LIBERIA ACCOUNTABILITY AND VOICE INITIATIVE (LAVI)

QUARTER 2 REPORT

YEAR 2

JANUARY – MARCH 2017

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by DAI.

0

JANUARY 2016

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency

LIBERIA ACCOUNTABILITY

AND VOICE INITATIVE (LAVI)

QUARTER 2 REPORT YEAR 2 JANUARY - MARCH 2017

Program Title: Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) Contract Number: AID-669-C-16-00003 Sponsoring USAID Office: USAID/Liberia Contractor: DAI Date of Publication: April 30, 2017

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) QUARTER 2 YEAR 2 REPORT ii ACRONYMS

ACAT Advocacy Capacity Assessment Tool AGENDA Actions for Genuine Democratic Alternatives AMEP Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan APS Annual Program Statement CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CDI Center for Development Innovation CDP Capacity Development Plan CODRA Community Development and Research Agency Comprac Community of Practice CLA Collaborating, Learning and Adapting COP Chief of Party CSDF County Social Development Funds CSO Civil Society Organization CUPPADL Citizens United to Promote Peace & Democracy in Liberia CWG Concessions Working Group DAI Development Alternatives Inc. DEN-L Development Education Network-Liberia EOI Expression of Interest EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAM Finance and Administration Management FDA Forestry Development Authority FDG Focus Group Discussions FY Fiscal Year GEC Grant Evaluation Committee GOL Government of Liberia ICAT Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool ICCM Inclusive Citizens Compliance Monitoring ICT4D Information and Communications Technology for Development IHRC International Human Rights Commission IREDD Institute for Research and Democratic Development KII Key Informant Interviews KM&L Knowledge Management and Learning LACC Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) QUARTER 2 FY2017 REPORT ii LAVI USAID/Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative LEITI Liberia Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative LMC Liberian Media Center LSA Liberia Strategic Analysis Project ME&L Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs NBC National Bureau of Concessions NCSCL National Civil Society Council of Liberia NRM Natural Resource Management P4DP Platform for Dialogue and Peace PIDS Performance Indicators Database System PMC Project Management Committee RF Results Framework RFP Request for Proposal RFQ Request for Quotes RHRAP Rural Human Rights Activists Programme SOW Statement of Work SDI Sustainable Development Institute SP Service Provider STTA Short-Term Technical Assistance TAMIS Technical Administrative Management Information System USAID United States Agency for International Development WONGSOL Women NGO Secretariat of Liberia

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) QUARTER 2 FY2017 REPORT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms...... ii Table of Contents ...... iv Background and Executive Summary ...... 5 Detailed Activities and Results ...... 7 1. Program Management ...... 7 A.) Administrative and Operations Management ...... 7 b.) Technical Program Support ...... 9 2. Technical Program Implementation ...... 9 C.) Objective 1: Strengthen Horizontal and Vertical Linkages Among Actors Engaged in Similar Issues ...... 10 D.) Objective 2: Increase Organizational Capacity of Targeted CSOs to Participate in Issue-Based Reforms ...... 17 E.) Objective 3: Promote the Development of Ongoing Capacity Development Services on the Local Market ...... 19 F.) Objective 4: Ensure that Learning and Methodologies Are Shared and Applied by Other Development Actors ...... 20 3. Project Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 23 G.) Ongoing Data Collection and Evaluation ...... 23 H.) Host Learning Reviews and Mechanisms ...... 24 Annexes ...... 25

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) QUARTER 2 FY2017 REPORT iv BACKGROUND AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DAI Global, LLC (DAI) was awarded the five-year, $17 million Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on November 25, 2015. LAVI will strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms. It contributes to the overall goal of USAID/Liberia’s civil society and media interventions to increase the influence of citizens and media in the governance of public goods and services. The program also supports Development Objective 1 in USAID/Liberia’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for more effective, accountable, and inclusive governance. LAVI is comprised of four complementary objectives: . Increased horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in similar issues; . Increased organizational capacity of targeted civil society organizations (CSOs) to participate in issue-based reforms; . On-going capacity development services available on the local market; and . Learning and methodologies shared and applied by other development actors. Over the life of the program, DAI will achieve LAVI results by delivering customized technical assistance to CSOs, local service providers, and advocacy networks and coalitions. LAVI will achieve its objectives through grants, local and international short-term technical assistance (STTA), and capacity development to service providers (SPs). During Quarter 2 of Year 2, the LAVI project made the following progress towards its technical objectives: Objective 1 – Strengthen Horizontal and Vertical Linkages Among Actors Engaged in Similar Issues After months of research at the national level and in all 15 counties, the LAVI NRM Coalition validated its Information Gathering report findings on the monitoring and management of the County Social Development Funds in Liberia. This information was used in a four-day Policy Advocacy and Inclusive Citizen Compliance Monitoring Workshop at which the NRM Coalition developed a comprehensive framework that included advocacy goals, objectives, strategies, messaging, and activities. The NRM Coalition mobilized its resources to begin the roll out of its advocacy, citizen compliance monitoring, media, and capacity strengthening activities throughout the country. Complementary government activities, focused on citizen-government engagement, were implemented by NBC, FDA, EPA and LEITI, including the facilitation of several community-level dialogues, environmental social impact assessments, and town hall meetings in concession affected communities. In Quarter 2, LAVI made progress on identifying the topic for its next Thematic Funding Window, the launch of which will begin in Quarter 3.

Objective 2 – Increase Organizational Capacity of Targeted CSOs to Participate in Issue- Based Reforms Based on LAVI operational and advocacy capacity assessments, eight of LAVI’s partners developed capacity development plans (CDPs) that reflect the mutually agreed upon gaps and recommendations from the assessments and include the partners’ self-identified priority areas for LAVI support. Seven capacity development grants were approved by USAID in March 2017 to implement the CDPs. Common areas prioritized by partners included monitoring and evaluation, gender mainstreaming, and finance and administration. LAVI and LAVI partners including P4DP, Accountability Lab Liberia, DEN-L, and LMC hosted several capacity development trainings for the NRM Coalition in direct support of their advocacy work in Quarter 2. Topics included M&E basics, developing an M&E Framework, and using Excel and Google forms for data collection and collation; policy advocacy, citizen engagement, compliance monitoring, NRM and CSDF policies, media engagement, and producing documentaries for advocacy. In Quarter 3, LAVI will prioritize linking CSO partners and service providers to deliver customized capacity development services to address the needs identified in the CDPs.

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 5

Objective 3 – Promote the Development of Ongoing Capacity Development Services on the Local Market

LAVI continued to develop the Service Provider Pool this quarter. LAVI issued an Expression of Interest (EOI) to attract additional SPs to fill gaps in the pool in areas such as advocacy and policy reform, financial sustainability, and monitoring and evaluation. LAVI also formalized a Code of Conduct for each SP to sign that clarifies the purpose of the Service Provider Pool, membership and responsibilities, and a commitment to professional standards and practices. LAVI supported Capacity Development Post marketing efforts by releasing LAVI-RFA-003 to give SPs an opportunity to develop creative ideas for Service Provider Pool publicity and outreach. Additionally, LAVI provided expert international and local technical assistance to SPs in various technical and operational areas to improve delivery of their services to CSOs, including training and mentorship in ICT4D, leadership and strategic planning, and marketing and business plan development. In Quarter 3, LAVI will prioritize further mentorship to SPs in gender and social inclusion, marketing and business plan development, and communications.

Objective 4 – Ensure that Learning and Methodologies are Shared and Applied by Other Development Actors

LAVI learning activities were propelled forward in Quarter 2. Knowledge Management and Learning Expert Rebecca Askin worked with the LAVI team through training in knowledge management and learning (KM&L) principles, including development of a project learning agenda to test and answer the projects’ most pressing questions about advocacy in Liberia and a vision document for the LAVI Learning Lab that maps out the resource center’s direction for the next few years. LAVI also designed LAVI-APS- 003 to give interested CSOs and other actors a chance to lead LAVI learning activities related to natural resource management. LAVI is trying out a co-creation process to develop the most thoughtful and strategic learning activities to complement the current work of the LAVI NRM Coalition and its government partners. LAVI continued its practice to host Quarterly Project Reviews (QPRs) and conducted one to reflect on lessons learned and best practices from Quarter 1.

In addition, the LAVI Grants, Finance, and Operations teams provided on-going support to ensure grants, finance and administrative quality control during Quarter 2. Technical meetings were held to revise the M&E plan. The LAVI Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (ME&L) team revised the LAVI Results Framework (RF), indicators, established baselines and targets, and held trainings and sessions to guarantee quality data collection by staff and partners.

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 6

DETAILED ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS

1. Program Management Program management contains two major tasks; they are: A.) Administrative and Operations Management B.) Technical Program Support

A.) ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

A.1– Financial and administrative quality control During this quarter, the LAVI team continued using Oracle to manage project finances. A snapshot of project finances and accrual reports can be found in Annex 1.

The LAVI Finance and Operations team worked in collaboration with Revenue Generation for Governance and Growth (RG3) and Local Empowerment for Government Inclusion and Transparency (LEGIT) Operations teams to streamline operations procurement. The Operations teams of the three projects established three Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) for the provision of transportation services for the three projects. The teams also issued a Request for Quotation (RFQ) to medical insurance providers for the provision of medical insurance for the national staff of the three projects when the current provider agreement expires this year.

LAVI recruited a Senior Grant Officer and an Operations Officer to replace two vacant positions on the project. LAVI decided to not renew the contract of the Communications and Outreach Specialist; this position will be restructured into a different position titled Communication and Learning Specialist to better fit the project’s needs. LAVI started the process of recruiting local consultant Field Activity Monitors to provide field monitoring support to grantee partners and LAVI by directly monitoring grantee partners’ project activities in communities across Liberia. On hire, they will provide support to grantee partners in ensuring that they use the appropriate tools and methodologies to enhance the effective and efficient collection, analysis and reporting of evidence data. LAVI also hired its first two national interns, one for the Grants team and one for the Capacity Development team.

A.2 – Grants quality control In Quarter 2 of Year 2, the LAVI Grants team generated the following grant agreements and modifications.

Grant No. Grantee Details Effective Date G-Mon-002 Platform for Modification 2 was issued to revise the milestone table March 27, Peace and based on discussions at the Advocacy and Inclusive 2017 Development Citizen Compliance Monitoring Workshop and to (P4DP) update the branding and marking requirements from exclusive branding to co-branding. G-Mon-003 NAYMOTE- Modification 1 was issued to revise the milestone table February Partners for based on discussions at the Advocacy and Inclusive 22, 2017 Democratic Citizen Compliance Monitoring Workshop and to Development update the branding and marking requirements from exclusive branding to co-branding. G-Mon-004 Citizen United Modification 1 was issued to revise the milestone table February

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 7 to Promote based on discussions at the Advocacy and Inclusive 22, 2017 Peace and Citizen Compliance Monitoring Workshop. Democracy in Modification 2 was issued to update the branding and Liberia marking requirements from exclusive branding to co- (CUPPADL) branding. G-Mon-005 Institute for Modification 1 was issued to revise the milestone table February Research and based on discussions at the Advocacy and Inclusive 22, 2017 Democratic Citizen Compliance Monitoring Workshop and to Development update the branding and marking requirements from (IREDD) exclusive branding to co-branding. G-Mon-006 Sustainable Modification 1 was issued to revise the milestone table February Development based on discussions at the Advocacy and Inclusive 22, 2017 Institute (SDI) Citizen Compliance Monitoring Workshop and to update the branding and marking requirements from exclusive branding to co-branding. G-Mon-007 Development Modification 1 was issued to revise the milestone table February Education based on discussions at the Advocacy and Inclusive 22, 2017 Network- Citizen Compliance Monitoring Workshop. Liberia Modification 2 was issued to update the branding and marking requirements from exclusive branding to co- branding. G-Mon-008 Rural Human Modification 1 was issued to revise the milestone table February Rights Activists based on discussions at the Advocacy and Inclusive 22, 2017 Programme Citizen Compliance Monitoring Workshop and to update the branding and marking requirements from exclusive branding to co-branding. G-Mon-009 Liberia Media Modification 1 was issued to revise the milestone table February Center based on discussions at the Advocacy and Inclusive 22, 2017 Citizen Compliance Monitoring Workshop and to update the branding and marking requirements from exclusive branding to co-branding. G-Mon-011 Liberia Modification 1 was issued to add two additional January 6, Extractive objectives and a revised problem statement to the 2017 Industries scope of work. Transparency Initiative (LEITI) G-Mon-015 National Civil LAVI awarded a grant to NCSCL to host regional February Society Council consultations to inform the selection of LAVI’s 21, 2017 of Liberia Thematic Window 2. The grant amount is $24,700 (NCSCL) and the period of performance is February 21, 2017 to March 24, 2017. G-Mon-016 Liberia Media LAVI awarded a complementary capacity development March 21, Center (LMC) grant to LMC to increase the organizational capacity of 2017 the organization to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms. G-Mon-017 Rural Human LAVI awarded a complementary capacity development March 21, Rights Activists grant to RHRAP to increase the organizational capacity 2017 Programme of the organization to advocate for and monitor policy (RHRAP) and accountability reforms. G-Mon-018 NAYMOTE- LAVI awarded a complementary capacity development March 24,

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 8 Partners for grant to NAYMOTE to increase the organizational 2017 Democratic capacity of the organization to advocate for and Development monitor policy and accountability reforms. G-Mon-019 Citizens United LAVI awarded a complementary capacity development March 24, to Promote grant to CUPPADL to increase the organizational 2017 Peace & capacity of the organization to advocate for and Democracy in monitor policy and accountability reforms. Liberia (CUPPADL) G-Mon-020 Platform for LAVI awarded a complementary capacity development March 24, Dialogue and grant to P4DP to increase the organizational capacity 2017 Peace (P4DP) of the organization to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms. G-Mon-021 Sustainable LAVI awarded a complementary capacity development March 24, Development grant to SDI to increase the organizational capacity of 2017 Institute (SDI) the organization to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms. G-Mon-022 Accountability LAVI awarded a complementary capacity development March 24, Lab Liberia grant to ALab increase to the organizational capacity 2017 (ALab) of the organization to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms.

Grantees for these agreements were vetted to help ensure grantee accountability. Payment requests were regularly reviewed and submitted by the LAVI Grants team and grant activities were properly documented in the Technical Administrative Management Information System (TAMIS).

B.) TECHNICAL PROGRAM SUPPORT

B.1 – Technical meetings and reporting On January 13th, the LAVI project team held its Quarterly Performance Review Session, covering the first quarter from October to December 2016. The event, which is part of LAVI’s internal organizational learning process, was meant to review technical, operational and financial performance of the LAVI project and carefully map and flag outstanding activities for prioritization in Quarter Two (January-March 2017). This exercise was intended to ensure maintenance and quality control of technical programming and overall project management. Follow-up actions were highlighted to ensure tasks and/or activities were prioritized, assigned and scheduled. LAVI identified challenges, lessons learned and best practices to help the management learn and adapt for Quarter Two.

The LAVI Communications and ME&L staff continued to monitor the political environment in Liberia and provide daily news updates to LAVI project stakeholders. Weekly project bullets, grants notes, and activity calendar updates were also regularly submitted to the USAID’s Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

2. Technical Program Implementation Technical program implementation contains four major tasks, aligned with the program’s four objectives, they are: . Objective 1 – Strengthen Horizontal and Vertical Linkages Among Actors Engaged in Similar Issues . Objective 2 – Increase Organizational Capacity of Targeted CSOs to Participate in Issue-Based Reforms

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 9 . Objective 3 – Promote the Development of Ongoing Capacity Development Services on the Local Market . Objective 4 – Ensure that Learning and Methodologies are Shared and Applied by Other Development Actors

C.) OBJECTIVE 1: STRENGTHEN HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LINKAGES AMONG ACTORS ENGAGED IN SIMILAR ISSUES

C.1 - Civil society Natural Resource Management and Concessions Grant Program Early in Quarter 2 of Year 2, the LAVI-supported Natural Resource Management (NRM) Coalition completed its Information Gathering report on the monitoring and management of the County Social Development Funds (CSDF) across Liberia (Annex 2). The research suggests that citizens are universally excluded from decision-making with respect to identifying development priorities, determining how the funds should be used, and participating in the monitoring of project implementation. Women claim that they face greater exclusion than men and are not invited to, nor able to take part in, the county sittings in many districts. Citizens are invited to council meetings, but it’s merely symbolic as they have no decision-making authority. The report also includes research on civil society’s capacity to engage in CSDF advocacy. Overall, research suggests that the majority of CSO-led engagement strategies are ad-hoc, dependent on donor funding for a particular issue, and one-dimensional, often relying on town hall meetings or question and answer sessions without leveraging more innovative or creative tools and tactics. The third component of this report is a snapshot on the media’s capacity to report on CSDF processes and projects. LAVI learned that there is a dearth of attention the media is giving to reporting on the management and implementation of the CSDF. Respondents indicate that the only information they hear on their local radio station about the funds is limited to announcements about the date and time of county sittings. The media does very little reporting about the terms of concessions agreements, the annual CSDF budget allocations, or the progress of projects that are implemented using the funds. For more information on the research findings, please see the full report in Annex 2.

The LAVI Networks and Advocacy team then provided extensive technical support to DEN- L, the coalition’s advocacy lead, and the Platform for Dialogue and Peace (P4DP), the coalition coordinator, in planning the Advocacy Policy and Inclusive Citizens Compliance Monitoring (ICCM) Planning Workshop where coalition partners validated the Information Gathering report findings. The workshop was held from January 17 – 20 at iCampus. In addition to validation, the coalition developed specific and achievable advocacy goals and related activities to be implemented at the national and county levels to improve the management and monitoring of the CSDF.

Based on the Information Gathering report and NRM Coalition members validate information gathering discussion at the Advocacy Policy and ICCM process findings and develop advocacy strategy at Advocacy Workshop, the NRM Coalition validated a and Inclusive Citizen Compliance Monitoring workshop. comprehensive advocacy policy, inclusive citizen compliance monitoring, and media and

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 10 civil society capacity strengthening framework to guide the development of the NRM Coalition’s nation- wide activities (Annex 3). This framework lays out the mutual goal and objectives of the NRM Coalition, which are:

Goal: Enhance accountability and transparency in CSDF management through citizen centered sustainable management by establishing adequate and long term mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance. Objective 1: Encourage political parties and candidates in the 2017 elections to commit to establishing long term mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance. Objective 2: Influence the 54th National legislature to introduce a necessary reform agenda/draft legislation focused on establishing long term effective and participatory CSDF governance. Objective 3: Increase communities and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through election-related initiatives. Objective 4: Enhance communities and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through local monitoring/reporting.

Subsequently, from February 27t - March 2, DEN-L conducted a four-day Advocacy Policy and ICCM training of trainers’ workshop for the NRM Coalition members, including all of their staff based in the counties. A total of thirty-eight (38) persons (31 males and 7 females) from the eight (8) partner organizations of the NRM Coalition were in attendance. The training was conducted at the Miriam T. O’Brien Memorial Training Center on DEN- L’s compound in Gbarnga, Bong County. The objectives of the training were to provide participants with skills in effective communication; build their team relationship through giving and receiving feedback; review concepts and skills related to advocacy and compliance monitoring; refine advocacy messages; and draft and edit advocacy and compliance monitoring tools. The tools include monitoring scorecards, pledge cards, simplified versions of CSDF-related laws and guidelines, and CSDF factsheets. During the workshop, participants also further analyzed the political, social, cultural and economic NRM Coalition members reviewing simplified versions of the contexts of CSDF issues in their counties County Social Development Fund guidelines and Section 7 of using a SWOT analysis. the Budget Law to be shared in communities as part of the Coalition’s advocacy activities. Based on the recommendations from participants for an extra session on score and pledge cards, a meeting was held with Project Managers and M&E Officers of the NRM Coalition members at the LAVI office on March 9th. The purpose of the meeting was for participants to understand and validate these different cards to facilitate an easier and most effective use of the tools. The meeting also helped coalition members build consensus on both the pledge and score cards. The pledge card is expected to be used by partners across the counties to solicit stakeholders’ commitment in the reform of the CSDF while the scorecards will be used by citizens to monitor CSDF projects.

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 11 Through discussion and review of CSDF-related laws and their implementation, the NRM Coalition made the following observations and recommendations for more effective CSDF implementation during the Advocacy Policy and ICCM training of trainers’ workshop:

 County Superintendents should serve as chairperson of the County Council Sitting  Community people should select their own delegates to the County Council Sitting instead of the district commissioner  The reasons for the removal of Project Management Committee (PMC) member(s) are not clear and require explanation  County Sittings should be longer than one day to allow for further discussion on previously funded projects and current community priorities  The CSDF grievance mechanisms should be included in the documents guiding the management of the CSDF

In line with their Media Capacity Framework, LMC conducted three trainings during Quarter 2 at both the national and county level to address media capacity gaps and increase and improve media coverage of the CSDF. The first engagement with the media was the Media Manager Lunch meeting held on March 9, 2017 at the Belle Casa Hotel in Monrovia. The meeting brought together seven media managers to obtain their buy-in to the approach in the media capacity framework and the ICCM activities in the field. During the meeting, the media managers present consented to committing their reporters for training and subsequent field visit and investigative reporting on the CSDF.

On March 16, 2017, LMC organized and conducted the CSDF Journalist Network training in Monrovia for 11 participants to support national-level journalists in investigative reporting on CSDF-related stories. The journalists will engage in monthly reporting trips to their assigned counties to regularly follow-up on CSDF stories and cover LAVI NRM Coalition activities. Subsequently, on March 24th, LMC conducted Media Engagement training for 11 participants of the NRM Coalition. The aim of the training was to increase the understanding of the NRM Coalition members on how to share information with the media about their advocacy activities via interviews and press releases. Lastly, LMC began training county-level radio journalists in reporting on the CSDF and related stories. The first of five regional trainings was held in Buchanan on March 31st for12 journalists from Grand Bassa, Margibi, and Rivercess. These journalists will also be part of the CSDF Journalist Network reporting trips to cover community town halls and lobbying meetings on the re-activation of the District Development Councils (DDCs), P4DP policy paper distribution meetings, and community monitoring and reporting events. Reporting teams will cover at least 12 counties per month on the CSDF and NRM Coalition activities starting in April.

During the period in review, the NRM Coalition Steering Committee hosted three meetings. On January 20, 2017, the second Steering Committee was held at the iCampus on Snaper Hill in Monrovia during the Advocacy and ICCM workshop. The meeting highlighted the need to launch the Information Gathering report, as well as review and modify the milestones due the emerging change from the Information Gathering report. On February 24th, the third meeting of the Steering Committee was conducted at DEN-L’s compound in Gbarnga, Bong County. The meeting brought together all eight (8) Executive Directors of the NRM Coalition as coalition technical advisors, the LAVI Chief of Party (COP), and the LAVI Network Building and Partnerships Advisor. Primarily, the draft bylaws and the name and symbol of the NRM Coalition were reviewed and discussed. The outcomes were:  The NRM Coalition will retain its current name  The symbol of the coalition will be the official logo of all eight NRM Coalition partners

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 12  The word “guidelines” will replace “bylaws,” and the Chairman will re-share the committee’s guidelines

On March 31st, the fourth steering committee meeting was held at the P4DP office. In a statement by the Chairman of the Coalition, the meeting was specifically intended to review the status of the project activities during the month of March. The following decisions were made during the meeting:  The formal launch of the Information Gathering report will be held on April 19th  The planning session for the launch should be held with Executive Directors and the technical teams on April 7th  The technical team planning the Information Gathering report launch should make efforts to research how much of the CSDF has been allocated and spent to date. This will help put a spotlight on the total amount spent on the CSDF and encourage stakeholders to make comparative analysis of the total cost versus the projects’ outcomes vis-a- vis the value for money.

During this quarter, NRM partners (CUPPDAL, RHRAP, SDI, IREDD and NAYMOTE) started preparations for activities in the counties. Following the ICCM and advocacy training, the five CSO partners at the county level started developing pledge and score cards on CSDF issues for each county where they operate, using the sample template from the Advocacy and ICCM training conducted by DEN-L. The facts sheets will contain messages from the budget law governing the CSDF and the challenges and recommendation from the Information Gathering report findings will also be developed.

CUPPADL conducted a working session in Grand Bassa, Margibi and Montserrado to develop their fact sheets. The fact sheets were disseminated to relevant stakeholders including civil society, local and national governments officials during the stakeholder dialogues in these counties. CUPPADL also launched its awareness programs in the three counties using the fact sheet. District Level town hall meetings were held in Grand Bassa, Margibi and Montserrado with aim to share Information Gathering report and the pledge cards to stakeholders and secure signature from potential candidates in the elections , civil society and local government. The signed pledge cards will be used to inform the advocacy reform at the national level.

Similarly, in March the RHRAP conducted five community mobilization meetings in the Bomi, Cape Mount and Gbapolu. The meetings brought together different stakeholders to explain the NRM Coalition project goals and objectives and seek their buy-in. In order to include the community in the compliance monitoring of the management of CSDF, RHRAP identify one formal District Development Committee (DDC) to support the monitoring. RHRAP will provide trainings to the Committee next quarter to support them in the monitoring of CSDF projects.

Activities in Rivercess, Lofa and Grand Kru were also launched this quarter. Under the auspices of SDI, facts sheets, pledge cards and copies of the Information Gathering report were also disseminated through community mobilization, stakeholder dialogues and town hall meetings at the county and district levels. Due to time constraints, other partners’ activities were pushed to the next quarter.

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 13

C.2 - Support grantee partners to develop collaborative and inclusive processes to implement advocacy campaigns

The LAVI technical teams provided ongoing technical assistance to the NRM Coalition throughout Quarter 2. In January, LAVI COP and LAVI Networks and Partnerships team facilitated several technical review meetings to finalize the Advocacy Policy and ICCM Framework, including the Coalition’s Public Information Strategy and Capacity Strengthening Frameworks. In preparation for the Coalition’s Advocacy Policy and ICCM Workshop in January, the LAVI team supported DEN-L and P4DP with agenda development, presentations, and participant activities to ensure that the workshop would have tangible outcomes that could be used to inform collaborative activity implementation. LAVI coached them through the activity design of the advocacy campaign and compliance monitoring activities that were used as the basis for grant modifications this quarter.

As a result of the findings of the Information Gathering report, LAVI supported each CSO partner to review and modify their implementation plans. The purpose of the modification was to incorporate the emerging activities that were not considered during the development of the grant proposals. On January 25-Frebruary 3, 2017, the Network Building and Partnership team worked with all eight CSO partners to review their plans. The team worked with individual CSO partners to conduct reviews of technical activities and adjustments, milestone activities’ description justifications, and obtaining a milestone modification letter from each partner.

In general, LAVI’s Grants, ME&L, and Network Building and Partnerships teams were available for continuous coaching, mentorship and feedback sessions in review of partner milestone deliverables and reports.

C3 - Launch the second Thematic Funding Window A strategy for the selection of the second LAVI Thematic Window was finalized in Quarter 2. The strategy included a GeoPoll Survey and regional consultation facilitated by the National Civil Society Council of Liberia to assess citizens’ perceptions about priority advocacy issues. The GeoPoll survey identified the three areas of most concern by the majority of citizens as security, education and budget transparency (Annex 4).

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 14

The national consultations targeted stakeholders that included civil society (women, youth, and disabled groups), CBOs, faith-based organizations, trade associations, labor unions, the private sector, local government, and traditional leaders. Through a partnership agreement, the NCSCL embarked on five (5) regional consultative dialogues over four weeks. The five regional dialogues were held in Harper, Maryland County on March 8th; Zwedru, Grand Gedeh County on March 10th; in Gbarnga, Bong County on March 15th; Buchanan, Grand Bassa County on March 17th;, and in Tubmanburg, Bomi County on March 20th. Of the five consultations, there were a total of 176 participants, 115 men constituting 65.4% and 61 women constituting 34.6% (Annex 5 and Annex 6). The citizens’ consultations also indicated the same three priority topics as the GeoPoll survey.

Below is the summary of the findings of the regional consultation:

Regional Counties Consensus Priority Themes Selected Meeting Site Topic

Bomi, Bomi, Cape Mount Security Security - 31 votes Tubmanburg and Gbapolu Education -30 votes Budget transparency - 28 votes Harper, River Gee, Mary Education Education - 31 votes Maryland Land and Grand Kru Security - 30 votes County Budget transparency - 28 votes Zwedru, Grand Grand Gedeh and Education Security - 24 votes Gedeh County Sinoe Education - 21 votes

National reconciliation - 19 votes Gbarnga, Bong Bong, Nimba, and Security Security - 29 votes

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 15 County Lofa Education – 28 votes Budget and transparency - 25 votes Buchanan, Grand Bassa, Education Education - 30 votes Grand Bassa Margibi, Security - 29 votes Montserrado, and National reconciliation - 27 votes Rivercess

The results of the survey and consultation were shared with the LAVI Advisory Council on April 7th to inform the selection of the second thematic window.

Concurrent to this data collection process, the LAVI team held a series of internal meetings to design the roll-out process for the second Thematic Window based on lessons-learned from the first Thematic Window. As a result of a meeting on March 28th, it was agreed that an APS would be the preferred grant type of the next Thematic Window and that a more robust outreach and training effort across the country would help improve the quality of applications and increase the number of applications from community-based organizations, CSOs, associations etc. from outside Monrovia.

C.4– Strengthen relationships with Government of Liberia (GOL) In order to strengthen citizen and civil society relationships with the Government of Liberia (GOL), the LAVI team is partnering with National Bureau of Concessions (NBC), Forestry Development Authority (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Liberia Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (LEITI) to provide assistance for them to carry out citizen engagement activities within their mandates.

From January 15 -26, FDA conducted an information gathering exercise in Grand Cape Mount, Grand Bassa, Rivercess and Sinoe counties on the impact and issues around land rental fees as provided for in Forest Management Contracts (FMC). In Quarter 3, FDA will use the information gathered to inform multi-stakeholder social dialogue on this topic. The EPA conducted environmental social impact assessments and compliance monitoring at concessions of Sime Darby in Grand Cape Mount and Bomi counties, Golden Veroleum in Sinoe County and MNG Gold in Bong County from February 7 – 28. From February 18 - March 11, the EPA is finalizing the compliance monitoring reports for distribution LEITI government representative facilitating citizen and national-level discussion. This quarter, LEITI engagement meeting in Duo, Nimba. disseminated 500 copies of its simplified concession agreements in town-hall meetings with affected communities and strategic cities in five counties including Sinoe, Maryland, Nimba, Bong and Montserrado. Given the success of these meeting, LEITI plans to request additional support to engage with more communities and national level actors in Quarter 3. NBC this quarter held 12 community- level multi-stakeholder dialogues with concession-affected communities of ArcelorMittal in Nimba, Firestone in Margibi, Equatorial Palm Oil Company in Grand Bassa and Maryland Oil Palm Plantation in Maryland County.

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 16 Each government institution’s activities contributes to the goal of facilitating dialogue and information sharing among key stakeholders, namely between the GOL, citizens, civil society, and concession companies around issues in the NRM sector.

C.5- Facilitate processes so that non-traditional actors are included in LAVI In order to create and expand partnerships with actors not traditionally included in advocacy activities, LAVI initiated several outreach meetings with other donors and private sector actors that may be interested in collaborating on advocacy efforts in the natural resource management sector. LAVI COP met with the Solidarity Center and the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) in Washington, DC, both of which had interesting recommendations for potential private sector engagement in Liberia. LAVI COP, Capacity Development Director, and Capacity Development Specialist also met with the Coalition of Liberian Business Associations (COLBA) to discuss how a coalition of private sector associations might have a shared interest in improved monitoring and management of the CSDF and possibly support the NRM Coalition’s efforts.

LAVI also spearheaded other coordination and collaboration efforts. In March, LAVI linked P4DP and LEITI to explore opportunities for collaboration and knowledge sharing in Quarter 3. LAVI COP and the Network and Partnership Advisor met with representatives from the European Union (EU), GIZ and IBIS to discuss potential collaboration around CSDF advocacy efforts. They also met with the Advisory Council to update them separately on the status of LAVI project activities.

D.) OBJECTIVE 2: INCREASE ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY OF TARGETED CSOS TO PARTICIPATE IN ISSUE-BASED REFORMS

D.1 – Capacity assessments for CSO partners LAVI completed capacity assessments for all current advocacy and learning partners in Quarter 1. Eight of the nine partners assessed submitted capacity development plans (CDPs) that reflect the mutually agreed upon gaps and recommendations from the assessments and include the partners’ self-identified priority areas for LAVI support. The most common priority areas are monitoring and evaluation, gender mainstreaming in organizational policies, as well as the program cycle, and finance and administration, including installation and training in Quickbooks. This quarter, LAVI designed and issued capacity development grants to Accountability Lab Liberia, P4DP, RHRAP, CUPPADL, NAYMOTE, LMC, and SDI to implement the CDPs. LAVI is working on finalizing the last grant with DEN-L, which will be issued in April 2017. LAVI worked closely with implementing partner Internews under the Liberia Media Development (LMD) program to identify areas for coordination and collaboration in LMC’s and ALAB’s CDPs for finance. LAVI will provide the IT set up and Quickbooks software and LMD will provide the software installation, customization and training for both partners.

D.2 – Identify core-funding organizations In August 2016, LAVI issued an Expression of Interest (EOI) to identify core-funding partners. At the GEC, LAVI decided to put the process on hold until it had a more informed understanding of how core- funding partners could be strategically integrated into the project to provide technical expertise and guidance to the various advocacy partners. Six months into the advocacy work under Thematic Window 1, LAVI decided that it needs three strategic core funding partners to support its programming in the following areas:

1. Learning 2. Advocacy and Outreach 3. Research and Policy Reform

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 17 LAVI plans to issue grant solicitations for strategic partners with technical expertise in these areas in April 2017.

D.3 – Provide technical assistance to grantee partners and core funding organizations LAVI continued to provide capacity development technical assistance to the NRM Coalition grantee partners in Quarter 2. On February 13 -14, 2017 the LAVI team met with P4DP in two half-day working sessions to provide technical guidance to P4DP in developing the M&E framework for the NRM Coalition. The teams focused on developing the NRM Coalition’s M&E Plan including developing a theory of change, finalizing indicators, and developing data collection tools and protocols. P4DP and LAVI then co-facilitated an M&E training for the Coalition on February 16 -17, 2017 to explain the NRM Coalition’s M&E Plan and proper data collection reporting techniques. The M&E Coordinators said that the training was essential to their everyday data collection and analysis work. As a follow-up to this, in Quarter 3 Accountability Lab Liberia will provide training to NRM Coalition M&E Coordinators in using Excel and Google forms to support the data collection and collation process.

The NRM Coalition grantee partners also received training in advocacy, citizen engagement, and compliance monitoring. Accountability Lab and iLab leading a training for the NRM Coalition DEN-L, with the support and guidance of M&E Coordinators on using Excel and Google forms for data LAVI, provided a weeklong training from collation and reporting. January 17 - 20, 2017 to the NRM Coalition’s County Coordinators, Project Mangers, and other staff. They covered advocacy basics, NRM and CSDF policies, context analysis, advocacy leadership and teambuilding, gender and advocacy, advocacy strategy and mobilization for action, developing advocacy messages, community engagement, and compliance monitoring. The County Coordinators will take this training and, with DEN-L’s mentorship, provide this same training to select community based organizations and key stakeholders in each target county. The County Coordinators expressed that this training helped them to unify the Coalition, clarify the role of each Coalition member, and build a sense of real advocacy. Part two of this training is scheduled for Quarter 3.

Additionally, LAVI contracted documentary filmmaker Kasey Kirby to provide mentorship to LMC in the production of a documentary about the County Social Development Funds and the NRM Coalition’s advocacy activities. Kirby met with LMC in late March 2017 to discuss the goals of the film, review potential documentary styles, and begin developing a storyboard for the documentary. LMC is expected to submit a finalized storyboard with their next milestone report.

In Quarter 3, LAVI intends for its service providers to co-facilitate a gender and social inclusion workshop for the NRM Coalition to better strategize how to better integrate gender sensitivity into their advocacy activities. LAVI will also begin implementation of each grantee’s capacity development plans (CDPs) to provide organizational support to help each partner grow to become more professional with sustainable advocacy institutions.

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 18

E.) OBJECTIVE 3: PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONGOING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ON THE LOCAL MARKET

E.1 – Expand the capacity development Service Provider Pool Early in January 2017, LAVI identified certain gaps within the capacity development Service Provider Pool, including expertise in advocacy and policy reform, financial sustainability, and monitoring and evaluation. LAVI therefore decided to release a second Expression of Interest (EOI) for the expansion of the Service Provider Pool. As part of its outreach strategy, LAVI visited several universities in Monrovia and met with relevant department and university heads to encourage them to apply to become SPs in the areas of advocacy research, policy analysis, legislative processes, and other technical areas. Following the closure of EOI on February 5, 2017, LAVI’s procurement department is shortlisting bids and organizing a bid evaluation committee to review applicants for the pool. Expansion of the Service Provider Pool is expected to be completed in Quarter 3.

LAVI is also further establishing its Service Provider Pool through the development of a Service Provider Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct is a document that was developed to make clear the purpose of the pool, pool membership, responsibilities and professional practices of the pool, and how to be removed from the pool. SPs are asked to sign it to demonstrate understanding of the parameters and a commitment to professional standards and practices.

E.2 – Develop the Capacity Development Post1 In Quarter 2, LAVI continued to update the Capacity Development Post with customer reviews, new service providers, and additional information. To further market the pool to different audiences, LAVI developed a printable post card. The post card will be distributed to multiple audiences, including the Service Provider Pool, civil society organizations, iCampus, universities, USAID, implementing partners, and ministries as strategic points of contact with the public.

In March 2017, LAVI also presented additional ideas to the SPs for marketing strategies to expand the outreach of the pool. Based on input from the SPs, LAVI Business Development Consultant Mark Birnbaum worked with LAVI’s Capacity Development Team (CDT) to develop a Request for Application (RFA) for SPs to produce online and print marketing materials, as well as host in-person networking events to promote the Service Provider pool and Capacity Development Post. On April 5, 2017, LAVI Grants will publish the RFA to the Service Provider Pool.

E.3 – Provide technical assistance to service providers LAVI provided extensive training and mentorship to LAVI SPs in Quarter 2. LAVI, in collaboration with iLab, conducted ICT4D training in two phases for SPs with expertise in ICT including Optimal Impact Training, Gilgasat Technology, Reinvent Liberia, Nerissa Solutions and Techno-preneurs. Phase 2 of the training which took place on February 17, 2017 improved the existing capacity of service providers in tech-supported data collection and analysis. Attending participants were excited about the training and stated that the knowledge they acquired will help them perform more efficiently.

1 Previously known as the “Palava Post”, the name of the Capacity Development Post was changed due to negative public perceptions of the word “palava” as explained by LAVI service providers.

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 19 On February 9, 2017, Ame Atsu Davis, one of LAVI’s Capacity Development consultants, completed a three-day Leadership and Strategic Planning training with nine (9) SPs that specialize in this area. The goal of the training was to improve service provider capacity to deliver training to CSO partners in organizational strategy development and leadership structures. SPs in attendance gained an increased understanding of strategic planning to obtain long-term impact, improved methodology in developing strategic plans, and enhanced skills in the delivery of efficient strategic planning and leadership training and mentorship for CSOs.

