ug2 lenny hidayat

User Guideon AdvocacyPrepared by:IKAT US Component 2 Team

Table of Contents

Powerful Advocacy Strategy 5 First, Laying a Common Foundation #1 Think Long-Term, Not Short-Term 9 #2 Be an Expert in Our Stu� 12 #3 Handling our “Battle�eld”13 #4 Friend, Enemies and Allies 15 #5 The Strength of Collective Force 16 #6 Keeping it Sharp: Provide Alternative & Credible Solution 20

Identifying & Analyzing: Beyond the Surface 23 Where to begin: Analyzing & Finding the Underlying Cause 24 Next step: Mapping Stakeholder & In�uence Relation 33

Devising Powerful Strategy 39 Selecting Advocacy Role 40 Crafting the Message 42 Conveying Our Message 49

Hitting the Road: Implementation, Monitoring & Evaluation 56 Implementation: Operational Plan & Making the Best of Partnership 57 Monitoring: Roadblocks & Elements of Advocacy Monitoring 61 Evaluation: Becoming a Part of Learning Initiative 64

Reading List 65Interview List 66

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 1

List of Boxes

Box 1. Policy Advocacy Case Study: National Law on Elimination of Domestic Violence, IndonesiaBox 2. Policy Advocacy Case Study: Law No. 14 of 2008 on Transparency of Public InformationBox 3. Three examples of CARE’s advocacy workBox 4. Independent Sector’s Study on Advocacy PracticeBox 5. AGENDA’s advocacy experience in ASEAN’s Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR)Box 6. Several Example of CoalitionBox 7. Case Study: In�uencing legislative processes: experiences from AfricaBox 8. Case Study: Advocacy against Patuca Dam, HondurasBox 9. Developing Message: Using UNICEF’s ToolsBox 10. Case Study: The Global Polio Eradication Initiative: Framing messages for di�erent audienceBox 11. Draft Bill Advocacy on Village (RUU Desa)Box 12. Using Visits in BangladeshBox 13. Advocacy Case Study: Local Regulation on the Health of Mothers and Newborn Infants in Bandung DistrictBox 14. Social media and the Arab SpringBox 15. Participatory Development Communication: a perspective from AfricaBox 16. UNICEF Case Study: Celebrities as MessengerBox 17. Building a Coalition or PartnershipBox 18. Strengthening the Network

List of Tables

Table 1. Main Approach in AdvocacyTable 2. Macondo Example: Selecting a Policy Issue Table 3. Advocacy Objective Analysis Matrix Table 4. Customized Stakeholder & In�uence Matrix Table 5. Macondo Example: Stakeholder MappingTable 6. Macondo Case Study Example: Possible Roles for CARE Sta�Table 7. Di�erences in Information Needs for Three GroupsTable 8. Macondo example: Outlining Key Messages for Your Target AudiencesTable 9. Advocacy Strategy Plan Table 10. Advocacy Monitoring & Evaluation Elements

List of Pictures

Picture 1. Levels of AdvocacyPicture 2. Macondo Example: Problem Tree Analysis Picture 3. Macondo Example: Identifying Policy OptionsPicture 4. Power and Will Matrix

3

List of Abbreviation

AICHR: ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights

CLTS: Community Led Total Sanitation

CSO: Civil Society Organization

DPR RI: Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia The House of Representative of the Republic of Indonesia

HRWG: Human Rights Watch Group

JANGKA-PKTP : Jaringan Advokasi Kebijakan Penghapusan Kekerasan Terhadap Perempuana Advocacy Network for the Policy to Eliminate Violence Against Women

MDG: Millennium Development Goals

NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

PF: Policy Forum

PIC: Person in charge

PPCI: Persatuan Penyandang Cacat Indonesia Association of Indonesian People with Disability

SMART: Speci�c, Measurable, Achievable, Reliable and Time-bound

VERC: Village Education Resource Center

4

Powerful Advocacy Strategy

Chapter 1

Before looking at practical methods in planning advocacy, we will look at the following essentials of powerful advocacy strategy that are derived from various advocacy experience in this chapter:

Devising Long-Term Advocacy Strategy

Be an Expert in Our Stu�

Handling Our ‘battle�eld’

Friends, Enemies & Allies

The Strengths of Collective Force

Keeping it Sharp: Alternative Solution

First, Laying a Common Foundation

How do we de�ne “Advocacy” in this user guide?

Approach and Levels of Advocacy

“Advocacy is the deliberate process of in�uencing those - usually who have the power to change policies or programs that in�uence and even control our lives and quality of our lives – to create changes as we expected”

Policy advocacy is not limited to decisions that are made through open, organized and formal system of governance; it is not only about creation or reform policies and programs, but also e�ective implementation and enforcement of policies and programs.

The mixture of the three approaches and advocacy at all levels are required in order to create real and lasting change. Decisions and actions made at one level and by each stakeholder a�ect other stakeholders and other level. For example, international debt means that national governments have little money to spend on healthcare and education. Therefore, the local authority cannot ful�ll its role in delivering primary education for everyone. Advocacy work aimed at local authority level will not bring much change unless the issue of debt at international level is also addressed. People in communities su�er the e�ects of decisions made at higher levels. However, people in communities can in�uence these decisions by voting and lobbying decision-makers at higher levels.

