A course for leaders in civil society, public and private sectors organised by: THE INSTITUTE OF PEACE, LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE (IPLG) AT AFRICA UNIVERSITY in collaboration with THE OPEN SOCIETY INITIATIVE FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA (OSISA)
This course in public policy, governance and civil society is designed to provide basic fundamentals of public policy analysis to practitioners working in civil society organisations, public service and the private sector. To face the challenges of the new millennium, Africa needs leaders who can inspire those they lead; work and learn collaboratively; transform mindsets; act with integrity; facilitate constructive dialogue, think strategically; and formulate and implement public policy with skill and resolve. Recognising that public policy is best formed and implemented by informed leaders, the course seeks to enhance these leadership skills. The emphasis of the course is on how public policy maybe viewed as a governance tool essential for political and institutional development.
Why is this course necessary?
Quite often there is inadequate attention to the problems and issues in policy formulation, implementation and evaluation and strategies that constantly challenge stakeholders to reach the ‘analytical level’ in public policy making process. In that context, this course will provide a conceptual understanding of the key issues and complexities related to processes of public policy planning and analysis.
The course is designed to empower emerging leaders in civil society, private and public sector organisations in their roles as service providers, analysts and policy makers. An understanding of the structures and mechanisms of policy making will enhance the potential for civil society, public and private sector actors to be involved in the decision making processes and to view it with an informed analytical eye. Participants in the course will examine processes of public policy formulation and implementation from a public, private and civil society organisational perspective. Content coverage will focus on facilitating the creation of new knowledge and skills with a view to developing informed policy for effective implementation by public, private and civil society organisations. The course will also look at how civil society organisations can effectively influence policy change strategies that take into account policy making, organisational structures, political systems, leadership and cultural dynamics of society. The course is designed to integrate an understanding of theoretical concepts and their practical application in public, private and non-governmental contexts.
COURSE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
This innovative course is designed for practitioners who are motivated to play diverse leadership roles through informed policy design and analysis, policy implementation and evaluation aimed at achieving desired policy outcomes. The aim of the course is to provide participants with knowledge and skills in public policy design, analysis, and implementation processes to assist them to develop relevant programmes. The specific objectives of the course are to assist participants to:
• Gain a basic understanding and analytical skills associated with the public policy issues and policy analysis;
• Improve knowledge on how public policies are designed and implemented at government and civil society/non governmental levels;
• Analyse the dynamic processes that influence policy making decisions;
• Develop skills to design and analyse public policy proposals using different policy models;
• Identify critical characteristics of the civil society organisational context that are likely to influence public policy design, implementation and evaluation processes;
• Identify public policy problems within their sectors and use learned analytical skills to identify solutions to those problems;
• Critically analyse global themes and dynamics influencing public policy at national level;
• Craft public policies that will facilitate the achievement of MDGs;
• Formulate public policies instrumental to good governance;
• Identify effective leadership skills for formulating policy making process;
• Develop skills in managing and evaluating public policy implementation processes by both the public sector and civil society non-profit organisations;
• Use the comparative method to improve understandings of the public policy process;
• Develop networking across the civil society, public and private sector divide for influencing public policy decision making.
COURSE CONTENT
The course consists of eight modules facilitated in a continuous 19 day period. Areas covered include:
1. Conceptualising Public Policy
2. Public Policy Analysis and Decision Making
3. Conflict Management, Peace Building and Public Policy
4. Leadership and Public Policy
5. Conceptualising and Communicating Public Policy
6. Public Policy and Law
7. Governance and Public Policy
8. Policy Lobbying and Advocacy –for Civil Society
9. The Developmental State and Public Policy
10. Environmental Law & Public Policy
11. Public Policy Research and Writing Skills
COURSE DATES AND DURATION
The course will be offered over a three week period. The course will be held in Sandton, Johannesburg, South Africa beginning 11 June 2012 and ending on 29 June 2012 (excluding travel days). Participants should note that the course will be divided between 15 days of facilitated sessions and 4 days of assessment. Work may continue through to evenings and weekends.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCE
Participants who successfully complete the course and fulfil the coursework requirements will receive a Certificate of Competence from Africa University. Individuals who are unable to meet the requirements of a certificate in Public Policy and Development Discourses for Africa may qualify for a Certificate of Attendance if the necessary requirements- including attendance and adequate participation are met.
COST AND SPONSORSHIPS
OSISA is the chief sponsor of this course and will sponsor:
1. Full workshop costs, including all reading material, Bed and Breakfast over the 20 days, teas and lunch on workshop days.
2. Participants are expected to (either with support from their organisations/selves or by fundraising):
a. Make their own way to the venue (both air and ground);
b. Allow for a daily subsistence allowance (DSA) of USD 30.00 per day to cover evening meals and other incidentals;
c. Take out adequate personal and health insurance as the organisers cannot take liabilities in this regard.
3. A limited number of air tickets will be made available for participants who are not in a position to raise the necessary airfares pending a full needs assessment.
4. Participants are expected to arrive on Sunday, 10 June 2012.
ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Prospective participants are expected to meet the following criteria:
1) Possess an undergraduate degree;
2) At least 2 years work experience in a civil society, or public sectors;
3) Currently be employed in an area where public policy advocacy is important;
4) Middle management ranking or higher;
5) English proficiency (as the course will be delivered in English);
6) Be from the SADC region.