As a follow up to the Gender and Social Inclusion training LAVI facilitated in December 2016 for all SPs, LAVI released an RFA to identify SPs to support development of a LAVI gender and social inclusion training manual for use by SPs as well as to co-facilitate a gender and social inclusion training for the NRM Coalition partners. LAVI selected a winner and will begin intense mentorship with this SP in April 2017.

Based on a Survey Monkey survey conducted by LAVI, business plan development LAVI Service Providers participating in Marketing and Business DevelopmentDevelopment was one of the key areas training identified as gap for the SPs. On February 14, 2017, USAID approved the mobilization of a Business Development consultant to provide support to the SPs in business plan and marketing plan development. International consultant Mark Birnbaum and local Business Development expert consultant William Reeide co-facilitated a Marketing & Business Plan Development Training from March 13th – 17th, 2017 at iCampus in Monrovia. Following the training, LAVI shared the final training manuals (Annex 7) and templates to the SPs to continue updating their own business and marketing plans. As a next step, the local consultant William Dennis met with each SP to provide mentorship in updating their marketing and business plans. Business Development consultant Mark Birnabum will return to Liberia on April 11, 2017 to review the completed marketing and business plans and prepare for a training-of-trainers for SPs with business development and marketing expertise to prepare them to engage directly with LAVI’s CSO partners.

F.) OBJECTIVE 4: ENSURE THAT LEARNING AND METHODOLOGIES ARE SHARED AND APPLIED BY OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTORS

F.1 – Operationalize the LAVI Learning Lab During Quarter 2, the LAVI Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning (ME&L) team began internal meetings to develop a more robust concept note outlining the project’s vision for the Learning Lab and its activities (Annex 8). The goal of this exercise was to assist the project in identifying key partners, developing innovative knowledge management and learning activities, and support project staff and partners in capturing learning, and to develop a learning agenda. This creation of a Learning Lab vision document was one of the recommendations from the Knowledge Management and Learning consultant, Rebecca Askin, who mobilized to Liberia from February 1st to 10th. On March 28th, LAVI met with iCampus leadership to discuss their role in designing and implementing learning activities as well as managing

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 20 components of the LAVI Learning Lab. LAVI finalized the Learning Lab vision document, which will be used to design future support to Accountability Lab Liberia.

F.2 – Support partner Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) In Quarter 2 of Year 2, the LAVI ME&L team worked with the NRM Coalition’s M&E Officers and P4DP’s M&E Manager to develop an M&E plan and data collection tools for the coalition activities. The M&E plan is a detailed tool that will be used primarily to track the NRM coalition’s activities and measure their results. To validate the M&E plan, on February 16th and 17th, P4DP along with the LAVI team facilitated a training for the NRM Coalition’s Project Managers and M&E Officers. Twenty (20) participants from the NRM Coalition were in attendance. At the end of the training, participants understood how M&E works - the flow from activity to output and impact indicators –, how data is managed, and the importance of maintaining data quality. The participants also gained a clear picture of how the indicators required by LAVI fit into their NRM Coalition Results Framework.

F.3 – Support Communities of Practice (Compracs) In Quarter 2, Knowledge Management and Learning consultant Rebecca Askin mobilized to Liberia to assist the project in building out its learning activities. As part of an internal staff training held on February 8th, Askin familiarized LAVI staff with differences between a Comprac and a Learning Network and discussed the features and benefits of each. The term “Learning Network” resonated more with the LAVI staff. They felt the term would be more easily understood by the broader public and the features also spoke more directly to the objective of the LAVI project—a multi-stakeholder forum to share advocacy best-practices and lessons learned. The project’s vision for facilitating a Learning Network is incorporated into the LAVI Learning Lab vision document (Annex 8) and will be expanded on in Quarter 3 along with Thematic Window 2.

What is a Learning Network? What is a Comprac?  Formally organized around grants  Formally organized or formed through  Membership is mandatory and restricted to informal network grantees  Membership is voluntary  Members learn and share as they implement  Members do not have an agenda but share their projects and develop common learning common set of knowledge needs or agendas problems around a practice  Focus on knowledge generation, innovation  Focus on building capacity, shared and delivery of output repertoire and mutual engagement, not  May disband when specific deliverable is necessarily delivering an output completed  May continue

F.4 – Facilitate partner learning, knowledge management, and research During Quarter 2, LAVI-APS-003 Promoting Best Practices and Information Sharing Among Civil Society Actors for Advocacy and Policy Reform: Natural Resource Management and Concessions Sector was advertised on the Executive Mansion of Liberia website (www.emansion.lr.ov) on January 10th and also through direct email communication to 150 organizations including but not limited to CSOs, service providers, private sector, business associations, and universities in Liberia and the West Africa region. On January 16th, the LAVI Grants and ME&L teams held a pre-submission orientation meeting for LAVI-APS-003 at the iCampus facility. Thirty-three (33) organizations were in attendance. Knowledge Management and Learning consultant Rebecca Askin from USAID Center for Development Innovation (CDI) served on the Grants Evaluations Committee (GEC) to evaluation and select potential grantees. On February 9th, the LAVI ME&L team and Askin facilitated a workshop for the seven short-listed applicants. The applicants were trained in KM&L terminology and participated in exercises to better understand how to

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 21 identify and design learning and knowledge sharing activities. The applicants were also guided through a full application and technical proposal writing process.

On March 7th, the GEC met again to review the full proposals following the March 1st submission deadline. The GEC selected three CSOs to take part in a more individualized co-creation process to further develop their proposed activities in line with LAVI’s Learning Agenda. The applicants were requested to provide more details on their learning activity plans and review resources from the USAID Learning Lab to enhance their understanding of learning activities. From March 27th to 31st, the LAVI ME&L team met with each of the short-listed applicants to further collaborate on the design of their activities and draw on their organizational strengths and networks. Based on these meetings, a revised final application template will be developed to support finalists in connecting their learning activities to LAVI’s learning Agenda. LAVI intends to issue these awards in Quarter 3.

All in all, the LAVI ME&L team generated several lessons-learned related to designing learning activities with Liberian civil society organizations. Throughout the LAVI-APS-003 grant-making process, the team regularly conducted After Action Reviews and quickly adapted with internal and external feedback. The below are some examples of the lessons-learned and course corrections that were made in the grant making process:

Lessons-Learned Course Correction

The Liberian CSOs that applied With support of Knowledge Management & Learning to the first call for concept consultant, Rebecca Askin, the ME&L team designed an notes did not fully grasp the interactive training for the short-listed LAVI-APS-003 in KM&L concept of knowledge terminology. management and learning and how it relates to advocacy.

Instead of proposing learning In the 2nd phase of the LAVI-APS-003 process, the LAVI ME&L activities, the LAVI-APS-003 team shared guidance documents on how to design learning concept notes included activities from the USAID Learning Lab. The team also advocacy activities that our introduced the finalists to the CLA Case Competition website NRM Coalition were already where they could find examples of other learning activities preparing to implement. implemented by USAID partners throughout the world.

The applicants for LAVI-APS- The LAVI ME&L team facilitated a second internal staff KM& 003 as well as LAVI staff Learning training that included examples of other project’s expressed particular confusion learning questions and associated learning activities, which with the term Learning Agenda. constituted a Learning Agenda. The team then collaborated on the development of LAVI’s Learning Agenda, a living document that will help inform the activities designed by the LAVI-APS- 003 grantees as well as the development of the LAVI Learning Lab. A version of this training was then provided to the three LAVI-APS-003 finalists during individual co-creation meetings. In Quarter 3, the finalists will be required to connect their proposed activities to LAVI learning questions as part of their

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 22 final application for the grant.

3. Project Monitoring and Evaluation

Project M&E contains two major tasks, they are: G.) Ongoing Data Collection and Evaluation H.) Host Learning Reviews and Mechanisms

G.) ONGOING DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION

G.1- Establish a baseline LAVI revised its Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) and it was approved on March 29th, 2017. The recently approved AMEP includes revisions to the performance indicators. Specifically, LAVI 1.1and LAVI 4.1 were dropped from the Results Framework and an additional nine (9) output indicators were added. The total number of indicators for the project is now 22. Details of amendments made to the LAVI approved version of the AMEP, including changes that were made to the indicator title and definitions to reflect lessons learned during Year1 that have influenced the respective changes, can be seen in Annex 9.

The LAVI ME&L team collected baseline data for seven (7) indicators including LAVI 1, 2, 3, 2.1, 2.4.1-9 and 4.2 using the Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool (ICAT) and Advocacy Capacity Assessment Tool (ACAT) and established indicator targets. The ME&L Team worked together with other team members and collected key baseline information for the rest of the project’s 22 indicators. Much of the baseline information was collected as components of the ICAT and ACAT conducted in FY2 Quarter 1 with 9 CSOs partners in combination with other methods outlined per the AMEP.

G.2 -Update Performance Indicators Database System (PIDS) After the approval of LAVI’s AMEP by USAID, changes to performance indicators and new performance indicators were entered into the Performance Indicator Database System (PIDS). From January 26 to February 28, 2017, the LAVI ME&L team closely worked with the Liberia Strategic Analysis (LSA) to update PIDS. The data entered into the system from January 15 to February 15 includes baselines, targets, and actuals that covers FY2017 Quarter 1 from October to December 2016. LAVI is currently updating PIDS with FY2017 Quarter 2 data between April 19 to May 19.

G.3- Monitoring results The LAVI ME&L Team completed revisions to data collection tools for all LAVI’s indicators as part of the AMEP. The team tested the tools with the relevant teams that will be responsible for ensuring accurate data collection. Upon receiving their feedback, the LAVI ME&L team finalized these tools and then developed accompanying collation and reporting tools.

The LAVI ME&L Team continued to provide support to the CSOs and GOL grantee partners in making sure they used the appropriate tools and methodologies to enhance the effective and efficient collection, analysis and reporting of evidence data. For example, LAVI mentored partners in correct use of the LAVI Meeting and Capacity Building Attendance Registers because they are most frequently used to document some of the more common field activities.

On March 27th, the LAVI team began the process of conducting interviews for the hiring of Field Activity Monitors (FAMs). The goal of this process is to hire 14 field monitors that will be assigned in all counties

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 23 with the exception of Montserrado. The FAMs will monitor LAVI’s activities carried out by partners throughout the country to verify that activities are taking place per the agreed upon scopes of work and that all M&E tools are being used properly per the AMEP, and ensure overall quality control.

See Annex 10 for the Indicators Tracking Table and progress on LAVI indicators.

G.3-Conduct data quality assessment Per the Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS), LAVI can expect the next data quality assessment will be conducted by USAID on or about August 2017. The DQA will assess the quality of data for LAVI’s 22 updated indicators.

H.) HOST LEARNING REVIEWS AND MECHANISMS

On January 13th, the LAVI project team held its Quarterly Performance Review Session, covering the first quarter from October to December 2016. The event, which is part of LAVI’s internal organizational learning process, was meant to review technical, operational and financial performance of the LAVI project and carefully map and flag outstanding activities for prioritization in Quarter Two (January-March 2017). Lessons learned and best practices captured during the meeting are stated in the table below.

Lessons Learned & Best Practices for Q1

Communication Grants and Reporting Participatory Trainings Approaches

• A persistent and • One-to-one coaching • A participatory • Advanced planning for streamlined follow-up with with grantees on how approach involving training sessions and partners about pending to do quality and partners in the workshops produces activities and milestone due timely reports assessment process better results dates and communication is increases crucial to meet activity • Grantee written letter understanding, creates • Consulting service goals and avoid of concurrence must ownership of the providers on training overwhelming grantees be received before outcomes, and schedules, topics, and submitting request for strengthens the manuals increases • Communication by email is grants approval to relationship for commitment, good, but follow-up by USAID capacity development attendance, and use of phone and in-person support and LAVI the materials. meetings seem to be more activities in general effective • Grant making process • Expectations from partners should be more should be clearly defined participatory before commencing activities of grants to avoid misunderstanding

• Regular consultations with stakeholders, particularly Executive Directors, can facilitate better

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 24 understanding and collaboration between partners

In Quarter 2, a two phase KM&L training was also conducted for LAVI staff on February 8th and 22nd. The first phase of the training was facilitated by KM&L Advisor, Rebecca Askin, and the second by the LAVI ME&L team. During the first phase, LAVI staff were trained in USAID’s Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) framework, KM&L terminology, and best-practices for integrating reflect and learn activities into internal processes and activities. The second part of the KM&L training for project staff focused on the review, update, and expansion of LAVI’s learning questions and brainstorming potential learning activities to answer these questions. The discussions during the training were used to develop LAVI’s Learning Agenda (Annex 11) with key questions that the project will address about advocacy in the NRM and subsequent Thematic Funding Windows. When completed, LAVI’s Learning Agenda will address the critical knowledge gaps impeding informed design and implementation decisions and plans for learning activities to help answer those questions.

On March 17th, LAVI’s new ME&L Director, Michele Rogers, hosted an initial a discussion with the ME&L teams of other USAID Democracy and Governance projects implemented by DAI about potential areas for collaboration on KM&L activities. While each team is at different stages in the development of their KM&L priorities, further discussions will be held in Quarter 3 to identify where the projects’ learning questions align for potential partnership.

Annexes

Annex 1: LAVI FY2017 Q2 Financial Report Annex 2: NRM Coalition Information Gathering report on CSDF Annex 3: Advocacy Policy and ICCM Framework Annex 4: GeoPoll Survey Findings Annex 5: NCSCL Consultations Findings Annex 6: NCSCL Consultations Findings Presentation Annex 7: Marketing and Business Plan Development Training Manual Annex 8: Learning Lab Vision Annex 9: Details of Amendments to LAVI’s Indicators Annex 10: LAVI Indicator Tracking Table Quarter 2 Annex 11: Draft LAVI’s Learning Agenda Annex 12: Success Stories

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 25 ACTIVITY NAME: Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) USAID AGREEMENT NO: Contract No. AID-669-C-16-00003

FY 2017 FY 2017 FY 2018 Total estimated Life of Project Invoice to Date Total Contract Sl. # Line Items Q3 Projections Q4 Projections Q1 Projections through Dec Budget April 26, 2017 Amount Remaining Apr-Jun '17 Jul-Sept'17 Oct-Dec'17 2017 1 Project Management Cost (Salaries) $ 3,485,456 $ 784,969 $ 157,579 $ 178,159 $ 171,919 $ 1,292,626 $ 2,192,830

2 Other Direct Costs $ 4,501,073 $ 1,299,650 $ 211,625 $ 251,984 $ 237,978 $ 2,001,237 $ 2,499,836 ODC: Travel Transport & Per Diem $ 538,131 $ 341,838 $ 34,726 $ 41,627 $ 29,756 $ 447,947 $ 90,184 ODC: Allowances $ 1,062,270 $ 134,450 $ 83,479 $ 67,734 $ 67,855 $ 353,519 $ 708,751 Other Direct Cost $ 2,386,220 $ 691,535 $ 90,370 $ 127,476 $ 135,367 $ 1,044,747 $ 1,341,473 ODC: Program Cost $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ODC: Property/Equipment $ 310,757 $ 92,645 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 5,000 $ 102,645 $ 208,112 ODC: Independent Consultant $ 203,695 $ 39,182 $ 1,050 $ 12,147 $ - $ 52,379 $ 151,316

3 Grants Under Contracts (GUC) $ 4,500,000 $ 494,254 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 1,169,254 $ 3,330,746

4 Indirect Cost $ 3,667,732 $ 957,037 $ 193,471 $ 216,698 $ 209,604 $ 1,576,811 $ 2,090,921 Fringe Benefits $ 610,978 $ 144,887 $ 33,340 $ 35,604 $ 35,012 $ 248,843 $ 362,135 Overhead $ 1,809,012 $ 486,503 $ 99,889 $ 111,841 $ 108,266 $ 806,500 $ 1,002,513 G&A $ 1,247,742 $ 325,647 $ 60,242 $ 69,253 $ 66,326 $ 521,468 $ 726,274

Subtotal (sum of 1 to 4) $ 16,154,261 $ 3,535,910.05 $ 787,675 $ 871,841 $ 844,501 $ 6,039,928 $ 10,114,333

5 Fee $ 847,526 $ 207,106.15 $ 43,476 $ 43,476 $ 43,476 $ 337,535 $ 509,991

6 Total Cost Plus Fixed Fee $ 17,001,787 $ 3,743,016.20 $ 831,152 $ 915,318 $ 887,977 $ 6,377,463 $ 10,624,324 REPORT TYPE: Pipeline Status Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) Contract No. AID-669-C-16-00003

Total Total Total Estimated Total Life of Total Amount Expenditure Unliquidated Expenditure the Project Obligated (to DESCRIPTION (As of April 26, Balance (As of Apr-Jun Oct-Dec Total Estimated through Budget date) Jul-Sep 2017 2017) April 26, 2017) 2017 2017 Expenditure December 2017 A B C D (B-C) E F G I (E+F+G) J (C+I) AMOUNT IN US$ 17,001,787 6,884,245 3,743,016 3,141,229 831,152 915,318 887,977 2,634,447 6,377,463

INFORMATION GATHERING REPORT: MANAGEMENT & MONITORING OF THE COUNTY SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT FUNDS

LIBERIA ACCOUNTABILITY AND VOICE INITIATIVE JANUARY 2017

0

1

Table of Contents Acronyms...... 3 I. Introduction and Background ...... 4 INFORMATION-GATHERING EXERCISE ...... 4 KEY RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 5 II. Methodology ...... 6 RESEARCH SITE SELECTION ...... 6 RESEARCH METHODS ...... 6 III. Results ...... 7 SURVEY RESULTS ...... 7 QUALITATIVE RESULTS ...... 15 III. Civil Society Capacity Snapshot ...... 23 IV. Media Capacity Snapshot ...... 26 V. Recommendations ...... 29 IMPROVE CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION ...... 29 SUPPORT CSO/CBO ADVOCACY ...... 30 ENHANCE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ...... 30 IMPROVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR (CONCESSIONAIRES) ...... 31

2 Acronyms

CBO Community-Based Organizations CDMC County Development Management Committee CSO Civil Society Organization CUPPADL Citizens United to Promote Peace & Democracy in Liberia DEN-L Development Education Network-Liberia DFC Dedicated Fund Committee EPA Environmental Protection Agency FDA Forestry Development Authority FDG Focus Group Discussion FOIA Freedom of Information Act IREDD Institute for Research and Democratic Development KII Key Informant Interview LAVI Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative LEITI Liberia Extractives Information and Transparency Initiative LMC Liberia Media Center MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs NAYMOTE NAYMOTE-Partners for Democratic Development NBC National Bureau of Concessions NRM Natural Resource Management P4DP Platform for Dialogue and Peace PMC Project Management Committee RHRAP Rural Human Rights Activist Programme SDI Sustainable Development Initiative UNDP United Nations Development Program USAID United States Agency for International Development

3 I. Introduction and Background The Natural Resource Management (NRM) sector in Liberia has made notable gains over the past few years. In 2010, new legislation to improve the management of concession agreements was enacted to create the National Bureau of Concessions (NBC). Similarly, different laws and regulations that determine the governance of NRM in agriculture, mining, petroleum, energy, and forestry have been reviewed or are in the process of being reviewed, especially in the areas of incentives, taxation, and royalties. Despite notable institutional, regulatory and policy reforms, implementation continues to be a problem and much of the reform is on paper and not in practice. In the present context, there is no previous assessment or valuation of the natural resources to be granted as concessions, awarding concessions based on competitive bid process is still weak, and an effective system of monitoring and evaluation of concession agreements is not in place. Historically, the three principal actors in the NRM sector—civil society (including communities), the government and the concessionaires—have operated in distinctly different silos. Efforts to bring about meaningful reform have often failed to bring together the relevant stakeholders to introduce multi-stakeholder dialogue, buy-in, and problem solving approaches. Rather, there has been a culture of division, often ending in stalemate. The United States Agency of International Development (USAID) Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) aims to shift the paradigm by supporting a diversity of actors that share an interest in resolving issues emanating from the NRM and concessions sector, specifically as they relate to accountability and citizen participation.

An oft-cited positive reform in the NRM sector was the establishment of County Social Development Funds (CSDF), which are meant to leverage some of the funds earned through concessions agreements to contribute to development activities in Liberia’s counties. In principle, the use of the funds is meant to be a participatory process, where local authorities and citizens work together to identify development priorities that the funds will be used for. However, this has not happened in practice, largely due to the same issues found within the NRM sector at large in Liberia—poor oversight, rampant corruption, weak supporting institutions, and poor collaboration between stakeholders. As a result, many communities living in concession areas—those who are most affected and most aggrieved by the abuses in the NRM sector—have yet to feel the benefits of the CSDF.

USAID LAVI supports eight civil society organizations (CSOs) in forming a NRM Coalition to design and implement an evidence-based advocacy campaign to improve monitoring and management of the CSDFs in all of Liberia’s 15 counties. The eight CSOs that form the coalition are: NAYMOTE-Partners for Democratic Development (NAYMOTE), Citizens United to Promote Peace & Democracy in Liberia (CUPPADL), Development Education Network Liberia (DEN-L), Institute for Research and Democratic Development (IREDD), Platform for Dialogue and Peace (P4DP), Rural Human Rights Activists Program (RHRAP), Sustainable Development Institute (SDI), and Liberia Media Center (LMC). The coalition is led by P4DP and is governed by a Program Steering Committee with senior representatives from each organization. INFORMATION-GATHERING EXERCISE Each of the CSOs in the NRM Coalition implemented an information gathering (IG) activity at national and county levels from November – December, 2016. Five organizations—IREDD, CUPPADL, SDI, NAYMOTE and RHRAP—conducted the IG research across all 15 counties in Liberia. P4DP conducted research with central government and other national-level stakeholders based in Monrovia while DEN-L and LMC respectively conducted CSO and media capacity assessments. The objective of the IG exercise was to identify issues surrounding the monitoring and management of CSDF in Liberia and to draw out challenges and opportunities related to advocacy, transparency, accountability, and enhanced participation of citizens in CSDF decision-making. This community-based research will aid the NRM Coalition in identifying potential policy reforms to improve the management of the CSDF, which will

4 inform their priority advocacy activities. By promoting reforms supported by evidence collected from communities and key stakeholders, the NRM Coalition will be better equipped to influence policy changes at both the local and national level that will enhance citizen engagement in the monitoring and management of the CSDF and make the CSDF allocation process more transparent and accountable to community needs. KEY RESEARCH QUESTIONS A thorough desk review and validation workshop led to the NRM coalition identifying four key themes related to the CSDF: management and administrative failures, a lack of accountability and weak civil society, poor transparency, and a lack of citizen awareness and participation. The coalition with assistance from the USAID LAVI team identified key research questions and sub-questions to guide the IG activities according to each theme.

I. Management and Administrative Failures  How are the current laws and policies governing the CSDF affecting citizen participation in managing and monitoring implementation? o What are the successes and failures and do these differ from county to county? Are any new laws or policies being developed to address the documented issues in the administration of the funds?  How do the community people participate in the management of the CSDF and at what levels? o Which structures/processes are effectively facilitating participation and how? Which structures/processes are effectively hindering participation and how? o What prevents full community engagement and participation in the decision making process related to the management in CSDF? o How have the CSDF benefited the community? What are some examples of successful implementation?

II. Lack of Accountability and Weak Civil Society  What barriers exist that make it difficult for civil society to effectively advocate in the realm of NRM? o How do CSOs operate and collaborate, and what are the priority issues they work on? What types of activities do they carry out? o What tools, strategies and tactics are CSOs currently using for citizen engagement and advocacy? Are they working, and why or why not? o In what ways are CSOs involved in issues related to NRM and the CSDFs? o What are the capacity-related (technical and strategic) barriers that CSOs face? o How are CSOs involved in brokering citizen grievances and helping communities seek redress on issues relating to implementation of the funds? o What are successful examples of CSO advocacy?

III. Poor Transparency  How has a lack of transparency contributed to poor administration of the funds and to both real and perceived corruption? o What facilitates a lack of transparency? o What are the different means through which community people access information on the CSDF? o To what extent does the public have access to information with regards to the management of the CSDF? o What are the different means through which community people access information on the CSDF?

5  To what extent is the media covering issues related to NRM and CSDF? o What prevents journalists from accessing information about the funds and reporting it to the community? o What is the impact of the FOIA and other legislative mechanisms on reporting the issues?

IV. Lack of Citizen Participation and Awareness  What are the structures for citizen participation and inclusive decision-making and how are they currently being implemented? o How inclusive is citizen participation and what prevents inclusion? o Why do community members participate in structures developed for inclusive decision? Why don’t they? o How do processes for citizen participation vary from county to county? What is working well and what is not working?

II. Methodology

RESEARCH SITE SELECTION Through a consultative process inclusive of all NRM coalition member organizations, two districts per county were selected for the IG exercise, for a total of 30 districts (Table 1). Criteria for selecting districts included: population, proximity of concessions lands, and location of county administration. The coalition selected districts near to communities and villages that are aggrieved with respect to concessions processes, that represent a high population of both rural and peri-urban communities, and that include the seat of government in each county. RESEARCH METHODS The coalition used a mixed-methods approach that combined qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis to triangulate the findings. A mobile survey, focus group discussions and key informant interviews were conducted in Liberia’s 15 counties by coalition members that worked in each county (Table 2).

I. Surveys The NRM coalition used a mobile-based survey that was designed to assess knowledge, perceptions and engagement vis-à-vis the CSDF among citizens. A total of 1459 citizens were surveyed across the15 counties. Purposive-systematic sampling was employed in the 30 target districts. Communities were selected according to convenience and access, but respondents within them were randomly selected. Enumerators strived for equal representation of men and women, and urban/peri-urban and rural respondents. Due to difficulties with travel in remote areas, the teams did not achieve equal representation of urban and rural respondents, but rather focused mainly on urban and peri-urban settings. The teams did successfully survey a representative sample of men and women.

II. Focus Group Discussions Focus group discussions (FGDs) aimed to bring to light the perspectives and experiences of community members while also ensuring inclusion of a representative cross-section of the local populations in the interview process. FGDs were semi-structured and based on a pre-developed set of questions and guiding principles. Three FGDs were conducted per district—one with men only, one with women only, and one with representatives from community-level CSOs/community-based organizations (CBOs)—for a total of 90 FGDs throughout Liberia. FGDs were recruited through community informants, and transport remuneration was provided when participants traveled to participate in the discussion.

6 III. Key Informant Interviews Semi-structured key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted in each county to get in-depth information from key stakeholders on the processes, policies and systems that govern the management and monitoring of the CSDFs as well as to identify challenges to effective implementation, policy gaps and advocacy entry points. Coalition partners identified informants at national levels (central government and national-level actors) and local levels (county leadership, concessionaires, civil society networks and groups, etc.) who are familiar with the management and implementation of the CSDF. A snowballing method was used to identify and recruit KIIs that coalition organizations did not have prior connections with.

III. Results

SURVEY RESULTS Survey results were analyzed using SPSS 24. Overall results were assessed and key findings are presented here. Data was also disaggregated by county, gender, and age group.

I. Demographics A total of 1459 respondents (N=1459) were surveyed. 728 of the respondents are female and 731 are male. 526 respondents are aged 18 – 35 representing 36% of the total number of people surveyed; 643 respondents (44%) are between the ages 36 – 49; and 290 (19%) respondents are 50 years of age or older. 36% of respondents were selected from urban areas (defined as having a population greater than 5,000), 55% are inhabitants of towns or peri-urban areas and 20% are from villages and rural areas. 608 (41%) respondents have completed secondary education, 388 have completed only primary education (26%), and 280 (19%) cite they have not received any education. A further 161 (11%) respondents indicate completing advanced schooling such as university or vocational college.

II. Knowledge The knowledge component of the survey aims to assess citizens’ level of awareness and knowledge about the governance structure of the CSDF, the processes for awarding concessions to companies, and avenues for raising complaints and seeking redress related to concessions and the use of CSDF.

When asked how they get news and information related to the use of the CSDF in their communities, the majority of respondents indicate they receive information through radio talk shows (71%). Very few citizens indicate that they receive an appropriate amount of information about the funds from local authorities or town hall discussions.

7 Source of information about CSDF

Frequency Percent Announcements 48 3.3 I don't receive any information on the CSDF 44 3.0 Intellectual Centre Discussions 62 4.2 Local Authorities 81 5.6 News agencies 15 1.0 Radio talkshows 1038 71.1 Town Hall Discussions 171 11.7 Total 1459 100.0

The majority of citizens surveyed (79%) understand that the purpose of the funds is to create community development projects, such as building roads or health services. However, a significant number feel that that the purpose of the funds is to promote nepotism and empower politicians. Very few citizens understand that the funds are, in part, meant for the community to receive a share of the benefits garnered through NRM operations in their area.

Purpose of CSDF Frequency Percent I don’t know 100 6.9

To allow community leaders to implement 100 6.9 development activities by themselves To allow companies to operate on community 15 1.0 lands

To empower politicians 71 4.9 To promote community development including 1147 78.6 construction of roads, schools and hospitals To receive benefits from the 26 1.8 companies/concessions

Total 1459 100.0

In terms of county-level implementation of the funds, most citizens do not know who directly controls the CSDF—whether it’s the county-level authorities, the development superintendent, central government authorities or the President. Similarly, most citizens do not know the process for awarding NRM contracts to companies, nor who represents them in these negotiations.

8 Who directly controls the CSDF? P FrequencyPercent CSOs/CBOs 38 2.6 I don't know 207 14.2 Lawmakers 383 26.3 President 14 1.0 Superintendent 673 46.1 Town chief 144 9.9 Total 1459 100.0

How are company agreements developed in your county? Frequency Percent A special committee represents the community at 59 4.0 meetings Central government and company make a deal 460 31.5 Company people meet with the community 237 16.2 people

Government representative(s) holds meetings 387 26.5 with community people

I don't know 141 9.7

Local leaders represent the community at 175 12.0 meetings

Total 1459 100.0

A large majority of citizens do not know who to go to if the community has a problem with the implementation of the CSDF, that is, they do not know how to seek redress for grievances. 21% of respondents replied they do not know who to go to, while others cited lawmakers or the town chief. Very few respondents feel that CSOs/CBOs can help them with grievances.

9 If your community has a problem with the CSDF, whom do you go to? Frequency Percent CSOs/CBOs 90 6.2 I don't know 304 20.8

Law makers 336 23.0 Local radio station 55 3.8 Other 131 9.0 Town Chief 543 37.2 Total 1459 100.0

III. Perceptions The perceptions component of the survey aims to assess citizens’ level of satisfaction with the implementation of the CSDF and overall concessions operations in their communities, as well as to determine the extent to which NRM actors are available to listen to their needs and concerns. A large majority of citizens surveyed feel very unsatisfied with how the funds are implemented.

Satisfaction with Managment of CSDF

80% 69.9% 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% 12.5% 12.0% 10% 5.6%

0% Very Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat Very unsatisfied unsatisfied

The majority of citizens also feel completely excluded from participating in the decision-making process for how the funds should be used and for setting development priorities in their communities.

10

When asked about the availability of different actors—local government, concessionaires or CSOs—to address community fears, concerns and complaints with respect to NRM activities or the use of the CSDF, the overwhelming majority of respondents indicate that such actors are never available. A slightly higher number of respondents report that CSOs are frequently available to listen to community complaints (18.9%) than concessionaires (12.1%) or local government officials (11.9%), but most citizens indicate that all actors are rarely, if ever, available to them.

Availablility to Citizens 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Concessionaires 50% Local Gov 40% 30% CSOs/CBOs 20% 10% 0% Never Rarely Often Very Often

IV. Engagement with CSDF Process The engagement component of the survey aims to assess citizens’ level of participation in decision- making, setting priorities, and monitoring the implementation of CSDF in their communities. The survey demonstrates that avenues for citizen participation and inclusion are not working well, and that the majority of citizens feel excluded from the all processes related to the CSDF.

11 Participation in Decision-making

10%

Yes No

90%

Less than 10% of respondents have participated in a community consultation or county sitting related to the CSDF. When asked their reasons for not participating, citizens primarily cite not being invited to and a lack of awareness of the meetings. Very few citizens indicate a lack of interest in the CSDF or a lack of relevance to them as a reason for not attending consultations.

Reasons for Not Participating 80% 68.3% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 19.7% 20% 10% 3.9% 3.4% 3.3% 0% Unaware of it Not invited Not relevant Too busy My opinion to me isn't important

IV. Gender and Age Differences

Age There was no significant difference between age groups with respect to knowledge or attitudes about the CSDF. Based on the survey, there are similarities among each age group in terms of who has participated in a consultation. Surprisingly, the survey suggests that there is mostly equal representation among different age groups at community consultations. There was a difference in satisfaction between respondents aged 18 - 49 years who participated in a community sitting and those over the age of 50, with respondents over 50 years expressing greater dissatisfaction with the process than their younger counterparts. However, while the number of respondents who had participated in a consultation was

12 very small (~9%), the majority of respondents across all age groups who have participated were satisfied with the process, indicating that they felt there ideas were heard, that they trusted what was said and that the consultation in their community was collaborative.

Participation in CSDF Consultation AGE YES NO 18 - 35 3.3% 32.8% 36 - 49 4.0% 40.1% 50+ 2.5% 17.4%

Level of Satisfaction with Management of CSDF

35%

30% 25% 20% 18 - 35

15% 36 - 49

10% 50+ 5% 0% High Medium Low Very low

Inclusion in Decision-Making Process for the CSDF 35% 30% 25% 20% 18 - 35 15% 36 - 49 10% 50+ 5% 0% High Medium Low Very Low

13 Gender There is no significant difference among men and women in terms of knowledge and perceptions of the CSDF. There is also marginal difference between genders in terms of engagement with the CSDF at community consultations, with men having slightly higher representation and satisfaction with the process than women who were surveyed.

Participation in CSDF Consultation Yes No Female 4.2% 45.6% Male 5.5% 44.6%

Level of Satisfaction with Management of CSDF 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Female 40% Male 30% 20% 10% 0% High Medium Low Very Low

Inclusion in Decision-Making Process for the CSDF

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Female 40% Male 30% 20% 10% 0% High Medium Low Very Low

14 QUALITATIVE RESULTS The qualitative results presented are summaries of research findings from FDGs and KIIs conducted in all of Liberia’s 15 counties—Grand Kru, Lofa, Rivecess, Margibi, Grand Bassa, Montserrado, Gparpolu, Bomi, Grand Cape Mount, Boi kng, Maryland and Rivergee, Sinoe, Grand Gedeh and Nimba. A total of 90 FDGs and 116 KIIs were conducted by the NRM Coalition partners.

I. Citizens Coalition members spoke to groups of men and women to understand their levels of awareness, engagement and participation with the CSDF, as well as to document their level of satisfaction and highlight successes and failures in the implementation of the funds from the perspective of citizens. The qualitative research served to ground the information received from the survey, and to solicit additional in-depth perspectives from citizens that the coalition can use to plan advocacy activities.

Awareness Citizens report that they are aware of the existence of the CSDF and have some limited information about the projects the funds are used for. In all of the counties represented here, citizens primarily get information about the funds from radio talk shows. This finding supports the survey findings, where 71% of citizens surveyed indicate they receive information about the CSDF from radio programs. Similarly, the survey identified few other sources of information about the funds other than periodic town hall meetings and town criers. Qualitative interviews identified other more informal sources of information, such as churches, mosques, the commissioner’s office and elders’ briefings. FDGs were mixed with respect to whether or not citizens trust the information they hear from formal sources, such as radio journalists and town hall meetings, or from informal methods, such as town criers and palava hut discussions.

Citizens interviewed in Grand Kru, Lofa and Rivercess indicate a higher level of trust in informal sources of information, emphasizing that the media are not impartial and their ability to adequately report on the CSDF is limited by a fear of persecution from local authorities and dismissal from radio station staff, coupled with an overall lack of access to reliable information, few incentives, and inadequate training. Citizens’ mistrust of information about the CSDF delivered via radio is further exacerbated when they hear of project plans that never come to fruition.

Researchers from Margibi, Grand Bassa and Montserrado confirm that radio talk shows are the primary sources of information for citizens about the CSDF, but respondents indicate this is limited to information about the date of a county sitting, information on projects that the budget will support, allegations of corruption, and disagreements between stakeholders that cannot be resolved. As a result, information is inconsistent and often inflammatory. Similar to the findings in other counties, citizens do not fully trust the information they hear and have few avenues for questioning and validating it. As one woman from Kakata, Margibi County explains, “Most of our lawmakers live right up the hill here in New Kakata community but they cannot come down to us to tell us about the CSDF…in fact, the radio people do not provide us with real information.”

Researchers who conducted FGDs in Bong, Maryland and Rivergee similarly report that the majority of information that citizens receive about the CSDF is from community radio. They have similar complaints about the quality of information, citing a lack of capacity among radio journalists with respect to investigation, adequate follow-up, and balanced and accurate reporting. Despite these capacity-related challenges, citizens indicate they rely on the radio as the most trusted source of information they have. For instance, a woman who participated in an FGD in Jorquelleh district, Bong County says, “I depend on the radio for all of my information because our leaders don’t come back to us with any information about the development funds. I also trust the information from the radio because it is the only means

15 that I have.” Respondents in Bong County also have a few other sources of information, such as word of mouth from friends and community members, briefings from clan and paramount chiefs, and community meetings with local leadership. However, this information is inconsistent and often fueled by rumors. In Rivergee and Maryland counties, men and women both claim that they have little to no information about the CSDF, even from local radio stations. The little information they do receive is limited to periodic broadcasts if there is a county sitting. In contrast to Bong County, respondents in Rivergee and Maryland do not get any information about the funds and related projects from local leaders. A man from Harper, Maryland captures this, claiming, “when we call our leaders to talk to us about the CSDFs, they refused to come.”

In a similar vein, citizens who were interviewed in Grand Cape Mount, Bomi and Gbarpolu receive the majority of information about the CSDF from local radio stations. However, they also point to local leaders and CSOs/CBOs as valuable sources of information on the funds, which differs from other counties. Respondents in Gbarpolu report a positive view of the media’s ability to disseminate trustworthy and accurate information about the funds, and in particular about the budget. However, what is lacking is follow-up reporting, which could be used to monitor project implementation, inform citizens on progress, and hold local leaders accountable. For example, a woman who participated in an FGD in Gbarpolu states, “We are informed (by the radio) that the money is to build many things like schools, clinics and other things but we can’t see any of these things.”

Researchers in Sinoe, Grand Gedeh and Nimba found that citizens similarly get the majority of their information about the CSDF through radio, but in some rural communities where there are not radio signals, participants indicate they do not receive any information about the funds. Respondents report that they do not have and say at all in how projects are identified and selected. All respondents interviewed also report that they do not receive any feedback from their local authorities on the CSDF, and do not know the proper channels, if any, for issuing complaints, nor how county delegates are selected to attend the County Council meetings.

Participation While reports on access to information and awareness of the CSDF were mixed between counties, districts, and respondents, citizens universally report that they are excluded from decision-making with respect to identifying development priorities and determining how the funds should be used, and in participating to monitor the progress of project implementation. This supports findings from the survey, where the vast majority of respondents cite that they are ‘very excluded’ from decision-making and have never attended a community consultation or county sitting.