6

Before we explore the essentials of a powerful advocacy process, let us lay some common foundations:. De�nition of advocacy. Three main approach to advocacy. Levels of advocacy

Three approaches to advocacy

7

APPROACH TO ADVOCACY

ADVOCACY FOR THOSE AFFECTED BY A SITUATION

ADVOCACY WITH THOSE AFFECTED BY A SITUATION

ADVOCACY BY THOSE AFFECTED BY A SITUATION

Advocacy work done by

Main objec-tives for intervention

Characteristics

Advantages

Disadvantages

A mixture of profession-als, NGOs and local community groups

Increased access to decision-making

Change in law, policy or practice

Build advocacy capacity of those a�ected by situation

Change in law, policy or practice

Professsional, NGOs,Religious leader

Issues often identi�ed by outsiders

Usually targeted at o�cial decision-makers

Quick access to decision-makers

Good access to information about wider context

Could strengthen existing power struc-tures

May not increase the capacity of local groups to act

NGO often in control and sets agenda

Slower due to need for agreement between all parties

Access to fewer resources and informa-tion

Risk of revenge

Policy change may take loner

Issues identi�ed by community

Shared planning, resources and action

Outside organizers mobilize capacity

Increase access of poor to decision-makers

Advocacy skills and capacity developed

Empowering – poor see themselves as agents of change

Sustainable

Can correct power imbalance

Issues identi�ed by community

Learning by involvement

May have signi�cant outside input at start

Local community, workers

Increase in awareness of advocacy possibilities and capacity to do advocacy

Table 1. Main Approach in Advocacy

Source: Knowledge Management Toolkit for Crisis Prevention and Recovery Practice Area UNDP – BCPR

Gordon, Graham, “Advocacy Toolkit: Understanding Advocacy”, published by Tearfund, 2002. Accessed at http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/Roots/English/Advocacy%20toolkit/Advocacy%20toolkit_E_FULL%20DOC_Parts%20A%2BB.pdf

1

Levels of Advocacy

INTERNATIONAL

REGIONAL

NATIONAL

LOCAL AUTHORITY

COMMUNITY

FAMILY

INTER-PERSONAL

8

Picture 1. Levels of Advocacy

International debt, greenhouse gas emissions,world trade rules, sebt, arms trade

Health and education policy, freedom of specch andreligion, political representation, land rights

Who works and who goes to school, allocation of resources, role of women

Everyday decision-making, participationin elections at various levels

Regional con�ict, trading policies

Provision of healthcare and education

Allocation of land, role of women and children

Source: Advocacy Toolkit: Understanding Advocacy by TearFund, 2002

Powerful Advocacy Strategy

9

Independent Sector found in their study that time frames of 10, 20, or 25 years are common among the most successful groups engaged in advocacy in Washington, D.C. Little can be accomplished in a year unless there are either extenuating circum-stances (such as a pressing national crisis) or if years of advanced planning have already taken place and a serendipitous opportunity is seized.

Since successful advocacy is often a result of consistent, persistent & focused long-term work, organizations working as advocates have to think and plan in a bigger and long-term framework. What does it mean?

In many cases, advocacy work requires longer time than the average donor-funded projects. And it is important to maintain consistency and persistency in doing advo-cacy work. We can only identify and thus, seize a serendipitous opportunity – as men-tioned previously – when we are continuously informed and alert to the dynamic of political and social environment.

#1 Think long-term, not short term

“… as one e�ective advocate said, almost nothing can be accomplished in 25 weeks and almost nothing can’t be accomplished in 25 years.”

Organization working as advocates and aiming to achieve real changes need to prepare and plan BEYOND a project or program-based approach. Devise a long-term advocacy strategy and be ready to alter tactics over time if necessary. Be ready to seize any opportunity that may rise. Sustainable resources are needed to support and carry forward the long-term work. This, therefore, bring the following consequence: it is crucial to have strong and stra-tegic �nancial plan and management. Do extensive research to de�ne ways in which we could �nance our activities in the long term. Know our donors well and how to successfully become one of their trusted partners. Explore the possi-bility of working in a coalition or partnership to tap into external resources and strengths owned by other organizations to complement ours.

Quoted from “Beyond the Cause: The Art & Science of Advocacy” by Independent Sector, 2012 Independent Sector is the leadership network for nonpro�ts, foundations, and corporate giving programs committed to advancing the common good in America and around the world. Our nonpartisan coalition of approximately 600 organizations leads, strengthens, and mobilizes the nonpro�t and philanthropic community in order to ful�ll our vision of a just and inclusive society and a healthy democracy of active citizens, e�ective institutions, and vibrant communities.

23

10

Box 1. Policy Advocacy Case Study: National Law on Elimination of Domestic Violence, Indonesia

Policy Advocacy: National Law on Domestic Violence in Indonesia

After 8 (eight) years of waiting and advocating, the Bill on Elimination Domestic Violence in Indonesia, which was proposed by women groups �nally endorsed in the Plenary Meeting as the Law No. 23 of 2004 on Elimination of Domestic Violence. The entry point for the whole advocacy cases was the phenomena and number of cases of domestic violence received by LBH APIK since its establishment in 1995. Women groups or organizations under JANGKA-PKTP (Advocacy Network for the Policy to Eliminate Violence Against Women) had been doing the advocacy of this Bill since 1997 through several phases. Phase 1 (1996-1997) focused on increasing public awareness on domestic violence cases and urgency of having a law on domestic violence in Indonesia. Phase 2 (1998-1999) included the drafting of Law on Elimina-tion Domestic Violence as well as dissemination and consultation of the draft to stakeholders all over Indonesia. The next phase (2001), extensive activities were conducted to �nalize and improve the bill and followed with lobby and campaign to important stakeholders, among others, Committee VII of DPR RI (National Parlia-ment), the President Megawati, Ministry of Women Empowerment and other relevant government agencies.

