Leone was very successful and achieved its major objectives.

Participants showed great determination and zeal to the training as the location of the

training was at the beach side which was quite far from the city centre. Also the learning

environment was condusive and accommodating for participants through the direction and

guidance from the facilitators and WACSI team on ground.

The training manual which had been contextualized to suit the region focused on three

main aspects which includes 1. Understanding the context of policy advocacy and writing,

2. Structuring and developing a coherent policy paper and 3. Developing a targeted

advocacy plan using the advocacy planning framework (APF). For this purpose, facilitators

helped participants in gaining knowledge and getting involved in the training by using the

method of learning by doing. Also training materials were adequate for the participants.

The methodology greatly encouraged mutual understanding and exposure which made all

participants to be free and expressed opinions and give comments constructively. The

training was strategic and was very much needed due to the upcoming elections by civil

society actors in Sierra Leone as participants gave kudos to WACSI and OSIWA and

asked for more training so as to engage government actively and constructively.

Furthermore, it encouraged networking among civil society actors who were present at the

workshop.

The four day specialized policy advocacy training for civil society actors served its purpose

of enabling participants to get more and deep insight into policy advocacy context and in

engaging policymakers strategically in order to achieve their desired objective or change.

One of the lessons learnt during the training is endurance and perseverance. It was

obvious that civil society need to be more persistent with a perseverance spirit. Another

lesson is that there has to be more networking and specialization between CSO in Sierra

Leone to be able to make significant impact within their community and the country at

large. The workshop was beneficial and significant to participants as it has created a more

solid platform for participants in building alliances, strengthening relationships and

networking between CSO. Participants agreed to develop the platform already created by

WACSI in bringing them together due to the training and to work more in partnership with

WACSI. This action was to prove that they had gained more knowledge from the training.

The organisation (overall affairs which includes the call for application, certification,

logistics before and during the training) and delivery of the training by the facilitators and

WACSI was rated very high from the closing speeches given by Ms Helen Bash-Taqi, Mr

Christian Kamara and Mrs Martha Chigozie on behalf of the participants and also the

whole team was given gifts by the participants to show their appreciation. Also there were

a lot of appreciation and kudos from the participants which were targeted to the sponsors

(OSIWA and WACSI) and then a lot of thanks to the trainers for their knowledge sharing

20

ability and creating a condusive and friendly environment for learning. Another comment

was that it was gender balanced from the number of participants and the trainers.

Participants all agreed that this was a yuletide gift to them and that they hoped for more

training to come in Sierra Leone.

However, there were notable challenges such as finding a suitable hotel with conference

facilities and accessible to all participants, which OSIWA helped tremendously in finding a

solution and due to this, participants encouraged that such trainings should be residential

for participants.

21

PARTICIPANTS LIST

No Participants Name Organisation Post Email/Telephone

1. RANDOLPH J KATTA

THE 50/50 GROUP OF SIERRA LEONE

PROGRAMME MANAGER

rankat_2002@yahoo.com, kattanec@gmail.com /+23276694917

2. SAHR FORYOH GBORIE

SIERRA eRIDERS PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR

sahrgb@gmail.com /+23276806703

3. CHRISTIAN MARTYN KAMARA

YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION

NATIONAL GENERAL SECRETARY/ CEO

ymcasl@yahoo.co.uk ,/+23278952801

4. VICTORIA W.G NDOMAHINA

MOVEMENT FOR CHILDREN AND WOMEN IN NEED (MoCWIN)

PROGRAM DIRECTOR vicksayatta25@yahoo.com mocwin2002@yahoo.com /+23288895047

5. ALEX KANDEH THOMAS

ACCOUNTABILITY ALERT SIERRA LEONE

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

akthomas@aalert.org /+23276800055

6. HELEN BASH-TAQI KONTRI VISION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR lenashqi@yahoo.com /+23276603950 kontrivision.org@gmail.com

7. EDWARD K JOMBLA

WANEP - SL NATIONAL COORDINATOR

edijombla@yahoo.co.uk /+23233644242

8. EMMA VINCENT UN WOMEN COMMUNICATION OFFICER

emma.vincent@unwomen.org/+23276631108

9. MABEL N.S KARTUSCKE

NOW(SL)/ MARWOPNET-SL ADMIN OFFICER/ SEC GENERAL

mabel_1@winning.com /+23276617233

10. MARTHA P CHIGOZIE

THROUGH EMPOWERMENT AND DEVELOPMENT FOR WOMEN IN S/LEONE

FOUNDER/ CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

tedewosil@yahoo.com /+23278320276

11. AMINATA KOROMA ADVOCACY MOVEMENT NETWORK

PROGRAMS CO-ORDINATOR

Amnet.sl@gmail.com , ndola55@yahoo.com /+23233603159

22

12. IRENE HENRIETTA YALLOL KARGBO

THE 50/50 GROUP SIERRA LEONE NATIONAL CO-ORDINATOR

kargbo_irene@yahoo.co.uk

+23278603195/76611047

13. THERESA COOPER

THE SHEPHERD’S HOSPICE SIERRA LEONE

SOCIAL WORKER joether83@yahoo.com

+23276651319

14. SHEKU JAMES NETWORK MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT

CO-ORDINATOR STAFF LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

shekujames@yahoo.co.uk

sjames@nmjd.org /+23276640321

15. VALNORA EDWIN CAMPAIGN FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE

vedwin@slcgg.org/+23276664298

16. MARCELLA E.F MACAULEY

CAMPAIGN FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE (CCG)

HEAD OF PROGRAMMES

macauleycella@yahoo.com mmacauley@slcgg.org +23233312117

17. DR ALPHAEUS KOROMA

UNIVERSITY OF SIERRA LEONE – FOURAH BAY COLLEGE

LECTURER (GENDER RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION)

thaamie@yahoo.com +23276661874

18. DANIEL B KOJO-LANSANA

NEW STRATEGIES IN DEVELOPMENT

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR dkojolansana@yahoo.com +23276613319

19. MARY K ALLIEU INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE

CRISIS COUNSELLOR marykallieu@yahoo.com +2327776601770

20. BENY SAM WORLD VISION SIERRA LEONE ADVOCACY COORDINATOR

Beny_sam@wvi.org, benysamm@yahoo.com/+23276 605224

21. PAUL BEMSHIMA NYULAKU

UNIVERSITY OF PORT-HARCOURT, NIGERIA

FACILITATOR bemreen@yahoo.com

22. OMOLARA BALOGUN

WACSI POLICY ADVOCACY OFFICER/FACILITATOR

obalogun@wacsi.org

23

23. OLALEKAN MICHAEL-AINA

WACSI INTERN omaina@wacsi.org

24

Participants with the two facilitators

25

Ms Balogun facilitating a session on APF

Mr Paul putting trainees through during a group exercise.

26

Ms Helen giving a vote of thanks on behalf of all trainees with OSIWA Sierra Leone ED sitting in

between the two trainers.

27

Trainees showing their certificate of participation