Citizens who were interviewed in Grand Kru, Lofa and Rivercess had mixed views with respect to how inclusive the decision-making process is in their communities. Some respondents say they have been invited to community meetings and involved in setting community priorities for the funds. Women claim that they face greater exclusion than men and are not invited to, nor able to take part in, the county sitting in many districts. For instance, a woman in Wedabo district says “…the women here, we can’t take part. We are not invited to the county council sitting where decisions are made.” Many respondents claim that citizens are invited to the council meeting where project priorities are set, but that this is merely a symbolic form of participation as they have no decision-making capacity: “We are not involved with setting project priorities and monitoring projects funded from the CSDF, but are invited at the city council sitting only as an observer. And as observer you don’t have voting rights.” Researchers in these counties also found limited avenues for citizen monitoring and complaints, though some respondents claim that they have had some success in voicing complaints to the development commissioner or members of the PMC.

16 In a similar vein to other counties, citizens who were interviewed in Montserrado, Grand Bassa and Margibi claim that while there are structures for participation, in practice these structures remain more symbolic that actual spaces for participation, where they attend consultations as observers only, and have no decision-making power. The research in these counties is unclear as to the extent to which community consultations allow for collective civic action where citizen voices help influence decisions even in the absence of formal voting rights. There are some differences in complaint mechanisms between counties, with citizens in Montserrado appearing to have greater access to processes for airing complaints to executive officials and receiving redress than those in Grand Bassa and Margibi, where citizens do not feel they have any avenues for raising concerns or complaints.

Researchers in Bong, Maryland and Rivergee report that citizens became very angry when asked about their participation in determining how the funds should be used and in selecting projects. Citizens explained that county officials select projects for themselves, and that community consultation is a façade. A respondent from Boisein district, Bong County states, “Our representatives are the people who select projects for us. Even if citizens go to county sitting, results from there will be twisted by the lawmakers.” In other districts, FGD participants claim that county officials select citizens who they know they can manipulate to participate in the county sitting. Respondents in theses counties also highlight the absence of mechanisms to raise their voices if they are dissatisfied with the process or have a complaint with respect to implementation.

Researchers in Grand Cape Mount, Bomi and Gbarpolu found that citizens in these counties have a more positive view of the community consultation and county sitting procedures than their counterparts in other counties. Respondents express that the county sitting has the potential to work well, but is failing to reach that potential in practice due to the selection process for participants, which is non-representative and excludes women and youth groups. Respondents from these counties point to customary practices in addition to poor leadership practices as factors that limit inclusion. Traditional practices of community decision-making often give the sceptre of power to elders and men at the exclusion of women, youth and minorities, practices that affect the potential for the CSDF consultations to be inclusive. Further, the researchers conclude that community consultations are suffering from elite capture in these counties, where people who control the finances invite citizens who are close to them. As one respondent in Bomi county claims, “The CSDF (consultation) is for people who control the money and not for people like us.” FGD participants in Gbarpolu feel that the county sitting structure would work better if it included delegates from local civil society groups—such as women’s groups, teachers’ associations, religious groups, etc—who are selected by the groups themselves to represent group members at the county council. Citizens in these counties further highlight the absence of avenues for inclusive monitoring of project progress, which is hampered not only by a lack of participatory structures for monitoring, but also by a lack of information given to citizens about the progress of CSDF-funded projects. As one FGD participant in Grand Cape Mount County says, “We can only hear about this business on the radio when they (local officials) finish taking the money and eating it.”

Citizens in Sinoe, Grand Gedeh and Nimba stressed that county authorities make all decisions with respect to the CSDF with no input from them. In all three counties, FGD participants assert that the County Social Development Fund management and implantation is overly politicized and negatively affected by poor transparency and accountability. In Grand Gedeh and Sinoe in particular, participants criticize their local authorities for marginalizing ordinary citizens from participating in the process.

II. Civil Society Coalition members spoke to groups of CSO and CBO representatives to understand their levels of awareness and engagement with the CSDF, and assess the extent to which they are representing and

17 acting on behalf of citizens in CSDF decision-making and project monitoring. The FGDs with civil society aimed to triangulate the information received from citizens and to solicit additional in-depth perspectives to help guide advocacy activities. CSOs and CBOs across all counties express a high level of dissatisfaction with the consultation and project implementation mechanisms vis-à-vis the CSDFs. Overall, civil society actors feel ill equipped in terms of capacity and resources to adequately advocate on behalf of citizens or to catalyze collective action that could improve transparency and accountability. They lack robust information about the NRM sector and related policies that could aid their advocacy and ensure it is evidence-based, and they lack the research skills to retrieve this information. Further, many civil society actors feel deliberately excluded from the decision-making, management and implementation of the funds by local authorities. Finally, CSOs lack the financial resources to effectively enable them to implement activities across their constituencies.

FGDs and KIIs conducted in Grand Kru, Lofa and Rivercess with CSOs and CBOs highlight a number of challenges and opportunities to effective advocacy with respect to the CSDF. Civil society actors in these counties articulate their role as societal watchdogs and, as such, feel they have a crucial role in improving transparency and accountability in the management of the funds and implementation of related projects. To date, they indicate they have been extensively involved in brokering relationships between citizens, authorities and concessionaires in matters related to the CSDF, acting as mediators when conflicts related to NRM arise, monitoring concessions agreements, and in improving citizen awareness of and engagement in these matters. CSOs and CBOs in these counties use a number of strategies for CSDF engagement, including community meetings, town hall meetings, and one-on-one discussions with community members to identify potential issues. They also indicate that they work extensively to engage youth as advocates. However, the impact and success of these activities is questionable, and civil society actors feel they are not adequately involved in the management, implementation, and oversight of the funds despite their engagement. The researchers conclude that civil society activities appear to be more effective in Grand Kru, whereas in Lofa and Rivercess corruption has been a major issue hampering the effective use of the CSDF, which has not been received in these counties for many years due to mismanagement.

Civil society actors in Montserrado, Grand Bassa and Margibi indicate they do not have a clearly defined role in the CSDF framework, which limits their ability to effectively advocate and be taken seriously by all stakeholders. While they attend the county sitting and other community consultations as observers, they do not have formal decision-making powers and do not have access to firsthand information about the CSDF. All three counties also report that CSOs and CBOs lack financial support to participate in the CSDF process as advocates and rely on donor resources for their activities. Furthermore, civil society actors lack awareness on the overall processes governing the CSDF and do not know how to access information to adequately monitor the implementation of projects and management of funds.

Researchers who spoke to civil society in Bong, Maryland and Rivergee found that CSOs in these counties are involved in advocating around the CSDF. Across the three counties, civil society actors identify advocacy as their means of mediating between the community, local government, and the company. Some of the CSOs/CBOs engage the different stakeholders through town hall discussions, policy dialogues, public debates, and radio talkshows. CSOs and CBOs indicate they are not involved with formation of policy, setting of project priorities, nor deciding how funds are spent. However, across all three counties, they indicate their primary activity is monitoring the use of the funds, yet this does not extend to handling complaints on behalf of citizens, which they feel they do not possess the capacity or leadership for it to be successful. According to the groups interviewed, they do monitoring without the support of the local leadership and work to engage broader constituencies in monitoring the use of the funds. A CSO representative from Rivergee County says, “I have always advocated against the misuse of the CSDFs. I use the budget law to educate my people about the allotment of the CSDFs.”

18 Representatives from CSOs in these counties highlight saying that despite the fact they have a lot of information about the misuse of the CSDFs, there are limited means for redress. As other respondents reported, the only way to expose corruption or a lack of accountable use of the funds is through local radio stations. However, this strategy is limited as local officials own most of the local community radio stations, and thereby have some control over the content.

Civil society actors from Grand Cape Mount, Bomi and Gbarpolu counties expressed similar barriers and limitations to effective advocacy around the CSDF. In Bomi and Gbarpolu, CSO respondents state that the new budget law, which restricts the number of delegates to the county council to 45 per county for example, affects inclusivity and representativeness as those chosen to sit on the county council are selected by lawmakers who have their own agenda. Only official delegates are authorized signatories and, as such, civil society actors are limited to an observer status. According to a respondent from Grand Cape Mount County, “We only go the county sitting for going sake but decisions are being made by our Big-big people.” The Civil Society Chairman of Gbarpolu confirms this, stating that the only way CSOs can only be part of the county council sitting if they are invited by a local authority and, even then, can only serve as an observer. In addition to legislative barriers limiting CSO participation, many civil society actors lack logistical and technical support which could enhance their role in county sittings or help them to advocate around CSDFs. A lack of financial, human resource, and technical capacity among CSOs in these counties hinders them from networking with national-level stakeholders or international partners. Further, they have many competing priorities and the CSDF is often sidelined in favour of more urgent community needs. As a result, there is limited engagement in issues regarding the CSDF among civil society in Grand Cape Mount, Bomi and Gbarpolu. The activities they do engage in around CSDFs are limited to directing citizen grievances by writing state actors, organizing advocacy campaigns, or setting up dialogues and round table discussions with local authorities.

In speaking with civil society actors in Sinoe, Grand Gedeh and Nimba, researchers found that most CSOs and CBOs are involved in one way or the other in advocacy around NRM and the CSDF in efforts to improve the transparent and accountable utilization of the funds, and inclusive governance and participation of citizens in the management and decision-making processes. The majority of CSOs and CBO respondents across the three counties indicate that they engage with the community by holding meetings in local dialects and English that aim to inform the local populations about the positive and negative aspects of concession activities in their areas. CSO respondents also indicated that they help resolve citizen grievances by organizing palava-hut meetings to hear complaints, explain government policies to communities, and share the findings of LEITI reports.

III. Local Authorities Researchers across all counties spoke to local government officials, including county superintendents, local commissioners, members of the CSDF Program Management Committee (PMC), and clan chiefs and religious leaders who hold decision-making authority. KIIs with local authorities aimed to truth- check the claims made by citizens and CSOs and to get alternate perspectives on the issues and challenges in managing and implementing the CSDFs. Some coalition members had difficulty recruiting local authorities to speak to matters related to the CSDF, perhaps due to a fear of criticism given rampant claims of corruption and mismanagement by citizens and media at local and national levels. For this reason, the qualitative data from local authorities in each region is not as robust as that from citizens and civil society. However, 116 KIIs were successfully conducted by the NRM Coalition.

In stark contrast to claims by citizens and CSOs, local officials in Grand Kru, Lofa and Rivercess counties claim that all leaders—including women’s group leaders and youth leaders—are fully involved in decision-making, management and implementation of the CSDFs. Local authorities in Grand Kru further highlight that they have effective processes in place for receiving and responding to complaints. This

19 contradicts claims by citizens in the county who claim they have raised issues with local authorities but have not received assistance or redress. Local authorities in these counties express dissatisfaction with communication processes with central government authorities. For instance, the County Inspector for Rivercess County states: “because of misunderstandings between lawmakers and local authorities due to many unfinished projects within the county, the (central) government has stopped providing the fund for the past 7 years, which is slowing down development activities in the county.” Local government officials claim that they have total involvement in all aspects of the CSDFs, however respondents in Lofa and Rivercess cite corruption as a major barrier to success in effectively managing and implementing the CSDF. Informants in Grand Kru, on the other hand, do not feel corruption is an issue.

Researchers in Montserrado, Grand Bassa and Margibi also draw attention to poor communication systems between local government and central government authorities. During key informant interviews, the PMC Chairman and Treasurer said they do not get concession information from central government and are largely in the dark with respect to the CSDF allocations. The research team in these counties did not report further findings with respect to the perspectives of local authorities on the management and implementation of the funds.

Interviews with local authorities carried out by researchers in Bong, Maryland and Rivergee arrived at similar conclusions as those in other counties. Leaders in Bong County feel that their ability to effectively implement the CSDFs is limited by poor communication with central government authorities—both within the NRM sector broadly speaking and with respect to the CSDF. The Development Superintendent and Development Commissioner both claim that they do not receive adequate information about concessions agreements in their communities, which are negotiated with authorities in Monrovia. Local authorities in Maryland County have a similar complaint, arguing that government officials in Monrovia treat the details of concessions agreements as “classified information.” They further lament that central government see the role of local authorities as limited to carrying out their wishes without any real power or decision-making authority. Local government authorities in Rivergee also decry the lack of communication they have with central government and highlight their complete lack of decision-making authority with respect to concessions agreement and the CSDF. For instance, Superintendent Nyanu of Rivergee says it has been an uphill battle to receive necessary information about concession agreements and their contribution to the CSDFs that they could share with their citizens. He says that CSOs and citizens confront him about the CSDF on a regular basis, but they do not understand the politicized nature of the funds, nor how little power he has as a local authority. He further states that one of the major issues in effective management of the CSDF is the fact that lawmakers in Monrovia, who decide what projects to be implement in which districts, largely control the process.

In Grand Cape Mount, Bomi and Gbarpolu counties, local government officials such as County Superintendents, Statutory District Superintendents, District Commissioners, Paramount and Clan Chiefs, delegates of county council, and members of the project management team are the key decision- makers with respect to the CSDFs. In each of these counties, the KIIs with local authorities highlight the poor accountability and transparency mechanisms that are endemic to the operations of the CSDF. For example, informants point to the fact that county councils have failed to conduct regular audits on the CSDF. They further point to poor systems for stakeholders to adequately monitor the progress of projects supported by the funds. Furthermore, authorities in these counties stress that many officials do not adhere to the statutory guidelines meant to govern the management and implementation of the CSDFs, which leads to mismanagement of the funds and corruption. Local government officials also draw attention to poor communication systems between local government and central government authorities.

20 Interviews with local officials in Sinoe, Grand Gedeh and Nimba highlight that the communication processes related to concessions agreements are very poor, and there is no standard way of receiving information. Access to concessions information is highly dependent on how close someone is to the superintendent or a higher national authority, as well as the level of political influence they hold. The majority of public officials interviewed indicate that the only information they receive from the superintendent is that a company has been awarded a concession, and when the NRM activities will commence. Many officials in these three counties also indicate that they face significant constraints to effective implementation of the CSDF due to poor systems at the central government level, and that, despite this, they are the ones who must bear the backlash from citizens in their districts.

IV. Concessionaires Coalition members conducted semi-structured key information interviews with representatives from NRM companies at the county level to identify challenges and opportunities to improving communication and enhancing relationships between companies, local officials, civil society and citizens. Many concessions companies indicate they are far removed from the issues in the areas where they work, and have little involvement or knowledge about the CSDF and community dynamics around the funds. Company representatives highlight that poor communication between different actors often results in conflicts between the company and local citizens, even though they do not play a role in how the CSDF and related social development projects operate. Coalition members were not successful in recruiting concession company representatives for interviews in Grand Bassa, Margibi, Montserrado or Bomi.

In Lofa, Grand Kru and Rivercess, company representatives stress that systems and processes for managing disputes between the company and the citizens are virtually non-existent. This is exacerbated by a weak civil society that could help mediate between the company and local communities, and poor knowledge among citizens of channels for voicing complaints and concerns. Companies attempt to mitigate conflicts with communities through quarterly meetings with county authorities, but report this system could be markedly improved if meetings were held more frequently, and if they were also conducted with citizen representatives that could act on behalf of particular community groups, such as youth, elders, women and tribal groups. In terms of the CSDF, concessionaires in Lofa, Grand Kru and Rivercess claim that the policies governing implementation are working well, and feel that communities in these counties have benefitted extensively from the funds in terms of scholarships, the provision of technical training and the construction of hand pumps, roads and educational facilities.

Researchers in Bong, Maryland and Rivergee found that most representatives from NRM companies are critical of the local government’s processes for implementing concession agreements and the CSDF. Respondents critiqued the lack of accountability and transparency among the local officials, highlighting that it negatively affects their relationship with citizens in the communities where they have their operations. For example, Benedict Sayeh, Government Relation Officer for MNG Gold in Bong County states that local officials often ask for money from the company that is beyond what is stated in the concession agreement, and that they do not disclose the terms of the agreement to citizens, which affects their ability to have positive and productive relationships with communities. James Grissiths— Public Relations Officers for Cavalla Rubber Corporation in Maryland County—expresses similar complaints while more directly accusing local authorities of deliberate obfuscation and manipulation of the information given to citizens. He says, … “local authorities on many occasions withhold vital information from the citizens for their personal benefits.” Despite the fact that the company’s policy condemns such behavior, he says they are powerless to do anything about due to the need to maintain strong political relationships in order to continue operating. The company representatives who were interviewed indicate they try to communicate directly with citizens through radio programs and town hall meetings, but that it has little impact when the government is deliberately withholding information.

21

Researchers in Gbapolu and Grand Cape Mount had similar findings. Respondents representing concessions companies in these counties indicate that they have contributed the amount required from the central government to the social development fund but they have not seen any tangible benefits to the communities. A representative from Aureous Mining Company indicates they have withheld their contributions as a result of this, and plan to recommence payments once measures to enhance accountability can be put in place by the government, the company, and the community.

Company representatives who were interviewed in Sinoe, Grand Gedeh and Nimba assert that the current policies governing concessions agreement are working well, but that there are huge challenges in practice. The most prominent challenges they face stem from poorly managed expectations, and an overall lack of information with respect to the different roles and responsibilities of concession companies and local government, which puts a lot of pressure on the companies. In all three counties, representatives of concessions companies indicate they have implemented several development projects in the areas where they operate, including constructing roads and school facilities and installing water pumps. Company representatives indicate they hold regular community briefings and meetings to mitigate conflicts, yet despite this, they struggle with what they feel to be unrealistic community expectations that exceed what the company is willing or able to meet. Respondents also express dissatisfaction with the management of the CSDF by local authorities, which is further damaging their relationship with communities.

V. Central Government and National-level Actors KIIs with central government officials and a roundtable with national-level CSOs were conducted by P4DP to obtain a countrywide assessment of the CSDF and compare and contrast with local perceptions. The research team had difficulty recruiting KIIs from central government and the private sector, concluding that they were reluctant to grant the interview due to extensive criticism and claims of corruption with respect to the funds. After several follow-ups, the team conducted interviews with only three national level institutions—the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA), who acts as the national co- chair of the CSDF; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who is responsible for approving Environmental and Social Impact Assessment reports as well as monitoring compliance; the Forestry Development Authority (FDA), the agency that manages Liberia’s vast forest region and also has in place a mechanism that is similar to the CSDF. Beyond this, the team interviewed a respondent who once served as Minister of Internal Affairs, and one multilateral institution—the United Nations Development Program (UNDP)—who assists in the development of policies that govern the management of the CSDF. The respondents were selected based on their experiences, and previous or current roles they or their institutions played in the management and establishment of the fund. A roundtable discussion was held with national level CSOs working in NRM who were selected due to their involvement with issues related to governance of the CSDF.

As a result of the KIIs and the roundtable, the research team concludes that the management architecture of the CSDF has failed to achieve the aims for which it was established. The forestry sector, which is led by the FDA and was established according to the Forest Reform Law, is the one exception to this finding. The forestry sector is governed in part by the National Benefit Sharing Trust Board, who is responsible for sharing benefits derived from logging concessions with local communities. This board has membership from CSOs, citizens, and government, is chaired by civil society actors, and is largely thought to be one of the main reasons for its success. The Board has rigorous monitoring and evaluation procedures, with clear processes for sharing the benefits of logging with affected communities. The entire process is transparent and is widely covered by the media.

22 Compared to the National Benefit Sharing Trust Board, the management of the CSDFs in other sectors is not working properly for several reasons, including: 1) competing roles of the executive and legislature with respect to administrative oversight of the management and implementation of the fund; 2) Confusion over the management framework used to administer the funds (the budget law verses the guidelines for the management of the Fund); and 3) the politicization of the funds by the County Legislative Caucuses. For instance, a key informant who wants to remain anonymous claims, “The fund has now turned in to a political tool instead of promoting local ownership which is what it was meant for.” Another key informant said, “There is a need to avoid politicizing the fund because it is intended for development and not for political game-playing.” One of the main factors affecting local ownership of the process is the selection of delegates, which is heavily influenced by the Legislature, who thereby influences decisions on how the funds should be used and the allocation of projects. As a result, there is limited participation of citizens in determining project priorities and there are many unfinished and unwanted projects.

The research also concludes that civil society, especially the media, are not very actively involved with following up on the step-by-step processes of the CSDF in order to ensure that citizens are kept abreast with information concerning the uses of the fund. For this reason, it is difficult to hold individuals accountable for corruption. The guidelines for the management of the CSDF provide a space for the CSOs to participate as a member of the County Development Management Committees (CDMCs), but the Budget Law only provides an observer status to CSOs Under the guidelines, CSOs work with the Secretariat of the Dedicated Fund Committee (DFC) to monitor and provide feedback on the operation of the fund. As a result of these structures, civil society is only playing a very weak role in helping ensure accountability and transparency vis-à-vis the CSDF. An overall lack of transparency is endemic to the operations of the CSDF at all levels, further weakening the role that civil society, including the media, can play as watchdogs and citizen informants.

The theme that emerged most strongly in the interviews at the national-level roundtable was an overall lack of citizen participation in decision-making, management, and monitoring of the CSDF, which corresponds strongly with the findings of the county-level research. National-level CSOs and NGOs feel that avenues for citizen inclusion are merely pretence and are actively undermined in practice. For instance, resolutions that are decided at county-level sittings are brought before central government authorities before they are signed and adopted, rather than being ratified in front of the community who crafted them. Researchers who conducted the national-level interviews conclude that there is an urgent need to restructure the administrative and implementation processes of the CSDF. National-level informants validate the county-level findings and identify gaps related to administrative failures, poor transparency and limited participation of citizens and civil society in the overall implementation of the CSDF.

III. Civil Society Capacity Snapshot As part of the information gathering exercise, one of the coalition members with significant advocacy experience—the Development Education Network of Liberia (DEN-L)—conducted a capacity assessment of civil society actors in Bong, Nimba, Grand Gedeh and Margibi counties. Only four of Liberia’s 15 counties are included in the study due to time and resource constraints, which limited the research team’s ability to travel to all counties. Nonetheless, the results are considered to be representative of the state of civil society advocacy related to the CSDF across Liberia. The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which civil society actors possess the skills to effectively to carry out advocacy campaigns and engage with government, companies and other stakeholders about issues surrounding the allocation and use of the CSDFs. The research explored the experience and capacity of community organizations in terms of their knowledge of policies, their use of effective advocacy tactics,

23 strategies and tools, and their approaches to citizen engagement and mobilization. In addition to two questions included in the national survey that were designed to obtain citizen perceptions about the role and effectiveness of CSOs in their communities, qualitative data was collected using focus group discussions and semi-structured key informant interviews with representatives from CSOs, CBOs and other country stakeholders. The FGD was only conducted with civil society representatives in Bong, while the KIIs were conducted in the other three counties.

The overwhelming finding that emerged from the interviews and focus groups is that civil society groups are ill-equipped to effectively advocate for improvements in the implementation of the CSDF due to poor understanding about the policies and processes governing the NRM sector and the CSDF, coupled with limited training in advocacy and a lack of resources, both human and financial. In addition to capacity gaps, the assessment finds that there is poor coordination and even conflict between CSOs, and they also have poor and/or antagonistic relationships with other stakeholders such as concessions companies and local government officials. Weak networks prevent joint actions from taking place, and many CSOs work in silos, even when they are advocating in similar constituencies and for similar issues.

Citizens who participated in the national survey were asked their opinion on what CSOs should do to improve dynamics around the CSDF in their communities. The large majority (45%) would like CSOs to inform them about community consultations, town hall meetings and county sittings. The second most common response is that CSOs should train community representatives on how to monitor projects and the proper channels for airing complaints.

Use the media to give information on 8% the progress of projects Inform the community about the 6% annual CSDF budget allocations Train community members to 22% monitor projects Voice complaints to authorities on 18% behalf of citizens Give citizens information on 45% consultations and meetings

When asked who they could go to if they have a problem with the management of the funds or the implementation of projects paid for using the CSDF, the majority of respondents indicated the town chief, where very few citizens (6%) selected civil society, pointing to weak connections to the community.

24 I don't know 21%

CSOs/CBOs 6%

Local radio 4% station

Law makers 23%

Town Chief 37%

Similarly, when citizens were asked the extent to which local CSOs and CBOs are available to listen to their complaints and concerns with respect to the CSDF, the overwhelming majority of respondents (37%) indicate “rarely”.

I don't know 19%

Very often (once a month or 11% more)

Often (Every few months) 19%

Rarely (Once a year) 14%

Never 38%

CSOs in the counties examined support these findings, with only a few indicating they have conducted citizen engagement activities, which tend to be in the form of town hall meetings or awareness sessions, and without any consistency or regularity. The CSOs that have conducted citizen engagement activities around the CSDF appear to do so only when there is an urgent issue. For instance, in Bong County, CSOs indicate they conducted a monitoring project that involved taking photos of unfinished projects to inform citizens on the lack of progress with CSDF-funded projects. However, this appears to be a singular activity, without evidence of continued follow-up despite plans to start project monitoring committees.

While the majority of CSO representatives interviewed indicate they have the capacity to effectively carry out citizen engagement and project monitoring activities, there is little evidence to corroborate this. While civil society actors in the counties studied appear to have reasonably good relationships with local government, and frequently engage officials when there are concerns, the results of these efforts are mixed, sometimes resulting in small gains but with little evidence that they have positively shifted structures and processes in a longterm, systemic way.

25 Researchers conducting the capacity assessment found that Nimba County is the one outlier in these overall trends, with a stronger civil society that is effectively advocating for systemic changes in the management and implementation of the funds, with clear evidence of measurable successes. For instance, Nimba is the only county where CSOs have successfully lobbied for inclusion in the County Sitting process as voting participants rather than solely as observers. Further, CSOs in Nimba appear to be better coordinated to jointly pursue advocacy activities. Researchers hypothesize that civil society actors in Nimba are better positioned to effectively advocate than their peers in other counties due to the longstanding operations of one of Liberia’s largest concessions companies—Acelormittal—which has had conflicts and negotiations with communities in Nimba since the 1960s. In short, civil society actors in Nimba have decades of experience in conducting advocacy activities and lobbying for improvements in community benefits as a result of concessions activities that they are able to apply to the CSDF.

Overall, evidence gathered from the capacity snapshot suggests that the majority of CSO-led engagement strategies are ad-hoc, dependent on donor funding for a particular issue, and one- dimensional, often relying on town hall meetings or question and answer sessions without leveraging more innovative or creative tools and tactics. Further, many CSOs indicate that they are constrained by a lack of funding, poor knowledge of the major issues related to the CSDF, little experience conducting community-based research to glean the needs and concerns of communities, low capacity to monitor and evaluate their advocacy progress on established indicators of success, and a perceived lack of interest among citizens.

IV. Media Capacity Snapshot The Liberia Media Center (LMC) conducted a media capacity assessment as part of the coalition’s information gathering research. The primary objective of the assessment is to identify gaps in media reporting and monitoring of the CSDF that can help inform how the coalition can best leverage media as a tool for advocacy. The research aimed to identify capacity-related constraints to reporting accurately and consistently on the CSDF, such as a lack of knowledge about the fund, little training in investigative reporting, poor connections with key stakeholders, fear of persecution among journalists, and a lack of adequate resources. LMC conducted focus group discussions with citizens and community leaders and key informant interviews with radio station managers and journalists in Sinoe, Grand Bassa, Grand Cape Mount and Bomi. LMC also conducted interviews with key informants at the national level to obtain in- depth information at policy and governmental levels, including the Ministry of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism (MICAT), the Liberia Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative (LEITI), the Association of Liberia Community Radios (ALICOR) and the Center for Media studies and Peacebuilding (CEMESP). While qualitative research was only conducted in a fraction of Liberia’s counties, the findings are considered to be indicative of larger trends in national reporting of the CSDF. In addition to qualitative research, questions related to media use and access to information about the CSDF were incorporated into the national-level survey with citizens.

A large majority of survey respondents (83%) across Liberia’s counties depend on radio as their primary source of news and information. Very few respondents rely primarily on newspaper (>1%) or Internet (1%) to access news.

26 Primary Source of News and Information

90% 83% 80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

7% 5% 10% 3% 1% 0% 0% Internet Radio Word of Newspaper Town Crier No Access Mouth

Similarly, when asked how they access information regarding the CSDF, 71% of citizens indicate radio talkshows are their primary source of information.

Source of Information about the CSDF

80% 71% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 12% 6% 10% 1% 4% 3% 3% 0%

Despite the fact that the majority of respondents indicate radio as their primary source of information about the funds, the majority of citizens (62%) nonetheless indicate that they do not feel radio stations in their communities are giving adequate information.

27 14% 24% A lot

Some, but not enough None

62%

Focus group discussions with citizens corroborated these findings. In all FGDs across all four counties, citizens lamented the lack of attention the media is giving to reporting on the management and implementation of the CSDF. Respondents indicate that the only information they hear on their local radio station about the funds is limited to announcements about the date and time of county sittings. The media does very little reporting about the terms of concessions agreements, the annual CSDF budget allocations, or the progress of projects that are implemented using the funds. For instance, a respondent who participated in an FGD in Sinoe County indicates, “We don’t know anything about the CSDF. All we hear is that the people received it, but how much it was or what did they do with it nobody can tell us.”

Citizens also indicate that they don’t trust the quality of journalism at the local radio stations because the reporters are very young and the stations are highly politicized. Respondents also indicated that since local authorities and legislators own many radio stations, they are subject to undue interference with respect to content, creating a high degree of self-censorship among reporters who may want to expose mismanagement of the funds. For instance, Radio Dukpa in Grand Bassa County was reporting extensively on the CSDF in local languages, but county authorities forced the station to discontinue such reports claiming they could incite conflict and chaos. Respondents in Grand Cape Mount County also asserted that political interference, coupled with a lack of willingness among county authorities to speak about the matter with journalists, significantly hampers effective reporting on the funds. Finally, citizens expressed that information that is broadcast by local stations is primarily in English as opposed to local languages, which limits its reach and the extent to which it can engage the community. Liberia’s libel law—whereby journalists can face hefty fines or even imprisonment if they accuse someone in power of corruption or mismanagement of county resources—further limits effective reporting on sensitive issues.

Key informant interviews with radio journalists and station managers highlights many capacity-related gaps that prevent effective reporting and monitoring of the funds by local radio stations. Many of the interviewees have extremely limited knowledge on the systems, processes and policies that are meant to govern local level decision-making and implementation of the funds. Access to information is also a serious limitation for reporters, who stress that county authorities and concessionaires often refuse to speak with journalists or to disclose any information about the funds. Use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) among journalists is very low, due in part to a lack of awareness about it, and in

28 part because officials often leverage the bureaucratic deficiencies of the act to endlessly delay responding to requests for information. Access to credible, authorized sources was universally cited as a barrier to effective reporting on the funds, a barrier that also causes a high degree of sensationalist reporting that is fraught with misinformation and rumours.

Interviewees also expressed that the precarious situation under which most radio stations operate significantly affects their ability to conduct high quality, ethical journalism. Journalists receive severely low wages in Liberia, and do not have access to equipment or transportation to conduct interviews. The cash-strapped nature of many of the country’s community radio stations means that many of them rebroadcast national or international programs, largely play music, or produce news reports without substantial fact-checking. This has severed relationships between the media and local authorities, and damaged citizen trust in radio stations as purveyors of accurate and reliable news and information.

Interviews with national-level stakeholders provide a more complicated picture, as government officials often disagree with the assertions of media and civil society actors. Mr. Fahnbulleh, Director of Press for MICAT, indicates that the GoL is committed to the Open Government Partnership and its principles of openness and transparency. He stresses that the problems with the effective use of the FOIA by journalists is more due to a lack of awareness among media practitioners and government officials, coupled with the incorrect and inefficient use of the act by journalists who are more concerned with exposing government officials than producing reliable, ethical journalism. Respondents from CEMESP and ALICOR provided analogous information, claiming the journalists do not strive for accurate, evidence- based reporting and therefore are not very motivated to use the FOIA. For instance, William Quire, president of ALICOR states, “As for the CSDF, journalists are not really making FOIA requests. To a large extent they are reporting based on speculations and perceptions rather than facts.” Albert Ansu of CEMESP paints a similar picture, but argues that part of the problem is related to the fact there is a lack of support and poor incentive structures for journalists to use the FOIA and to report accurately on the CSDF given limited disclosure among government officials. He stresses the need to provide logistical support and incentivize journalists to improve reporting. All of the respondents agree that media outlets have done very little reporting on the CSDFs throughout all counties, and that the reporting that has been done is not fact-based and overly focused on issues related to embezzlement and corruption.

A spokesperson from LEITI further corroborates these perspectives, indicating that media engagement in issues related to the CSDF is very low, and that journalists only disseminate the information in the LEITI reports, rather than conducting any investigative reporting themselves. While LEITI strives to include the media in their ongoing activities to improve the NRM sector, they have had little success due to a lack of interest and capacity among media outlets throughout Liberia.

V. Recommendations Based on the findings of the research, the NRM coalition partners drafted a number of recommendations, which are meant to guide their county-level advocacy activities: IMPROVE CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION  Information about the CSDF should be translated in various local languages for airing on community radio stations for the benefit of a broad cross-section of citizens.  There should be a district development sitting that takes place prior to the county sitting to enable citizens at the district level to decide on projects before taking them to the county sittings.  Create an independent citizens’ monitoring group to work with CSOs to develop expenditure tracking systems, community scorecards, and M&E frameworks to monitor projects.

29  Citizens should receive regular sensitization meetings about the CSDF including training on how to monitor, report and complain. SUPPORT CSO/CBO ADVOCACY  Civil society actors should become more knowledgeable on the laws and policies governing the CSDF so they can translate and simplify them to communities via various means.  CSOs must build strong advocacy networks in the counties to engage county officials and concessionaires for a space in the management of the CSDF.  CSOs should determine the resources, both financial and non-financial, they need to effectively advocate and determine a plan to access these resources.  CSOs need advocacy skills development, such as training in how to use ICTs, evidence- gathering, and communications and outreach.  CSOs must be given delegate status at the county sitting.  Journalists at community radio stations throughout the country need to receive training on the laws and policies governing the CSDF to effectively report to citizens.  Journalists should be trained to produce different radio formats to engage the public at different levels  A CSDF journalist network should be established to train a cadre of journalists throughout the country in investigative journalism, balanced and autonomous reporting, effective use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and relationship-building with companies and government officials.  CSOs should be involved in establishing formal complaint mechanisms with local authorities so they can better act on behalf of communities.  CSOs should advocate at the national level for a review of the current governance structure and administrative framework of the fund.  CSO should develop policy briefs for government reform focused on: 1) the establishment of an independent fund management committee with an overall trustee board that reflects different interests (communities, government and the private sector), and an independent secretariat that assists the communities with education and awareness; 2) Encouraging the Government of Liberia to separate the fund and into the two original funding mechanisms with two separate management frameworks.  Train CSOs to develop monitoring tools, such as scorecards and expenditure tracking systems.

ENHANCE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS  Local officials should hold regular and periodic meetings with citizens to explain the agreements and operations of the concessions companies in their communities.  Local government officials need resources to become more knowledgeable on the structure and management of the CSDF to effectively lobby central government authority for greater local ownership.  General awareness meetings should be held with local and traditional leaders across all counties to improve their inclusion in CSDF processes and increase their access to information about the CSDF.  Local authorities should hold regular community briefings about the projects funded using the CSDF.  Community leaders and local officials need training to effectively use the FOIA to demand information and follow-up from central government.  County Council sitting delegates should rotate to ensure all clans and communities are represented. CSOs need to start engaging the county caucuses to encourage them to commit to

30 a participatory selection process of the CSDF County Sitting Delegates. This is particularly important during the 2017 general elections campaign process.  CSOs should begin to engage local government officials/legislative causes to provide regular updates about the status of CSDF projects and concession agreement in their jurisdictions.

IMPROVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR (CONCESSIONAIRES)  Concessionaires should be more proactive by adapting a conflict-sensitive approach to their operations by liaising with CSOs and CBOs on a regular basis to explain its plans to the communities and to identify complaint mechanisms.  Concessionaires need to strengthen ties with CSOs, CBOs and local leaders and use their leverage to improve relationships at all levels.  CSOs at both local and national levels should work with concessionaries, in order to promote the full implementation of the concession agreements, emphasizing community benefits.

31

LIBERIA ACCOUNTABILITY AND VOICE INITIATIVE NRM COALITION

Advocacy Policy, Inclusive Citizen Compliance Monitoring and Media Framework:

Advocating for Good Governance and Participation in the Natural Resource Management Sector

LAVI NRM Coalition January 2017

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Section 1: Policy Advocacy Framework

I. Advocacy Coalition Goal and Objectives

II. Awareness Building IIA. Identifying Advocacy Audiences 1. “Primary” Audiences 2. “Secondary” Audiences / “Influencers”

Section 2: Public Information Strategy and Messaging

III. Awareness Building: Strategies for Reaching Audiences a. Primary & Secondary Audiences (Decision-Makers and Influencers) b. Civil Society Allies - Issue/Advocacy Organizations c. Media d. General Public

Section 3: Inclusive Citizen’s Compliance Monitoring Framework

IV. Bottom Up Advocacy & Inclusive Citizen’s Compliance Monitoring IVA. Community Level Advocacy and the Political Process IVB. Inclusive Citizen Compliance Monitoring IVC. Compliance Monitoring Mechanisms

Section 4: Evaluation and Monitoring

Section 5: Key Assumptions

Appendix A and B: Policy Advocacy Capacity Strengthening Framework and Inclusive Citizen Compliance Monitoring Capacity Strengthening Framework

Appendix C: Media Capacity Strengthening Framework

2 Introduction This Framework was developed as a guide to help LAVI Coalition members and other actors in the NRM Sector to think through how expected changes occur in the Sector. The concept of this framework has been adopted from an advocacy framework developed by Julia Coffman & Tanya Beer’s Advocacy Strategy Framework (March 2015). It focuses two key dimensions of advocacy: 1) the target audiences; and 2) the anticipated changes. Audiences are the individuals and groups that advocacy strategies target and attempt to influence or persuade. They represent the main actors in the policy process and include the public (or specific segments of it), policy influencers/secondary audiences (e.g., media, community leaders, the business community, thought leaders, political advisors, other advocacy organizations, etc.), and decision makers/primary audiences (e.g., elected officials, administrators, judges, etc.). Strategies may focus on just one audience or target more than one simultaneously.1

Changes are the results an advocacy effort aims for with audiences to progress toward a policy goal. Successful advocacy focuses on evidence-based research, objective analysis, coordinated coalition and network initiatives and effective messages. The three points on this continuum differ in terms of how far an audience is expected to engage on a policy issue. The continuum starts with basic awareness or knowledge. Here the goal is to make the audience aware that a problem or potential policy solution exists. The next point is will. The goal here is to raise an audience’s willingness to take action on an issue. It goes beyond awareness and tries to convince the audience that the issue is important enough to warrant action and that any actions taken will in fact make a difference. The third point is action. Here, policy efforts actually support or facilitate audience action on an issue. Again, advocacy strategies may pursue one. Change with an audience or more than one simultaneously. 2

To be effective, CSO/NGO advocacy must be built on evidence based research and careful analysis; it needs to be focused on constructive engagement with government, rather than confrontation. 3 Research and analysis is critical in demonstrating why an issue is important and why the solutions presented are effective. Where government is constrained by a lack of capacity, well-researched arguments and solutions are particularly important in providing government with a base of information from which to work. Further, by demonstrating the capacity to conduct evidence-based and objective research and analysis, CSOs/NGOs are able to gain credibility with government and work as constructive partners in future reform efforts. In addition, effective advocacy also requires a united voice: Government is less likely to heed the arguments of one organization that is representing an issue or policy-recommendation. Indeed, when confronted by a multitude of different demands regarding the same issue, decision makers may have difficulty assessing which demands are most legitimate, and consequently may focus on none. Unified

1 Julia Coffman & Tanya Beer’s Advocacy Strategy Framework (March 2015); al the framework first appeared in Coffman, J. (2008). Foundations and Public Policy Grantmaking.Paper prepared for The James Irvine Foundation.