Several important breakthroughs have been made through this law to the legal and social system. Among others is the recognition upon domestic violence as a form of punishable crime. Nevertheless, the advocacy work is still not completed. Advocacy to improve the law and upon the implementation & enforcement of the law is still carried forward.

11

Box 2. Policy Advocacy Case Study: Law No. 14 of 2008 on Transparency of Public Information

Policy Advocacy: Law No. 14 of 2008 on Transparency of Public Information, Indonesia

The Law No. 14 of 2008 on Transparency of Public Information gained its political momentum in 2008. However, the work has been initiated several years before 2008. At that time, the willingness to implement reform was quite high. National parlia-ment and the Government of Indonesia were seeking for popularity. The advocacy process was done by a strong coalition, which consisted of NGOs working in envi-ronmental issues, public services, human rights, and legal issues. The coalition is consistent and persistent in the advocacy process and also in the messages that they conveyed. They were actively negotiating with the relevant actors.

In the policy, procedural & institutional level, this advocacy is considered as success-ful but the work is not done yet, it is now time for advocacy and monitoring of the implementation.

Summarized from “Lahirnya UU Penghapusan Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga (PKDRT): Sebuah Bentuk Terobosan Hukum dan Implikasinya Terhadap Hukum Nasional” by Ratna Bantara Munti, M.Si as the Coordinator of Jangka PKTP/ Director of LBH APIK Jakarta) Summarized from the interview with Dadang Trisasongko, Secretary General of Transparency Indonesia

4

5

As an organization working in development issue and aiming to create a better soci-ety, we have responsibility in developing appropriate solutions to address a social problem. Addressing problems requires in-depth knowledge about their underlying causes. The better our knowledge about problems and their causes, the easier it is to design solutions with high potential impact. Intervention or solution that are not based on extensive understanding on the issue will only lead to more negative impacts and social problem. Thus, it important to be thorough and in-depth in analyz-ing the core problem and di�erent factors in�uencing the problems.

As we research the issue, we get a clearer sense of direction and purpose to the advo-cacy campaign. It will also help us develop short and long term goals for creating the change. It will help you choose how to approach the issue where to spend your energy.

When we know our issue and facts well, we will be recognized as an expert, or a respected spokesperson on behalf of others, our arguments will tend to carry more weight in advocacy and we will �nd it easier to prevail in policy debates. Other people will trust and value what we have to say. Advocacy requires that we have credibility both with policy makers and with the community a�ected by our proposed policies.

12

#2 Be an Expert in Our Stu�

Good solutions can only be found when problems are well understood.

Enabling us to develop and design better advocacy planning & strategy.

Crucial to our credibility as an advocate.

“Our knowledge from the �eld is a critical starting point for advocacy, and paves the way for our credibility in advocacy”

13

Box 3. Three examples of CARE’s advocacy work

Three examples demonstrate the point. In Nicaragua, CARE’s involvement in collect-ing and analyzing data on pesticide poisonings laid a crucial foundation for subse-quent advocacy work. CARE’s long history and commitment to Sudan positioned the organization to analyze the root causes of a famine in the central region of the coun-try, and to begin in�uencing international actors by sharing its �rst-hand knowl-edge. Building on its experience in HIV/AIDS, CARE Thailand worked closely with other Thai organizations, successfully advocating improvement of access to care for people with HIV/AIDS, and to reduce discrimination and the social stigma associ-ated with the disease.

Source: Advocacy Tools and Guidelines: Promoting Policy Change by CARE, 2001

Decisions regarding the allocation of resources toward research, polling, media, grassroots, and other tools in the advocate’s arsenal are based on the answer to the following questions: what message & activity is most likely to motivate this particular advocacy target?

Therefore, e�ective advocates conduct a “stakeholder & in�uence analysis “to identify explicitly the key targeted change agents on the path to reform (e.g., constituents, policy makers, researchers, media, legislators, legislators’ sta�, and the public or speci�c segments of it).

In policy advocacy, the “stakeholder & in�uence analysis” means an exercise that iden-ti�es which public o�cials to target, as well as comprehensive research into select o�cials that includes thorough knowledge of their backgrounds, family histories, connections, and the priorities of their constituents. The results drive the timing and development of tactics. Even organizations lacking of resources to conduct a thor-ough assessment of an o�cial’s motivations would bene�t from using this question as a starting point for advocacy planning.

#3 Handling our ‘Battle�eld’

“Knowing who is crucial and relevant as targets of our advocacy, their interest and motivations enable us to develop and design a more

e�ective advocacy strategy and plan”

14

Box 4. Independent Sector’s Study on Advocacy Practice .

Independent Sector conducted a study in 2011-2012 in the US on advocacy prac-tices. Each of the coalitions pro�led in that assessment conducted some degree of power analysis of decision makers and public o�cials to advance their cause. The Panel on the Nonpro�t Sector formed in 2004 in response to congressional pressure to strengthen the accountability, transparency, and ethical conduct of the charita-ble sector. Panel members met regularly with the key Senate sta� to understand their perspectives, intentions, and objectives as well as to keep them well informed of their actions. They also did the spadework to gather deep knowledge about key decision maker’s backgrounds and motivations.

