Facilitator: Rizal Malik and Ima Susilowati, CIRCLE Indonesia
Workshop on “Tobacco Control Advocacy” was conducted on 20 – 22 March 2013 at Novotel Hotel, Bogor, and facilitated by Rizal Malik dan Ima Susilowati. The participants were 29 people as the representative of their organisations or as individuals.
This report presents the results of the facilitators’ observation and recapitulation of written evaluation by the participants of the workshop. The report aims at documenting participants’ evaluation and the learnings drawn during the workshop for future workshop on tobacco control advocacy.
FLOW AND PROCESS OF THE WORKSHOP
Diagram below is the flow and process of the workshop:
Participants considered the subjects of the workshop comprehensive and presented in good flow and systematics. They felt that the subjects have been presented:
- using participatory approach
- by recognising and using the capacity of the participants
- in a communicative manner that encouraged learning process
The approaches and methods used in the workshop have established participants’ awareness and full responsibility to proceed with the workshop to achieve its purpose. At the end, everyone has contributed to create interactive and lively discussions and good group dynamics.
OUTPUTS OF THE WORKSHOP
1. By selecting from the available options of “very useful”, “useful”, and “not useful”, 26 of the 29 participants involved up to the final evaluation session considered the workshop “very useful” while three participants thought the workshop “useful”, as presented in the chart below.
Participants conveyed the following benefits from attending the workshop:
- For new groups, the workshop was seen as a new source of knowledge that provides so much updated information on tobacco control and stages of advocacy
- Strengthened network working to achieve common goal
- New perspectives and strategies in advocacy
- Concrete support from all members of the network in the implementation of the government regulations (Peraturan Pemerintah/PP) is a power in itself for the implementation of the PP
- The workshop has provided the participants with the technical and process input in the implementation and appropriate and adequate activities
2. The participants felt that they have established the capacity to develop more well-targeted and measurable advocacy strategies
3. Action plan for PP and Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which will become the basis for joint advocacy (result of group discussion attached)
4. Inspiring ideas on follow ups in participating respective organisations after the workshop:
- Sharing knowledge from the workshop to colleagues to gain more support in the implementation of Tobacco Control (TC) movement activities
- Development of workplan at the respective participating organisation in line with the outputs of the workshop
- Using the workshop methods in developing the strategies for the draft Bill on broadcasting
- Developing advocacy strategy for the draft Bill on tobacco control
- Follow up of FCTC advocacy
- Consolidation at organisation level to support the action plan
- Starting to develop the plan for TC advocacy
- Establishment of the task force for advocacy of FCTC and the implementation of the respective government regulation (PP), Tobacco taxation, draft Bill on Broadcasting, and draft Bill on Tobacco Control
- Improved cooperation and collaboration among members of Indonesia Tobacco Control Network (ITCN) and new partner organisations
- Carrying out strategic planning for TC support
- Using the knowledge for lobbying policy makers involved in the draft Bill on Broadcasting
- The workshop tried to cover too many issues with limited resources. However, the high spirit shown during the workshop and the resulting systematic of strategies is a strong asset for developing urgent action plan.
- Some of the participants have in fact been doing advocacy works. However, not all of them have done it in a systematic and planned manner. From the workshop, participants learned a lot on how to plan and carry out advocacy works systematically
Since TC advocacy works intersect a lot with the political dimension, it will be good to invite a political champion as the resource person for relevant topics. For very specific subjects that require very technical knowledge such as effective message communication and media advocacy, appropriate resource persons will be necessary to deepen understanding.
For some of the participants, more clarity concerning instructions and steps in the workshop/training is very important for them to be able to contribute in expressing ideas. At the end of the sessions, clarification should have also been provided for technical reference on common terms such as goal, objective, strategy, and problem solution approach.
More case studies should have been used to enrich discussions. It should have also been useful if games were used that were relevant with the topics under discussion. For action plan session, an electronic file would have been useful for the participants.
Allocation of time for each topic is very limited. Some of scheduled activities were reduced and squeezed into one unit of presentation only later turned out to be necessary. For example, the “advocacy” unit of presentation was only scheduled for one hour while the participants felt the topic very necessary. For future workshop/training, reduction should be done at unit level, not at activity level in the unit.
The two hours-session in the workshop has produced a high quality action plan. However, immediate further meetings should be organised by Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK) to consolidate the action plan and coordinate the steps needed for network advocacy.