2 Ibid

3 Credible information sources include analyses/statistics from international organizations, e.g., World Bank, UNDP, UNEP; donor reports; International NGO; university/academic studies; news articles (from respected news outlets); government data/statistics; national/local NGOs (if research is credible).

3 sector representation and a coherent set of demands or recommendations that is made possible by a coalition are therefore critical. The Advocacy Coalition plays such a role and is in a position to affect change as it works together to ensure good governance and citizen-centered sustainable management and monitoring in the NRM sector.

Beyond a guide to advocacy, the framework serves as a roadmap to the achievement of LAVI objective under which efforts of the Coalition is directed. Alone this line, it captures suggestions from all actors within and without the Coalition including inputs from international consultant and those from LAVI. Most importantly, it considers relevant findings from baseline assessment conducted by the Coalition in the NRM sector as benchmark for engagements. It thus assists communities in planning, designing, conducting, holding and evaluating advocacy campaigns to advance the implementation of existing policies and laws, with a specific focus on Natural Resource Management (NRM).

While the framework is holistic in scope, it has been developed to focus County and Social Development Funds (CSDF) with the view that community-based advocacy is crucial and that much more needs to be done to equip grassroots groups, networks, CSOs with advocacy skills and strategies and information to demand that community needs and priorities in relation to the CSDF are properly addressed.

The framework is designed in a way that it is accompanied by training modules that are intended for capacity strengthening of CSOs and communities, citizen engagement and advocacy training for CSOs and communities. Also, the framework outlined target audiences, methods and activities and advocacy tool for citizen engagement, advocacy training, community dialogue, consultative and accountability forum.

Expected Results

Advocacy Goal

To contribute to and enhance accountability and transparency in CSDF management through citizen- centered sustainable management and participation by establishing adequate and long term mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance

Specific Objectives: 1. Objective 1 (National Level): To encourage political parties and candidates in the 2017 elections commit to establishing long term policy mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance. 2. Objective 2 (National Level): To influence the 54th National legislature to introduce necessary reform agenda/draft legislation focused on establishing long term effective and participatory CSDF governance. 3. Objective 3 (Local Level): To increase communities and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through election-related initiatives. (See Section 3) 4. Objective 4 (Local Level): To enhance communities and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through local monitoring/reporting. (See Section 3)

4

Section 1: Policy Advocacy Framework4

I. Advocacy Coalition: Goal and Objectives Broad country-wide, county-level research of issues related to the Community Social Development Fund (CSD) was conducted by the members of the Advocacy Coalition from November – December, 2016. The assessment uncovered a wide range of governance challenges that constrain the effective and participatory implementation of CSDF including: (i) limited citizen participation in CSDF allocation decisions; (ii) lack of community-level understanding and skills regarding advocacy and engagement in local level governance processes; and, (iii) lack of knowledge regarding CSDF laws and regulations among stakeholders, ranging from citizens and CSOs, to formal and informal local leaders5, and law makers. The governance of CSDF is mandated in the Budget Law and is reviewed and revised annually. Any reforms in CSDF governance that may be accepted and applied one year, may be discontinued the next. As such, advocacy for any reform may have to be repeated year after year. It is critical that effective and participatory CSDF governance processes and rules be developed carefully and that they are given a level permanence that eliminates yearly revisions. The Advocacy Coalition is focusing on a four-part advocacy strategy to address the core challenge noted above. It will (i) advocate for commitments by political parties and candidates, in the 2017 election cycle, to establish adequate and long term mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance; (ii) advocate for the introduction of effective, participatory and long-term CSDF laws in the new 2018 legislative session; (iii) engage citizens and communities in local level election-related activities that will provide opportunities for advocacy regarding CSDF; and (iv) develop capacity and mechanisms for advocacy through the monitoring of CSDF activities. Based on the above considerations, following are the Advocacy Coalition Goal and its Objectives.6

4 The stages of the Advocacy Framework are not linear. For example, activities may occur concurrently.

5 Formal leaders are those who are appointed by central government or elected by the public. Informal leaders include traditional chiefs, leaders of information groups such women leaders and social club leaders; informal leaders are not elected or appointed, but rather naturally emerge in a community.

6 An advocacy goal identifies longer term change/impact the Coalition hopes to achieve. Advocacy objectives focus on short term changes and specific actions that support achievement of the goal. Objectives are specific and measurable. Identification of core issues and possible solutions on which the goal and objectives are developed, is based on evidence-based research. The goal and objectives need to address issues that are possible to resolve.

5

Goal

To contribute to and enhance accountability and transparency in CSDF management through citizen- centered sustainable management by establishing adequate and long term mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance

Objectives: 1. Objective 1 (National Level): To encourage political parties and candidates in the 2017 elections commit to establishing long term mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance. 2. Objective 2 (National Level): To influence the 54th National legislature to introduce necessary reform agenda/draft legislation focused on establishing long term effective and participatory CSDF governance. 3. Objective 3 (Local Level): To increase communities and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through election-related initiatives. (See Section III) 4. Objective 4 (Local Level): To enhance communities and citizens’ active engagement in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through local monitoring/reporting. (See Section III)

II Awareness Building The Advocacy Coalition will build the political will for establishing participatory and effective long term CSDF legislation by ensuring that relevant audiences understand the issues, and that continued local and national level advocacy activities keep the reform agenda at the foreground. Target audiences include (i) core decision-makers (primary audience); (ii) those who are able to influence the views core decision- makers (secondary audience); (iii) the media; and (iv) the public, 7 including other civil society organizations/networks and coalitions. II.A Advocacy Coalition Audiences 1. Primary Audience Primary Audience targets include both the institutions that are critical to the decision-making processes on which the advocacy campaign is focused, and the specific individuals, in all these institutions, who are responsible for moving the reform process forward and/or for approving the reform.

7 Citizens and communities may act as watchdogs of CSDF processes and implementation and as information conduits for the information gathered. The public is also a target audience by virtue of its voting power.

6 Primary Audience targets on which the Advocacy Coalition will focus include:8 Objective 1 – Advocacy: Political Parties and Candidates in 2017 Elections National Level The primary audiences to identify at the national level include:  Political parties leadership;  Political parties coalition leadership;  Political parties presidential candidate;  Political parties coalition presidential candidates; and  Independent presidential candidates

These audiences are not specific because, at present, the National Elections Commission of Liberia has not certificated political parties’ candidates as well as independent candidates.

County Level At the county level, the primary audiences include:  Political parties representatives candidates;  Political parties coalition representative candidates; and  Independent representative candidate

Objective 2 - Legislative Process/Introduction of Reform Legislation Audiences at this level include  House Committee on Lands, Mines and Energy: Chair Allies in Committee;  House Committee on Concessions and Natural Resources: Chair Allies in Committee;  Ways and Means Committee: Chair Allies in Committee;  Speaker of the House;  National Legislature Plenary Voting Members;  Deputy speaker;  House committee Judiciary; and  House committee on Local Government/MIA

Objectives 3 and 4 - Local Level Advocacy / 2017 Elections and CSDF Monitoring Audience at this level includes:  House of Representatives Candidates;  Superintendents;

8 Clarifying the institutions and the central decision-makers in those institutions is critical. It may be useful to begin advocacy-focused dialogues with persons/institutions that are sympathetic to the cause and/or are reformists. These individuals may support advocacy efforts with other “primary” audience actors who are undecided about, or opposed to the Coalitions core issues.

7  Paramount and clan chiefs;  Commissioners; and  Senators

2. Secondary Audience / “Influencers”: Persons who might have influence on the primary audience and could be enlisted in the advocacy effort are “influencers” (secondary audience). In some cases, primary audience actors may serve as a secondary audience if they are able to exert influence over views held by other primary audience actors. In addition to persons who may have direct sway over candidates (staff, professional associates, friends), secondary audiences include the media (national and local), and other civil society actors (CSOs/NGOs, networks and coalitions). Following are possible secondary audiences/influencers relevant to the initiative.

Objective 1: Secondary Audience – Advocacy for 2017 Election Period

National Level Secondary level audiences include:  National Civil Society council of Liberia;  Concession working group;  CSOs consortium of NRM  Political parties/executive committee leadership  Concessionaires, private sector  Labor unions;  Trade and other professional association  County Level Candidates;  Civil Society Allies; including different civil society organizations, community based organization and private organizations that work in NRM Sector;  Other Organizations, Networks, Coalitions; such as the National CSOs Coalition and National Coalition of Women in Peace Network (WIPNET), tTraditional leaders; and  Paramount and clan chiefs

Objective 2 - Secondary Audience – Legislation Introduced in New Legislative Session National / Local Level Some of the audiences at this level include:  National Investment commission;  Ministry of state and Presidential Affairs;  Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy;  Ministry of Internal Affairs;  National Bureau of Concessions;  Liberia Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (LEITI);  Ministry of Public Works;  Concession Companies

Staff of Key Legislative Committees

8  House Committee on Lands, Mines and Energy;  Committee on Concessions and Natural Resources:  Ways and Means Committee  Speaker of the House

Staff of Key Ministries/Institutions

 Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy:  Ministry of Internal Affairs;  National Bureau of Concessions;  Ministry of Public Works;  Liberia Extractive Industry  Transparency Initiative (LEITI);  Labor Unions

Secondary Audiences- Objective 2

Local Authorities  District Commission Commissioner  Traditional leader  Paramount and clan chiefs

Civil Society Allies:  National Coalition of Women in Peace Network (WIPNET)  National Civil Society Council of Liberia  Women NGO Secretarial of Liberia (WONGOSOL)  Concession Working Groups  Public What you Pay Coalition  CSOs Consortium on Natural Resource Management, etc.

All Objectives – Media National Radio:  EBC  Truth Radio  Liberian Women Democracy Radio  UNMIL Radio

Community Radio: I. Community Radios in Bong County Name of community radio Location Voice of Reconciliation Palala 1. Super Bongese Gbarnga 2. Christ Vision Radio Gbarnga 3. Hott FM Gbarnga 4. Radio Gbarnga Gbarnga 5. Bong Mines Bong Mines

9 6. Radio Gbartala Gbartala 7. Radio Kwageh Salala 8. Radio Jorwah Jorwah 9. Radio Totota Totota 10. YMCA Gbarnga 11. Radio Salala Salala 12. Radio Zota Zota II. Community Radios in Bomi County 1. Radio Bomi Tubmanburg III. Community Radios in Gbarpolu County 1. Voice of Kpo Bopopu 2. Human Rights Radio Gbarma 3. Radio Gbarpolu Bopopu IV. Community Radios in Grand Bassa County 1. Radio RACSA LAC 2. Radio Dukpa Buchanan 3. Voice of Wee WayZohn 4. Radio Gbezohn Buchanan 5. Daihn Blae Compound 1 6. Magic FM Buchanan V. Community Radios in Grand Cape Mount County 1. Radio Piso Robersport 2. Radio Salam Bambala 3. Morwopnet Tienii 4. Radio Cape Mount Sinje VI. Community Radios in Grand Gedeh County 1. Top FM Zwedru 2. Smile Radio Zwedru 3. Peace Radio Toe Town VII. Community Radios in Grand Kru County 1. Voice of Grand Kru Barclayville 2. Voice of Sesstown Sesstown VIII. Community Radios in Lofa County I. Radio Kintoma Voinjama 1. Radio Life Zorzor 2. Radio Tamba Talkor Foya 3. Radio Harleyngee Kolahun 1. Vahun Community Radio Vahun 2. Voice of Lofa Voinjama 3. Radio Makona Foya IX. Community Radios in Margibi County 1. EL- Sky FM Harbel 2. Radio Kakata Kakata 3. Atlantic Radio Kakata 4. Radio Joy Africa Kakata 5. Stone FM Harbel 6. Peace FM Harbel

10 7. Sawu FM Weala X. Community Radios in Mary Land County 1. Phonix FM Harper 2. Voice of Truth Pleebo 3. Voice of Pleebo Pleebo 4. Barrobo Community Radio Glofaken 5. Radio Harper Harper XI. Community Radios in Montserrado County 1. LWDR 2. Voice of rural Montserrado Bensenville 3. United Methodist Radio Monrovia 4. SKY FM Monrovia 5. Truth FM Paynesville 6. Radio Monrovia Monrovia 7. Magic FM Monrovia 8. Radio Al Fallaah Monrovia 9. Fabric FM Monrovia 10. Radio VERITAS Monrovia 11. Liberty Radio Monrovia 12. Radio Bethel Monrovia 13. ELWA Paynesville 14. ELNET Radio Monrovia 15. Red Power Virginia 16. Super FM Monrovia 17. Power FM TV Monrovia 18. Capitol FM Monrovia 19. Voice FM Monrovia 20. Okay FM Monrovia 21. Hott FM Monrovia 22. LIB 24 Monrovia 23. Destiny Monrovia 24. Advent Monrovia 25. Voice of Hope Monrovia 26. Prime FM Monrovia 27. Worship FM Monrovia 28. Radio 5 Paynesville 29. D-15 Bushrod Island XII. Community Radios in Nimba County 1. Kergheamahn Ganta 2. Voice of Mainpea Kpain 3. Voice of Tappita Tappita 4. Flumpa FM Flumpa 5. Voice of Gompa Ganta 6. Radio Saclepea Saclepea 7. Radio Sehnwai Sanniquellie 8. Hott FM Ganta 9. Voice of Kam Kamplay

11 10. Radio Nimba Sanniquellie 11. ABC Radio Yekepa 12. Voice of Camp 4 Camp 4 13. Yalamba Saclepea 14. Radio Sehkyimpa Sehkyimpa XIII. Community Radios in River Gee County 1. Voice of Webbo Webbo 2. Radio Gee Fishtown XIV. Community Radios in Rivercess County 1. Rivercess Broadcasting Cestos 2. Echo Yarpeh XV. Community Radios in Sinoe County 1. Voice of Sinoe Greenville List submitted by G. Ralph Jimmeh Jr. (LMC) and table customized by Peter S. Dolo (DEN-L)

12 Section 2: Public Information Strategy and Messaging III. Awareness Building: Strategies for Reaching Audiences The various audiences that play a role in affecting the course of the Coalition’s advocacy initiative require different approaches, message content and formats to have an impact.9 1. Primary and Secondary Audiences Advocacy Coalition strategies for reaching Primary and Secondary audiences include:

 Formal face-to-face meetings with decision makers and secondary audiences.10  National/local consultative meetings/public forums/ national debates on NRM issues  Letter from the Coalition as an entity  Program site visits for candidates, members of the legislature, political party elite (CSOs should not branded as partisans)

9 For each audience group, the coalition will determine on a case by case basis (i) what action it wants the audience to take, (ii) what the message will say/how it will say it; (iii) what format(s) will be used and (iv) when the messages will be delivered; and (iv) who will deliver the messages (i.e., credible messengers for each audience group). LMC will be responsible for public information strategies and messaging. LMC will collaborate with DEN-L to provide TOT in developing advocacy messages. Message Tips:  Be clear about what you want to achieve, why and how.  Tailor messages and message delivery formats for each audience category identified.  Develop messages that are concise, persuasive, and consistent. o Unless the message is targeted at experts, limit any data used and do not use technical terms or jargon.  Develop messages that specify what action each particular audience is being asked to take.  Repeat message for each audience group through a variety of avenues/sources.  Deliver message through sources that the audience perceives as credible.  Ensure that all data can be documented and is derived from credible sources.

In addition to discussing the issues in the context of problems/gaps and possible solutions, it is useful to present success stories from Liberia and similar contexts. Success stories serve as valuable lessons learned for decision-makers, as well as organizations and communities throughout the country. They demonstrate that it is possible to improve the system, increase citizen participation and improve governance, and serve as models for related actions.

10 Coalition partners will consider the most direct and effective avenues through which to arrange meetings with key actors; which organizations/persons will attend meetings based on which organization/person has the most credibility with the actor and can most effectively make the presentation. Assess (i) the attitude of the primary actor toward your issue; (ii) the actor’s level of knowledge regarding the issue; (iii) the issues in which the actor is interested; (iv) any potential loss or gain that the will affect the actor through the reform; and (v) how to win the support of the actor.

13  Fact sheets/policy briefs  Pamphlets or brochures  Short video or slide presentations  Newspaper articles or advertisements  Broadcast commentary or coverage  Joint training on NRM issues e.g., joint training on NRM issues for legislative/ministerial staff and NGOs  Informal conversations at social, religious, political, or business gatherings (e.g., ATAIE)

2. Civil Society Allies - Issue/Advocacy Organizations

The Coalition will expand its reach and impact by engaging with organizations, networks and coalitions that may be interested in the issues on which the Advocacy Coalition is focused. These allies may support the initiative through their own channels or join in Coalition efforts/campaigns.11 Coalition strategies for engaging allies in the civil society sector include:

 Meetings with organization leaders and staff o LEITI – NBC- RRF (National) o NGO –Coalition of Liberia o Publish- What you pay (PWYP) o Leaders of CSOs o Leaders of CBOs in the counties o Leaders of PVOs  The Coalition members will contact Key person(s) in the organization/network coalitions  Joint meetings with Advocacy Coalition members (i.e., to discuss joint action)  Ready-to-use fact sheets  Briefing meetings for advocacy organizations  Joint activities (e.g., press conferences, dialogues with communities or with decision-makers and secondary audiences)

3. Media

Media outreach will be led by Advocacy Coalition member LMC. All forms of media that effectively reach various audiences and populations will be targeted, including national and community radio, national and local newspapers, and on-line sources/social media/mobile platforms.

Coalition outreach strategies for the media include:

 News releases

11 Possible allies with which the Advocacy Coalition might work include National Coalition of Women in Peace Network (WIPNET); the Coalition on Transparency and Accountability in Education; Local Governance and Decentralization Platform; the Natural Resource management Coalition; the NGO Coalition, the Education NGO Forum; other environmental organizations; human rights organizations, including those representing marginalized populations; lawyers associations; and private sector associations representing business that may lose out when concessions are given.

14  Press conference or media events  Issue briefings for editors12  Issue briefing for journalists  Fact sheet or back ground sheet  Letters to the editor  Joint training on NRM issues, e.g., media staff and NGO staff  Bill board – stickers- caps- T-shirts  Jingoes- Drama – Radio Talk shows  Coalition (NRM) Website – News letters  LAVI/NRM Calendar

4. General Public

Messages for segments of the public that are interested in the issue on which the Coalition focuses and that can be mobilized to support the advocacy effort are useful tools for creating public pressure for reform. Such messaging will also give the interested public an opportunity to understand the issues, to become aware of linkages between local challenges and national advocacy, and to engage in advocacy initiatives through local mechanisms.

Public outreach will focus on a wide range of approaches. These include:

 Theatre (DEN-L supported theatre groups will perform in the counties and/or conduct ToT for partner organizations.);  Concerts/music events (National and local level discussion events will be followed by concerts and music programs.);  Town hall meetings;  Community and national radio discussions. Discussion programs in which candidates are present will include call-in segments;  Live presentation and radio broadcast jingles, dramas and message-focused performances;  Messaging through mobile phones and social media; and  Fliers  National and local level newspaper ads or articles  Banners, tee shirts Coalition Media Strategy

The media and outreach strategy includes

 Introduction  A situational analysis of the media landscape in Liberia as it impacts CSDF advocacy and outreach  Objectives for the coalition’s media and outreach strategy  Preliminary messages tailored to the coalition’s audiences

12 Editors are generally critical in determining what stories/reports are included and how they are presented. The “buy-in” of editors regarding the issues on which the Coalition focuses is therefore an important element in media outreach.

15  A timeline for media and outreach activity implementation  A proposed monitoring and evaluation plan for media and outreach

Overview This media and outreach strategy is designed to support the Natural Resource Management Coalition to connect internally and externally about the roles, responsibilities and functions and to communicate with community dwellers, media, concessionaires, government, civil society actors and other stakeholders. It is an all-inclusive plan that defines what the coalition wants to say to stakeholders and through what medium communication will be done. This communication strategy takes into consideration specific proposed activities as well as attached timeline and budget that will be necessary to implement it. One of the core task of the coalition media and outreach strategy is to communicate to the affected community dwellers, media, civil society organizations and other stakeholders that they can advocate to play a major role in decisions on how the County Social Development Fund is use to impact their lives and in the setup of Concession Agreements. The strategy is targeted at all the actors stated early in the document but specifically the affected community dwellers who suffer the most as a result of poor decisions that are made about the usage of these funds and concession contracts that do not involve them. The second core task of the media and outreach strategy is designed to support the goals and objectives of the coalition and the advocacy plan designed by DEN-L. There are two sub- strategies to the overall media and outreach strategy: 1) the development and publishing of messages across the country by means of billboards, jingoes, flyers, T-shirts, caps, radio dramas, etc. 2) Training of media actors to properly investigate stories of the CSDF, engage national and local authorities on the usage of the CSDF and how communities could be included into decision of concessions and the CSDF. Through the billboards, jingoes, flyers, T-shirts, caps and radio dramas the people at the county level, government actors, concessionaires, CSOs and affected community dwellers will be informed of how they can collaborate for a the CSDF to have impact on the lives of the people and then how voice can be given to those communities were concessions are on-going. III. Strategic Objectives & Initiatives Coalition has identified the following strategic objectives and corresponding Initiatives. In order to help the coalition attain these, important stakeholders must be defined, key messages developed and the tools to reach them need to be designed.

Table 1: Objective/Initiative Table

Objectives Initiatives

Improve media coverage of  Provide the Liberian media, especially community radios, the the CSDF and the NRM requisite skills to analyze concession agreements management in Liberia  Provide training in conflict sensitive reporting, investigative journalism and concession contract reporting  Conduct media training for community radio journalists and

16 CSOs partners to strengthen their capacity to discuss CSDF issues.

Increased understanding of  Conduct dialogue forum on natural resource management natural resource management and county social development fund and concession agreement in  Provide intelligent and transparent engagement between the local communities concession companies and people residing in and around the areas of operation

V. Messages The messages are linked to the objectives and goals of the project and designed to reach the citizens and every stakeholder so they understand what the coalition and LAVI hope to achieve by giving voice to the people. The messages are custom-made for the audiences that they going out to, depending on the needs, perceptions, interest, knowledge and level of understanding of the issues.

Target Tools Outputs Messages Audience

General public Commercial Skits/dramas, CSDF belongs to the people of Liberia. (include all & talk shows, other Community news program audiences) Radio feature, spots The citizens benefit from the concession agreement of the Government through the CSDF. SMS Bulk messages, county specific Information about the CSDF—your money-- Print media Ads, op-eds, should be shared publically. feature articles

Graphic Flyers, t-shirts, People have the right to know when the CSDF is media murals, disbursed and what the funds are being used for. illustrations, billboards

Television Call-in talk People have the right to know the budget of the show CSDF for their county.

Social media

Local Flyers, County Social Development Funds benefit all Football banners, Liberians.

17 Matches songs/jingles It’s my right to know the CSDF projects.

Let government include citizens into developing CSDF projects. It is my right to decide how CSDF will be spent.

The elections are an ideal time to change CSDF processes.

Political Parties Face-to-face Lunch We support the next administration to establish a and Candidates meeting, long-term solution to inclusive CSDF governance. in 2017 dialogue One of the first priorities of the new National Elections and/or town session should be the introduction of legislation hall, that establishes long-term and inclusive reforms Print media Letters for the effective and participatory CSDF governance. Commercial News spots, In order for project to impact the lives citizens we Radio talk shows, want lawmakers to include citizens in CSDF jingle project decision-making.

House Face-to-Face Lunch We want lawmakers to include citizens in CSDF Committees meeting, project decision-making. and National dialogue Engaging citizens in CSDF processes will help Plenary Voting and/or town prevent conflict. Members hall, One of the first priorities of the new National Print media Letters Legislature session should be the introduction of legislation that establishes long-term and inclusive reforms for effective and participatory CSDF Commercial News spots, governance. Radio talk shows, jingle

Local Face-to-Face Dialogue Including citizens in CSDF decision-making will authorities and/or town help you serve your county better. (county hall

18 superintendent, Community News spots, Citizens can help you monitor CSDF projects. district Radio talk shows, commissioners) jingle

Local Flyers, Football banners, Matches songs/jingles

Concessionaries Face-to-face Town- The government should be more transparent meetings about how your contributions to the CSDF are spent. The people in the communities where you operate should know how much you’ve contributed to their CSDF. Print media Billboards, Publicizing your contribution to the CSDF will letters or e- improve community-company relations. mails Successful CSDF projects will reflect on your company.

Civil Society Face-to-face Network or The more we work together the bigger the voice Allies (includes coalition we’ll have/ The larger we are the stronger we are/ other CSOs, meetings Strength in numbers! CBOs, traditional Your constituents can use the CSDF to address leaders, labor their needs if the decision-making process was unions, and more inclusive. faith-based Speak out- resources are the rights of the people organizations) you represent.

Section 3: Inclusive Citizen’s Compliance Monitoring Framework

IV. Bottom Up Advocacy & Inclusive Citizen’s Compliance Monitoring Advocacy Coalition strategies and activities will ensure that (i) that all citizens understand how national and local problems and needs are interlinked; (ii) that the voice of all citizens is heard; and, (iii) that national level advocacy efforts represent, and are supported by, local level constituents. The Advocacy Coalition will implement activities that are (i) focused on supporting citizen engagement related to CSDF reform during the 2017 election cycle, and (ii) focused on community advocacy for CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through local monitoring/reporting of CSDF implementation. IVA. Community Level Advocacy and the Political Process

19 (Objective 3: Communities and citizens are actively engaged in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through election-related initiatives.

The forthcoming 2017 elections provide local communities the opportunity to participate in NRM political/advocacy processes that have an impact beyond their immediate communities. The Advocacy Coalition, through its county-focused partners, will provide local community information on select NRM issues, as well as Party and candidate positions on the issues. The information will give citizens information with which to participate and advocate for NRM issues at community campaign meetings, and will make candidates aware that their stand on NRM issues is a determinant of constituency votes.

As indicated in Section IIB, a range of tools will be utilized to inform citizens and support election- related events at the community level. In addition, DEN-L will lead an advocacy/citizen engagement training activity that will inform communities on how to become effective advocates at the community level.

IVB. Inclusive Citizen Compliance Monitoring Objective 4 (Local Level): Communities and citizens are actively engaged in the CSDF governance reform advocacy initiatives through local monitoring/reporting.

Bottom Up/Community Engagement activities respond to a number of community level NRM concerns and objectives. They o Provide citizens and communities the opportunity to actively participate in compliance monitoring of natural resource and concession management. o Increase the capacity of local communities and CSOs to engage in processes related to allocation and benefit sharing of the CSDF. o Raise the level of awareness regarding gaps and obstacles in NRM management/CSDF implementation and thus increase demand and pressure for transparency, accountability and participation in NRM resource and concession monitoring. o Identify gaps and obstructions to effective participation, governance, and implementation related to CSDF that will inform wider NRM policy advocacy initiatives. o In the longer term, following passage of a long term mechanisms for effective and participatory CSDF governance, communities undertaking compliance monitoring will give communities the wherewithal to monitor enforcement as well as responsiveness of the CSDF to community needs and inputs. IVC. Compliance Monitoring Mechanisms At the local level, social accountability mechanisms that identify gaps in decision-making, service delivery, policy and policy implementation, will be utilized by a range of local organizations including youth groups, women’s groups, and student groups. Such accountability mechanisms include score cards, social audits, public expenditure tracking and citizen monitoring/reporting through mobile phone transmissions. Information uncovered and gathered will serve to identify implementation gaps and corruption activities that will increase pressure for more effective CSDF implementation. Linkages between local and

20 national groups that are established through the Advocacy Coalition will also ensure that information gathered contributes to wider advocacy and reform campaigns. The Advocacy Coalition strategy for Inclusive Compliance Monitoring includes: 1. Identification of local level groups that will be trained and engage in compliance monitoring. 2. Development and implementation of information gathering tools at the local level. These tools will be developed from February 20 to March 31, 2017; this process would start during the Advocacy and ICCM Training in Gbarnga. This includes identification of social accountability tools to be utilized and development of processes through which information produced by various local actors in one community may be consolidated.) 3. Training of local groups on social accountability tools. 4. Establishment of a bottom up mechanism that will allow local level information/issues to move to the national level to inform advocacy initiatives. Monitoring Mechanisms The coalition communication’s activities will be monitored and evaluated over time to understand if it has been effective and where adjustments need to be made if necessary. This will help the coalition to understand and assess the level of impact it is having on stakeholders. When it becomes obvious that the activities are not effective it therefore becomes necessary to discontinue the activities or make whatever necessary adjustment will be needed for the messages to reach the targeted audiences. The means of verification will be to have a constant journalist investigative reporting tour to key affected communities to conduct interview with community dwellers, and media practitioners assessing the level of understanding of these actors and the behavioral change that has occurred as a result of the messages. The establishment of observatories in each county to conduct regular impact assessment surveys after every other month and field the information to the Liberia Media Center indicating the level of change that have occurred within the community and media programs at the community radios. These observatories can consist of two persons, one ordinary citizen and the other a journalist who will be training to conduct the impact assessment survey. Training Strategy Compliance Monitoring Training will be part of the TOT conducted by DEN-L; however, the TOT section on compliance monitoring will be facilitated in collaboration with IREED and P4DP. The TOT will provide knowledge and skills in compliance monitoring for Coalition members and their network members who will then cascade the training to communities for citizen compliance monitoring process

Strategies for coalescing information at local level

Information from the local level will be collected through:  Score and commitment cards for politicians and administrators;

 Indicator matrix for CSOs and CBOs;

21

Section 4: Evaluation and Monitoring13 An NRM Coalition M&E Framework is being developed by P4DP, which will be finalized in February.

Section 5: Key Assumptions

Advocacy campaign is not derailed by national emergency (e.g., outbreak of disease). All necessary information needed for the Advocacy Coalition CSDF initiative is accessible. Media coverage of the issues is not constrained. The enabling environment for CSO advocacy and monitoring efforts remains positive. Coalition partners are willing and able to focus on cooperation and joint implementation of initiative for greater good.

13 Milestones and indicators developed to reflect the Advocacy Coalition’s initiative help to measure the progress made. Beyond indicators, however, the Coalition will to look at the big picture to determine if the strategy and activities initially developed are having the intended effect. IE, are individual indicators being achieved with little overall impact; is the sum of the parts bringing you closer to your goal.

22 Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI)

Thematic Window 2 GeoPoll Survey

Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 18th Street & Warner Avenue, Monrovia 4/29/2017`1 1 Surveys by County • Total of 1,500 surveys conducted across all 15 counties

60%

49% 50%

40%

30%

20% 11% 9% 10% 5% 6% 6% 2% 3% 4% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%

4/29/2017 2 Respondent Demographics

Age Group 60% Gender 50% 50%

Femal 40% e, 32% 30% Male, 30% 68% 20% 20%

10%

0% 18-24 25-34 35+

4/29/2017 3 What issues has the Liberian government NOT been effective at addressing in 2016? Pick three.

4/29/2017 4 First Choice

First Choice Not Effective Issues Count %

Budget transparency 289 19%

Education 304 20%

Security 254 17%

Private sector engagement 207 14%

Reconciliation 173 12%

Youth political participation 158 11%

Gender violence 115 8%

Other 0 0%

Total 1500 100%

4/29/2017 5 Second Choice

Second Choice Not Effective Issues Count %

Budget transparency 343 23%

Education 293 20%

Security 260 17%

Private sector engagement 197 13%

Reconciliation 151 10%

Youth political participation 166 11%

Gender violence 90 6%

Other 0 0%

Total 1500 100%

4/29/2017 6 Third Choice

Third Choice Not Effective Issues Count %

Budget transparency 268 18%

Education 266 18%

Security 217 14%

Private sector engagement 176 12%

Reconciliation 176 12%

Youth political participation 154 10%

Gender violence 113 8%

Other 130 9%

Total 1500 100%

4/29/2017 7 What three issues do you think the Liberian government needs to focus on in 2017? Select three issues in order of importance.

4/29/2017 8 First Choice

First Choice Government Focus Count %

Education 359 24%

Budget transparency 295 20%

Security 283 19%

Private sector engagement 170 11%

Youth political participation 156 10%

Reconciliation 119 8%

Gender violence 118 8%

Other 0 0%

Total 1500 100%

4/29/2017 9 Second Choice

Second Choice Government Focus Count %

Education 358 24%

Budget transparency 278 19%

Security 276 18%

Private sector engagement 151 10%

Youth political participation 178 12%

Reconciliation 144 10%

Gender violence 115 8%

Other 0 0%

Total 1500 100%

4/29/2017 10 Third Choice

Third Choice Government Focus Count %

Education 329 22%

Budget transparency 260 17%

Security 266 18%

Private sector engagement 174 12%

Youth political participation 151 10%

Reconciliation 148 10%

Gender violence 94 6%

Other 78 5%

Total 1500 100%

4/29/2017 11 What issues would you be willing to engage with the Liberian government in addressing? Select 3 issues in order of importance.

4/29/2017 12 First Choice

First Choice Willing to Assist Count %

Education 356 24%

Security 267 18%

Budget transparency 251 17%

Youth political participation 163 11%

Private sector engagement 188 13%

Reconciliation 140 9%

Gender violence 135 9%

Other 0 0%

Total 1500 100%

4/29/2017 13 Second Choice

Second Choice Willing to Assist Count %

Education 348 23%

Security 266 18%

Budget transparency 267 18%

Youth political participation 170 11%

Private sector engagement 156 10%

Reconciliation 156 10%

Gender violence 137 9%

Other 0 0%

Total 1500 100%

4/29/2017 14 Third Choice

Third Choice Willing to Assist Count %

Education 351 23%

Security 252 17%

Budget transparency 264 18%

Youth political participation 176 12%

Private sector engagement 134 9%

Reconciliation 133 9%

Gender violence 113 8%

Other 77 5%

Total 1500 100%

4/29/2017 15 What three issues do you think the Liberian civil society needs to focus on in 2017? Select 3 issues in order of importance.

4/29/2017 16 First Choice

First Choice Civil Society Count %

Education 343 23%

Security 243 16%

Budget transparency 227 15%

Reconciliation 178 12%

Private sector engagement 182 12%

Gender violence 173 12%

Youth political participation 154 10%

Other 0 0%

Total 1500 100%

4/29/2017 17 Second Choice

Second Choice Civil Society Count %

Education 347 23%

Security 273 18%

Budget transparency 235 16%

Reconciliation 189 13%

Private sector engagement 148 10%

Gender violence 153 10%

Youth political participation 155 10%

Other 0 0%

Total 1500 100%

4/29/2017 18 Third Choice

Third Choice Civil Society Count %

Education 288 19%

Security 240 16%

Budget transparency 219 15%

Reconciliation 179 12%

Private sector engagement 172 11%

Gender violence 167 11%

Youth political participation 173 12%

Other 62 4%

Total 1500 100%

4/29/2017 19

Regional Consultative Dialogue on LAVI 2nd Thematic Project Window

Consultative Regional Dialogue Final Narrative Report

National Civil Society Council of Liberia

MARCH 27, 2017

Outline: 1. Summary 2 2. Background & Introduction 4 3. Consultative Dialogues 5 (Content, Process, Thematic Recommendations, Quotations from Participants) i. Harper 5 ii. Zwedru 9 iii. Gbarnga 11 iv. Buchanan 15 v. Tubmanburg 19 4. Recommendation 25 5. Conclusion 26

1

Summary:

The National Civil Society Council of Liberia (NCSCL) with support from USAID through LAVI Project for four weeks embarked on five (5) regional consultative dialogues on LAVI 2nd Project Window.

The dialogues were intended to provoke frank and open discussion and derived findings that are now submitted to LAVI for actions considering the project window. The dialogues were structured into five sessions for one day including opening ceremony, brief motivational comments, group discussion, plenary discussion and presentation of findings and recommendations.

It brought together women, youth, elderly, persons with disability, traditional leaders, trade unions, private and business sectors, professional groups, religious groups, community based organizations, local non-governmental organizations and local government authorities to gather views on what they feel is necessary for national intervention signaling priorities.

The five regional dialogues were held in Harper, Maryland County on March 8, Zwedru, Grand Gedeh County, March 10, Gbarnga, Bong County, March 15, Buchanan, Grand Bassa County, March 17 and Tubmanburg, Bomi County, March 20, 2017 respectively. The southeastern regional dialogues were held in Harper, with participants from Grand Kru, RiverGee and Maryland Counties whilst the Zwedru dialogue brought together participants from Sinoe and Grand Gedeh counties. The central and southwestern regional dialogues were held in Gbarnga with participants from Bong, Nimba and Lofa counties; in Buchanan with participants from Grand Bassa, Margibi, Montserrado and Rivercess counties; whilst Tubmanburg dialogue brought together Bomi, Grand Cape Mount and Gbarpolu counties respectively.

Team 1 was assigned to the southeastern region that composed of Grand Gedeh, Grand Kru, Maryland, RiverGee and Sinoe counties, while Team 2 was assigned to Central, Southwest and Western region of Liberia that composed of Bong, Bomi, Cape Mount, Grand Bassa, Gbarpolu, Lofa, Margibi, Montserrado, Nimba and Rivercess counties. The five regional consultative dialogues brought together a total of 176 participants inclusive of guests from LAVI and Messenger for Peace as well as staff of NCSCL. A total representation of participants at the dialogues were numerically represented as follow: 37 persons in total from Harper dialogue with 25 male constituting 67.5% and 12 female constituting 32.5%; 28 persons in total from Zwedru dialogue with 19 male constituting 67.8% and 9 female constituting 32.2%; 37 persons in total from Gbarnga dialogue with 24 male constituting 64.8% and 13 female constituting 35.2%; and 35 persons in total from Buchanan dialogue with 21 male constituting 60% and 14 female constituting 40% and 39 persons in total from Tubmanburg dialogue with 26 male constituting 66.6% and 13 female constituting 33.4%. (Please see appendix 1 for detail)

Of the five consultations, there were a total of 115 men constituting 65.4% and 61 women constituting 34.6%. Representations from the youth were 9 private sector 27, traditional leaders 6,

2

CSOs 82, media 21, local authority 18 and guests from LAVI and Messenger for Peace 13. (See attached appendix 1).

Participants arrived on schedule and agenda of each dialogue was followed accordingly with the exception of Tubmanburg that introduced slight changes in the outline of presentations that interplayed between group discussions. A formal opening ceremony was observed in each of the regional consultations. These ceremonies outlined welcome statements made by government, overview/purpose of the dialogue by the national civil society council of Liberia represented by Rev. Christopher Wleh Toe, I. in the southeastern region dialogue and Madam Frances R. Deigh Greaves in the central and southwestern region dialogues. Remarks were made by Hon. Nathaniel Toe, Development Superintendent of Maryland County, City Mayor of Zwedru, Mr. Arthur Kollie, and Executive Secretary to the Superintendent of Bong County, Hon. J. Levi Demmah, Superintendent of Grand Bassa County and Hon. Samuel Foday Brown, Superintendent of Bomi County. Remarks from LAVI were made by Mr. Ilan E. Ricks in Harper and Zwedru dialogue, Mr. Prince Williams in Gbarnga, Mr. Ilan E. Ricks in Buchanan and Lauren Reese and Michelle Rogers from DAI in Tubmanburg.