Another coalition, Patriots Defending the Bill of Rights (a bipartisan coalition formed after the passage of the PATRIOT Act in October 2001) used in-depth mes-saging and focus-group work commissioned by the ACLU to develop messages for speci�c constituencies. This allowed it to better understand lawmakers’ perspectives and provide them tailored, nuanced messaging that ranged from eliciting overt support from voters to a more subtle approach that might a�ord political cover. Patriots Defending the Bill of Rights developed state-level support for congressional o�ces that was instrumental in moving the legislation. Health Care for American Now (a group of leading progressive organizations seeking to enact comprehensive health care reform) pursued this approach as well.

In a broader framework, the “stakeholder & in�uence analysis” should be done not only to identify public o�cials but every relevant stakeholder who have a role and in�uence to help our cause. Utilize the network and contacts that we have to seek information, organize activities to bring us closer to these stakeholders and enable us to understand their motivations, use the analytical information in research, assess-ment or evaluation report to inform us.

Quoted from “Beyond the Cause: The Art & Science of Advocacy” by Independent Sector, 2012. The study included three surveys, over 100 interviews, a review of existing literature on advocacy and lobbying by charitable organizations and research on publicly available information about 528 organizations’ engagement in sector-wide public policy issues.

6

Building relations is crucial, but it has to be a strategic one…

An important initial step to developing strategic partnership is to identify explicitly the key targeted change agents on the path to reform. It is then vital to understand which of these forces are currently allies (existing partners), which could potentially be allies (short-term targets or long-term partners), and which will require convincing to join (ultimate targets for the victory).

But advocacy groups should be cautious: Network development and managements a time-consuming business. It may not always be a wise use of resources to participate in every available network focusing on a given issue. Over the course of any given initiative, an organization should be willing to engage networks and partners when it serves its strategic interest, moving in and out of relationships with �uidity, always taking care not to damage the long-term viability of its relationships with others.

Independent Sector found, through their study, that developing an enduring relation-ship with public o�cials in Congress and the Administration, as well as o�cials with regulatory and policy making bodies, is a key element of long-term advocacy success. A trusted advisor who can provide relevant, timely, reliable information and talking points on demand becomes a go-to resource, not only for the elected o�cial but also for his or her sta� and gatekeepers. Once advocates know what it takes to gain the support of public o�cials or their sta�, they can work e�ciently to meet the needs of these key targets. The more responsive an organization is to an o�cial’s agenda, the more likely it is to be supported and its advocacy e�ort embraced.

In Policy Forum , a network of over 100 civil society organizations (CSOs) that seeks to strengthen NGO involvement in critical policy processes in Tanzania, we had a lawyer who is a son of a small-scale miner and well-connected to the small-scale mining groups with good knowledge of grassroots communities. We also had individuals with communication skills, local government knowledge, familiarity with poverty-reduction issues, experience in multi-national companies and human rights.

15

#4 Friends, Enemies and Allies

“It takes time and resources to build relationships with public o�cials, but few investments are more valuable to achieving success in public

policy arena”

PF documented its parliamentary advocacy and engaging on legislation in the area of mining in Tanzania. In partnership with Revenue Watch Institute, we undertook to improve the capacity of Civil Society Organizations, media and legislators to oversee the Executive’s management of Tanzania’s extractive resources. The Civil Society Organizations under the capacity building program went on to play a pivotal role in the process of in�uencing the country’s Mining Act of 2010

7

16

Networking and collaborating with other individuals and organizations multiplies the impact of an advocacy organization by augmenting its work with more resources (money, time, experience, tools), by strengthening its e�ort with complementary assets, and by reinforcing its message and outreach with multiple messengers. Coali-tions can be useful vehicles to aggregate the diverse elements necessary for an e�ec-tive advocacy campaign, especially when one organization does not have all the resources and components necessary to execute advocacy alone.

#5 The Strength of Collective Force

“It is not a question of big or small coalition. Big or small, an e�ective coalition is important”

Box 5. AGENDA’s advocacy experience in ASEAN’s Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR)

It was originated from close relation between PPCI & HRWG (Yuyun, Senior Advi-sor HRWG). We invited Yuyun to our o�ce to mentor us how to build network with AIHCR and how to put submission to AICHR. Through her network, we were introduced to the drafting group of AICHR. We contacted Pak Pohan (drafting group of AICHR) and invited him to our o�ce to discuss about our intention to include participation of disability in political participation in the draft. AGENDA sent our submission to the drafting group, ASEAN Secretariat and circulated in all AICHR representatives. At that time only AGENDA that promoted disability rights in the draft, and AGENDA is recognized as a regional network and �nally Mr. Rafendi Djamin (AICHR Rep for Indonesia) contacted AGENDA to ask to assist him for ECOSOC rights. However, the �nal result is not yet as we expected. We hoped that the disability rights can be re�ected in other speci�c articles not only general principles (art. 2 & 4). But it was di�cult because not all ASEAN countries have worked with this issue (and related to non-interference policy).

Source: quoted from interview with AGENDA’s program management unit, on 19 December 2012, at AGENDA o�ce, Jakarta

17

Characteristics of e�ective coalitions :

• Have a strong and active leading organization. A strong leading or convening organization responsible for managing the structure, flow of information, resources, and strategy and that also provide stability for larger group. Leading organization, however, must have the ability and willingness to discern what roles can be played most productively by others. This is also shown in a way US-IKAT program is designed - where partnerships are established and we have lead partners and partner organizations – because the program recognized that a working partnership require a leading organization.