APPLICATION PROCEDURES
Persons who wish to apply for the course are required to submit the following:
1) Completed application form
2) A motivation letter of no more than two pages stating:
i. How s/he will bring benefit to the course and
ii. How s/he envisions using the training afterwards.
3) Letter of endorsement from employing organisation to release the participant for the full time (10 - 30 June 2012).
4) Commitment form completed by employer
Please submit the completed application form, motivation letter and endorsement letter to IPLG at the following addresses:
AND TO:
Deadline for receipt of applications is Friday, 27 April 2012.
NB:
i) Applications need to be sent to both email addresses indicated above
ii) Incomplete applications will not be assessed.
iii) Please indicate if you have attended any previous OSISA sponsored courses.
For information contact:
Posted on:
03 February 2012
Johannesburg, January 30, 2012- A report on Ethiopia’s self-assessment under the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) concludes that, although Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s commitment to the review was commendable, the executive’s grip on the process was too strong, while the independent National Governing Council (NGC) supposed to oversee the process was not sufficiently inclusive and did not truly represent the diversity of views of the nation’s 82 million people.
The report, entitled: 'Ethiopia and the APRM, a road to nowhere?' is published by the Africa Governance Monitoring and Advocacy Project (AfriMAP) of the Open Society Foundations.
Ethiopia has held the presidency of the APRM Forum of heads of state since 2007, yet Country Review Report for Ethiopia and the National Programme of Action (NPoA) containing commitments to address the problems identified have yet to be published, a year after it was tabled before the APRM Forum in January 2011.
"The APRM self-assessment is supposed to be a citizen-led process," said Ozias Tungwarara, AfriMAP director. "Governments shouldn’t try to force the review to reach the conclusions they want.”
Tungwarara further urged the Ethiopian government to make good on its promise to publicize the self-assessment and the independent Country Review Report completed by the APRM panel of eminent persons, together with the National Programme of Action.
The report tracks Ethiopia’s progress since it acceded to the APRM process in March 2003 up to when it was eventually peer reviewed in January 2011. The report acknowledges that the government of Ethiopia’s leadership within the APRM at continental level has been visible and meaningful. However, it also argues that the APRM process was little known by the Ethiopian citizenry, and that those that were aware of the process were reluctant to engage with it because of the level of control of the process by the executive.
The 23-person National Governing Council (NGC) that managed the process included a majority of nongovernmental participants, but it was chaired by the Minister for Capacity Building, in whose ministry the NGC Secretariat was housed and whose adviser was the Secretariat CEO. The non-governmental participants selected to take part in the NGC were clearly chosen for their lack of capacity to challenge government decisions. Only those opposition parties represented in parliament were permitted to be members, with their four representatives creating the only limited independent voices. The National Governing Council was dissolved and its offices transferred to the Ministry of Finance, after the APRM Country Review Mission, made up of independent experts, had completed its national consultations.
Stakeholder participation in the APRM process beyond the NGC was also limited, partly because of the strict controls on independent civil society in Ethiopia, and partly because of a failure of those groups that do exist to take the opportunities offered by the self-assessment process and the visits of the continental APRM mechanisms. Access to information about the APRM review in Ethiopia was and remains a huge challenge for those not directly engaged with the process. Finally, the country self-assessment report, which is not formally available, failed to address many of the critical issues facing the country in terms of democratisation.
The Country Review Report is supposed to be published one year after its review by the APRM forum. Yet one year after the APRM Forum considered Ethiopia’s report, it is still to be made public. The AfriMAP report notes that the Ethiopia’s National Programme of Action was never debated by the National Governing Council, nor was it a product of public discussion. Views from civil society, political parties, and other stake holders were never sought. It was government’s belief that: "Such institutions are not plan makers and implementers: it is government who is supposed to make its own plans and hence be accountable to it," the report quotes an expert at the Ministry of Finance responsible for the preparation of the NPoA as saying.
The report urges the Ethiopian government to open the debate on the status of its APRM Country Review Report, and galvanize public discourse with the full participation of all stakeholders on the NPoA, if the country’s efforts at undergoing the APRM are to prove meaningful, otherwise, the whole exercise would have been a waste of time and money.
****END****
Background:
The APRM was established in March 2003, by African heads of state participating in NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. Ethiopia was one of the first countries to sign the memorandum of understanding establishing the APRM. Each APRM review produces three critical documents:
• a 'country self-assessment report' (CSAR) prepared by the country concerned on the basis of the APRM questionnaire and under the supervision of a National Governing Council that is supposed to be independent of the executive. The final CSAR is published at the discretion of the state concerned;
• an independent ‘country review report’ (CRR), prepared by the continental APRM Secretariat and its technical partners based both on a review of the CSAR and independent research, under the supervision of a Panel of Eminent Persons, finalised following comments from the government and presented to the APR Forum by the eminent person assigned responsibility for the country review. The CRR should be published six months after review by the APR Forum, the meeting of all heads of state that have committed to undertake an APR review;
• a national programme of action (NPoA) to address the problems identified, initially prepared at country level based on the self-assessment report, and finalised on the basis of agreement between the APRM Panel and the government, and also presented to the APR Forum.
The APRM is a unique peer review process, which no other regional grouping has undertaken. To date 32 countries have signed up to the process views. Whilst some countries have shown strong political commitments to ensuring that the process is transparent and participatory others have engaged in a cosmetic exercise of merely ‘going through the motions’, apparently with no real intensions of implementing recommendations.
For information contact:
Posted on:
31 January 2012 