Motivational messages were given by Rev. Christopher Wleh Toe, I and Nathaniel Toe in Harper, Madam Frances Greaves, Emma Y. Boldoe, Elizabeth Doeblah, Raphaelyn N. Bonosy in Gbarnga, Buchanan and Tubmanburg respectively. The messages captured issues on security, education, gender based violence, reconciliation, youth political participation, budget and transparency and private sector engagement.

The consultative dialogue process followed the pattern of group discussion and validation session that incorporated voting. The facilitators presented the four GeoPoll survey questions as lead way to provoke the discussion. Each group in session identified three priorities in sequence based on each question for 20 minutes. Results were tabulated on the flipchart paper and presented as group reports in plenary following lunch break. The validation session reviewed the various groups’ reports and signaled out commonalities running through. The facilitators in the five regional dialogues encouraged interventions from participants to raise justification on the necessity of priority issues identified to make determination on the selection in sequence. The validation process was introduced by the facilitator and captured participants reasoning on each of the issues identified and the selection of priorities. Discussions were held and a voting process was established on each of the selected priorities and the sequencing. (See appendix detailing result of the validation and matrix that summarizes results from the regional consultative dialogue.)

The regional dialogues recommendations of priorities included the following:

Harper: Education, security & budget and transparency; Zwedru: Security, education & national reconciliation;

3

Gbarnga: Security, Education and Budget & Transparency; Buchanan: Education, Security and national Reconciliation; Tubmanburg: Security, Education and Budget & Transparency.

Of the five regional consultative dialogues security was voted number 1 in three regions, Education voted number 1 in two regions; whilst budget and transparency were featured as number 3 in the three regions and national reconciliation in two regions. Therefore, with the summative analysis from the consultative dialogues, Security, Education and Budget & Transparency were selected priorities respectively in sequence.

Background and Introduction:

The pressed for continuous opening of the civil space for constructive engagement has been the civil society advocacy role. People participation in political processes is one of the many challenges faced, coupled with the abrogating of voices. This has over the years affected the state citizens’ relations and therefore caused many of the multi stakeholders’ passiveness to national development. It is from this backdrop that the necessity for engagement and dialogue on issues of national importance were lifted. Queuing from the many interactions the partnership between the government of Liberia and the National Civil Society Council of Liberia becomes a lead way to promote collaboration and encourages citizens’ participation and ownership.

Aware of the challenges and the need for mitigation, the Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative Project (LAVI) engaged the NCSCL to conduct one-day regional consultative dialogue in five regional capitols (Harper, Zwedru, Gbarnga, Buchanan, and Tubmanburg) to provoke frank and open discussions and derived findings for submission and actions.

Therefore, the NCSCL using its regional and counties structures embarked on this initiative and engaged multi stakeholders from the government, private sector, civil society and the media from the southeastern region belt of Liberia, the central, southwest and western regions of Liberia with an accumulative number of 176 persons in attendance. This dialogue promoted the space for voice participation and freedom of expression and decision indicated in the making of democratic decisions through voting processes. Participants voted in each of the region on selected priorities and sequenced the priorities show casing their decisions. These votes counted represented the voices of the participants representing the four governance sectors that include: government, private sector, civil society and the media.

The NCSCL is an apex body of civil society organization with programmatic focus on coordination, policy advocacy, capacity building and monitoring and evaluation. It has five regional offices and 15 county offices headed by elected coordinators and other officials, a national secretariat and a membership of 1475.

4

Consultative Dialogue 1: Harper, Maryland County: (Grand Kru, Maryland and RiverGee)

A. Content

The Harper consultative dialogue was held on Wednesday, March 8, 2017 commencing at 8:50 a.m. with registration followed by breakfast. The brief opening ceremony begun with prayer, followed by an overview of the dialogue and was spiced with official remarks. The overview of the dialogue was given by Rev. Christopher Wleh Toe, I, Secretary General of the NCSCL. The overview emphasized the objectives of the project and the called for voice participation in the selection of three priorities discussing the four summative questions from the Geopoll survey using the seven proposed thematic issues as reference for discussion and subsequent recommendation to LAVI for 2nd thematic project window.

Special remarks were made by the Development Superintendent Mr. Nathaniel Toe, Mrs. Lucy Davis Momoh CSOs County Coordinator and Mr. Ilan E. Ricks, LAVI representative. Mr. Toe remarks reflected gaps identified in civil society and the need for strong CSOs engagement with government recognizing the watch dog role of civil society. The remarks also highlighted issues on the educational sector mentioning the series of construction of teachers’ quarter; the need for youth respect for democratic governance, the cordial working relations with gender based violence, stressing the working relationship with the Ministry of Gender and Social Protection to address issues of gender based violence and advocacy action for the prosecution of perpetrator; and the relevance and importance of the private sector that builds a strong economy. The Ilan Ricks of LAVI remarks captured the four broad objectives of LAVI, in terms of accomplishment up to date, thematic funding window, and the selection of LAVI thematic funding window.

Motivational messages on the seven proposed themes were delivered by Rev. Christopher W. Toe, I. Due to the fault of the projector, the messages were given extemporaneous. The messages captured the importance of the thematic issues, challenges, and necessity for national growth and development. The speaker encouraged participants to reflect on the proposed seven themes as well as think outside the box and make additional interventions where necessary.

The Group discussion proceeded with the division of groups into four with government, private sector, civil society and media in each of the groups. The groups discussed for 20 minutes on each of the four question of the Geopoll survey. The plenary discussion show case debate on identified thematic issues featuring group 2 leader argument on national reconciliation quoting the president of Liberia acknowledgement of government inability to address national reconciliation.

He stated further that “an un-reconciled people action is dangerous for development sustainability; that no matter what development effort is made, the reflection of a hurt or wound not attended to may detonate chaos which may lead to violence and destruction of properties.” Group 1 leader presentation justified security as paramount stating that “without security no

5

development is sustainable.” The comment makes reference to the presence of UNMIL providing security for the tenure of this government that is why there was no chaotic violence. With the drawdown of UNMIL security and subsequent taking over by the national security, there is an importunate need to give security a priority. Group 3 leader presentation highlighted education as key noting that “an uneducated society is a blind society that will never appreciate development gains and can be swayed away easily”. Notation to the fact he said was mentioned by the President of Liberia in one of her messages that the educational system is a mess. Group 4 leader presentations stressed the Importance of Budget & Transparency as the key to successful governance and development. An open budget and participatory and implementation processes sets the agenda for nation development. “It is the budget that captures all the issues and so if the budget and transparency process is flawed eventually the result will be a mess and the prospect for violence and destruction is eminent.” Following the groups’ presentations and comments for justification the results were published on the projector slide for selection of priorities for the validation session.

Group presentations focusing on thematic priority issues

The Groups were divided into four taking in consideration sectors representation. Each group discussed the four questions for 1 hour and 20 minutes and wrote the findings on the flipchart papers based on each question. Each group was allotted 20 minutes to make their presentation on the four questions distributed. The group leader and secretary presented the group report, one reading and another person elaborating on the results. Below is a summary of the presentation made identifying the priority issues based on each question.

GROUP QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2 QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4 PRIORITY PRIORITY ISSUE PRIORITY ISSUE PRIORITY ISSUE ISSUE I National Reconciliation Education Road Network Security Security Security Electricity Private Sector Budget & Transparency National Reconciliation Price Control Education II National Reconciliation National Reconciliation Physical National Budget & Transparency Budget & Transparency Challenge Reconciliation Education Education Budget & Transp. Education III Education Education Agriculture Education Gender Based Violence Security Road Network Security Budget & Transparency Budget & Transparency Health Budget & Transparency IV Education Security Health Education Budget & Transparency Gender Based Violence Road Network Budget & National Reconciliation Budget & Transparency Agriculture Transparency Gender Based Violence

6

Validation Session:

The validation session adopted a two prone critical analysis approach looking at the commonalities from the group reports and making determination in terms of prioritizing three of the thematic issues of importance and relevance based on each question. Secondly, the participants reviewing the priorities selected, voted on three final priorities in sequence representing the region voice.

THEMATIC ISSUES QUESTIONS PRIORITIES SELECTED Education What other issues has the Liberian Education Security government NOT been effective at Budget & Transparency Gender Based Violence addressing in 2016? National reconciliation Youth Political Participation National Reconciliation What three issues do you think the Education Private Sector Engagement Liberian government needs to focus Security Budget & Transparency on in 2017? Select three issues in Budget & Transparency order of importance?

What other issues do you think the Road Network Liberian government needs to focus Health on in 2017? Agriculture What issues would you be willing to Education engage with the Liberian government Budget & Transparency in addressing? Select 3 issues in Security order of importance.

During the validation session the participants casted votes on the selection of the three priority areas in sequence. The voting result was:

Education as priority number 1……………………… 31 votes Security as priority number 2 ……………………….. 30 votes Budget & Transparency as priority number 3…. 28 votes b. The Process

The dialogue begun with registration at 8:15 a.m. and was followed by breakfast. The official program commenced at 9:30 a.m. with opening prayer offered by one of the participants. The brief overview was given by Rev. Christopher W. Toe, I. Secretary General of the NCSCL.

The overview bequeathed a summative narrative of the consultative dialogue, queuing from the Geopoll survey and sought participants view on the seven proposed thematic issues and finally determined selection of three priorities in sequence. Remarks were made by the Development Superintendent, Local CSOs Leader, and LAVI representative. The roll call was made by Laura K. Blyden, the project director to authenticate participants’ attendance at the dialogue. The facilitator and co-facilitator then explained the process of the division of the groups and what is

7 expected. The groups were divided into four having representative of government, private sector, civil society and the media mixed within the group. The four questions from the Geopoll survey were given to each group intermittently. Each group discussed a question for 20 minutes and wrote the result on the flipchart paper. Lunch was served after the 4 questions were discussed thoroughly. The plenary session used a C circle for participants sitting for group presentation. Each group as a means of style used a male and female for the presentation. After the groups’ presentations on the four questions, the facilitator displayed the groups’ findings on the projector and allowed the discussion of participants to authenticate their presentations. The participants then selected three priorities and then voted in ranking in terms of priority 1, 2, &3. Following the selection of all the priorities, a motion was made and seconded that the selected priorities be forwarded as recommendations of the regional consultative dialogue of LAVI 2nd Thematic Project Window. The participants then voted in affirmation and showed sign of unity by the holding of hands. c. Thematic Recommendations

The participants after reviewing the many priorities, resolved with the following as recommendation in terms of priority:

1. Education as priority number 1 2. Security as priority number 2 3. Budget & Transparency as priority number 3 d. Quotations from Participants from Private Sector, Civil Society and Government

“Education is a key to any nation progress” “Education discourages bribery” Alfred Boe (Private sector) Comfort Doe (civil society)

“Budget captures all the issues and so if the budget and transparency process is flawed eventually the result will be a mess and the prospect for violence

and destruction is eminent”. Joe Mullenburg (Civil Society)

“An uneducated society is a blind society that will never appreciate development gains and can be swayed away easily”. Nathaniel Toe (Government)

“an un-reconciled people action is dangerous for development sustainability; that no matter what development effort is made, the reflection of a hurt or wound not attended to may detonate chaos 8 which may lead to violence and destruction of properties.”

Joe Mullenburg (Civil Society)

The dialogue adjourned with participants forming a circle and held hands together affirming their action by singing the song “the more we are together the happier we will be, for your friend is my friend and my friend is your friend”.

Consultative Dialogue 2: Zwedru, Grand Gedeh County: (Grand Gedeh and Sinoe Counties) a. Content

At the Zwedru consultative dialogue, the City Mayor gave the welcome statement and offered remarks on behalf of the local government. Remark was made by LAVI staff and the local CSOs representative.

Group presentations focusing on Thematic priority issues

The Groups were divided into four taking in consideration sectors representation. Each group discussed the four questions for 1 hour and 20 minutes and wrote the findings on the flipchart papers based on each question. Each group was allotted 20 minutes to make their presentation on the four questions distributed. The group leader and secretary presented the group report, one reading and another person elaborating on the results. Below, is a summary of the presentation made identifying the priority issues based on each question.

Below are what were discuss during the group discussion: GROUP QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2 QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4 PRIORITY ISSUE PRIORITY ISSUE PRIORITY ISSUE PRIORITY ISSUE

I Education Education Road Network Education Security Budget & Budget & Transparency Gender Based Gender Based Transparency National National Reconciliation Violence Violence Reconciliation Private Sector II Education Education Agriculture Security National Reconciliation National Reconciliation National Private Sector Private Sector Reconciliation Education III Education Education Road construction Security Security Security & Rehabilitation National Private Sector Private Sector Water Facilities Reconciliation Electricity Private Sector Price Control IV Education Education Road construction Road network Security Security Electricity Security National Reconciliation National Reconciliation Poor Justice National System Reconciliation

9

Validation Session: The validation session adopted a two prone critical analysis approach looking at the commonalities from the group reports and making determination in terms of prioritizing three of the thematic issues of importance and relevance based on each question. Secondly, the participants reviewing the priorities selected, voted on three final priorities in sequence representing the region voice.

THEMATIC ISSUES QUESTIONS PRIORITIES SELECTED Education What other issues has the Education Security Liberian government NOT Security Gender Based Violence been effective at addressing National reconciliation Youth Political Participation in 2016? National Reconciliation What three issues do you Private Sector Private Sector Engagement think the Liberian government Security Budget & Transparency needs to focus on in 2017? Education Select three issues in order of importance? What other issues do you Road Network think the Liberian government Justice and Rule of Law needs to focus on in 2017? Agriculture What issues would you be National Reconciliation willing to engage with the Education Liberian government in Security addressing? Select 3 issues in order of importance.

During the validation session the participants casted votes on the selection of the three priority areas in sequence. The voting result was:

Security as priority number 1…………………………… 24 votes Education as priority number 2 ……………………….. 21 votes National Reconciliation as priority number 3….. 19 votes b. The Process The dialogue begun with registration at 8:45 a.m. and was followed by breakfast. The official program commenced at 10:00 a.m. and opening prayer was offered by one of the participants. The brief overview was given by Laura K. Blyden, project director. The overview gave a summative narrative of the consultative dialogue, queuing from the Geopoll survey and gathered participants view on the seven proposed thematic issues and finally to make determination on selection of three priorities in sequence. Remarks were made by the City Mayor, Local CSOs Leader, and LAVI representative. The roll call was made by the project director to authenticate participants’ attendance at the dialogue. The facilitator then explained the process of the division of the groups and what is expected of the participants. The groups were divided into four having representative of government, private sector, civil society and the media mixed within the group. The four

10 questions from the Geopoll survey were given to each group intermittently. Each group discussed a question for 20 minutes and wrote the result on the flipchart paper. Lunch was served after the 4 questions were discussed thoroughly. Following lunch, the participants formed a close C circle for group presentation. Each group as a means of style used a male and female for the presentation. After the groups’ presentations on the four questions, the facilitator displayed the groups’ findings on the projector and allowed the discussion of participants to authenticate their presentations. The participants then selected three priorities and then voted in ranking in terms of priority 1, 2&3. Following the selection of all the priorities, a motion was made and seconded that the selected priorities be forwarded as recommendations of the regional consultative dialogue of LAVI 2nd Thematic Project Window. The participants then voted in affirmation and showed sign of unity by the holding of hands. c. Thematic Recommendations The Zwedru, Grand Gedeh consultative dialogue reviewing of the many priorities finally selected the below as recommendations as priorities:

1. Security as priority number 1, 2. Education number 2 3. National reconciliation as number 3.

For them the ethnic divide and the war scenario have had a serious negative impact on the citizens of Grand Gedeh and created lot insecurity. Therefore in the voting process many votes were cast in this direction.

a. Quotations from Participants from Civil Society Organizations

“If you give me what you can and I give “An un-reconciled people are you what you want is key for progress” dangerous to sustain Felecia Duncan (civil society) development goals” Lewis Jadoe (civil society)

Consultative Dialogue 3: Gbarnga, Bong County: (Bong, Nimba and Lofa Counties) a. Content The Gbarnga dialogue opening ceremony begun at 10:17 a.m. at the Women in Peace Network Conference hall on Wednesday, March 15, 2017. Welcome statement was made by Stephen J. Mulbah, County Coordinator, of Bong County. The overview of the consultation was given by Madam Frances R. Deigh Greaves, National Chairperson of the NCSCL. The overview reflected the

11 purpose of the dialogue and the necessity to vote on three priority issues sequentially to be recommended to LAVI for 2nd thematic funding window. The representative of the Superintendent Office in Bong thanked the organizer for the forum and pledged government commitment.

Motivational messages were given by Elizabeth of Messenger of Peace, Madam Greaves and Emma Y. Boldoe of the NCSCL. The message on youth political participation from Messenger for peace admonished youth to be selfless, not engaged in activities that have the propensity to shrink their future negatively, neither allow themselves to be used by politician for their selfish motives. The message further inspired youth to stay away from violence; but uphold their values making the best choices to promote peace first and last. The message on reconciliation emphasized peace as the presence of love, care, respect for dignity and satisfaction. It also reflected on people seeing themselves as drivers of peace and reconciliation in the midst of the harsh economy crisis causing extreme hardship, abject poverty, and high cost of living. The youth were encouraged to be courageous, mind developers, adopt a spirit of self-courage esteem and forward with a spirit of positive thoughts realizing the next generational leadership role expected.

Madam Greaves messages on security reflected on human security linking to police and community relations.

The message also highlighted the necessity to sensitize people on the new police act, citizens’ ownership of security, willing to provide crime information to the police and making sure that the early warning signals are provided to the police to aid the curbing of violence. The message on private sector engagement captured the importance of the sector as the reliance of a strong economy that also prohibits war and rebuilding the lives of people. People are not making effort to understand more about the sector and as a result the importance has not drawn attention. The message on gender based violence captured the sexes as being equal and the necessity to build strong relations and advocacy for support. The message further encouraged parents to send girls children to school and provide them will all the necessary tools to ensure the competition for growth and development. It further emphasized on the violent abuse of women by men and call on women to respect men despite of their job title, affluence and education; not forgetting civil society role in this campaign as change makers.

Emma Boldoe message on budget and transparency captured budget cost, targets, and stated that the essence of budget planning is to avoid excess usage of money that is intended for a particular purpose. The presentation further elaborated on the challenges in budgeting as corruption and signaled the issue of transparency as a niche for building confidence in the governance process.

Group presentations focusing on thematic priority issues The Groups were divided into three taking in consideration county representation. Each group discussed the four questions for 1 hour and 20 minutes and wrote the findings on the flipchart papers based on each question.

12

Each group was allotted 20 minutes to give their presentation on the four questions distributed. The group leader and secretary presented the group report, one reading and another person elaborating on the results. Below is a summary of the presentation made identifying the priority issues based on each question.

Priority Issues from Group Discussion

GROUP QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2 QUESTION 3 PRIORITY QUESTION 4 PRIORITY ISSUES PRIORITY ISSUES ISSUES PRIORITY ISSUES I Security Education Civic & voter Security Education Security education Education National Budget & Youth engagement & National reconciliation Transparency empowerment reconciliation Women engagement & empowerment II Budget & Security Justice Security Transparency Education TRC Recommendation Education Security Budget & Constitution National Private Sector Transparency referendum reconciliation Engagement III Education Education Monitoring of projects Security Health Security Health Education Agriculture Budget & Agriculture Budget & Transparency Transparency

The Validation Session:

The validation session adopted a two prone critical analysis approach looking at the commonalities from the group reports and making determination in terms of prioritizing three of the thematic issues of importance and relevance based on each question. Secondly, the participants reviewing the priorities selected, voted on three final priorities in sequence representing the region voice.

THEMATIC ISSUES QUESTIONS PRIORITIES SELECTED Education What other issues has the Security Security Liberian government NOT Education Gender Based Violence been effective at addressing National reconciliation Youth Political Participation in 2016? National Reconciliation What three issues do you Security Private Sector Engagement think the Liberian government Education Budget & Transparency needs to focus on in 2017? National reconciliation Select three issues in order of importance?

13

What other issues do you Youth engagement think the Liberian government Health needs to focus on in 2017? Agriculture

What issues would you be Security willing to engage with the Education Liberian government in Budget & Transparency addressing? Select 3 issues in order of importance.

B. The Process: The dialogue begun with registration at 8:50 a.m. and was followed by breakfast. The official program commenced at 10:00 a.m. with opening prayer offered by one of the participants. The brief overview was given by Madam Frances Greaves, National Chairperson of the NCSCL. The brief overview gives a summary narrative of the consultative dialogue, queuing from the Geopoll survey and seeking to gather participants view on the seven proposed thematic issues and finally to make determination on selection of three priorities in sequence. Remarks were made by the Executive Secretary of the Superintendent Office, Local CSOs Leader, and LAVI representative. The roll call was made by Emma Boldoe to authenticate participants’ attendance at the dialogue. The facilitator then explained the process of the division of the groups and what is expected of the participants. The groups were divided into three signaling county representation, having representative of government, private sector, civil society and the media mixed within the group. The four questions from the Geopoll survey were distributed to each group for discussion. Each group discussed a question for 20 minutes and wrote the result on the flipchart paper. Lunch was served after the 4 questions were discussed thoroughly. Each group as a means of style used a male and female for the presentation. After the four group presentations on the four questions, the facilitator displayed the groups’ findings for determination of priorities and voting to validate the regional dialogue decision. The participants then selected three priorities and then voted in ranking in terms of priority 1, 2&3. Following the selection of all the priorities, a motion was made and seconded that the selected priorities be forwarded as recommendations of the regional consultative dialogue of LAVI 2nd Thematic Project Window.

During the validation session the participants casted votes on the selection of the three priority areas in sequence. The voting result was:

Security as priority number 1………………………….. 29 votes Education as priority number 2 ……………………….. 28 votes Budget & Transparency as priority number 3….. 25 votes c. Thematic Recommendations

The Gbarnga, Bong County consultative dialogue reviewing the validated priorities, resolved with the final selection of regional priorities following the counting of results as follows:

14

1. Security as priority number 1; 2. Education number 2; and 3. Budget and transparency as number 3.

d. Quotations of Participants from Civil Society “People resilience to economic “Budget is a tool that sets an conditions should not be

agenda for nation development underestimated or overlooked” Gabriel Sow (civil society) and sustainability” Deddeh Kollie (civil society)

(Civil Society)

Consultative Dialogue 4: Buchanan, Grand Bassa County: (Grand Bassa, Margibi, Montserrado and Rivercess Counties) a. Content The Buchanan dialogue begun at 10:00 a.m. on March 17, 2017 at the Buchanan City Hall. Welcome statement was made by Mr. Carles S. Cole the Administrative Assistant of the Superintendent of Grand Bassa County representing the County superintendent, appraised CSOs for their role played in the society and voter registration process but admonished CSOs to conduct research of issues and make proper planning before engaging in talking actions. Later the superintendent, Hon. J. Levi Demmah appeared and praised Madam Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of Liberia as the first sitting president to sign the Table Mountain Declaration which gives freedom to all Liberian to participate and take into account responsibilities that are attached to this freedom. The remarks called on CSOs to carry on advocacy along with research so as to give legitimacy to CSOs voice, signaling many CSOs and Human right advocators reneging on responsibilities and actions. The remark further reflected government workings with the NCSCL to create a better reform platform for policy development and emphasized citizens and state relations and the working of all branches of government as a unit. He then made the following recommendations which included:  CSOs constant engagement with government reminding government of responsibilities  Citizens should champion the gradual improvement of the middle class  CSOs should align advocacy with facts so as to make greater impact. Mrs. Greaves of the NCSCL stated the purpose of the consultation was to identify priority problem that the USAID/ Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative Project will use in its 2nd year of implementation making reference to the 2nd thematic project window and the project supported by the USAID. Mr. Victor G. Flomo, Secretary of the Grand Bassa Civil Society council message

15 reflected on hope expression and empowerment of community based organization at local county level so as to increase impact at local levels. The regional coordinator, Madam Martha C. Treh, remarks encouraged CSOs to show case and make relevance of importance in the implementation of the 2nd phase of the LAVI project. The LAVI representative, Ilan E. Ricks remarks highlighted the historicity and life span of the LAVI grant as well as the overarching goal to strengthen Multi- Stakeholder partnership to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms and its aims to develop and implement a portfolio of initiatives with the potential for cumulative impact, clustered around issues which have the greatest potential for change, and which are responsive to locally-defined priorities. The remarks further informed participants of LAVI working with local community based organizations including 8 civil society organizations and 5 government institutions.

The next session of the dialogue started with the motivational messages on the topics: Education, Security, Gender-Based Violence, Private Sector Engagement, Youth Political Participation, Budget and Transparency, and National Reconciliation. The motivational messages were presented by Elizabeth & Raphaelyn of Messenger of Peace, Madam Frances Greaves and Emma Y. Boldoe of the NCSCL. The presentation made in Gbarnga carried the same content for the Buchanan dialogue.

The groups were divided by the facilitator into four using county context. The four Geopoll survey questions were given to each group for discussion for 1 hour & 20 minutes. Results from the group discussion were written on flipchart paper identifying three priorities in sequence. Each group selected a leader and secretary and presentation of group work was made in plenary. Each group presented for 15 minutes making case of the selection of priorities.

Group presentations focusing on Thematic priority issues

The Groups were divided into three taking in consideration county representation. Each group discussed the four questions for 1 hour and 20 minutes and wrote the findings on the flipchart papers based on each question.

Each group was allotted 20 minutes to make their presentation on the four questions distributed. The group leader and secretary presented the group report, one reading and another person elaborating on the results. During the group presentation, the facilitator captured the following issues of priorities and selected priorities based on the questions and validated the action through a voting process to determine the final selection of three priorities in sequence for the regional dialogue. Below is a summary of the presentation made identifying the priority issues based on each question.

16

Priority Issues from Group Discussion

GROUP QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2 PRIORITY QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4 PRIORITY ISSUES ISSUES PRIORITY ISSUES PRIORITY ISSUES I Education Security Elections Security Security Education Civic education Budget & National National Road network transparency Reconciliation Reconciliation Education II National Security Gender Based Security reconciliation Budget & violence Education Security transparency Budget & Youth political Budget & Education transparency participation transparency Elections III Security Security Elections Education National Education Youth political Security reconciliation Budget & participation National education transparency Health reconciliation

The Validation Session:

The validation session adopted a two prone critical analysis approach looking at the commonalities from the group reports and making determination in terms of prioritizing three of the thematic issues of importance and relevance based on each question. Secondly, the participants reviewing the priorities selected, voted on three final priorities in sequence representing the region voice.

THEMATIC ISSUES QUESTIONS PRIORITIES SELECTED Education What other issues has the Liberian Security Security government NOT been effective at Budget & transparency Gender Based Violence addressing in 2016? Education Youth Political Participation National Reconciliation What three issues do you think Security Private Sector Engagement the Liberian government needs to Education Budget & Transparency focus on in 2017? Select three Budget & transparency issues in order of importance? What other issues do you think Elections the Liberian government needs to Youth political participation focus on in 2017? Civic education

What issues would you be willing Security to engage with the Liberian Budget & transparency government in addressing? Select Education 3 issues in order of importance.

17

a. The Process: The dialogue begins with registration at 9:00 a.m. followed by breakfast. The official program commenced at 10:00 a.m. with opening prayer offered by one of the participants. The brief overview was given by Madam Frances Greaves, National Chairperson of the NCSCL reflecting a summative narrative of the consultative dialogue, queuing from the Geopoll survey and seeking to gather participants view on the seven proposed thematic issues and finally to make determination on selection of three priorities in sequence. Remarks were made by the Superintendent of Grand Bassa County, Hon. J. Levi Demmah, Local CSOs Leader, and LAVI representative. The roll call was made by Emma Boldoe to authenticate participants’ attendance at the dialogue. The facilitator then explained the process of the division of the groups and what is expected of the participants. The groups were divided into three signaling county representation, having representative of government, private sector, civil society and the media mixed within the group. The four questions from the Geopoll survey were distributed to each group for discussion. Each group discussed a question for 20 minutes and wrote the result on the flipchart paper. Lunch was served after the 4 questions were discussed thoroughly. Each group as a means of style used a male and female for the presentation. After the groups’ presentations on the four questions, the facilitator displayed the groups’ findings for determination of priorities and voting to validate the regional dialogue decision. The participants then selected three priorities and then voted in ranking in terms of priority 1, 2&3. Following the selection of all the priorities, a motion was made and seconded that the selected priorities be forwarded as recommendations of the regional consultative dialogue of LAVI 2nd Thematic Project Window. The participants then voted in affirmation and showed sign of unity by the holding of hands.

During the validation session the participants casted votes on the selection of the three priority areas in sequence. The voting result was:

Education as priority number 1……………………… 30 votes Security as priority number 2 ……………………….. 29 votes National Reconciliation as priority number 3…. 27 votes

b. Thematic Recommendations The Buchanan, Grand Bassa County consultative dialogue reviewing of the many priorities finally selected the following as recommendation for the regional dialogue: 1. Education as priority number 1, 2. Security as number 2 3. National reconciliation as number 3.

c. Quotations from Participants from Civil Society and Guest Speaker

Transparency is a hallmark The growth for any nation lies in the for democratic governance value of a responsible and educated George Trokon (civil society) youth, committed and dedicated to service. 18 Elizabeth Doeblah (Guest Speaker)

Consultative Dialogue 5: Tubmanburg, Bomi County: (Bomi, Grand Cape Mount and Gbarpolu Counties) a. Content

The Tubmanburg dialogue was held on March 20, 2017 at the Women Center beginning at 9:00 a.m. with registration and breakfast. The opening ceremony began with welcome remark by the County Superintendent. The superintendent of Bomi County Hon. Samuel F. Brown praised the Bomi CSOs Council and the national CSOs secretariat for the level of improved relationship currently existing between the county local leadership and the civil society in the county.

Hon. Brown referenced the Ebola crisis as one of the emergency situations that helped to unify and strengthen an already existing relationship between the two parties. He mentioned further that the CSOs Council is involved with engaging local county leaders on matters of accountability and transparency, especially so with activities surrounding the county and social development funds. The superintendent also thanked the county CSOs council for the professional manner in which it has conducted activities involving the communities since its election, noting that the then leadership is far better than the past CSOs leadership in the county. He expressed optimism to seeing a much enhanced working relationship and support to the Bomi CSOs Council. The Bomi County Superintendent noted however that CSOs institutions engaged into agricultural activities must be greatly empowered, as agriculture served as the building blocks for any emerging and developing society. The remark by Mrs. Frances Greaves, national chairperson of the NCSCL informed participants of the partnership policy and accord signed between the government of Liberia and the NCSCL. She noted that the agreement calls on CSOs and the Government as well as donor partners to work and strengthen relationship at all levels, adding that the partnership agreement is also intended to build a long lasting and sustainable bilateral relationship between CSOs and the local/national government. Mr. Omacso Z. Kamara, region 1 coordinator and Mr. Boimah Sando, County CSOs coordinator in separate comments, extended welcome remarks and expressed delight in the NCSCL leadership and participant’s full attendance and excellent performance over the years.

Meanwhile, the LAVI / USAID representative madam Lauren Reese, Project Outreach Associate thanked the regional CSOs for their cooperation over the years and noted that the USAID funded project is intended to work with CSOs at county and national levels to strengthen relationship and improve service delivery at all levels. She mentioned access to quality education, security, and gender based violence, youth political participation, private sector engagement, peace and reconciliation as key components of the USAID Project intervention deliverables. The LAVI USAID representative called on every participant to get fully involved and discussed those issues that could bring forth recommendations intended to enhance the project implementation deliverables.

19

Presentations and Motivational Messages:

The first motivational message was given by representatives Elizabeth Doeblah and Raphaelyn of Messenger of Peace. The messages focus on youth education, participation and peace building as key conduits for enhancing the well-being of the young people, and an assurance for ensuring national unity and development. The presentation was characterized by an open and participatory discussion involving the participants and the facilitators. Key issues highlighted during the presentation were as follows:

1. Community/ CSOs role and responsibility in promoting youth sustainable development and national unity 2. Role and responsibility of the parents who are the primary focus for promoting youth development and ensuring long lasting peace 3. Involving community and all local stakeholders in i and national peace and security 4. Using all local and national instruments including the local media institutions to increase information sharing and mass awareness towards building a vibrant and independent peace and security network at all levels of the community.

Meanwhile, the participants further noted community involvement with parents and guardians leading the process of engagement to institute best practices and measures as a means of promoting a successful and long lasting peace and security in Liberia. The participants of Cape Mount, Bomi and Gbarpolu counties in separate comments mentioned the role of the media, the national security sector of which the local community is a part, and the CSOs as completely indispensable to discouraging all acts of abuse including drugs abuse and other prohibited sexual practices against minors, girls and women. Participants in their contributions further committed themselves to working assiduously to promote and support youth participation, national security and development by taking ownership of their community security process and ensuring the total involvement of all stakeholders, irrespective of diversity.

Message on Security, GBV & Private sector engagement

Madam Greaves, in her separate presentation covering the topical issues above beginning with security, noted that the Liberia Peace Process is traced back to the Ghana Peace Accord which saw the full involvement of the National CSOs of Liberia including other notable women voicing institutions, engaged the international community informing them of the emergency/crisis in Liberia and further requested their relevant and timely interventions to restore peace and harmony among the Liberian People. The message further described security as a national responsibility of every individual citizen including the state and must be given due priority and consideration. It also highlighted and categorized security into national security, Human Security and Individual security as key components of the global security framework. A brief retrospection of the role played by Liberian women during the peace negotiation process adding that women too have a greater responsibility in identifying ways to mitigate conflict and harmonize national

20 crisis at all levels. The presentation also placed key importance on the role played by the former Sierra Leone President, Hon. Tejan Kabba who worked so tirelessly as a neutral body during the negotiation process, exemplifying leadership through demonstration sought to ensure that peace is restored in Liberia.

The second phase of the facilitation session was marked by the GBV component. Madam Greaves in her presentation defined GBV as the ability to abuse a woman without her permission, noting that the key word of concern is “without permission”. The presentation further indicated that children below the required age of consent or eighteen years ( 18yrs) are normally abused based on the following investigative factors;

1. Having a closer relationship with the family which oftentimes is used as a conduit for male relatives abusing the girl child ( committing incest) 2. Living in a communion household where there are more than ten family heads 3. Men continual and habitual use of power and influence to violate the rights of women and young girls due to their socio – political and economic powers 4. Inability of parents, community or the state to protect evidence in an SGBV case involving a girl child who has been sexually abused 5. Lack of proper understanding of the legal procedure for conducting speedy trial and prosecution, and delay in legal trial of cases involving an SGBV related due to limited interest of the male judge.

Message on Private sector engagement:

The presentation on private sector investment and engagement captured the Liberian Government key national economic reform policy included the Liberalization policy which basically seeks to promote Liberian ownership of local businesses and enterprises up to 25%. The presentation further spotlighted the following factors or challenges that continue to undermine the core objectives of the economic reform policy in Liberia as;

 Lack of monitoring and enforcement of the core objectives of the Liberalization Policy on the part of the government ministries and agencies responsible to enforce economic development policy such as the ministries of commerce and economic development planning as well as the Liberia business association.  Alleged that Liberian owned businesses are not encouraged and supported by other national Liberian businesses due to conflict of interests  Limited or little knowledge of the Liberian business practitioners to report or far strike business related cases to the court following the appropriate legal means  Limited innovation and skills to develop sustainable and vibrant frameworks intended to diversify and attract more investment and create the most suitable atmosphere for Liberians involvement and participation.

21

 The ability of foreign director investors or businesses to create confusion among Liberian businesses so as to protect their interest.

The speaker then recommended, “there is a need to create a vibrant Liberian business environment which seeks to develop and support Liberian owned businesses and ensure that Liberians become a major player in the development and advancement of the Liberian economy in keeping with the core objectives of the Liberalization policy” was fully recommended by the speaker.

Message on Budget and Transparency:

Madam Emma Y. Boldoe presentation defined budget as a decision making instrument involving an estimated cost that comprises revenue and expenditure directed towards achieving a particular fiscal goal or objectives. According to Madam Boldoe, transparency is an act of exhibiting “hidden agenda” described in a simple Liberian context. Key elements of budget & transparency are highlighted as follows; a budget must be collective, involving, collaborative, open, participatory and accountable.

The presentation also identified the role and responsibilities of key factors associated with public budgeting in Liberia as, the executive branch of government comprising government lines agencies and ministries, responsible for developing and implementing core deliverables of the budget, and the national legislature made of public accounts committees that are responsible for making revision , approval and appropriation of public budgets intended for the implementation of the government’s key economic policies and deliverables of the country.

Group presentations focusing on Thematic Priority Issues

The Groups were divided into three with representation of all the stakeholders in each of the groups. Each group discussed the four questions for 1 hour and 20 minutes and wrote the findings on the flipchart papers based on each question. Each group was allotted 20 minutes to make their presentation on the four questions distributed. The group leader and secretary presented the group report, one reading and another person elaborating on the results. During the group presentation, the facilitator captured the following issues of priorities and selected priorities based on the questions and validated the action through a voting process to determine the final selection of three priorities in sequence for the regional dialogue.

Below is a summary of the presentation made identifying the priority issues based on each question.

22

Priority Issues from Group Discussion

GROUP QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2 QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4 PRIORITY PRIORITY ISSUES PRIORITY ISSUES PRIORITY ISSUES ISSUES I Education Security, Youth political Security Security Education participation, Health Education Gender Based Budget & Road Network Budget & transparency Violence transparency II Education Security Health Security Security Education Agriculture Education Gender Based Budget & Road network National reconciliation Violence Transparency III Education Security Health Security Security Education Road network Education Gender Based Agriculture Agriculture Budget & transparency Violence

The Validation Session: The validation session adopted a two prone critical analysis approach looking at the commonalities from the group reports and making determination in terms of prioritizing three of the thematic issues of importance and relevance based on each question. Secondly, the participants reviewing the priorities selected, voted on final three priorities in sequence representing the region voice.

THEMATIC ISSUES QUESTIONS PRIORITIES SELECTED Education What other issues has the Liberian Security Security government NOT been effective at Education Gender Based Violence addressing in 2016? Budget & transparency Youth Political Participation What three issues do you think the Security National Reconciliation Liberian government needs to focus Education Private Sector Engagement on in 2017? Select three issues in Budget & transparency Budget & Transparency order of importance?

What other issues do you think the Health Liberian government needs to focus Agriculture on in 2017? Road network What issues would you be willing to Security engage with the Liberian government Education in addressing? Select 3 issues in order Budget & Transparency of importance.

During the validation session the participants casted votes on the selection of the three priority areas in sequence. The voting result was:

23

Security as priority number 1…………………………… 31 votes Education as priority number 2 ……………………….. 30 votes Budget & Transparency as priority number 3…… 28 votes

Thematic Recommendations:

The Tubmanburg, Bomi County consultative dialogue reviewing the validated priorities, resolved with the final selection of regional priorities following the counting of results as follows:

1. Security as priority number 1 2. Education as priority number 2 3. Budget & Transparency as priority number 3

Quotations from participants from civil society and government:

“Security is an enterprising moral “An educated mind is a responsibility of every citizen and as transformed mind of the such much be treated with enough society”. budgetary attention” Alex Balo (civil society) Hon. B.S Zinnah (Government) , A

“There is a need to create a vibrant Liberian business environment which seeks to develop and support Liberian owned

businesses and ensure that Liberians become a major player in the development and advancement of the Liberian economy in keeping with the core objectives of the Liberalization policy” Frances R. Deigh Greaves (civil society)

24

Recommendation

The five regional consultative dialogues thematic recommendations revealed:

Harper: Education, security & budget and transparency; Zwedru: Security, education & national reconciliation; Gbarnga: Security, Education and Budget & Transparency; Buchanan: Education, Security and national Reconciliation; Tubmanburg: Security, Education and Budget & Transparency.