• Have a clear vision and shared understanding. The coalition should be united by a clear vision and a shared understanding on advocacy positioning. This may involve adhering to a strategy of “no compromise” at the beginning of building activities, but may take on quite a different approach in the endgame strategy. These explicit guideposts help individual organizations identify the overlap between the interests of the coalition and their self-interests. Clarity strength ens coalitions, as positions will likely be tested over the course of the advocacy campaign.

• Have clear and predictable information and decision-making structures. Clear and predictable information and decision-making structures have to be esta blished, nevertheless it should also build the sense of ownership among coali tion members over the group’s efforts and autonomy over their own actions. Allowing coalition members some flexibility regarding what actions they are willing to take helps to cultivate buy-in and engagement. When used conscien tiously, transparent decision-making can help mitigate disagreements within the coalition.

• Have complementary assets. Each organization brings their strengths to the table and complements each other. Coalitions need members with a variety of different assets (e.g., funding, communications skills, relationships with key lawmakers, etc.), and those organizations must make a commitment to use them to reach the collectively agreed goal. The coalition’s strength also depends on engaging individuals who have the skills, authority, and time to participate in the strategy sessions and who are willing to spend the time executing the strategy. This approach ensures that the coalition has the resources and expertise it needs to be powerful.

Policy Forum’s engagement in the 2010 mining legislative process in Tanzania is a clear example that a coalition does not have to be large in number. If it involves the right people and selects the appropriate vehicles to communicate its core messages, it can genuinely generate positive changes in the society.

Adapted from “Beyond the Cause: The Art & Science of Advocacy” by Independent Sector, 20128

18

• No wide gap in common knowledge. To be a strong and effective coalition, the gap of knowledge and understanding on the issue among coalition members should not be too wide. Otherwise, the coalition has to take time to address this first before being able to effectively perform in its advocacy work. (Note: this learning point was expressed in the interview with Dadang Trisasongko, Trans parency International Indonesia )

Minutes of Meeting, interview with Dadang Trisasongko, Secretary General of Transparency International Indonesia, on May 31, 2013, FX Sudirman

Box 6. Several Example of Coalition

Several Examples of Coalitions

• Advocacy of Law on Elimination of Domestic Violence in Indonesia. JANGKA-PKTP (Advocacy Network for the Policy to Eliminate Violence against Women), which consist of 85 women organizations from Jakarta and other areas.

• Advocacy of Law on Transparency of Public Information in Indonesia. A coalition consist of NGOs working in environment, public services, human rights, law and others working for years to advocate this law.

• Advocacy of Mining Act 2010 in Tanzania. Policy Forum (PF) is a network of over 100 civil society organizations (CSOs) that seeks to strengthen NGO involvement in critical policy processes in Tanzania. The Civil Society Organizations under the capacity building program went on to play a pivotal role in the process of influ-encing the country’s Mining Act of 2010

9

19

Box 7. Case Study: In�uencing legislative processes: experiences from Africa

Safeguarding CSO independence in Zambia

The National Civil Society Platform (supported by CIVICUS) led a loose alliance of Zambian CSOs to oppose a restrictive bill in parliament that would have seriously curtailed the independence of CSOs in Zambia. The CSO bill would have given the government much more power to interfere with CSO advocacy strategies requiring these to be harmonized with the national development plan. CSOs would also be required to renew their registration every 3 years making organizations critical of o�cial policies more susceptible to bureaucratic arm-twisting. CSOs argued that the bill would breach Zambia’s constitutional and international commitments to freedom of association.

Key government o�cials, members of parliament, foreign diplomats based in Zambia, international CSOs, national and international media and the Zambian public were all targeted by the advocacy initiative. Despite a concerted advo-cacy campaign both at the national and international level, the coalition was unable to leverage su�cient support to oppose the passage of the CSO bill. However, they did manage to extend the registration period for CSOs from 3 to 5 years, which they considered a signi�cant victory.

Re�ections from CIVICUS: It was extremely important to work through a coali-tion of CSOs and cross-border solidarity by civil society was also important. It is best to engage a multitude of stakeholders both nationally and internationally for maximum impact. Advocacy to prevent the passage of proposed legislation is a long and protracted process and often times unsuccessful, as the govern-ment does not like to lose face. Nevertheless, while the aim should be to prevent the passage of all restrictive aspects of a proposed law, even if some restrictive aspects are removed, they can go a long way in creating a more enabling envi-ronment for civil society.

Source: Advocacy Toolkit: Guidance on how to advocate for a more enabling environment for civil society in your context

20

Box 8. Case Study: Advocacy against Patuca Dam, Honduras

Tear fund Advocacy Case Study against the Patuca Dam

BackgroundMOPAWI is an NGO established in 1985, based in La Moskitia region of Honduras, Central America. This area is a vast expanse of pristine rain forest with many protected areas. When MOPAWI started the work there they discovered that the indigenous people believed that the land they lived in was theirs, when in fact it was classed as national land. This meant that noone had secured tenure. Anyone who could ´peacefully´ settle on the land after some years, would claimed it as their own. Therefore one of the �rst actions that MOPAWI were involved in was to create awareness over land tenure and help people to organize themselves at community level to be granted land rights. The indigenous population has been in negotiations with the government for nearly 10 years.

