The IGF Training-of-Trainers workshop was convened following the publication of the IGF Guidance for Governments: Managing Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining (ASM) in January 2017. RCS Global was commissioned to deliver a workshop at which local experts would be trained in the use of the guidance. RCS Global and the IGF together chose 14 participants who were invited to take part in the workshop held April 19–21, 2017, at the Golden Tulip Westlands Hotel, in Nairobi, Kenya.
Goals of the workshop:
To impart technical knowledge and build understanding of the guidance to workshop participants.
- To strengthen participants’ knowledge, skills and attitudes to enable to them to train others in the use of the guidance.
- To identify talented participants that the IGF could engage as trainers for the forthcoming training workshop in Kigali, Rwanda, at which government officials will be trained.
The technical materials relevant to this document fall into two categories:
- The guidance itself, as well as the Supplement to the Guidance and the IGF Mining Policy Framework
- PowerPoint presentations and accompanying scripts used to introduce participants to the guidance. Those presentations and scripts were designed for participants to easily repurpose and amend so that they could use them as trainers themselves.
Almost all participants expressed interest in the guidance and came to agree that it indeed succeeds in identifying and framing decisions that governments must make, rather than over-prescribing. Likewise, the majority of trainees agreed that the guidance, as it is laid out, ensures that governments successfully turn their attention to the circumstances in which each government acts and directs focus to what is realistic and practical. Consistently, participants were engaged and attentive while technical materials were being presented. Overall, no fundamental or sweeping changes to the technical materials are called for based on the experience of the workshop. By and large, the participants and facilitators alike deemed the guidance fit for delivery.
That said, during the course of the workshop, possible amendments and improvements to the guidance itself were identified. Some of these became apparent as the facilitators sought to find better ways of explaining key concepts in the guidance to participants. Some were identified as facilitators looked at the guidance afresh; others emerged from the activities built into the workshop. For example, participants, many ASM experts themselves, designed a variety of learning activities during the course of the workshop, intended to explain material in the guidance. These learning activities in turn contained potential improvements to the guidance. These include:
- Section 2.1: Restore the introduction to the vision, which explains the purpose of expressing a vision in a ranked and categorized set of practices. Explain explicitly how this builds upon the vague and often optimistic qualities of a typical vision statement.
- Phase 2, end of: Insert an ‘end of Phase 2’ checklist, in line with other phases in the guidance.
- Phase 2.2, Figures 4 and 5: Restore accompanying text and headings from earlier versions to explain that these figures present illustrations of what lies ahead in Phase 2 of the guidance.
- Phase 2.3.1: Amend opening text under the sub-heading “Decide whether to allocate land to ASM.”
- Figure 6 in Phase 2.3.2: Amend by adding text or restoring old text that walks the user through the process of using the decision tree.
- Reintroduce steps in Phase 2.3.2 to make it clear that the diagrams present a succession of actions that should be done in sequence.
In the same vein, the following possible amendments were identified to the PowerPoint presentations and scripts:
- Presentation 4: Amend the text that introduces the vision.
- Presentation 3: Add further explanation and insight to the script introducing the ASM task force.
- Presentation 3: Integrate the stakeholder mapping exercise into Section 1.2: Establish a forum for consulting with ASM stakeholders.
- Engage a graphic designer to make the decision tree slides—beginning with the slide entitled “Selecting an impacts approach”—interactive so that it is clear that the user is following a process through the decision tree.
- Dan: Make revisions to PowerPoint presentations and scripts (excluding those requiring the work of a graphic designer).
- Dan: Revise PowerPoint presentations and scripts to reflect on-the-day amendments.
- IGF: Revise the guidance (beyond the scope of contract)
Workshop Design and Process
The workshop design, to simplify, focused on introduction and Phase 1 on Day 1; Phase 2 on Day 2; and Phase 3, wrap-up and evaluation on Day 3. Training and facilitation methods were integrated into the presentation of technical materials on each day through a series of experience–reflection–generalization–application learning cycles.
Trainees embraced the participatory nature of the workshop. The interest and enjoyment that they expressed attests not just to the skillful selection of participants but the effective design and delivery of the workshop by the facilitators. The participants seemed to respond particularly well to the learning principles established at the beginning of the workshop, and especially the notion that they, the participants, were the most valuable resource in the room. Some minor amendments were made to the learning plans of each day, sometimes in response to progress through particular sessions, and sometimes in response to ad hoc revisions and improvements suggested by the facilitators. The use of a “Managing ASM in Ethiopia” case study was successful. It provided substance to which facilitators and participants alike could refer during the workshop and aided the learning that took place. Participants frequently made use of the case study material of their own accord.
Overall, no large-scale revisions to the workshop design are called for on the basis of the experience during the workshop. However, the following potential minor changes were identified:
- Dedicate more workshop time to imparting technical knowledge about Phase 2.3.2, especially pages 25 through to 33. Build in a simulation or mock run-through of the document.
- Make minor amendments to the staggering of imparting technical knowledge and to participant learning experience or activity design. Make these changes to ensure that participants have a shared understanding of the technical material and content before they are asked to design learning activities or experiences for others about that material.
- Darren: Amend learning plan to reflect on-the-day amendments and how the workshop actually played out.
Conclusion and Recommendations
- Participants proposed and facilitators agreed that participants should be integrated into a network for future collaboration, ideas sharing and mutual assistance between trainers and advocates of the guidance.
- With the concessions made above, the workshop design and the accompanying technical materials should be recommended for replication both in the IGF’s forthcoming Kigali workshop and any others in the future.
- The ratio of participants to facilitators—14 to four—was a good ratio. Ideally, a training workshop should include no more than 20 participants.
- If the participants from this workshop are to succeed as trainers in the future, they will need to:
- Allow and plan for adequate preparation time, ideally at a 3:1 ratio of preparation time to workshop length
- Conduct a pre-training capacity assessment
- Ensure that they have mastered the technical content of the guidance