Reviewing the five regional consultative dialogues recommendations, the NCSCL observed that security was voted number 1 in three regions, Education voted number 1 in two regions; whilst budget and transparency were featured as number 3 in the three regions and national reconciliation in two regions.

Therefore, with the summative analysis from the consultative dialogues, the NCSCL is pleased to submit as key thematic recommendations out of the five regional consultations:

Security as priority number 1;

Education as priority number 2; and

Budget & Transparency as priority number 3.

25

Conclusion

The regional consultative dialogues held in Harper, Zwedru, Gbarnga, Buchanan and Tubmanburg collated 176 multi stakeholders from the government, private sector, civil society and the media as well as guests from the National Civil Society Council of Liberia (NCSCL), the Messenger of Peace and the Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative Project. The various discussions produced a summative analysis of three thematic issues recommended for key action. The recommendations in terms of priority and sequencing included: security as priority 1, education as priority 2 and budget and transparency as priority 3. The Geopoll questionnaire used was very useful for the group discussion and inspired participants to look within the seven proposed thematic issues; and at the same time allowed the process of making self-decisions. Participants’ quotations inspired the plenary discussion and give value to the process. It was worth noting and appraised by participants LAVI action to engage the NCSCL to facilitate the consultative dialogue out which issues proposed were synchronized, validated and voted upon as key recommendations for LAVI 2nd thematic project window.

As a national apex body for civil society organizations in Liberia, the NCSCL showed gratitude to the United States Agency for International Development through the DAI for providing support that allowed citizens voice to be heard and valued. Such an initiative the NCSCL acknowledged as a sin qua non for democracy and product for peace, economic growth and development. The five regional consultative dialogues spiced the coordination initiative of the NCSCL and have increased momentum of government, private sector, civil society and media to continue the engagement process.

26

Appendix 1

Numerical matrix representation NATIONAL CIVIL SOCIETY COUNCIL OF LIBERIA

PARTICIPANTS NUMERICAL MATRIX FOR REGIONAL CONSULTATIONS

COUNTY CSOs MALE FEMALE YOUTH TRAD. PRIVATE MEDIA LOCAL Guest TOTAL LEADERS SECTOR/ AUTH. BUSINES S GBARNGA, BONG 16 24 13 2 1 5 5 4 4 37 LOFA NIMBA

BUCHANAN 16 21 14 2 1 5 4 4 3 35 GRAND BASSA MARGIBI MONTSERRADO RIVERCESS

ZWEDRU 15 19 9 1 1 5 3 2 1 28 GRAND GEDEH SINOE

TUBMANBURG 18 26 13 2 1 5 5 4 4 39 BOMI CAPE MOUNT GBARPOLU

HARPER 17 25 12 2 2 7 4 4 1 37 MARYLAND GRAND KRU RIVERGEE 82 115 61 9 6 27 21 18 13 176

27

Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI)

NCSCL Regional Consultations Feb. - March 2017

Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 18th Street & Warner Avenue, Monrovia 4/29/2017`1 1 Purpose of the Consultations • LAVI, in the process of selecting its second thematic window, used a participatory process to select the thematic funding window in order to obtain the perspective of the citizens of Liberia on what issues are most important to them. LAVI employed several techniques and approaches to select the topic. • First, LAVI worked with GeoPoll/Mobile Accord to conduct a national survey to get citizens’ perception of burning issues that are trending in Liberia, the results from which were received 27 January 2017. • In addition to this, under this grant, LAVI supported the National Civil Society Council of Liberia to conduct complementary regional consultative meetings amongst targeted actors in five locations across the country to acquire qualitative information that will validate the GeoPoll survey results. • The dialogues were intended to provoke frank and open discussion and derived findings that are now submitted to LAVI for actions considering the project window. The dialogues were structured into five sessions for one day including opening ceremony, brief motivational comments, group discussion, plenary discussion and presentation of findings and recommendations.

4/29/2017 2 NCSCL Regional Consultations

Thematic Areas Highlighted Participants • The five regional consultative dialogues • Education brought together a total of 176 participants including women, youth, elderly, persons with • Security disability, reps of Professional Associations, • Gender Based Violence Trade unions, CSOs, CBOs, Non-Traditional Organizations, Religious Groups, local leaders • Youth Political Participation and the Media. • National Reconciliation • Private Sector Engagement • Budget & Transparency

4/29/2017 3 Top Issues for TW2

Security Education Budget Transparency

• Community security and • Teacher salaries and benefits • County-level input into policing • Teacher training budget priorities • Border security • Poor quality of schools • Awareness of budgetary • Crime rate, armed robbery • Bribery and SEA process • Mob violence • Enforcement of education • Mechanisms to monitor • Police presence (number, laws spending resources, logistics) • Supervision and monitoring • Enforcement of • Women and children of schools and teachers procurement policies security • Shortage of teachers and • Allocation of funds to • Trust in security sector classroom resources different sectors and counties • Army manpower • Access to schools (recruitment incentives) (transportation and • Corruption • Ritualistic killings infrastructure) • Legislative undue influence over budget implementation • Voter security • Privatization of government • Tax collection and • Election violence of school system transparency • Departure of UNMIL • Standardized curriculum for all schools • Legislature salaries • Community colleges

4/29/2017 4 Methodology

• Participants were divided into GEOPOLL SURVEY QUESTIONS thematic groups; Government, Private Sector, Civil Society, and Media. • What other issues has the Liberian government NOT been • After introduction speeches each effective at addressing in 2016? group discussed the four pre-selected questions for 1 hour and 20 minutes • What three issues do you think and wrote the findings on the flipchart the Liberian government needs papers based on each question. to focus on in 2017? Select three issues in order of importance? • Each group was allotted 20 minutes to make their presentation on their • What other issues do you think answers to the four questions. the Liberian government needs to focus on in 2017? • A consultative dialogue process followed the pattern of group • What issues would you be willing discussion and validation session that to engage with the Liberian incorporated voting. government in addressing? Select 3 issues in order of importance.

4/29/2017 5 NCSCL Regional Consultations Findings Regional Meeting Site Counties Consensus Topic Priority Themes Selected Tubmanburg, Bomi Bomi, Cape Mount Security - 31 votes County and Gbapolu Security Education -30 votes

Budget transparency- 28Votes Harper, Maryland River Gee, Mary Education- 31 votes County Land and Grand Security -30 votes Kru Education Budget transparency-28 votes

Zwedru, Grand Grand Gedeh and Security- 24 votes Gedeh County Sinoe Education - 21 votes Security National Reconciliation-19 votes

Gbarnga, Bong Bong, Nimba, and Security- 29 Votes County Lofa Security Education-28-Votes

Budget and transparency -25 votes

Buchanan, Grand Grand Bassa, Education- 30 votes Bassa County Margibi, Education Security-29 votes Montserrado, and Rivercess National Reconciliation - 27 votes 4/29/2017 6 Tubmanburg

GROUP QUESTION QUESTIO QUESTION QUESTION 4 • The Tubmanburg 1 PRIORITY N 2 3 PRIORITY PRIORITY ISSUES PRIORITY ISSUES ISSUES consultative dialogue ISSUES was held on Monday I Education Security, Youth political Security Education participation, Education Security March 20, 2017 with Budget & Health Budget & 39 representatives Gender Based transparency Road Network transparency from Bomi, Gbarpolu, Violence and Grand Cape II Education Security Health Security Mount. Security Education Agriculture Education Gender Based Budget & Road network National Violence Transparenc reconciliation y III Education Security Health Security Education Security Education Road network Budget & Gender Based Agriculture Agriculture transparency Violence

4/29/2017 7 “There is a need to create a vibrant Liberian business environment which seeks to develop and support Liberian owned businesses and ensure that Liberians become a major player in the development and “Security is an enterprising moral advancement of the Liberian economy in keeping with responsibility of every citizen and the core objectives of the Liberalization policy” as such much be treated with Frances R. Deigh Greaves (civil society) enough budgetary attention” Hon. B.S Zinnah (Government)

“Security is an enterprising moral responsibility of every citizen and as such much be treated with enough budgetary attention” Hon. B.S Zinnah (Government)

Opening ceremony view at consultative dialogue in Tubmanburg, Bomi County at the Women Center, March 20, 2017

4/29/2017 8 Harper

GROUP QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2 QUESTION QUESTION 4 PRIORITY ISSUE PRIORITY ISSUE 3 PRIORITY PRIORITY ISSUE ISSUE • The Harper consultative dialogue I National Education Road Security was held on Wednesday, Reconciliation Security Network Private Sector March 8, 2017 with 37 Security National Electricity Education representatives from Budget & Reconciliation Price Control Grand Kru, River Gee, Transparency and Maryland counties. II National National Physical National Reconciliation Reconciliation Challenge Reconciliation • The dialogue adjourned Budget & Budget & Budget & Transp. with participants Transparency Transparency Education forming a circle and Education Education held hands together III Education Education Agriculture Education affirming their action by Gender Based Security Road Security singing the song “the Violence Budget & Network Budget & more we are together Budget & Transparency Health Transparency the happier we will be, Transparency for your friend is my IV Education Security Health Education friend and my friend is Budget & Gender Based Road Budget & your friend”. Transparency Violence Network Transparency National Budget & Agriculture Gender Based Reconciliation Transparency Violence

4/29/2017 9 “An uneducated society is “Budget captures all the issues a blind society that will “An uneducated society and so if the budget and never appreciate is a blind society that transparency process is flawed development gains and eventually the result will be a can be swayed away will never appreciate mess and the prospect for easily”. Nathaniel Toe development gains and violence and destruction is (Government) can be swayed away eminent”. Joe Mullenburg (Civil easily”. Nathaniel Toe Society) (Government)

“Education discourages bribery” Comfort Doe (civil society)

“Education is a key to any nation progress” Alfred Boe (Private sector)

Joe Mullenburg from Maryland makes a point at consultative dialogue in Harper, Maryland County at the Pastoral Retreat Center, March 8, 2017

4/29/2017 10 Zwedru

GROUP QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2 QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4 PRIORITY PRIORITY ISSUE PRIORITY PRIORITY • The Zwedru consultative ISSUE ISSUE ISSUE dialogue was held on Friday I Education Education Road Network Education Security March 10, 2017 with 28 Budget & Budget & Transparency Gender Based Gender Based participants from Grand Transparency National Reconciliation Violence Violence National Private Sector Gedeh and Sinoe counties. Reconciliation • For participants from II Education Education Agriculture Security National National Reconciliation National Zwedru the ethnic divide Reconciliation Private Sector Reconciliation and the civil wars have had Private Sector Education a significant negative III Education Education Road Security Security Security construction & National impacts on the citizens of Private Sector Private Sector Rehabilitation Reconciliation Grand Gedeh. Ultimately Water Facilities Private Sector Electricity this has created a Price Control perception of insecurity, IV Education Education Road Road network which was reflected during Security Security construction Security the voting process. National National Reconciliation Electricity National Reconciliation Poor Justice Reconciliation System

4/29/2017 11 “If you give me what you can - “An un reconciled people and I give you what you want are dangerous to is key for progress” sustain development Felecia Duncan (civil society) goals” Lewis Jadoe (civil society)

Affirmation of vote at consultative dialogue in Zwedru, Grand Gedeh County at the YMCA Center, March 10, 2017

4/29/2017 12 Gbarnga

GROUP QUESTION 1 QUESTION QUESTION 3 QUESTION PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY PRIORITY 4 PRIORITY ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES • The Gbarnga consultative dialogue was held on I Security Education Civic & voter Security Wednesday, March 15, Education Security education Education National Budget & Youth National 2017 with 37 reconciliation Transparency engagement & reconciliation representatives from empowerment Bong, Nimba, and Lofa Women engagement & counties. empowerment

II Budget & Security Justice Security Transparency Education TRC Education Security Budget & Recommendation National Private Sector Transparency Constitution reconciliation Engagement referendum

III Education Education Monitoring of Security Health Security projects Education Agriculture Budget & Health Budget & Transparency Agriculture Transparency

4/29/2017 13 “Budget is a tool that sets an agenda for nation development and sustainability” “People resilience to Deddeh Kollie (civil society) economic conditions should not be underestimated or overlooked” Gabriel Sow (civil society)

Madam Frances Greaves of NCSCL gives motivational messages on Security, gender based violence, national reconciliation at consultative dialogue in Gbarnga, Bong County at the WIPNET Center March 15, 2017

4/29/2017 14 Buchanan

GROUP QUESTION 1 QUESTION 2 QUESTION 3 QUESTION 4 PRIORITY PRIORITY PRIORITY PRIORITY • The Buchanan ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES consultative dialogue was I Education Security Elections Security held on Friday March 17, Security Education Civic education Budget & 2017 with 35 National National Road network transparency representatives from Reconciliation Reconciliation Education Grand Bassa, II National Security Gender Based Security Montserrado, Rivercess, reconciliation Budget & violence Education Security transparency Budget & and Margibi. Youth political Budget & Education transparency participation transparency Elections

III Security Security Elections Education National Education Youth political Security reconciliation Budget & participation National education transparency Health reconciliation

4/29/2017 15 “Transparency is a The growth for any nation lies in hallmark for democratic the value of a responsible and governance” educated youth, committed and George Trokon (civil dedicated to service. society) Elizabeth Doeblah (Guest Speaker)

View of Groups in working session at consultative dialogue in Buchanan, Grand Bassa County at the City Hall, March 17, 2017

4/29/2017 16 Conclusions and Recommendations

Reviewing the five regional consultative dialogues recommendations, the NCSCL observed that security was voted number 1 in three regions, Education voted number 1 in two regions; whilst budget and transparency were featured as number 3 in the three regions and national reconciliation in two regions. Therefore, with the summative analysis from the consultative dialogues, the NCSCL is pleased to submit as key thematic recommendations out of the five regional consultations: • Security as priority number 1, • Education as priority number 2, • Budget & Transparency as priority number 3.

4/29/2017 17 Thank You!

4/29/2017 18 MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING MANUAL FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS

DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

/ USAID /

DAVIDROCHKIND PREFACE The Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) project is a five-year USAID funded project to strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms. It aims to increase the influence of citizens and media in governance of public goods and services, as well as to create more effective, accountable and inclusive governance in Liberia. LAVI is comprised of four complementary objectives:

Increased horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in similar issues; Increased organizational capacity of targeted CSOs to participate in issue-based reforms; On-going capacity development services available on local market; and Learning and methodologies shared and applied by other development actors.

The purpose of LAVI’s second objective is to help address civil society’s continued dependence on short- term, ring-fenced donor funding that limits the ability of CSOs to make long-term strategic plans and develop sustained partnerships. While individual organizations have developed some advocacy and management skills, it remains difficult for coalitions to achieve large-scale impact. Partners must enhance and refine skills in key capacity domains to build civil society’s skills base and improve professional practice. This, in turn, will maximize their effectiveness in advocating for and monitoring policy and accountability reforms in Liberia.

USAID FORWARD Below are excerpts taken from USAID website https://www.usaid.gov/usaidforward. USAID Forward has three main areas, of which one is the promotion and strengthening of local partnerships. LAVI is one concrete example of USAID’s commitment toward USAID Forward in Liberia.

USAID Forward At a Glance  Promote sustainable development through high-impact partnerships and local solutions. In order to achieve long-term sustainable development, we have to support the institutions, private sector partners and civil society organizations that serve as engines of growth and progress for their own nations. USAID Forward embraces new models for public-private partnerships and increased investment directly to partner governments and local organizations.

Forward Progress The Agency made significant progress since USAID Forward was first announced in 2010.

Deliver results on a meaningful scale through a strengthened USAID  Stronger Local Partners through Direct Engagement The percentage of Mission staff engaged directly with local partners overseas continued to grow in 2015 building on continuing efforts at direct engagement with a host country government, regional entity, or a local nongovernmental organization or commercial organization. Missions have learned that direct engagement yields results and are using a broad range of approaches, including:  direct training to build capacity (financial, procurement, reporting);  joint program monitoring and field trips; and  operation manuals on how to work with USAID.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Preface ...... 2 USAID FORWARD...... 2 USAID Forward At a Glance ...... 2 Forward Progress ...... 2 Table of Contents ...... 3 Introduction ...... 5 TOPIC 1: MARKETING FUNDAMENTALS ...... 6 1.1 The Buyer’s Journey ...... 7 1.2 Creating Customer Value ...... 7 1.3 Markets ...... 8 1.4 Goods and Services ...... 9 1.5 The Marketing Mix ...... 10 1.6 Marketing Channels ...... 13 1.7 Marketing Strategy ...... 14 1.8 Brands ...... 17 1.9 Market Research...... 18 1.10 Competition ...... 19 1.11 Customer Relationship Management ...... 20 1.12 Partnerships ...... 20 1.13 Marketing Fundamentals Summary ...... 21 TOPIC 2: PROMOTION MIX ...... 22 2.1 Promotion Alternatives ...... 22 2.2 Promotion Budget ...... 27 TOPIC 3: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ...... 29 3.1 Fixed and Variable Costs ...... 29 3.2 Direct and Indirect Costs...... 30 3.3 Pricing ...... 30 3.4 Break-Even Analysis ...... 31 TOPIC 4: MARKETING PLAN ...... 33 4.1 Preparing a Marketing Plan...... 33 4.2 Implementing the Marketing Plan ...... 36 TOPIC 5: BUSINESS PLAN ...... 37 5.1 Outputs and Benefits of Writing a Business Plan ...... 37 5.2 Common Errors in Business Plans ...... 37 5.3 Mission and Vision Statements ...... 38 5.4 Financial Statements...... 39 5.5 Creating or Updating Your Business Plan ...... 40 TOPIC 6: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ...... 41 6.1 New Business Pipeline ...... 41 6.2 Keys to Successful Business Development...... 43 6.3 Creating an Elevator Pitch...... 44 TOPIC 7: ANALYZING THE CSO MARKET ...... 46 7.1 Working With CSOs ...... 47 7.2 Donors ...... 48 7.3 Governments...... 48 7.4 Partnerships Between Businesses and CSOs...... 50 7.5 CSOs vs. Businesses Marketing Approaches ...... 52 7.6 Customizing Products and Services for CSOs ...... 54 TOPIC 8: NEGOTIATIONS ...... 56 8.1 The Negotiaiton Process ...... 56 8.2 Tips for Successful Negotiaitons ...... 58 APPENDIX ...... 59

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 4 INTRODUCTION This manual is intended to provide LAVI service providers a foundation on the basic concepts of marketing, business planning, business development, understanding the CSO market, and negotiations. Emphasis is placed on practical application of ideas and strategies in order to prepare a marketing plan and business plan. The training can be delivered as a complete package or individual topics can be selected based on available time, the audience, and expected outcomes of the training.

TOPIC 1: MARKETING FUNDAMENTALS What is Marketing? Putting the right product in the right place, at the right price, at the right time.

“Marketing is how you tell your story to attract customers, partners, investors, employees and anyone else your company interacts with. It’s the script that helps users decide if they’ll welcome you into their lives as a staple, nice-to-have or necessary annoyance. It’s the way that everyone interacts with your brand. It’s impression, first, last and everything in between.”

Jeff Cutler – Executive Vice President and General Manager, Vitals.com

Every organization needs to market products and services they offer, from well established companies such as Coca-Cola, Club Beer, Lone Star, and Ford, to nonprofit organizations such as hospitals, religious institutions, and universities. In addition, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other individuals market their services.

Marketing requires identifying and meeting customer requirements. Know your customer and help them solve problems, overcome challenges, provide an experience, or satisfy a need; including the basics like food, clothing, shelter, and transportation. Hotels, restaurants, movie theatres provide an experience – you can eat and sleep or watch movies at home, but are willing to pay for the positive feeling and emotional satisfaction.

Service providers like you, as well as all other organizations and individuals that provide services, solve problems and overcome challenges for customers.

Marketing provides information on a specific target market that includes customers that are interested in purchasing a product or service. It takes significant effort to research and analyze what target customers demand, finding solutions that meet their needs at a cost that is acceptable, promoting offerings through different methods, and establishing long term trusting relationships.

The benefits of marketing include: developing relationships with current customers and identifying new customers; learning insightful information about your target market through research; enhancing your brand; and most importantly increasing your profits.

The disadvantages of marketing include the cost and time required to conduct research, create a strategy, and implement a marketing campaign.1

1 https://www.thecompanywarehouse.co.uk/blog/2010/11/02/advantages-and-disadvantages-of- marketing/

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 6

1.1 THE BUYER’S JOURNEY The buyer’s journey is the process a buyer goes through when making a purchase. Although most people do not consciously think through these three steps they are affected by marketing efforts and available information when making decisions.

1.2 CREATING CUSTOMER VALUE Business guru Peter Drucker noted: “The aim of marketing is to make selling unnecessary.” If the product sells itself, then customers flock to the product or service due to the perceived value and benefits. Think about an Ipad, Facebook, Google, great restaurants, and high quality doctors and lawyers.

Value - The extent to which a good or service is perceived by customers to meet their needs or wants, measured by customer's willingness to pay for it. Value depends more on the individual customer's perception of the worth of the product than on its price.2

Marketing professors and authors of the book Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong, define marketing as the process by which companies create value for customers and build strong customer relationships in order to capture value from customers in return.

2 http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/value.html

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 7 Below are the fundamental steps in marketing:

Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

In every buying decision, a customer asks the same question: 'Is what I am going to receive worth what I have to give up in order to get it?' The benefit the customer receives are weighed against the cost the consumer must pay for the benefit. The importance the individual customer places on a product or service becomes the customer value for that offering, and every customer is different.3

1.3 MARKETS A market is a medium that allows buyers and sellers of a specific good or service to interact in order to complete a transaction or sale. The market may either be a physical marketplace where people come together to exchange goods and services in person, such as a bazaar or shopping center, or a virtual market where buyers and sellers do not directly interact, such as an online market.

The geographic boundaries of a market may vary considerably, for example a food market in a single building, the real estate market in a local city, the consumer market in an entire country, or the global market for diamonds.

3 http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-customer-value-marketing-definition-quiz.html

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 8

1.4 GOODS AND SERVICES Products sold in markets can be classified as goods and services. Goods are items that are tangible, such as: computers, cars, houses, ovens, food, water, and clothing. Services include the performance of any activities, duties or work for someone else, including: doctors, lawyers, accountants, consultants, airlines, hotels, restaurants, gardeners, and hair dressers.

Services are still considered products, though they are not physical products that you can hold in your hand or see. Throughout most of the world, services continue to grow dramatically, however Liberia is quite different with 80% of GDP tied to agriculture and only 18% to the service industry, compared to the United States where about 80% of GDP is tied to services.

Besides those services noted above it is important to include government services such as: courts, hospitals, military, police, fire departments, and schools. In addition, nonprofit organizations and civil society organizations (CSOs) operate: museums, churches, colleges, foundations, hospitals, training centers, orphanages, programs for women, supporting the disabled, and many others. We will be discussing these organizations in greater detail on the last day, with a particular emphasis on CSOs.

Services are unique compared to goods since organizations typically rely on experience and reputation in order to sell them. Since you cannot try a service on, perform a taste test, or see the final product before agreeing to the transaction, customers tend to make assumptions about the value and quality based on price, presentation, location, and the companies and people offering the service.4

For example, when selecting a mechanic to repair damage to your car, you might visit the garage, visually inspect the tools and personnel, inquire about credentials and certificates, warranties, and ask to speak with customers who had work completed at the garage. Similarly, think about when you purchase a train ticket or stay in a hotel; by the time you realize the service is unacceptable it is too late.

The table below highlights some of the key characteristics of services:

4 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 236).

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 9

Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

1.5 THE MARKETING MIX The term marketing mix (also known as the four Ps) defines a product’s unique selling points in comparison to the competition and helps focus efforts on the target market. The marketing mix includes the four categories required to successfully market a good or service: product, price, promotion, and place.

Product – A good or service that fulfills customers’ needs or requirements. You must have a complete understanding of your product and why it is unique before you can successfully market it. Consider the product from the customer’s perspective to satisfy both current and potential customers.

Price- After the product is created you must set a price, or simply- determine how much the goods or services will cost. The price will impact profit margins, demand, perception of the product, and the overall marketing strategy. Historically, price has been the major factor affecting buyers’ decisions and their opinions impact how much companies can charge.

Companies must accurately calculate the cost of production plus other associated costs, including overhead, or run the risk of setting a price that is below what it actually costs to supply or produce the product. This situation is extremely problematic and will inevitably result in the company going out of business.

Prices can also be set based on the perceived value to customers who may be willing to pay a premium for certain benefits. Also, prices should be compared to competitors, as well as overall supply and demand. We will cover financial considerations, setting prices, and other calculations later on in the training.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 10 The following table illustrates the two basic types of price considerations, cost based and value based:

Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

Promotion – includes all of the efforts and activities required to explain the benefits of the product to customers. Once a company has created a product and determined a price it is necessary to communicate directly with potential customers to stimulate interest, address competitors, and increase sales.

Place – Also called placement or distribution, defines the process and methods used to bring the product or service to the customer, or simply how and where your product is purchased. It focuses on where the business is located, where the target market is placed, how best to connect these two, how to store goods, and how to eventually transport them.

Today, many initial interactions with clients begin online, though the place where products are purchased may be a retail store or an office where the business operates.

The table below shows some relevant questions to help guide you through determining the appropriate marketing mix for your business:

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 11

In order to take a more customer centered perspective of the 4 Ps, Kotler and Armstrong reshaped the marketing mix from the customer’s perspective:

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 12 Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

While the marketing mix consists of factors a company can directly impact, there are external environmental factors that are uncontrollable. Companies should respond and adapt their mix elements based on the following external conditions:

 Competitive environment – The number of firms competing in the target market.  Demographic environment – The features of a country that can be statistically described such as age, gender, and religion that impact decision making.  Economic environment – The financial and economic conditions in a country that determine supply and demand for products.  Physical environment – Availability, use, and disposal of natural resources.  Political and legal environment – Laws and restrictions from the government regarding competition, consumer protection, or societal welfare.  Social/cultural environment – What is acceptable in one culture may not be acceptable in another.  Technological environment – Capability and access to technology, including ease of conducting online commerce.5

1.6 MARKETING CHANNELS Marketing channels or distribution channels delineate the ways that goods and services are made available to customers. All products are either offered directly or through intermediaries, and your marketing strategies will depend on the path the product takes to the customer.

You must decide which channel is the most appropriate: Products may be sold directly to customers; sold through a retail outlet like big box stores such as Walmart; go through a wholesaler or distributor, such as electronics and IT equipment; or require an agent or broker to facilitate a sale to wholesalers or distributors and then retail outlets, such as fresh fruits and vegetables and other perishable goods.

The chart below illustrates the different possible channels:

5 https://toughnickel.com/industries/PrinciplesofMarketingPart1BasicConceptsandFundamentals

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 13

1.7 MARKETING STRATEGY After identifying the appropriate markets and potential customers, a company must create a marketing strategy to identify target buyers, determine their needs and requirements, identify solutions that the organization can deliver, and produce goods or services to address those specifically identified needs and requirements.

All successful companies understand that rather than producing something and hoping it sells because it sounds like a good product, service, or idea, it is essential to conduct extensive research on customers and markets in order to evaluate and respond to their specific demand and requests. As Kotler and Armstrong note: “The job is not to find the right customers for your product but to find the right products for your customers.”6

They continue with an explanation of an effective strategy:

“A customer-driven marketing strategy begins with selecting which customers to serve and determining a value proposition that best serves the targeted customers. It consists of four steps. Market segmentation is the act of dividing a market into distinct segments of buyers with different needs, characteristics, or behaviors who might require separate products or marketing mixes. Once the groups have been identified, market targeting evaluates each market segment’s attractiveness and selects one or more segments to serve. Market targeting consists of designing strategies to build the right relationships with the right customers. Differentiation involves actually differentiating the market

6 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 10).

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 14 offering to create superior customer value. Positioning consists of positioning the market offering in the minds of target customers.”7

Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

Segmentation categorizes customers based on geographic, demographic, behavioral, and psychographic factors. These segments are placed into distinctive groups depending on needs, behavior, and those requiring customized products or marketing programs. Segmentation assumes different groups will respond to different marketing mixes involving products, price, promotion, and place. Segmentation assists in identifying the most profitable segments, as well as specific information on each segment in terms of decision making. For example, in the hotel market, guests who want the most luxurious accommodation regardless of price make up one segment, while those who are looking for affordable rooms at well-known international chains make up another segment, and customers who will take the lowest cost room regardless of quality make up a third segment. Companies must focus on one segment rather than trying to offer a product that addresses the needs of all customers.8

7 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 190). 8Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 190 and 200).

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 15 After evaluating different segments, companies must identify a target market that consists of specific customers who share common characteristics and motivations. A company should only target segments where it can compete effectively and make a profit.

Positioning attempts to influence perception versus the competition in order to establish a clear, unique, and advantageous position in the customer’s mind. Companies must distinguish their products in comparison to what competitors offer in their target market in order to make them stand out and demonstrate the value customers are looking for.

Below are two positioning map examples for chocolate and smart phones:

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 16 Differentiation- Companies can compete based on price or by delivering perceived higher quality or greater benefits to customers. In order to determine the most beneficial positioning companies must differentiate their products, services, people, price, and timeframe to distinguish products from competitors in the target market. Keep in mind that not all differences are relevant or meaningful, it is important to focus on those that are distinctive, important, superior, affordable, and profitable.9

A company’s value proposition includes all of the benefits based on differentiation and positioning and explains why customers should buy your product rather than your competitors’ products. The value proposition should be specific to your target market.

For example, the German automotive company BMW’s value proposition is: “The ultimate driving machine”. While it’s number one competitor Mercedes Benz is: “A combination of German engineering and international flare that meets the needs, demands, and desires of luxury buyers around the world.”

Both companies sell high performance luxury vehicles at a premium price. Clearly their target market is wealthy people that can afford to pay a significant premium for automobiles. Mercedes Benz target market specifically includes: “Upper-class consumers aged 40 and up who want a car with luxury-level conveniences and a high-end feel.”

The video provides further details on the value proposition: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valueproposition.asp

Finally, competitive advantage defines instances when an organization has gained superiority by offering the same value to customers at a lower price or additional benefits for the same price.

Generally, competitive advantage is reduced over time as customer preferences change and competitors successfully copy products and strategies. If you develop a highly profitable product or an effective marketing technique it will eventually be imitated by others. One advantage that cannot be copied is high quality people. Specifically, in the services industry, hiring and retaining great teams can provide a sustainable competitive advantage.

1.8 BRANDS A brand represents the overall perception of a product, service, or company by consumers. It is the image created in a customer’s mind that implies quality, credibility, and satisfaction- frequently producing loyal customers that seek out the brand versus competitors. Brands are critical as they often represent customers’ feelings and build loyalty. As Jason Kilar, CEO of the online video service Hulu, said: “A brand is what people say about you when you’re not in the room.”

Brand equity is the premium value of a product compared to a generic equivalent. It is a measure of the brand’s ability to capture consumer preference and sales. Brands vary in their overall importance, some brands- such as McDonald’s, Nestle, Mercedes Benz, Microsoft, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Apple, Coca-Cola, and Nike are known worldwide and create deep connections and loyalty with customers.10

9 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 210). 10 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 243).

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 17

1.9 MARKET RESEARCH Market research includes the design, collection, and analysis of data to help an organization answer important questions about marketing opportunities and problems. Research provides insights into customer motivations, purchasing behavior, and satisfaction. Companies can assess market potential and market share or measure the effectiveness of pricing, product, placement, and promotion activities. Relevant market information includes: potential customers, competitors, buying trends, prices, volume or total number of products sold, market share by company, and a great deal of other information. The best way to find out what potential customers want is to ask them, though keep in mind it may be costly and time consuming.

Whenever possible, it is advantageous to research information that has already been collected and is readily available rather than colleting new information.

You can utilize primary and secondary data: Primary data is original research collected through first- hand investigation and includes information collected from interviews, experiments, surveys, questionnaires, focus groups, and other collection techniques.

Secondary data includes existing information and research that can be found on the internet or library and includes published articles, journals, reports, presentations, and newspapers.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 18 1.10 COMPETITION As we have discussed, one of the key topics to research is your competitors. Today, business is ultra- competitive and it is imperative to conduct competitor analysis, comparing marketing strategies, products, prices, and promotion against others to identify potential competitive advantages and disadvantages. The next step is developing competitive marketing strategies that strongly position your company against competitors.11

Although it may seem obvious who your competitors are- those who offer the same products or services at similar prices- companies may want to consider a wider range of possibilities by including competitors that offer the same product or class of products, especially if you are considering expanding your product offerings.

Does Coca-Cola only compete against Pepsi, or does it expand to all soda manufacturers? Do they include only soda or all beverages, such as juices, coffee, tea, milk and others?

Once you have identified your direct competitors, it is necessary to view motivations and actions from their perspective. What is their goal, what is their mission, what is their objective? Are they seeking similar outcomes as you in terms of profitability? Do they focus on quality and customer service- providing great value? What is each competitor’s strategy? What are their strengths and weaknesses, and how will they respond to your actions?12

As Kotler and Armstrong state:

“Marketers need to carefully assess each competitor’s strengths and weaknesses to answer a critical question: What can our competitors do? As a first step, companies can gather data on each competitor’s goals, strategies, and performance over the past few years. Admittedly, some of this information will be hard to obtain. Companies normally learn about their competitors’ strengths and weaknesses through secondary data, personal experience, and word of mouth. They can also conduct primary marketing research with customers, suppliers, and dealers. Or they can benchmark themselves against other firms, comparing one company’s products and processes to those of competitors or leading firms in other industries to identify best practices and find ways to improve quality and performance. Benchmarking has become a powerful tool for increasing a company’s competitiveness.”13

11 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 528). 12 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 528-529). 13 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 531).

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 19 1.11 CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT Customer relationship management (CRM) includes any practice, technology, or strategy that helps businesses improve, track, and monitor relationships and interactions with customers to improve current and potential relationships. A company’s CRM frequently uses a web application or software to manage all of the information.

For example: 1) Knowing what products customers previously ordered in the event they would like to make repeat orders; 2) understanding how and where customers contact and communicate with you- through your website, phone, email, or in person; 3) helping customers solve problems and develop solutions for their own growth and profitability; and 4) simply reaching out to maintain positive connections with current and potential customers. It is essential to appropriately manage relationships and provide superior service, including following up on outstanding issues.

1.12 PARTNERSHIPS Partnerships are arrangements where two or more parties combine resources, knowledge, and interests to cooperate in achieving a goal that they would not be able to attain alone. Companies can partner together to win business; by leveraging their expertise, resources, and strengths it may be possible to compete in target markets not previously considered. Partnering can also occur with organizations that might otherwise compete against each other to reach greater scale or take advantage of available opportunities. Frequently smaller organizations cannot compete with bigger more established companies for large contracts. Partnerships might result in expanding your capabilities; offering a greater variety of products and services from a deeper pool of resources; increasing outreach, expanding product offerings, or accessing new target markets; and deterring some competitors from competing against you. Many organizations rely on partnerships to improve their efficiency and provide higher quality products and services. For example, computer manufacturers such as Apple, Sony, Lenovo, and Hewlett Packard work with other component manufacturers to supply motherboards, processors, and other parts, while some of these companies also carefully select distributors and retailers to sell the finished product.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 20 1.13 MARKETING FUNDAMENTALS SUMMARY At the start of the training we discussed, what is marketing? Simply put, putting the right product in the right place, at the right price, at the right time. The original figure we started with was the following:

Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

Below is an expanded figure that describes actions required to attain marketing success:

Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 21 TOPIC 2: PROMOTION MIX

2.1 PROMOTION ALTERNATIVES When company’s need to spread their message, they have a number of different alternatives to reach the public, specifically catering to their audience or target market. A company’s promotion mix or marketing communications mix includes a combination of advertising, direct marketing, public relations, personal selling, and sales promotion intended to persuade customers to purchase products and build long lasting relationships.

Advertising - Is any paid form of non-personal message that presents products in an effort to promote and sell them. Advertising can reach a wide audience and enables the message to be repeated frequently.

Television advertising can reach hundreds of thousands and even millions of potential customers, while simultaneously legitimizing the product and company. Other medium include advertising in newspapers, on the radio, on billboards, or in magazines.

Advertising can help companies build long term success or provide immediate impact for special limited time sales or offers. The drawbacks to advertising are the impersonal nature, the high cost, and the potential that the creative message is either not understood or viewed negatively.

For insight into Liberian advertising, please refer to “Understanding the Media and Advertising Market in Liberia” report conducted by IREX in July 2011 from the Civil Society and Media Leadership Program: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00M29T.pdf

“The data shows that the upper half of the population have preferences in media and use media advertisements in their purchase intentions, men more often than women. Print and radio are the dominant media for this group. The advertising picture that emerges in Liberia shows a man with expendable income paying attention to advertisements on radio and print and reflecting on the advertisements in his buying behaviors. Newspaper advertisements are seen as most credible of all three media types. Middle-aged females are significantly more likely than males to let radio ads influence their behavior. While men of any income are more likely than women to be influenced by television ads, television ads do not appear to be as influential in determining purchasing habits as radio or newspaper ads. Television may be used for more brand identification (such as CellCom’s sponsorship of programming) than actual sales.”

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 22

Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 23

Direct marketing - Allows companies to communicate directly with targeted individuals through media such as websites, text messages, telephone calls, direct mail, and other alternatives. The message can be customized as required and is usually directed to a select group of individuals based on a database of names or organizations.

Direct marketing is interactive and provides the opportunity for discussion and feedback from the company conducting the campaign and the potential customer, with flexibility to respond based on the feedback received. Direct marketing is appropriate for specifically focused initiatives and building rapport with customers.14,15

14 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 425). 15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_marketing

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 24

Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

Personal selling - Involves personal meetings and discussions to allow immediate feedback and answer questions to provide a level of comfort for the customer. The personal touch is more likely to stimulate a direct response. The additional connection and open lines of communication require more resources. Remember the mantra: “Everyone in the company is in sales!”

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 25 Public relations (PR) - Entails creating positive relations with the public to create a strong impression by obtaining favorable publicity, enhancing the corporate image and brand, and addressing any negative stories, events, or rumors.

Public relations consists of news stories, sponsorships, events, lobbying, investor relations, and a host of other activities. Since the message or story frequently comes from third parties and is not a direct advertisement it typically has more credibility and appeal for the public since the message to customers is “news” rather than propaganda or sales. An effective PR campaign used with other promotion mix elements can be very effective and economical.16

Below is a summary of common public relations activities:

Sales promotions - are short term incentives to stimulate and encourage sales. They may include price reductions, coupons, contests, and other incentives to attract customers to buy products they normally might not consider.

The goal of advertising is to convince customers to purchase the product, while sales promotions aim to motivate customers to buy now! Sales promotion impacts are usually short term, and not as effective as advertising or personal selling in cultivating long term customer loyalty and brand awareness.