Patuca Dam projectHonduras cannot supply enough electricity to serve the current needs of its population and, since the 1960s, the government has been collecting detailed data from the Patuca River in La Moskitia to consider whether it would be a suitable source for hydroelectric power. There was already a dam functioning in a di�erent part of the country, but during a very long dry season in 1994, it had to dramatically decrease its production of electricity in which rationing was introduced. Since then Honduras needed to buy electricity from neighboring countries where eventually the government was being pressured by these countries and by its industries to develop its own secure source of electricity.

In 1996 the government contracted two North American Companies to build a dam on the Patuca River, and granted them concessions to sell electricity back to them for the following 40 years. Therefore, with one sleight of hand, the gov-ernment had e�ectively provided natural resource rights to foreign companies, whereas 10 years of ´negotiations´ with the indigenous population had produced no results.

The search for credible solutions, or alternatives, is an important feature of advocacy planning. NGOs are often criticized for advocacy work that campaigns against a certain policy or practice, but lacks any realistic alternative.

Advocacy campaigns that do this has the risk being ine�ective, and compromise our credibility among advocacy targets. Wherever possible, we should present “well-developed alternatives”.

Alternatives must include the results of research, and sound experience from a number of sources, backed up by supporting information about the viability of the alternatives.

#6 Keeping it Sharp: Provide Alternative and Credible Solution

21

The companies hired an agency from Costa Rica to undertake an environmental impact assessment to consider the likely e�ects of the proposed dam on the environment and the people there. This took 6 weeks to complete and there were fears that it was rushed through so that the dam could start as quickly as possible.

MOPAWI’s concernsMOPAWI were concerned that this dam would have devastating consequences on La Moskitia: • The dam would prevent the river from flooding, prevent the land becom ing fertilized, and thus reduce food production. • The Patuca River is the main form of transportation in the region and the dam would lower the water levels and make it more di�cult for boats to pass up and down. • A new road was planned which would have opened it up for migration of people into the region, threatening the land rights of the indigenous population, putting pressure on an already fragile ecosystem and increas ing logging. •The electricity was for the main industrial cities and La Moskitia would have been the last place in the country to receive a constant supply.

There was also evidence from a geologist that, with the high annual rainfall and a fragile ecosystem that is prone to erosion, the dam would be blocked after only a few years. The result would therefore have been environmental destruc-tion but with no ongoing supply of electricity to show for it.

Advocacy action

• Networking with organizations. The �rst step for MOPAWI was to work with other concerned groups to form a coalition including environmental groups, indigenous people groups and local government representatives. Due to mobilizing the population over the previous issues of land rights, the people were organized and accustomed to representing themselves at every level.

• Working with the community. At the same time they became involved in many popular awareness-raising activities. These included seminars with people in La Moskitia, a weekly program on the national radio with a phone in discussion, and a press conference with the Honduras media.

• Lobbying at government level. They also met with the government and the companies involved to discuss the issues and represent their concerns. This was done in private meetings as well as through holding a public forum in the capital city to which the government, companies, indigenous groups, environ-mental groups and the media were invited.

• Working at international level. Early in 1997 MOPAWI contacted partner organizations in the UK, such as Tear fund, and in the US, such as the Native Lands Group and the International Rivers Network. MOPAWI asked them to put external pressure on the Honduran government and on the companies to halt the plans for the dam

22

Objectives of the campaignThe coalition demanded the following action be taken:• an environmental impact assessment of at least 18 months so that the likely effects on the environment and animals could be understood during all of the different seasons• serious investigation of all alternative possibilities for providing power in the region• granting the Patuca Region the status as a protected area• granting communal land rights to the indigenous population

What happened?The proposed dam became a subject of national interest and the construction companies, concerned that it may not have been a good investment, were more eager to talk, even though they were still planning to go ahead with the construction.The coalition did not merely complain about the proposed dam but they tried to find alternative solutions. They recognized the need for electricity and showed that a series of smaller dams could be built throughout the country to provide more electricity. They also showed how through biomass, solar and wind energy, Honduras could produce enough electricity for the whole population

The situation nowIn March 1999 the companies involved officially withdrew their involvement with the dam project. They said this was due to the level of local opposition. It must also be in part due to their realization that the project was unworkable.However, the government still has plans to build the dam and is looking for other partners.Apart from stopping the project for the moment, the campaign has enabled the people in La Moskitia to be better organized; it has strengthened the environ-mental movement inHonduras as a whole and more people are supportive of protecting natural forests.

The FutureThe coalition is ready to deal with future proposals to build the dam. MOPAWI are still working with the indigenous communities and the government for land rights to be granted to the indigenous communities. When this happens they will be in a much stronger position to prevent unwanted development and to control their own future.

Key advocacy learning points• Proposal of positive alternatives• Strong national and international links• Help community to understand rights• Reliable and accurate research• Holding the government to account for promises

Identifying & Analyzing: Beyond the Surface

Chapter 2

This chapter explains the essentials during the identifying and analyz-ing phases of an advocacy process: to look deeper into the issue, and the social and political environment of our advocacy battle�eld.

Where to begin? Analyzing and Finding the Underlying Cause

Next step? Mapping Stakeholder & In�uence Relation

24

Objective to enable us identify appropriate solution to advocate

Output policy solution (advocacy goal)

Method Problem tree analysis

Input Data and Research (Quantitative or qualitative information gathered through an objective process) Program Evaluation, Impact Assessment Information and experience

Note The key of this stage is to analyze any data & information from various angles to identify underlying causes. This is important because we want to be able to identify the appropriate solution that will adequately address the social issue that we want to tackle. Taking action without identify ing what factors contribute to the problem can result in misdirected e�orts. This wastes time and resources, and probably could lead to more negative e�ects.