16 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 425).

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 26 The promotion mix is illustrated in the figure below, however marketing communication includes many other characteristics besides these promotional tools: The product’s shape, colors, packaging, design, branding, and stores that sell it send a message to customers. Although the promotion mix is the major communications activity the additional marketing mix of product, price, and place must be integrated in all messages and remain consistent.17

Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

2.2 PROMOTION BUDGET The total budget spent on promoting a business depends on the size of the company, total sales and profits, the nature of the business, the company’s expectations from promotional activities, and many other factors. In the U.S. promotion spending is approximately 10-12% of sales for consumer packaged goods, 14% for cosmetics, and only 1% for industrial machinery products.18

There are four main methods for determining the promotion budget:

1. The affordable method sets the budget at a level that managers feel is appropriate for the company based on financial performance. 2. The percentage of sales method places the budget at a certain percentage of estimated sales or a percentage of the unit sales price. 3. The competitive-parity method establishes the budget relative to what the company believes competitors are spending to match or exceed their spending. 4. The objective-and-task method determines the budget based on what the company intends to achieve with promotions, and requires the company to define specific goals and outcomes; determine what steps are required to reach these goals; and forecast the cost of these steps.

17 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 408). 18 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 423-424).

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 27

The objective-and-task method requires management to clearly define the goals and costs required to achieve them, however it can be very difficult to accurately predict impact and results. As an example, a company may wish to increase sales by 20% over one year. The next step is to determine what steps would likely result in this goal. The company might believe that it needs to place advertisements in a monthly business publication at $1,000 per month for a total annual cost of $12,000. This expense may or may not achieve the stated goal, however it does directly match spending to the expected outcome.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 28 TOPIC 3: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT The goal for any business is to satisfy customers, increase sales, maximize profits, and create a well- known and respected brand. Fundamentally, businesses exist to create value and produce strong financial results for employees and shareholders. Understanding financial information and managing costs is essential for all businesses.

3.1 FIXED AND VARIABLE COSTS Fixed costs, commonly referred to as overhead, include costs that must be paid regardless of any activity or sales produced. Fixed costs are required even if the business does nothing over the course of a month, simply turning the lights on (electricity); paying full time staff (salaries); and paying for the office space (rent) are required to operate the business.

Variable costs are those costs that change based on output or production levels. If a company produces mobile phones- the cost of components will vary based on the total number of phones produced during the month.

Fixed and variable costs added together equals the total cost for a certain level of production. Businesses must analyze and calculate costs accurately and continuously to ensure the prices they are charging customers cover all costs of producing the product, or they will soon be out of business.

As we have discussed, companies must know what their competition is charging for similar products. If costs are higher than the competition, the company will need to charge a higher price or accept lower profit, resulting in a competitive disadvantage. In order to understand the impact of different prices, companies must calculate costs based on different assumptions of volume or total sales.

Some examples of fixed costs include: rent, salaries, insurance for property or equipment, and interest expense on loans, while variable costs include: direct raw materials for a product, production supplies, billable labor wages only paid based on actual work performed, utilities, shipping costs, and travel costs.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 29 3.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS

In addition to fixed and variable costs, there are also direct and indirect costs that help companies determine the actual cost of products. Allocating these costs is essential in manufacturing goods or for service providers that have multiple projects running simultaneously. Direct costs benefit a single product or project, while indirect costs benefit multiple products or projects.

DIRECT COSTS INDIRECT COSTS

A cost that is easily attributable A cost that cannot be allocated to a Definition to a cost center or project particular cost center or project

Allocation Specific projects Multiple projects

Traceable Yes No

Classification Material, labor, and expenses Indirect material, labor, and overhead

Examples of direct costs include: facilities, raw materials, salaries, tools, equipment, subcontracting, and travel expenses used for a specific product or project.

Examples of indirect costs include: salaries for managers not working on the product or project, other salaries for staff such as accountants and human resources, office rent, tax, and interest expenses.

Why are all of these costs important? Without specifically identifying fixed, variable, direct, and indirect costs you cannot calculate the cost of your products, overhead, and other necessary expenses to determine how to price products or decrease business costs if you face financial challenges. If you do not know your costs, how can you set product prices to ensure you are making a profit?

3.3 PRICING Cost-Plus Pricing The easiest way to calculate a price is cost-plus pricing, also referred to as a markup, where organizations determine the cost of production and add in a percentage for profit. Consulting companies can estimate the total cost of an assignment and simply add a markup or fee based on the complexity of the intervention, risk, or other factors. This system is also used by many professionals in the service industry such as accountants, lawyers, mechanics, and construction companies.

As an example, a clock company has the following financials:

 Fixed costs: $20,000  Variable costs per unit: $10  Expected unit sales: 4,000

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 30 The company’s actual cost for each clock is calculated as follows:

Unit costs = Variable costs + Fixed costs = ($10 x 4,000) or $40,000 + $20,000 = $15 Expected unit sales 4,000

If the company wanted to earn a 35% markup on each clock, they would charge dealers $23.08 per clock and make a gross profit of $8.08 for every clock sold based on the calculation below:

Markup price = Unit cost = $15 = $23.08 1 – desired return on sales .65

Gross profit = revenue- costs of goods sold (direct labor, materials, and overhead) Gross profit video: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/226158

Cost of goods sold video: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cogs.asp

3.4 BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS The break-even point calculates the amount of revenue or units that must be sold to cover fixed and variable costs associated with the product: If revenue exactly equals expenses then neither a profit or a loss occurs. The break-even level is calculated by dividing the total fixed costs of production by the price per unit minus variable costs per unit.

Break Even Point in Units = Fixed Costs Sales Price Per Unit – Variable Cost Per Unit

The sales price per unit minus the variable costs per unit is called the contribution margin, so the equation can be simplified by dividing the fixed costs by the contribution margin.

Break Even Point in Units = Fixed Costs Contribution Margin

This calculation provides the total number of units that must be sold to break-even. Once the break-even volume is determined, we can also calculate the break-even point in sales by multiplying the price of each unit by the break-even volume, which shows the total sales required for neither a profit or loss.

Break Even Point in Dollars = Sales Price Per Unit X Break Even Point in Units

As an example, a furniture store is selling tables and wants to know how many units they will need to sell in order to break even. Here are the relevant figures:

 Total fixed costs: $50,000  Variable costs per unit: $30  Sale price per unit: $50

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 31 To calculate the break-even point per unit, we divide the fixed costs of $50,000 by the $20 contribution margin ($50 sale price - $30 variable cost per unit).

2,500 Units = $50,000 $50-$30

The store will have to sell 2,500 units to fully cover all fixed and variable costs. Every sale above 2,500 units will increase the contribution margin (sale price per unit – variable cost per unit) since the fixed costs are already fully covered.

Next, we determine the total break-even in terms of dollars by multiplying the 2,500 units by the $50 sales price.

$125,000 = 2,500 Units x $50 Per Unit

The company must sell at least 2,500 units or $125,000 of tables to break-even.

Break-even video: http://www.investopedia.com/video/play/breakeven- analysis/?ad=dirN&qo=serpSearchTopBox&qsrc=1&o=40186

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 32 TOPIC 4: MARKETING PLAN

4.1 PREPARING A MARKETING PLAN A marketing plan is a comprehensive document that outlines a company's marketing and advertising initiatives for one year. It describes activities, tasks, and strategies required to accomplish all of the marketing goals.

A marketing plan outline noting the key sections generally looks like the following two examples:

1. Executive summary 2. Company overview 3. Objectives or goals according to strategic plan and focus 4. Situation analysis 5. Market/product/customer analysis 6. Marketing strategy 7. Financial projections 8. Implementation plan 9. Evaluation and control metrics

Kotler and Armstrong provide the following template for the contents of a marketing plan:

Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 33

This link provides an excellent summary of the requirements to prepare a marketing plan: https://vtldesign.com/digital-marketing/digital-marketing-strategy/how-to-write-marketing-plan-template/

The following websites provide two marketing plan templates, though please feel free to use whatever template you wish: https://www.bdc.ca/en/articles-tools/entrepreneur-toolkit/templates-business-guides/pages/marketing- plan-template.aspx www.nadf.org/upload/documents/your-marketing-plan-template.doc

One of the required steps for the plan is a SWOT analysis to determine the company’s (s)trengths, (w)eaknesses, (o)pportunities, and (t)hreats. The table below defines each of these four categories.

Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 34 Below are two examples. Please start to create a SWOT analysis for your company.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 35 4.2 IMPLEMENTING THE MARKETING PLAN A marketing plan and well thought out strategies are only the first step. A great plan is irrelevant if the company does not implement it effectively. The planning process identifies what you intend to do and why it is important. Implementation focuses on who is responsible, when will tasks be completed, and how will they get accomplished.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 36 TOPIC 5: BUSINESS PLAN A business plan is a document that summarizes a company’s operational, marketing, and financial objectives. It describes policies, strategies, and assumptions to help run your company, make financial forecasts, allocate resources, and anticipate potential issues. Business plans also help determine what type of financing is required in order to convince investors that the company will become profitable.

5.1 OUTPUTS AND BENEFITS OF WRITING A BUSINESS PLAN The list below includes some of the most important outputs and benefits of creating a business plan:

 Concise statement of your business mission and vision  Describes your products and services  Outlines your marketing plan and strategies  Provides a description of your business model- how you plan to make money  Identifies potential customers and their requirements  Lists competitors and your value proposition relative to their products  Creates a road map for achieving your goals and objectives  Illustrates expected financial performance and may convince others to invest in the company  Helps employees understand the goals and vision of the company

In terms of ensuring you include every recommended section, your business plan should contain whatever is essential for your company. If you do not intend to raise money the plan will be for an internal audience and can be more explanatory and less formal. If the intention is to seek outside financing, the plan should be extremely concise with realistic and accurate financial projections that can be justified and defended.

Writing a business plan will take time, and to the extent possible, everyone in the company should have some input. Senior management must be heavily involved throughout the process and ultimately agree to everything stated in the plan. The lack of a strong business plan, or having no plan, is a major cause of businesses failing.

5.2 COMMON ERRORS IN BUSINESS PLANS The following are some common errors to avoid when preparing a business plan that may harm your credibility and impact partners and investors willingness to work with you:

 Submitting a “rough copy” with spelling errors or without final proofreading and editing implies that the company is not serious.  Old historical financial information or unrealistic assumptions and figures will call into question your basic business acumen. Be prepared to defend your assumptions.  Omitting any potential risks or overly optimistic analysis will result in a skeptical impression about the plan and your business since it appears that you have not carefully analyzed potential issues.  Lack of knowledge regarding financial information is a surefire way to scare away investors- know the numbers and keep things as simple as possible.  No specific, well-conceived strategies that only include general concepts or ideas implies that you are not able to differentiate your business or value proposition, which means you will not stand out in the crowd.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 37  Omitting what the owners have invested will scare off investors and others since you are not even willing to invest in your own company!19

5.3 MISSION AND VISION STATEMENTS As we begin to create or improve existing business plans, it is imperative to ensure that everyone has articulated a clear mission and vision for your business. These are fundamental concepts in strategic planning and must be included in your business plan.

Mission Statement Your mission statement defines the purpose of your business, customers, and approach to achieve success. It requires the business to define who you are and why you exist. It also communicates the purpose of your business to your employees and those outside your organization.

Below are some examples of mission statements:

EXAMPLES OF REAL-WORLD MISSION STATEMENTS The mission of the Metropolitan Police Department is to prevent crime and the fear of crime, as we work with others to build safe and healthy communities throughout the District of Columbia. (Washington D.C. Police Department)

Get it there. (FedEx)

To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives. (Sierra Club)

To provide our customers with safe, good value, point-to-point air services. To effect and to offer a consistent and reliable product and fares appealing to leisure and business markets on a range of European routes. To achieve this we will develop our people and establish lasting relationships with our supporters. (easyJet.com)

The NBA’s mission is to be the most respected and successful sports league and sports marketing organization in the world. (National Basketball Association)

To make guests happy. (Disney World)

Dell’s mission is to be the most successful computer company in the world at delivering the best customer experience in markets we serve. In doing so, Dell will meet customer expectations of: • Highest quality • Leading technology • Competitive pricing • Individual and company accountability • Best-in-class service and support • Flexible customization capability • Superior corporate citizenship • Financial stability (Dell Computer)

Source: Business Plans Kit For Dummies 2nd Edition, Steven Peterson, Peter E. Jaret, and Barbara Findlay Schenck

19 Writing a Business Plan, Georgia State University

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 38 A very good video on preparing a mission statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJhG3HZ7b4o

For your reference, 25 of the most well-known brands’ mission statements, including a grade for each company: http://www.slideshare.net/Bplans/25-mission-statements-from-the-worlds-most- valuable-brands?ref=http://articles.bplans.com/writing-a-mission-statement/

Vision Statement The vision describes what the business wishes to achieve in the future (5-10 years) and provides direction, while ideally motivating employees to work toward the common goal.

PepsiCo’s Vision "PepsiCo's responsibility is to continually improve all aspects of the world in which we operate - environment, social, economic - creating a better tomorrow than today. Our vision is put into action through programs and a focus on environmental stewardship, activities to benefit society, and a commitment to build shareholder value by making PepsiCo a truly sustainable company." Amazon’s Vision "Our [Amazon's] vision is to be earth's most customer centric company; to build a place where people can come to find and discover anything they might want to buy online."

5.4 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS There are three major financial statements that all businesses must prepare for tax purposes, as well as potential lenders and investors, to help determine financial stability: the balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement.

These three documents provide different information- though they are connected- and convey important information about financial performance and any possible issues that need further explanation.

The Balance Sheet expresses the company’s assets, liabilities, and shareholder equity at a specific moment in time. Any increases or decreases in assets from profit or losses of the business are taken directly from the income statement.

The key formula to ensure accounts are always balanced- with an increase or decrease in assets, offsetting an exact increase or decrease in liabilities and shareholder equity is: Assets = Liabilities + Shareholder Equity.

The Income Statement shows the amount of revenue and all related expenses a company earned over a certain time period such as a month, quarter, or year. Revenue is stated and then the costs of goods sold is subtracted to calculate gross profit. Operating expenses are then subtracted to determine operating profit before additional items such as taxes and interest are deducted, leaving net income or net profit. Any increases or decreases in assets are transferred to the balance sheet, while profit or loss from the income statement is included in the cash flow statement.

The Cash Flow Statement reports inflows and outflows of cash over a certain time period such as a month, quarter, or year. It summarizes sources and uses of cash by operating activities, investing activities, and financing activities. The details from the cash flow statement directly relate to the balance sheet and net profit or loss is reported on the income statement.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 39 Cash is king in business! There are examples of successful businesses with assets and healthy balance sheets going out of business because they did not have cash available to purchase materials for their products or pay suppliers, employees, and other necessary expenses. Data compiled in 2015 by the research firm CB Insights found that 29% of startups fail because of a cash crisis.

Appendix 1 includes examples of a balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement.

The following links provide a brief summary on financial statements, as well as the three financial statements discussed above: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/06/financialreporting.asp?ad=dirN&qo=investopediaSiteSearc h&qsrc=0&o=40186 http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/balancesheet.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/incomestatement.asp http://www.investopedia.com/video/play/what-cash-flow-statement/ For additional information on managing cash flow, please see the following article: https://www.joinharper.com/essential-cash-flow-rules-for-startups/

5.5 CREATING OR UPDATING YOUR BUSINESS PLAN For the remainder of today we will focus on reviewing a business plan template called “The Nuts & Bolts of Great Business Plans”, a publication of the Martin J. Whitman School of Management at Syracuse University, and used with their permission. It is an excellent step by step guide to take you through the entire process of producing a business plan and includes many practical questions and useful advice.

Appendix 2 includes some helpful checklists and questionnaires for your business plan.

The following link is an excellent summary video of creating a business plan (9 minutes long): https://www.youtube.com want /watch?v=Fqch5OrUPvA

The following websites provide two business plan templates, though please feel free to use whatever template you wish: https://www.bdc.ca/en/articles-tools/entrepreneur-toolkit/templates-business-guides/pages/business-plan- template.aspx http://www.bplans.com/sample_business_plans.php (Choose the ‘consulting’ link from the options)

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 40 TOPIC 6: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Business development includes all of the ideas, initiatives, and activities required to create long term growth, resulting in: 1) increasing revenue and profitability; 2) expanding the business into new markets; 3) cultivating strategic partnerships; 4) making important business decisions; and 5) expanding the value of current customer interactions. Business development is a mix of sales, marketing, negotiations, networking, project management, and contract review. Business development is an integral part of a business’ growth strategy. All businesses must have at least one person responsible for business development and they should be outgoing, organized, self- disciplined, and energetic as they will be the face of your company to partners and customers.

6.1 NEW BUSINESS PIPELINE The new business pipeline refers to an analysis of the sales process where opportunities are shown based on the stages in the cycle. Companies can assign percentages to note the likelihood of closing the deal and the estimated value of the sale. The pipeline should be linked to customer relationship management (CRM) information or a database and include the following information:

1. Total value of the potential proposal or sale 2. Staff responsible for closing the sale 3. Time and resources required to deliver the product or service 4. Schedule to deliver the proposal, presentation, or offer 5. Status of negotiations in the sales process 6. Reason for success or rejection 7. Total value of products or services contracted (may be different than the proposal value) 8. Other relevant information or lessons learned for future opportunities

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 41 Below are the key steps in the selling process:

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 42 6.2 KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT 1. Refer to your marketing plan. All of the efforts required to create your marketing plan should pay off. Determine which strategies and ideas will provide the best returns. Which markets and prospects are the most likely to result in sales? 2. Study the competition. Evaluate your competitors to determine how you can differentiate your brand and product. What is your value proposition and how can you highlight your strengths relative to the competition? 3. Be prepared to act quickly and decisively. Research from Insidesales.com noted that 50% of buyers choose the company that responds to them first. Share this finding with your staff and always aspire to follow up as quickly as possible. Remember “Everyone is in sales” and responsiveness can help win new business. 4. Request the business and try to get an affirmative or negative answer. After completing the required work, submitting a proposal, and answering any outstanding questions it is imperative to eventually determine if you can close the sale. Without being pushy, you may want to state something like the following: “We would really enjoy working together, please let us know when we can start implementing the proposal.” It also tells you exactly where you stand; if the client refuses then move on and save your time and efforts for the next prospect. 5. Continually service existing customers. A study by Manta and BIA/Kelsey revealed that a repeat customer spends 67% more than a new customer. More than 60% of small-business owners generate the majority (51%) of their annual revenue from repeat customers. Stay up to date with all of your current accounts and know what is happening in their field of expertise so you can react and comment. Send a note on special occasions such as birthdays or anniversaries. Reach out as often as appropriate, though try to aim for at least four times a year. 6. Ensure your website is maintained and up to date. Few things are more unprofessional than an outdated or inaccurate website. Recent research shows 84% of business customers check business websites. A low-quality website will result in lost opportunities. Prepare a short video on your website describing your services and value proposition. 7. Establish targets annually and review them monthly. Without setting goals, businesses cannot evaluate success. Set SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Timely) and review them regularly. 8. Determine where your customers and potential customers seek out information. Once you have identified where customers find information, make certain you are visible and active in that space. 9. Bolster your reputation and be known as an expert. People will seek you out if you are perceived to be a problem solver with expertise in a certain area. Serve on panels, try to set up interviews with newspapers or television to provide expert advice, and continue your education to achieve certification and advanced degrees. 10. Stay active on social media. Social media is here to stay and has changed the way we communicate with friends, family, and most assuredly in business. Without actively engaging, your company will vanish from search engine results and potential supplier short lists. 11. Complete business development tasks every day. Even a simple phone call or two maintains discipline and keeps businesses thinking about new business opportunities. 12. Continually expand your network. Attend events, keep active online, socialize and expand your base as often as possible.20,21

20 https://www.americanexpress.com/us/small-business/openforum/articles/tips-effective-business- development/ 21 http://www.gsa-marketing.co.uk/20-business-development-tips-to-get-you-more-business/

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 43 The following three videos offer additional insight into business development: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Xwy-XBVgk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwHvN9JcAgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2KctAS9CjY

6.3 CREATING AN ELEVATOR PITCH An elevator pitch is a very brief, prepared summary speech- usually from 30 seconds to two minutes- that succinctly describes what your company offers. The pitch should provide key information about your business, products, customers, value proposition, and a “call to action” or what you want (buy your product, invest in your company, partner with your company.)

Everyone in your company should feel comfortable delivering the pitch since you never know when or where you might run into potential customers.

These two video clips show a few examples: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/228070 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9g54otENnc

Here are two articles to help you perfect your pitch: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/228070 http://articles.bplans.com/the-7-key-components-of-a-perfect-elevator-pitch/

Finally, the one page summary document below is intended to help you with the content of your pitch:

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 44

Source: Bplans.com

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 45 TOPIC 7: ANALYZING THE CSO MARKET We have thus far focused our discussions entirely on businesses that seek to maximize profits, however virtually all of the concepts and planning documents are also applicable for civil society organizations (CSOs). CSOs also need to market their products and sell their services, although they have some unique characteristics and requirements.

Civil society has grown dramatically over the past 25 years, driven by globalization, the internet, and economic growth. According to the Yearbook of International Organizations 2016-2017, in 1990 there were approximately 6,000 CSOs, while today there are approximately 70,000.

CSOs support domestic programs to improve a wide variety of social services and implement development assistance activities from donors.

The World Bank uses a definition for CSOs compiled by leading research centers:

“Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations that have a presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious, or philanthropic considerations. CSOs therefore refer to a wide of array of organizations: community groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), labor unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and foundations.”22

For a background summary on Liberian CSOs, please see the following report produced in 2014: http://www.wacsi.org/en/site/publications/2430/Civil-Society-Index-Rapid-Assessment-Liberia-Liberia- Ghana-CIVICUS.htm

22worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/CSO/0,,contentMDK:20101499~menuPK:244752~pagePK:2 20503~piPK:220476~theSitePK:228717,00.html

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 46 7.1 WORKING WITH CSOS Most CSOs focus on the following themes: 1) Representing, organizing, and consolidating positions and messages, such as political parties or trade unions; 2) advocating on behalf of a specific group, including children or the disabled; 3) providing capacity building and delivering services, like proper sanitation disposal and establishing health clinics; 4) social engagement, such as youth related activities; and 5) oversight on important issues, like human rights groups.23

CSOs do not exist to make money and generate profits, rather they are strongly motivated by helping others and making the world a better place.

The figure below shows examples of the most common types of CSOs:

Source: Mercy Corps Local Partnerships: A Guide for Partnering with Civil Society, Business, and Government

23A Guide for Partnering With Civil Society, Business and Government Groups, Mercy Corps

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 47 7.2 DONORS Donors provide funding for an organization’s program activities, usually based on specific goals for an agreed upon timeframe and within a fixed budget. Donors include:

 Individuals  International agencies like USAID  Multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations (UN)  Multilateral banks, including the African Development Bank and the World Bank  Corporations, such as Coca Cola, ExxonMobil, Walmart, and many others

Donors have a variety of motivations, though they are essentially investors supporting CSOs in achieving their mission, while simultaneously advancing their own objectives. Donors are held accountable for their investments and must show tangible results to justify the resources dedicated to the program.

In addition to helping beneficiaries, donors usually require the following from CSOs:

 Constant communication and regular periodic reporting on program implementation that highlights successes.  Enhancing the donor’s image by branding materials with the donor’s identity, and informing the public about the financial support and goals of the program.  Measuring the results of interventions and showing impact that can be attributed to the CSOs efforts through rigorous monitoring and evaluation.  Managing all funds appropriately, transparently, and efficiently for the intended purposes.24

7.3 GOVERNMENTS Governments procure a wide variety of goods and services to meet the needs of citizens; total purchases can be huge and may provide some new marketing opportunities. The government market offers tremendous opportunities for many companies, and in the U.S. procurements are often reserved specifically for small businesses. In the U.S., federal, state, and local governments operate more than 82,000 entities that procure over $1 trillion in goods and services each year.

Liberia now has similar regulations in place that mandate 25% of all procurement must be awarded to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The total value of these contracts will be approximately $70 million in fiscal year 2016-2017. Although there are many similarities working with businesses and governments, there are also some critical differences. Working with governments requires identifying and satisfying key decision makers. In addition, governments often require proposals and bids for services and goods, and they often make decisions based solely on the lowest price offered. Governments also tend to select local suppliers rather than foreign suppliers.

Due to the high level of scrutiny and regulation of government purchases, organizations must follow all of the required policies and procedures, which can lead to a sizable amount of additional paperwork, administration, bureaucracy, and delays. Companies considering working with governments must take

24 FHI360 Fundraising and Marketing for CSOs: A Resource Guide for Civil Society Organizations in Botswana

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 48 these issues into consideration, as well as the major concern of potential payment delays, before deciding to collaborate with the government.25

Source: Principles of Marketing, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong

25 Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall 2012, Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong (Page 28-29).

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 49 7.4 PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN BUSINESSES AND CSOS Despite a different approach, partnerships between CSOs and businesses can address challenges and benefit both parties, while providing essential services to citizens. However, there are issues to consider in these partnerships due to different missions, cultures, procedures, and resources available.

Businesses collaborate with CSOs to access new markets, gain knowledge and perspective of local markets, and enhance brand awareness in communities. CSOs benefit by leveraging resources, utilizing specialized expertise or technology, expanding their knowledge and skills, and potentially increasing the likelihood of sustainability for their activities.

C&E Advisory conducted a survey in the United Kingdom with leading organizations in 2015 and found that over the next three years: 87% of respondents expect corporate and NGO partnerships will become more or much more important, while 57% of business and 86% of NGO respondents are expecting partnerships to either increase or increase significantly.

Although there are many benefits to partnerships, challenges certainly exist and must be examined and addressed. The Danish Red Cross identified 11 key challenges and related risks to partnerships illustrated in the following diagram:

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 50

Source: Not Business as Usual - Partnerships between CSOs and Businesses, Danish Red Cross

When businesses engage in partnerships with CSOs it is imperative to consider these challenges and try to address solutions before any formal agreements are made. Also, the starting point of all partnerships should be identifying a strategic fit between the partners and agreeing on the purpose and expected outcomes early in the process.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 51 7.5 CSOS VS. BUSINESSES MARKETING APPROACHES When CSOs market themselves and their products there are some significant differences compared to businesses, including:

Product –Typically, CSOs have a much weaker value proposition since they often tailor their products to satisfy the donor’s requirements, rather than offering a unique custom designed solution. CSOs are frequently required to be reactive to the donor rather than proactive and creative.

Price – CSOs often do not charge anything, or a small symbolic price, to their beneficiaries for services. When seeking funding from donors, rather than determining a markup price, CSOs budget and invoice only those costs they incur- known as “cost recovery”.

Promotion – The one area that is probably most similar to businesses, CSOs must promote themselves and their products in order to generate business and inform the public about their mission to solicit volunteers and donations.

Place – The location of targeted beneficiaries is often predetermined; as opposed to looking for customers, CSOs focus where either they- or the donor - have identified beneficiaries requiring assistance. For example, a specific part of the country that is economically depressed, an area with a high concentration of health challenges, or a location with a large population of former combatants after a conflict ends.

Segmentation- Usually CSOs purposely try not to segment the market when designing a campaign or program. They prefer to target the largest audience possible. For example, encouraging citizens to vote, promoting recycling or waste reduction programs, or encouraging vaccinations for children may actually have a specific audience, yet outreach campaigns generally are targeted for the entire population.

Finally, as we have already discussed, the mission statement for commercial organizations typically refers to becoming a market leader and maximizing profit. For CSOs the mission statement is based on a cause or intended transformation to improve the lives of beneficiaries.26

26 Marketing 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press 2011, Paul Baines, Chris Fill, and Kelly Page, Page (594-600).

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 52 Below are some of the key characteristics of CSOs that impact marketing:

Source: Marketing 2nd Edition, Paul Baines, Chris Fill, and Kelly Page

Multiple Stakeholders – CSOs have many stakeholders including: donors, board members, government agencies, employees, and beneficiaries. In businesses, profits generated from sales are reinvested in the company or distributed to shareholders. CSOs rely on donors or donations to fund programs and do not generate profits to return to supporters.

Transparency – Since CSOs receive funding from donors, the government, and donations their finances and spending are scrutinized closely. CSOs must meet higher standards of integrity and trust in order to continue to receive support. Businesses, on the other hand, usually try to report the minimum financial information required to comply with regulations.

Multiple Objectives – In business, return on investment (ROI) is often the key factor in allocating resources, and profit or “the bottom line” is the most important result that is fairly easy to calculate. CSOs have many activities to conduct in order to achieve success, including: awareness raising, recruiting volunteers, fundraising, lobbying, assisting beneficiaries, and researching populations and locations where their services are required. Measuring results for CSOs is more complicated since there are more objectives.

Orientation – Rather than creating a good and selling it in an appropriate market, CSOs generally provide services. They need to tell their story and focus on communications and outreach strategies to create awareness about the cause they support. Ideally, CSOs hope to recruit supporters to convince them to get involved with the organization to leverage resources and increase donations. Businesses simply need to persuade customers to purchase their products.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 53 Customer’s Perceptions – As we have discussed throughout the training, businesses fight for customers and continually service them to build loyalty and increase market share. CSOs do not have the same relationship with their customers or beneficiaries since the demand for their services exceeds what can be provided. CSOs do not usually spend much time researching their beneficiaries needs or adapting their products to increase customer satisfaction.

7.6 CUSTOMIZING PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FOR CSOS Do CSOs need strategic plans, marketing plans, business plans, and operational plans? Absolutely! All of these planning documents improve CSOs’ efficiency and discipline to operate like a business and maximize the value of what they can provide to donors.

CSOs certainly require a well designed and clear mission and vision to motivate their staff and provide donors and beneficiaries insight into what they hope to achieve. The other plans help create a schedule and goals, target funding sources, help the organization operate efficiently, and improve the likelihood of the organization becoming financially sustainable.

In addition to offering training and support in preparing planning documents, due to limited resources, CSOs often do not have expertise and require assistance with the following:

 Research – conducting technical research and writing reports necessary to deliver and expand services. Examples include: technical assessments and studies to support increasing the quantity of their services, a variety of information required to write strong proposals, reports for the public highlighting their services, and feasibility studies.

 Technical expertise – to provide guidance and manage programs that require significant skills and experience in a technical area. Examples include specialists in: human rights, nutrition, infrastructure, political parties, environmental issues, vaccinations, agriculture, gender, youth, and numerous other topics.

 Finance, administration, and operations – verifying that all policies, procedures, and regulations required by the donor and the organization itself are followed properly. Examples include: accounting, budgeting, procurement, human resources, contracting, project management, and auditing.

 Information and Communications Technology (ICT) services – establishing a workable system for employees to communicate effectively. Examples include: basic IT support, website development and maintenance, and software and hardware installation.

 Legal and regulatory matters – complying with all of the required laws and regulations. Examples include: registration, contracts, tax reporting, labor laws, and work permits.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 54 Most of the marketing strategies for targeting the CSO market are similar to other customers and should be included in your marketing plan. As always, start with research and see if there is a good potential fit. In addition, you may want to consider some of the following approaches:

1. Stay up to date on opportunities from the Government of Liberia and international donors; consider partnering schemes with CSOs that are mutually beneficial. 2. Pay close attention to CSOs during start-up of new programs as there are usually opportunities available and they have sufficient funds available. 3. Maintain contact with CSO relationships and inquire about potential work, especially towards the end of the of year (U.S. Government fiscal year ends on September 30th) as there may be funding that must be spent or it will be lost. 4. Start small with a relatively simple low cost option of services and then upsell after successful interventions. Customize your products only if the quality is not compromised. 5. CSOs often have events and ribbon cuttings open to the public highlighting their activities and accomplishments. Participate and network to see if there are opportunities available. 6. Collaborate with universities that may already have established relationships with CSOs. 7. Consider volunteering at a CSO to learn how the organization operates and assess how you can help- in addition to completing important work that you believe in.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 55 TOPIC 8: NEGOTIATIONS Negotiations are discussions between two or more people or parties intended to produce a satisfactory outcome for all participants when there is disagreement on at least one issue. It is a method where people settle differences by compromising or agreeing to certain terms in order to avoid ongoing disagreement. They are often conducted by proposing a position and making small concessions to achieve a resolution. The amount of trust between the parties to implement the final provisions is a major factor in determining whether negotiations are successful. People negotiate every day in everything from: dealing with children and spouses, legal matters, businesses, hostage negotiations, diplomatic discussions, peace or cease fire agreements in conflicts, and numerous other areas.

8.1 THE NEGOTIAITON PROCESS

The negotiation process includes the following stages:

1) Preparation 2) Definition of ground rules 3) Clarification and justification 4) Bargaining and problem solving 5) Closure and implementation

1) Preparation: The first step is to research all of the relevant information, particularly the other party you will be negotiating with. You should also run through scenarios and key points, including how you will respond to certain actions and offers. Determine the ideal outcome from your perspective and then consider the needs and perspectives of everyone involved and different positions and interests.

2) Definition of ground rules: Define the ground rules and procedures with the other party: where will the meetings take place? Are there time constraints? Are there limitations of what is on the table for discussion? What if no resolution can be reached? During this phase parties should also explain their starting proposals or demands.

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 56

3) Clarification and justification: Through an open dialogue, confidently state what you are hoping to achieve with the other party and what results you would like to see. Exchange opinions and viewpoints (sometimes this includes arguments), however you can respond to the other party’s views by minimizing their importance to you to diminish their value. Emphasize the benefits you are providing and point out any concessions you are making for them. Never share your lowest acceptable offer or maximum expectation- even after the negotiations conclude!

4) Bargaining and problem solving: The essence of negotiating; find areas where both parties find common ground then work toward an agreement. Undoubtedly both sides will have to concede something in order to reach an agreement.

5) Closure and implementation: Once an agreement has been reached all of the pertinent details, terms, and any conditions must be confirmed. Typically, an agreement will result in signing a contract, though it can also simply be a handshake or an agreement in principle. Ensure that the proper authority from the other party is in the room, rather than allowing additional changes after the formal negotiations conclude.27,28

27 https://blog.udemy.com/negotiation-process-2/ 28 https://iedunote.com/negotiation-process-five-steps

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 57 8.2 TIPS FOR SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIAITONS The steps below provide guidance on conducting successful negotiations:

 Present your arguments clearly, concisely, and confidently.  Try to avoid conflict and keep your composure throughout the proceedings. Be aware that the other party may become angry or combative, in some cases this tactic is purposeful to see how you will react in a tense situation.  Carefully observe verbal and nonverbal communication from the other party, including body language.  It is imperative to understand the needs and goals of the other party to help determine their motivation and intentions.  Identify the key stakeholders- not just the people sitting in the room.  Determine what you will do if an agreement cannot be reached. If necessary, ensure you have a backup plan in place to maintain business operations (for example: a parts supplier for an automobile manufacturer wants to raise the price for the parts. Ideally, you would have another supplier in place.)  Are you negotiating with someone you may interact with in the future or someone you will never see again? Is it possible this initial negotiation could lead to continued business and a long- lasting relationship?  Consider the cultural background of the other party to determine their expectations and potential responses.  Decide the best way to communicate and an appropriate location to maximize the chance for success. If possible, try to set up the meeting in the location you select. Also, there are times when email or formal written responses are the best way to negotiate. This is typically how donor proposals are handled.