When working in a partnership context, all partners should be involved in this exercise. A partnership bene�ts from pool of expertise, knowledge and skill that will enable a rich analysis of a problem. We might have a research partner organization partner that has access to qualitative data on t hat particular issue and a partner organization that has worked a lot with grass-root communities and able to add t he qualitative perspective of the issue.

Useful links: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/�les/odi-assets/publications-opinion-�les/6461.pdf

http://www.intrac.org/data/�les/resources/629/INTRAC-Advocacy-and-Campaigning-Toolkit.pdf

25

Problem analysis

Policy options

Select or Prioritize

Problem tree analysis is a useful technique for synthesizing and visualizing the results of analyses, including policy analyses.

Step 1. Problem identi�cation: Depending on the purpose of the analysis (i.e., a long-range strategic plan, program, or project design) the problem can be more gen-eral (poverty or livelihood insecurity or a violation of human rights) or speci�c (low income, poor educational attainment, high mortality rates, etc.). Problem statements should specify who is a�ected by the problem.

Step 2. Direct causes: The analysis identi�es the most direct causes of the problem. As shown in the example on the next page, a direct cause of infant mortality is high prevalence of diarrhea.

Step 3. Behavioral causes: For each direct cause, problem trees identify the behaviors that lead to these causes. Often there are several layers of behavioral causes. For example, a practice that contributes to high diarrhea prevalence among children younger than �ve is the ingestion of contaminated water. In the problem analysis shown below, several factors a�ect the quality of water through their practices: households do not boil water, sewage companies discharge in rivers, government water and sanitation ministry spends resources on building dams, etc. The actions of policy makers should be re�ected in problem trees if they are part of the problem.

Step 4. Causes that lead to behaviors: Why do households, policy makers and private business owners behave in a certain way? Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, preferences, interests, and other causes explain the identi�ed behaviors.

Problem Tree Analysis

Sprechman, So�a & Pelton, Emily, “Advocacy Tools & Guidelines: Promoting Policy Change”, published by CARE, January 2001, p.26

10

26

It is important to understand why policies are lacking in order to devise advo-cacy strategies. If the main problem is opposition to environmental regulations by business leaders, this would lead to one kind of strategy; low community awareness of the damage done by the companies would lead to another. These causes, or policy issues, are in�uenced by speci�c policy makers

Picture 2. Macondo Example: Problem Tree Analysis

Source: Advocacy Tools & Guidelines: Promoting Policy Change, CARE, 2001

27

Problem analysis

Policy options


A policy analysis should help us identify options for policy change and determine the relative impact they may have on the problem. At the policy analysis stage, we don’t have to choose between issues, but rather identify which changes would yield the desired result.

In order to identify options clearly, it is useful to list all policy issues and describe what changes would have to take place to have an impact on the problem we have identi-�ed. If the analysis includes strong causal links between policy issues and the prob-lem, then a change in any of the identi�ed issues should yield an impact on the prob-lem that we want to solve.

Based on the Macondo’s Problem Tree Analysis, look at the following policy options.

Picture 3. Macondo Example: Identifying Policy Options


28

Problem analysis

Policy options


After this, we should start to consider the best options for policy change. Our goal is to rank these ideas in order of preference. Our analysis should consider such factors as: • Policy impact • Feasibility • Policy risks • Potential allies & opponents

At this stage, we will also have to decide if you will address a policy issue through advocacy or not. As a result of our policy analysis, we may decide that the time is not ripe for policy change. Or we may decide the cost of not pursuing an advocacy strat-egy is greater than the cost of pursuing one.

Look at Table 1 and 2 in the next page that illustrates a matrix of policy objective analysis. This table can be used as one of the tool to assist us in determining or prior-itizing policy or advocacy objective that we want to pursue.

In the real and not-so-ideal world, this stage of advocacy process might not be as structured as this section describes. Some advocacy work might have to be taken as a response of a bad policy or program that the government plan to undertake. For example: Koalisi Akbar Kebebasan Berserikat (Grand Coalition for Freedom of Association) is currently advocating to reject the controversial Bill on Mass Organization. The advocacy work by this Coalition is a response toward the controversial Bill on Mass Organization initiated by DPR (House of Representa-tive) that is deemed to be repressive and will lead to unimaginable control over any mass organization, thus curtailing the freedom of association in Indonesia.

Another example will be the advocacy of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Transparency of Public Information in Indonesia. The transparency of public information issue itself was first raised by environmental NGOs in Indonesia because they realize the need of having access to public information for their research and advocacy purposes.

Nevertheless, the key to this stage is to analyze a phenomenon and identify alternative solution to it, which in turn assist us in developing advocacy choice and strategy.