The following article is an excellent synopsis of negotiations: http://www.womenunlimitedworldwide.com/how-to-negotiate-anything-10-keys-to-better-negotiating-in- business-and-in-life/

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 58 APPENDIX Appendix 1: Financial Statement Examples Balance Sheet Construction Company Balance Sheet 5/1/2015

Current Period Prior Period Increase (Decrease) 05/01/15 to 05/01/16 05/01/14 to 05/01/15 05/01/15 to 05/01/16 ASSETS Current Assets: Cash $ 21,506 $ 20,000 $ 1,506 Petty Cash $ 200 $ 200 $ - Accounts Receivables $ 5,013 $ 5,000 $ 13 Inventory $ 20,887 $ 21,000 $ (113) Prepaid Expenses $ 1,098 $ 1,100 $ (2) Employee Advances $ 100 $ - $ 100 Temporary Investments $ - $ - $ - Total Current Assets $ 48,804 $ 47,300 $ 1,504

Fixed Assets: Land $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - Buildings $ 60,235 $ 60,235 $ - Furniture and Equipment $ 28,777 $ 30,777 $ (2,000) Computer Equipment $ 5,195 $ 5,195 $ - Vehicles $ 32,513 $ 32,513 $ - Less: Accumulated Depreciation $ (43,183) $ (45,201) $ 2,018 Total Fixed Assets $ 233,537 $ 233,519 $ 18

Other Assets: Trademarks $ 4,171 $ 4,171 $ - Patents $ - $ - $ - Security Deposits $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ - Other Assets $ 583 $ 600 $ (17) Total Other Assets $ 6,254 $ 6,271 $ (17) $ - TOTAL ASSETS $ 288,595 $ 287,090 $ 1,505

LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts Payable $ 18,237 $ 18,000 $ 237 Business Credit Cards $ 7,523 $ 6,000 $ 1,523 Sales Tax Payable $ 1,055 $ 1,000 $ 55 Payroll Liabilities $ 2,382 $ 2,500 $ (118) Other Liabilities $ 941 $ 1,000 $ (59) Current Portion of Long-Term Debt $ 12,111 $ 12,111 $ - Total Current Liabilities $ 42,249 $ 40,611 $ 1,638

Long-Term Liabilities: Notes Payable $ 50,195 $ 48,301 $ 1,894 Mortgage Payable $ 148,222 $ 146,231 $ 1,991 Less: Current portion of Long-term debt $ (1,200) $ (1,200) $ - Total Long-Term Liabilities $ 197,217 $ 193,332 $ 3,885

EQUITY Capital Stock/Partner's Equity $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ - Opening Retained Earnings $ 25,530 $ 29,129 $ (3,599) Dividends Paid/Owner's Draw $ (5,000) $ (5,000) $ - Net Income (Loss) $ 8,599 $ 9,018 $ (419) Total Equity $ 49,129 $ 53,147 $ (4,018)

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY $ 288,595 $ 287,090 $ 1,505 Source for Balance Sheet, Income Statement, and Cash Flow Statement: QuickBooks

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 59 Income Statement Construction Company Income Statement 10/1/2015

Current Period Prior Period Increase (Decrease) 07/01/15 to 09/30/15 07/01/14 to 09/30/14 07/01/15 to 09/30/15 REVENUES Product/Service 1 … $ 14,000 $ 11,689 $ 2,311 Product/Service 2 … $ 25,000 $ 22,111 $ 2,889 Product/Service 3 … $ 8,000 $ 3,899 $ 4,101 Other Revenue $ 400 $ 203 $ 197 TOTAL REVENUES $ 47,400 $ 37,902 $ 9,498

COST OF GOODS SOLD Product/Service 1 … $ 4,000 $ 3,507 $ 493 Product/Service 2 … $ 13,000 $ 11,056 $ 1,945 Product/Service 3 … $ 3,200 $ 1,560 $ 1,640 Salaries-Direct $ 1,900 $ 1,766 $ 134 Payroll Taxes and Benefits-Direct $ 225 $ 215 $ 10 Depreciation-Direct $ 612 $ 612 $ - Supplies $ 400 $ 310 $ 90 Other Direct Costs $ 50 $ 24 $ 26 TOTAL COST OF GOODS SOLD $ 23,387 $ 19,049 $ 4,338

GROSS PROFIT (LOSS) $ 24,013 $ 18,853 $ 5,160

OPERATING EXPENSES Advertising and Promotion $ 300 $ 206 $ 94 Automobile/Transportation $ 50 $ 45 $ 5 Bad Debts/Losses and Thefts $ 25 $ - $ 25 Bank Service Charges $ 30 $ 25 $ 5 Business Licenses and Permits $ 50 $ - $ 50 Charitable Contributions $ - $ 100 $ (100) Computer and Internet $ 125 $ 129 $ (4) Continuing Education $ - $ - $ - Depreciation-Indirect $ 1,277 $ 1,277 $ - Dues and Subscriptions $ 25 $ - $ 25 Insurance $ 600 $ 600 $ - Meals and Entertainment $ 200 $ 185 $ 15 Merchant Account Fees $ 600 $ 502 $ 98 Miscellaneous Expense $ 25 $ 30 $ (5) Office Supplies $ 50 $ 40 $ 10 Payroll Processing $ 200 $ 201 $ (1) Postage and Delivery $ 20 $ 18 $ 2 Printing and Reproduction $ 50 $ 33 $ 17 Professional Services - Legal, Accounting $ 250 $ 207 $ 43 Occupancy $ 1,600 $ 1,600 $ - Rental Payments $ 525 $ 514 $ 11 Salaries-Indirect $ 4,000 $ 3,805 $ 195 Payroll Taxes and Benefits-Indirect $ 425 $ 411 $ 14 Subcontractor $ - $ - $ - Telephone $ 500 $ 488 $ 12 Travel $ 100 $ 56 $ 44 Utilities $ 900 $ 790 $ 110 Website Development $ - $ - $ - TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 11,927 $ 11,262 $ 665

OPERATING PROFIT (LOSS) $ 12,086 $ 7,591 $ 4,495

INTEREST (INCOME), EXPENSE & TAXES Interest (Income) $ (50) $ (32) $ (18) Interest Expense $ 700 $ 689 $ 11 Income Tax Expense $ 5,200 $ 3,200 $ 2,000 TOTAL INTEREST (INCOME), EXPENSE & TAXES $ 5,850 $ 3,857 $ 1,993

NET INCOME (LOSS) $ 6,236 $ 3,734 $ 2,502

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 60 Statement of Cash Flows Construction Company Statement of Cash Flows 5/1/2015 Current Period Prior Period Increase (Decrease) 07/01/15 to 09/30/15 07/01/14 to 09/30/14 07/01/15 to 09/30/15 BEGINNING CASH ON HAND 24,110 31,885 (7,775)

ADD: CASH RECEIPTS Cash Sales 12,000 12,600 (600) Collections from Customer Credit Accounts 35,000 36,750 (1,750) Loan or Other Cash Injection - - - Interest Income 250 250 - Income Tax Refund - - - Misc. Cash Receipts 50 50 - TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS 47,300 49,650 (2,350)

LESS: CASH PAYMENTS COST OF GOODS SOLD: Direct Product/Service Costs 13,000 13,650 (650) Salaries-Direct 1,900 1,995 (95) Payroll Taxes and Benefits-Direct 225 236 (11) Supplies 400 420 (20) Other Costs 50 53 (3) Sub-Total Cost of Goods Sold 15,575 16,354 (779)

OPERATING EXPENSES: Advertising and Promotion 300 315 (15) Automobile/Transportation 50 53 (3) Bank Service Charges 25 26 (1) Business Licenses and Permits 30 32 (2) Charitable Contributions 50 53 (3) Computer and Internet 200 210 (10) Continuing Education 125 131 (6) Dues and Subscriptions 25 26 (1) Insurance 600 630 (30) Meals and Entertainment 200 210 (10) Merchant Account Fees 600 630 (30) Miscellaneous Expense 25 26 (1) Office Supplies 50 53 (3) Payroll Processing 200 210 (10) Postage and Delivery 20 21 (1) Printing and Reproduction 50 53 (3) Professional Services - Legal, Accounting 250 263 (13) Occupancy 1,600 1,680 (80) Rental Payments 525 551 (26) Salaries-Indirect 4,000 4,200 (200) Payroll Taxes and Benefits-Indirect 425 446 (21) Subcontractor - - - Telephone 500 525 (25) Travel 100 105 (5) Utilities 900 945 (45) Website Development - - - Sub-Total Operating Expenses 10,850 11,393 (543)

OTHER EXPENSE PAYMENTS Interest Expense 700 735 (35) Income Tax Expense 5,200 5,460 (260) Cash Disbursements to Owners - - - Sub-Total Other Expense Payments 5,900 6,195 (295)

TOTAL CASH PAYMENTS 32,325 33,941 (1,616)

NET CASH CHANGE - Inflow (Outflow) 14,975 15,709 (734)

CASH POSITION (end of month) 39,085 47,594 (8,509)

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 61 Appendix 2: Business Plan Checklists and Questionnaires

CHECKLIST OF COMMON BUSINESS GOALS

 Improve customer satisfaction

 Establish or increase brand awareness

 Find new markets for products or services

 Expand product or service lines

 Decrease time to market

 Improve employee satisfaction

 Increase management communication

 Reduce operational costs

 Generate new sources of revenue

 Become more entrepreneurial

 Increase networking with partners

Source: Business Plans Kit For Dummies 2nd Edition, Steven Peterson, Peter E. Jaret, and Barbara Findlay Schenck

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 62

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS QUESTIONAIRE 1. How many competitors do you have?

2. Has Manya new competitorSome entered Fewthe market recently?

3. HaveYes any competitorsNo in your market area gone out of business recently?

4. HowYes difficult is it forNo new competitors to enter your market area?

5. HowVery important difficult is Difficult technological Easy change to your business?

6. What’sVery the important current market demandSomewhat in your industry? important Not important

7. Is thereGrowing an untapped Stable market thatDeclining your industry can take advantage of?

8. WhatYes do customersMaybe care aboutNo most in your business?

9. HowPrice easily canFeatures customers Service find alternativesAll of the aboveoutside your industry?

10. HowVery much easily bargaining With difficulty power do Notbig customersat all have in your industry?

11. HowA lot much influenceSome do large Nonesuppliers have in setting terms?

12. HowA lot much powerSome do distributors None wield in your industry?

13. WhatA lot are typicalSome profit marginsNone like in your business?

14. WhatStrong is the trendAverage for overall costsWeak in your industry?

15. HowDeclining would you Stabledescribe the generalRising health of your industry?

Source: Business Plans KitVery For healthy Dummies Somewhat 2nd Edition, Stevenhealthy Peterson, Ailing Peter E. Jaret, and Barbara Findlay Schenck

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 63 IDEAL CUSTOMER QUESTIONNAIRE

1. What kinds of products or services do your ideal customers seek from your business? What special features do they request?

2. When your ideal customer comes to your business, what need or want is that person looking to address? Think beyond product features. Consider what product benefits the customer is seeking and what kinds of emotional outcomes the customer is hoping for.

3. When making buying decisions, what does your ideal customer value most? Cost? Quality? Features? Convenience? Reliability? Your reputation? Your unique expertise? Your after-sale support? Your product guarantee?

4. How do your ideal customers reach your business? Referrals? Ads? Direct mailings? Web site? Promotions? Cold calls? Sales presentations? By simply walking by your front door?

5. What are the buying patterns of your ideal customers? How often do they buy from your business? How large is each sales transaction? What combination of your product offerings do they purchase? Do they buy on impulse or after careful consideration? Do they buy full-priced offerings or seek discounts or sales?

6. How would you describe your ideal customer? Where does that person live? What is the person’s age, gender, occupation, income level, educations level, family

7. How would you describe your ideal customer’s lifestyle? What are his or her hobbies? Social or church affiliations? Leisure-time activities? Etc.

Source: Business Plans Kit For Dummies 2nd Edition, Steven Peterson, Peter E. Jaret, and Barbara Findlay Schenck

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 64

PRICING STRATEGY CHECKLIST 1. What is your pricing philosophy? Does your business want to be the high- end price choice? Middle-of-the-pack? Low end?

2. How do your current (or planned) prices compare with those of your competitors? If your prices are higher, do you offer extra value? If your prices are lower, what affects your lower price and can your pricing sustain profitability?

3. Do you plan to offer special initial pricing to gain trial and acceptance? If so, what is your plan for increasing prices later?

4. Do your prices cover all costs plus a profit margin?

5. Do your prices cover costs such as shrinkage, returns, bad debt, and allowance for employee errors?

6. Do you offer financing and does your offer affect profits for good or bad?

7. How often do you alter your prices or offer sale pricing?

8. Do you allow bargaining?

9. Do you — or can you — join a buying group, buy through an association, or establish bulk-buying agreements to reduce the costs of your product?

10. Do you offer a range of payment options, and do you know the impact of each choice on your financial condition?

11. Other pricing considerations...

Source: Business Plans Kit For Dummies 2nd Edition, Steven Peterson, Peter E. Jaret, and Barbara Findlay Schenck

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 65 PROMOTION STRATEGY WORKSHEET 1. To meet your marketing objectives, will you rely most heavily on advertising, personal presentations, sales promotions, or publicity? 2. Can you communicate with your prospects and customers one- to-one using direct mail, e-mail, and personal meetings or do you need to use mass media to reach your market?

3. For advertising or publicity, which media will best reach your prospect — local newspaper, radio, and TV; national/international media/ business-to-business publications; special-interest publications; Web presence; outdoor ads; or others?

4. Are trade shows important for meeting distributors or consumers?

5. Do you need promotional literature to attract prospects or to help move prospects to a buying decision?

6. What kind of message will you convey in your communications? (Remember: consistency is the key to strong branding and sales.)

7. Does your program require professional assistance from freelancers, Web site designers, advertising or public relations firms, or media buyers?

8. Name the three to five most effective ways to communicate with your consumers in order to meet your marketing objectives.

Source: Business Plans Kit For Dummies 2nd Edition, Steven Peterson, Peter E. Jaret, and Barbara Findlay Schenck

USAID.GOV MARKETING AND BUSINESS PLAN TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS 66

USAID Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative Learning Lab Vision

The LAVI Learning Lab will serve as a hub for all the learning activities and outputs related to LAVI. The objectives of the LAVI Learning Lab are to:

1) Foster collaboration and information sharing among advocacy actors in Liberia 2) Help address common capacity challenges that hinder civil society from engaging in evidence-based, issue-based advocacy 3) Capture, store, and share advocacy lessons-learned and resources 4) Increase understanding of KM & Learning methodologies and programmatic best-practices 5) Generate learning to answer LAVI Learning Questions

The primary audiences for LAVI Learning Lab are advocacy actors in Liberia which, for the LAVI, include:

• Civil Society Organizations: The majority of the trainings and resources offered by the Learning Lab are geared towards helping civil society improve their advocacy efforts, namely by cultivating collaborative relationships with key stakeholders, accessing relevant information and best practices, and, building organizational capacity. The LAVI Learning Lab will place particular emphasis on engaging and supporting civil society organizations in the counties frequently lack access to the resources and relationships available in Monrovia. • Civil Society Actors: For LAVI, civil society actors are distinct from civil society organizations and include those non-governmental and private entities that are typically left out of advocacy efforts. Such actors could include the private sector, professional associations and trade unions, community- based organizations (CBOs), the faith community etc. Through events as well as targeted grant opportunities, the LAVI Learning Lab will encourage these civil society actors to share their knowledge, ideas, and lessons-learned and meaningfully engage in collaborative advocacy activities to promote issue-based policy changes. • Government of Liberia: As an essential stakeholder in issue-based policy reform, national and local level government representatives will be invited to engage in collaborative problem-solving, knowledge sharing, and learning activities at the LAVI Learning Lab. • Other Development Actors: Through Learning Networks and events, the LAVI Learning Lab will also provide a space for coordination, collaboration, and knowledge sharing among donors and international non-governmental organizations engaging in advocacy in Liberia.

Partners

• LAVI ME&L team: The LAVI ME&L team will be the central point of contact for the LAVI Learning Lab. Given the team’s role in driving the project’s learning activities, the ME&L team will play a key role in program design and strategic partnership development for the LAVI Learning Lab. With the support of the LAVI Grants team, the ME&L team will devise the technical components of LAVI Learning Lab-related grants and serve on the Grants Evaluation Committee. The LAVI

ME&L team will be responsible for providing KM & Learning training to Learning Lab grantees and partners as well as capturing lessons-learned across all Learning Lab activities. • LAVI Learning Lab Grantees: Grantees will be selected to develop and implement learning activities for the LAVI Learning Lab. The activities of the grantees will support LAVI in answering its key learning questions, bringing diverse advocacy actors together, building the capacity of Liberian advocacy actors, and capturing and sharing learning and knowledge to enhance collaborative, evidence-based advocacy. The LAVI Learning Lab will have a mixture of short-term and long-term grantees, all trained KM & Learning principles. • iCampus: The LAVI Learning Lab is located at the iCampus, an innovation hub and co-working space designed and managed by the organizations Accountability Lab and iLab. These organizations will leverage their local and global networks to design learning activities and materials for the LAVI Learning Lab and attract participants and partners. In partnership with the appropriate LAVI grantees, the iCampus staff will manage the LAVI Learning Lab resource library, maintain the LAVI Learning Lab calendar of events, and engage in outreach activities for the LAVI Learning Activities. iCampus will also lead or implement the learning activities such as learning networks, peer exchanges, film screenings and guided online courses. iCampus will work in close partnership with the LAVI ME&L team in designing and implementing all LAVI Learning Lab activities. Further, together the LAVI ME&L team and iCampus will provide training and mentorship to Liberian organizations in knowledge management and learning concepts and best-practices.

LAVI Learning Lab Areas:

Potential Lead Ideas and/or Source of Content Learning Networks: Donors & INGOs engaging in issues related to the thematic LAVI window • Ex: CSDF Coordination & Learning Network Core-funding members across thematic windows Core-funding organizations Related to each thematic window Coalition member iCampus

Host learning events related to LSA Compracs LAVI

Peer Learning & Coalition Learning Events Coalition Member Collaboration • Ex: DEN-L facilitated peer learning event, LMC facilitated Grantee Events: CSDF journalist learning event iCampus Government Partners Learning Event LAVI • Ex: NRM regulatory agencies learning event Grantee Learning events to capture and share best-practices in iCampus advocacy across sectors Grantees • Detailed in iCampus Grant LAVI

• Ex: Open Government Partnership, OpenGovHub, TEDx

Others to address core LAVI Learning Questions iCampus • Ex: Private sector engagement, trade union engagement Grantee Trainings KM & Learning Trainings LAVI • Held quarterly and open to all, particularly potential iCampus LAVI grantees Grant Trainings LAVI • Held periodically to provide trainings in writing grants Service Provider for LAVI Service Provider Trainings Service Providers • Ex: Business in a Box: Financial Sustainability for Advocacy CSOs Guided Online Courses iCampus

Resource Library: Advocacy Best-Practices iCampus • Developed from learning events Grantee • Collected from other programs, USAID etc. Coalitions LAVI Advocacy Capacity Strengthening Materials LAVI • Manuals and templates iCampus Government Information and Data for Use in advocacy iCampus campaigns Grantee Online Tools iCampus • Trainings Grantee • Open Source Software Thematic Window Research and Data iCampus • Ex. Information Gathering Reports, simplified laws from Grantee NRM Coalition and government partners Coalition Mobile Learning Strategy to share above resources and activities outside of iCampus Lab Monrovia LAVI • Pilot using county connections from LEGIT, LMD, ALab, and iLab etc.

AMENDMENTS TO LAVI AMEP-YEAR TWO This section provides details of amendments made to the LAVI approved version of the AMEP. In includes changes that were made to the indicator title and definitions to reflect lessons learned during Year One that have influenced the respective changes. This section should be added to the LAVI AMEP.

APPROVED VERSION UPDATED VERSION # JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGES JANUARY 2016 MARCH 2017 OBJECTIVE: Strengthen multi-stakeholder partnerships to advocate for and monitor policy and accountability reforms

Quality of engagement Quality of engagement LAVI between civil society and between civil society and No change 1 government government

This indicator has not changed and remains in the LAVI RF at the Civil society’s satisfaction Civil society’s satisfaction impact level, but measurement (data with their voices being with their voices being collection tool) will move to the LAVI heard in decision making heard in decision making ACAT instead of the Civil Society 2 and monitoring and monitoring Actor Survey. Reporting on this processes. processes. indicator will take place in each quarter that the ACAT is conducted.

Increased capacity of Increased capacity of LAVI CSOs to foster citizen CSOs to foster citizen No change 3 engagement. engagement.

IR 1: Horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in similar issues strengthened It was intended that this indicator be calculated using Social Number of USAID Networking Analysis software. LAVI supported CSOs with an Indicator discontinued in This has proven to be more 1.1 increase in network FY2 complex than anticipated, and the density. LAVI M&E Team have not found software. APPROVED VERSION UPDATED VERSION # JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGES JANUARY 2016 MARCH 2017 Number of Number of recommendations recommendations presented by civil society presented by civil society actors, networks, actors, networks, or LAVI coalitions or government To include data to be collected coalitions requesting 1.1 institutions requesting from government partners decision makers to decision makers to introduce, adopt, repeal introduce, adopt, repeal or change public policies or change public policies or practices or practices Number of consensus FAF This is a new indicator building forums (multi- Request by USAID to add to LAVI 2.3.1- introduced after the party, civil/security, reporting indicators 7 AMEP was approved. and/or civil/political) held with USG assistance Number of CSOs Number of CSOs Significant changes to the FAF receiving USG assistance receiving USG assistance “Operational Definition” to reduce 2.4.1- engaged in advocacy engaged in advocacy level of restriction in collecting 9 interventions interventions data. Number of USG funded Number of USG funded organizations organizations FAF representing marginalized representing marginalized 2.4.1- constituencies trying to constituencies trying to No change 11 affect government policy affect government policy or conducting or conducting government oversight government oversight This indicator provides the ability Number of multi-party to report on one of the key meetings held to activities of the program – holding LAVI New Indicator in FY2 strengthen the horizontal multi stakeholder meetings to 1.2 and vertical linkages strengthen linkages and build amongst partners advocacy capacity among target CSOs and the GOL Number of organizations that participate in multi- This indicator is linked to LAVI 1.2, LAVI party meetings to counting the number of multi-party New Indicator in FY2 1.3 strengthen the horizontal meetings. and vertical linkages amongst partners Number of grants This is a direct indicator that LAVI provided to GOL to measures one of the key program New Indicator in FY2 1.4 strengthen citizens and activities crucial to the achievement government engagement of the programs objectives. IR 2: Organizational capacity of targeted CSOs to participate in issue-based reforms increased. APPROVED VERSION UPDATED VERSION # JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGES JANUARY 2016 MARCH 2017 Added to indicator definition: The Organizational Capacity of CSOs will be measured using the ICAT. The ICAT is an in-house tool developed specifically for the purpose of measuring change in Organizational and organizational capacity in key areas. Advocacy Capacity The Advocacy Capacity of CSOs scores of targeted will be measured using the ACAT. Number of USG CSOs in the reporting The ACAT is an in-house tool LAVI supported CSOs with period highlighting developed specifically for the 2.1 improvement in improvements in the purpose of measuring change in Organizational Capacity capacity of USG Advocacy capacity. For both the supported CSOs ICAT and ACAT the average scores of all sections is included for these scores. Reporting scores rather than simply number of CSOs allows the data to be more granular and provides greater insight into performance improvements. This indicator allows LAVI to demonstrate progress achieved in the implementation of Capacity Number of LAVI Development Plans by targeted supported CSOs with CSOs. It is directly relevant to their LAVI New Indicator in FY2 a Capacity improved organizational capacity, 2.2 Development Plan which is the stated intention of the being implemented second Intermediate result, making these indicators both direct and relevant.

Instead of counting the number of CSOs participating in capacity building activities LAVI will count Number of CSO the number of trainings. We have Number of CSOs using organizational capacity several indicators counting the LAVI capacity development building activities number of CSOs being assisted by 2.3 services provided by LAVI conducted by LAVI or LAVI in the RF. This indicator LSP instead counts the number of trainings which is an important activity conducted by LAVI. . APPROVED VERSION UPDATED VERSION # JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGES JANUARY 2016 MARCH 2017 The indicator provides a measure of the depth of activities of LAVI in Number of individuals organizational capacity building LAVI who participate in LAVI activities in addition to the count of New Indicator in FY2 2.4 supported organizational organizations in which capacity is capacity building activities built.

This indicator allows LAVI to demonstrate progress achieved in the development of Capacity Development Plans. The development through participative Number of LAVI processes and the subsequent supported CSOs with a implementation of Capacity Capacity Development LAVI Development Plans by targeted New Indicator in FY2 Plan in the development 2.5 CSOs is directly relevant to their stages of consultation, improved organizational capacity, drafting, review and which is the stated intention of the approval second Intermediate result, making these indicators both direct and relevant.

IR 3: Development of ongoing capacity development services in the local market promoted The language of this indicator has changed slightly in FY2. However the indicator has not changed. Changed the indicator from measuring and reporting the average “responsiveness and Client Satisfaction Score effectiveness” to measuring the for local capacity “responsiveness and effectiveness” Reported responsiveness development service and reporting the number of local LAVI and effectiveness of providers showing capacity development service 3.1 capacity development improvement in providers where there is a service providers. responsiveness and reported improvement. effectiveness of service The indicator methodology in provided terms of measuring “responsiveness and effectiveness” remains primarily the same, but by changing what we report, its utility is increased from a management perspective for both USAID and LAVI. APPROVED VERSION UPDATED VERSION # JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGES JANUARY 2016 MARCH 2017 The implementation of an action plan by local service providers for targeted CSOs with LAVI assistance is essential to the development of Number of Local Service ongoing capacity development in LAVI Providers who have an the local market. Indicator 3.4 New Indicator in FY2 3.2 action plan being marks the achievement of implemented with CSOs developmental stages of the action plan and indicator 3.2 marks the implementation of the action plan, again providing a space for LAVI to report incremental development. This indicator retains its definition Number of CSOs and Number of local service in the LAVI RF, with no changes to other interested parties LAVI providers receiving the method of calculation. It does accessing USAID- 3.3 capacity development however become LAVI 3.3 in the supported service support from LAVI updated RF due to the addition of a provider pool new outcome level indicator. The development of an action plan by local service providers for targeted CSOs with LAVI assistance Number of Local Service is essential to the development of Providers who have an ongoing capacity development in action plan in the LAVI the local market. Indicator 3.4 New Indicator in FY2 development stages of 3.4 marks the achievement of consultation, drafting, developmental stages of the action review and approval with plan and indicator 3.2 marks the CSOs implementation of the action plan, again providing a space for LAVI to report incremental development. IR 4: Learning and methodologies shared and applied by other development actors. This indicator does not count the total number of referrals, only those that are acted on, resulting in the reported data actually Number of referrals presenting the number of LAVI Indicator discontinued in made to LAVI Learning individuals who make use of the 4.1 FY2 Lab LAVI Learning Lab. The number of referrals is not possible to gauge, as LAVI has no way of counting all referrals to the LAVI Learning Lab. . APPROVED VERSION UPDATED VERSION # JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGES JANUARY 2016 MARCH 2017 Public policy This indicator will allow LAVI to Number of mechanisms processes show how the linkages between accessed by civil society Participation Score for the government and CSO actors LAVI actors, networks and target CSOs showing are improving. Modified definition 4.1 coalitions to strengthen improved oversight of to capture information on CSOs oversight of decision decision making who directly receive grants from making LAVI or who received technical

assistance. The original indicator would not count the total number of referrals, only those that are acted on, resulting in the reported data actually presenting the number of Number of individuals LAVI individuals who make use of the New Indicator in FY2 who make use of the 4.2 LAVI Learning Lab. The number of LAVI Learning Lab referrals is not possible to gauge, as LAVI has no way of counting all referrals to the LAVI Learning Lab. Data can still be disaggregated by referral source if desired. Number of outputs by Number of outputs by Additions to definition to include grant partners and grant partners and clearly defined grant partners to LAVI Contractor that generate Contractor that generate include government institutions 4.3 information on issues and information on issues and that are benefiting from LAVI practices practices support.

LAVI INDICATOR TRACKING TABLE FY2

FY16 FY17 (1 Oct 16 - 30 Sep 17) FY17 Achieved Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Achieved

Indicator (1 Oct 15 - FY17 (Oct - (Jan - (Apr - (Jul - (1 Oct 16 - # Indicator Level Frequency Disaggregation Baseline 30 Sep 16) Target Dec) Mar) Jun) Sept) 30 Sep 17) LAVI 1 Quality of engagement between civil Impact Quarterly based on when AVERAGE 65% 0% 70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% society and the government data collection takes place.

LAVI 2 Civil society’s satisfaction with their Impact Quarterly based on when AVERAGE 36% 0% 41% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% voices being heard in decision data collection takes place. making and monitoring processes

LAVI 3 Increased capacity of CSOs to foster Impact Quarterly - based on when AVERAGE 77% 0% 70% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% citizen engagement data collection takes place.

LAVI IR 1: Horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in similar issues strengthened

LAVI 1.1 Number of recommendations Outcome Quarterly TOTAL 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 presented by civil society actors, networks, coalitions or government partners requesting decision makers to introduce, adopt, repeal or change public policies or practices

F 2.3.1-7 Number of consensus building Output Quarterly TOTAL 0 0 20 0 12 0 0 12 forums (multi-party, civil/security sector, and/or civil/political) held with USG assistance.

F 2.4.1-11 Number of USG-funded Output Quarterly TOTAL 0 9 10 0 9 0 0 9 organizations representing marginalized constituencies trying to affect government policy or conducting government oversight*

LAVI 1.2 Number of multi-party meetings held Output Quarterly TOTAL 0 0 20 2 49 0 0 51 to strengthen the horizontal and vertical linkages amongst partners

LAVI 1.3 Number of organizations that Output Quarterly TOTAL 0 0 80 55 261 0 0 515 participate in multi-party meetings to strengthen the horizontal and vertical linkages amongst partners FY16 FY17 (1 Oct 16 - 30 Sep 17) FY17 Achieved Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Achieved

Indicator (1 Oct 15 - FY17 (Oct - (Jan - (Apr - (Jul - (1 Oct 16 - # Indicator Level Frequency Disaggregation Baseline 30 Sep 16) Target Dec) Mar) Jun) Sept) 30 Sep 17) LAVI 1.4 Number of grants provided to GOL Output Quarterly TOTAL 0 0 7 3 1 0 0 4 to strengthen citizens and government engagement

LAVI IR 2: Organizational capacity of targeted CSOs to participate in issue based reforms increased

LAVI 2.1 Organizational and Advocacy Outcome Quarterly based on when AVERAGE 78% 0% 85% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Capacity scores of targeted CSOs in data collection takes place. the reporting period highlighting improvements in CSO capacity AVERAGE 34% 0% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

LAVI 2.2 Number of LAVI supported CSOs Outcome Quarterly TOTAL 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 with a Capacity Development Plan being implemented

LAVI 2.3 Number of CSO organizational Output Quarterly TOTAL 0 0 27 10 11 0 0 21 capacity building activities conducted by LAVI or LSP

LAVI 2.4 Number of individuals who Output Quarterly TOTAL 0 0 400 116 196 0 0 312 participate in LAVI supported organizational capacity building

activities Male 0 0 96 161 0 0 257

Female 0 0 20 35 0 0 56

LAVI 2.5 Number of LAVI supported CSOs Output Quarterly Consultation 0 0 13 9 0 0 0 9 with a Capacity Development Plan in Drafting 0 0 13 6 0 0 0 6 the development stages of consultation, drafting, review and Review 0 0 9 0 8 0 0 8 approval Approval 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 6

LAVI IR 3: Development of ongoing capacity development services in the local market promoted

LAVI 3.1 Client Satisfaction Score for local Outcome Quarterly HRM 0% TBD 0% 0% capacity development service FS 0% providers showing improvement in responsiveness and effectiveness of ERC 0% service provided FY16 FY17 (1 Oct 16 - 30 Sep 17) FY17 Achieved Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Achieved

Indicator (1 Oct 15 - FY17 (Oct - (Jan - (Apr - (Jul - (1 Oct 16 -

# Indicator Level Frequency Disaggregation Baseline 30 Sep 16) Target Dec) Mar) Jun) Sept) 30 Sep 17) service provided PMQC 0%

LSM 0%

FAM 0%

Adv 0%

Oth 0%

LAVI 3.2 Number of Local Service Providers Outcome Quarterly TOTAL 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 who have an action plan being implemented with CSOs

LAVI 3.3 Number of local service providers Output Quarterly TOTAL 0 16 20 0 17 0 0 17 receiving support from LAVI

LAVI 3.4 Number of Local Service Providers Output Quarterly Consultation 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 who have an action plan in the Drafting 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 development stages of consultation, drafting, review and approval with Review 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 CSOs Approval 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

LAVI IR 4: Learning and project methodologies shared and applied by other development actors LAVI 4.1 Public policy processes Participation Outcome Quarterly based on when AVERAGE 52% 0% 60% 0% 0% Score for target CSOs showing data collection takes place. improved oversight of decision making

LAVI 4.2 Number of individuals who make use Output Quarterly TOTAL 0 0 200 0 56 0 0 56 of the LAVI Learning Lab LAVI 4.3 Number of outputs by grant Output Quarterly TOTAL 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 partners and Contractor that generate information on issues and practices

Amendments Indicator 1.3: Following re-defining the parameters of the Indicator defintion and the re-verification of Quarter 2 data, the original output of 460 was amended to 261.

Indicator 2.4: Following re-verification of Quarter 2 data it was identifed that a LAVI Partner had over counted the number of females attending events, that is, three (3) instead of two (2). This resulted in the output of 197 being amended to 196.

Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) Learning Agenda

Objective I: Increased horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in similar issues

Learning Question Learning Activities What advocacy strategies work best at the Thematic Window 1- NRM community-level?  Information gathering process for NRM What are the barriers to community-based Coalition organizations’ (CBOs) engagement in advocacy? What are the best strategies to engage CBOs in  Learning events with NRM government advocacy? partners related to citizen engagement What are the barriers to marginalized communities’ engagement in advocacy? What are  DEN-L: advocacy experience sharing and the best strategies to engage marginalized lesson-learned event at end of NRM Coalition communities in advocacy? What are the barriers to private sector’s  LMC: Learning event related to media engagement in advocacy? What are the best reporting related to NRM advocacy strategies to engage private sector in advocacy? What are the barriers to cross-sector  LAVI-APS-003 Learning Activities collaboration for advocacy? What are the most effective strategies to facilitate collaboration o WONGOSL: Learning Conference and between “non-traditional” and traditional advocacy activist exchange activity actors? o CODRA: Learning Conference and 1 What are the barriers to CSO engagement with additional activity government actors during advocacy campaigns? o iCampus: Arts for Advocacy Learning What are the most effective strategies for CSOs Event to engage with government during advocacy campaigns? Thematic Window 2 What are the barriers to citizens participating in  Coalition develops a learning agenda with policy decision-making processes? What are the support of iCampus most effective strategies for citizens to engage in policy change? What are the most effective  Learning activities built into grant and strategies for citizens to monitor and/or help implemented throughout thematic window implement policies? with support of iCampus What strategies are most effective at helping civil society actors see the value in using evidence in advocacy and sharing this evidence? How can LAVI help CSOs sustain collaboration and connection in their advocacy after the LAVI project closes?

Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 18th Street & Warner Avenue, Monrovia

Objective 2: Increased organizational capacity of targeted civil society organizations (CSOs) to participate in issue-based reforms

Learning Question Learning Activity What are some of the common capacity challenges  Information gathering process capacity preventing civil society in engaging in evidence- assessments of CSOs and media based, issue-based advocacy?  ACAT and ICAT  CD Plans How can LAVI help build the capacity of CSOs to  Feedback from pre-submission meetings and better access grants and become more sustainable? other grants meetings  Trainings in counties on grant writing  Resources available on Learning Lab website

Objective 3: On-going capacity development services available on local market

Learning Question Learning Activity What can LAVI do to help CSOs see the value in investing in their capacity development? How can we help local businesses see the value in  Feedback from SPs to William and Mark on providing services to civil society? barriers to engaging with CSOs during Business Development and Marketing Training

 Training to build CSO market into SP’s business plans

Objective 4: Learning and methodologies shared and applied by other development actors

Learning Question Learning Activity What can LAVI do to help civil society better  Trainings for potential grantees and partners in understanding what is learning and KM, why it is KM & Learning provided by LAVI and iCampus important, and how to apply it in practical terms? How can LAVI help increase learning and sharing  Learning Lab Events (see Learning Lab Vision among our partners? document) How do we as a project generate and capture  Learning Captures from After Action Reviews learning and information?  LAVI Learning Folder on Shared Drive How does LAVI adapt based on its own lessons  After Action Reviews learned on regular basis?  Revisiting Learning Captures regularly How do we capture learning/share best practices  Core-funding partners support to Thematic between funding windows? Window coalitions  Peer learning event with NRM Coalition and TW2 Coalition

What are the best ways for LAVI to share its  Mobile-learning lab Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 18th Street & Warner Avenue, Monrovia

resources and learning outside of Monrovia?  Learning Lab Events (see Learning Lab Vision document) How does LAVI and its partners best collaborate  Learning Network with other donors engaging and coordinate with other projects? in CSDF advocacy

Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (LAVI) 18th Street & Warner Avenue, Monrovia

LEITI Citizens Engagement Equips Concessions-Affected Communities to Advocate for their Rights

There is a lack of quality engagement of civil society, private sector, and citizens with their government, preventing many Liberians from accessing facts and information that they can use to better understand and lobby for their rights. In the natural resource sector, this leads to tensions between concessionaries and local citizens because of a lack of understanding around what community rights and benefits exist in concession agreements and how to manage and monitor those obligations.

The Government of Liberia (GOL) established the Liberia Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (LEITI) in 2009 to promote open and accountable management of natural resources in accordance with global standards. As part of this mandate, LEITI produces reports to enhance public understanding of the basic terms of concession contracts. Unfortunately, LEITI lacks a sufficient budgetary allocation to engage in regular community outreach and information-sharing.

To address this challenge, LAVI supports a proactive outreach of LEITI to civil society, LEITI representative George Dennis engages private sector, and citizens in concessions affected communities. LAVI partners with community members in Duo, Nimba County and LEITI to provide them the support they need to travel to key communities and host explains simplified version of concession agreements citizen-state consultations and forums. In March 2017, LEITI hosted a community signed in Liberia. dialogue event in Butaw, Sinoe County where there is conflict between communities and Golden Veroleum Liberia (GVL) over land usage. LEITI’s Director of Communications & Outreach Cedrick Kpadeh recalls, “When we got to Butaw …the concession group was operating with the backing of the government and the communities were powerless…they could not say anything…But when we went there, we were able to bring both parties together, the concessionaries and the affected communities.” At the event, citizens expressed actions taken by GVL that negatively affected their lives. One A citizen in Butaw, Sinoe County community member explained that GVL took the land up to his backdoor and there was commented, “If we have these not even space for him to build a latrine for his family.

instruments that tell us what’s in [the In addition to listening to community grievances, LEITI presented a simplified matrix of concession agreement] for us, what’s the GVL concessions agreement to the community and concessionaire. The LEITI representative states, “It was surprising to learn that people are actually yearning for the in there for the company, what we kind of knowledge that we have”. According to the community, this was the first time should do, what the company should the government had explained the concessions agreement to them. One citizen do, we (the citizens) will be able to commented, “If we have these instruments that tell us what’s in [the concession agreement] for us, what’s in there for the company, what we should do, what the monitor these things by ourselves.” company should do, we (the citizens) will be able to monitor these things by ourselves.”

LEITI hosted similar engagement activities in nine other districts in Nimba, Bong, Sinoe and Maryland counties. During a town hall meeting hosted by President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf on a recent tour of Maryland County, a member of a youth group who attended the LEITI forum in his district presented the LEITI simplified matrix and felt empowered to advocate for his rights. He told President Sirleaf that he knew that the concessionaire in his community should be producing palm oil in Liberia per their agreement, but is instead producing it in Ivory Coast. The President thanked him for bringing this to her attention.

With LAVI support to this initiative and others across the country, government is taking the lead on sharing information with communities that helps citizens better comprehend the social obligations of extractive companies and the role of the government in ensuring the provisions of concession contracts are upheld. Communities are better able to engage government in constructive dialogue to build the case for policy reforms and greater accountability.

Service Providers Become More Competitive on the Local Market

Today, a majority of the capacity development services for Liberian CSOs are provided by donor-funded international organizations and consultants, thereby preventing the growth of domestic suppliers to meet demand. Developing a service provider market is a key step to enhancing civil society effectiveness, resilience, and sustainability. To improve and maintain partnerships, LAVI developed a local Service Provider Pool - a collection of Liberian businesses and non-profit organizations available to provide professional technical services to local CSOs to improve the quality of their work.

As part of the Service Provider Pool, small businesses have the opportunity to participate in LAVI-provided training and mentorship that help them to enhance their capacity development service offerings and tap into new client markets. The 4-day marketing and business development training provided by LAVI in March 2017 inspired Service Provider Pool member Technoprenuer to begin updating its business plan. In the process of developing their organizational marketing plan, they Technoprenuer CEO Geeplay from the LAVI Service thought of new and creative ways to market their services to CSOs that inspire Provider Pool explains how he plans to apply what he greater investment in an organization’s IT skills and systems. Technoprenuer is learned at the LAVI Marketing and Business Plan considering holding a NGO forum to discuss the importance of business planning Development training to expand his ICT business to and financial sustainability for civil society organizations. They also built into their tap into new CSO clients. marketing plan a series of short free training sessions to generate interest and highlight their services. CEO Geeplay explained, “We are planning to do a sample training of what we learned from the (LAVI-provided) Making Sense of Data training As Geeplay, CEO of the Liberian IT with about five to six NGOs.”. consulting firm Technoprenuer, ex- Being part of the LAVI Service Provider Pool also has the potential to make plains, he joined LAVI’s Service businesses more competitive on the local market. In December 2016, Provider Pool because, “LAVI provides Technoprenuer staff participated in a LAVI training on how to integrate gender and social inclusion best practices into their organization and its IT services. an opportunity and platform for us to Technoprenuer CEO Geeplay explained after the training, “We came back upgrade our skills...being in the LAVI immediately and revisited our bylines and constitution to see how those things are pool is a big opportunity…LAVI is not capturing the gender issue and we are working on that now.” In a recent project bid, Technoprenuer outlined its gender sensitive approach to capacity development opening us up to a big network” of in their concept note. The evaluation committee noted that “the other [applicants] potential CSO clients. did not talk about gender sensitivity in their proposals,” Geeplay recounted, and this distinction helped them win the contract.

Technoprenuer like many of the other LAVI service providers are eager to put their The LAVI Service Provider Pool can be new knowledge into use and starting making money for their businesses. “LAVI accessed via the Capacity Development or provides an opportunity and platform for us to upgrade our skills,” says Geeplay. “Kwagei” Post page at icampus.io “Being in the LAVI pool is a big opportunity. LAVI is opening us up to a big network [of potential CSO clients].”

LAVI helps to strengthen the system by linking CSOs and local capacity development service providers like Technoprenuer and improving the quality and quantity of service provider offerings to make them more competitive on the local market.