29

Table 2. Macondo Example: Selecting a Policy Issue

CRITERIA ADVOCACY FOR THOSE AFFECTED BY A SITUATION

ADVOCACY BY THOSE AFFECTED BY A SITUATION

Relative contribution to the problem

Potential impact on a large number of people

Likelihood of success

Potential for working in coalitions

Potential risk

Potential to advocate e�ectively

CARE Macondo will focus its advocacy initiative on Policy Issue 1: the lack of environmental policies that regulate private companies

Data from research studies conclu-sively demonstrates link between environmental pollution done by sewage companies, contamination of water sources, diarrhea prevalence and infant and child mortality rates

Data from research studies conclusively demonstrates link between environmental pollution done by sewage companies, contamination of water sources, diarrhea prevalence and infant and child mortality rates

Survey show that diarrhea accounts for one-third of deaths among infants and children

The general public is aware of environmental damage to rivers and lakes; many articles have appeared on the press on this issue. Minister of the Environment moderately supports environmental policy reform

ECO-ACTION, a coalition led by the two most important environmental groups, has been recently created

Low risk. Environmental issues are widely discussed in the media and other fora

CARE’s maternal and child health projects are well known in Macondo. CARE provided assistance to the Ministry of Health for carrying out the latest national health survey, which includes data on diarrhea prevalence and infant and child mortality rates

Survey show that diarrhea accounts for one-third of deaths among infants and children

Unlikely that government o�cials with shift their priorities, building dams is much more pro�table

No coalitions on this issue

Addressing this issue could be risky since many high-ranking government o�cials are involved in construction of dams for provision of electricity to Macondo and neighboring countries

Water and sanitation projects are relatively low-scale; not one of CARE’s most important sectors in Macondo

Source: Knowledge Management Toolkit for Crisis Prevention and Recovery Practice Area UNDP – BCPR

30

GOALCRITERIA OBJECTIVE 1 OBJECTIVE 2

Reduce under-�ve childhood malnutrition to reduce child mortality and morbidity and improve child development

The links between childhood malnutrition and childhood morbidity and mortality and intellectual capacity are well proven

Not applicable

Most politicians, donors, and the general public support child survival goals. Several NGOs are working on child nutrition.Parents care about the goal and will take action if actions are concrete. The depth of caring among decision makers will need to be improved

Depends on the objective

Do qualitative or quanti-tative data exist to show that reaching the objec-tive will improve the situation

Is the objective achiev-able?Even with opposition?

Will the objective gain the support of many people? Do people care about the goal/ objective deeply enough to take action?

Will you be able to raise money or other resources to support your work on the goal/ objective?

The Ministry of Food and Agriculture will start a national program to fortify salt with iodine in the next two years.

Research shows that salt is produced and processed centrally. Data indicate that iodine de�ciency is widespread, and associated with neonatal mortality and reduced intellectual capacity.Fortifying salt could reverse these negative outcomes

Opposition to the cost of salt forti�cation could slow the time frame for achieving the objective, but it is achievable. Producers may oppose the regulation and quality control of salt production

The general public will likely support salt forti�ca-tion if prices do not increase. Food producers may resist if they must share costs; otherwise they will support this objective. People may take action because the objective is concrete and will have a signi�cant impact on child survival and develop-ment

Several donors are currently supporting salt forti�cation

Program evaluations show that nutrition education can enhance child survival in areas where adequate food is available.Studies show that programs are more e�ective when educational messages are developed for speci�c audiences. Impact might be di�cult to measure

This advocacy objective involves working with the Ministry of Health and community organizations. Community leaders may oppose it if they are not involved early in the process

Women’s organizations will be supportive.Nutrition education is recognized by donors to be an important part of child survival programs. In many communities, however, the problems and consequences of malnutrition are not well recog-nized

Although donors recognize the need for nutrition education, funds are limited and most donors are supporting other child survival interventions. It will be di�cult to raise funds so organizations may have to use their own

The Ministry of Health will start a community-based nutrition education program to improve young child feeding practices in the next year

Table 3. Advocacy Objective Analysis Matrix

31


Can you clearly identify the target decision makers?What are their names or positions?

Is the goal/objective easy to understand?

Does the objective have a clear time frame that is realistic?

Do you have the neces-sary alliances with key individuals or organiza-tions to reach your objective? How will the objective help build alliances with other NGOs, leaders or stake-holders?

Will working on the objective give people opportunities to learn about and become involved

A child survival goal will strengthen our organization’s relationships with otherNGOs, the private sector, key government leaders and the general public. We may not work with other sectors

To start a government-sponsored salt forti�ca-tion program, the PrimeMinister, and Ministers of Finance,Agriculture and Health will all have to approve the program

The links between iodine de�ciency and intellectual impairment and neonatal mortality have been widely publicized, so the general public will likely understand it. Some promotion will be needed to create demand for this product

The time frame to begin a salt forti�cation program is the next two years. It is realistic

This objective will strengthen relationships with NGOs, the private sector, key government leaders and the general public. We should seek support from salt producers since they must implement the program and can assist with advocacy e�orts

Advocating for a salt forti�cation program will open dialogue between researchers, the government, the private sector, and the public to �nd ways to solve an important nutrition problem

Advocating for a community-based nutrition education program will bring community members together with district health o�cers to �nd ways to improve young child feeding programs

The time frame to begin the nutrition education program is one year. It is an opportune time to advocate for such a program because district health o�cers are developing their �ve-year plans at the moment

This objective will strengthen ties between community organizations and the health system and improve the general public’s perception of the health system.

To start a community-based nutrition education program the Minister ofHealth, district health o�cers and key commu-nity leaders will have to agree and approve the program

The links between young child feeding practices and child survival are proven but not as easy to understand. Careful qualitative research will be required to develop appropriate educational

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Yes

32


with the decision-making process?

Which of the policy solutions is likely to have the largest and most lasting impact on the problem?

Is it possible that advo-cacy will cause you, your partners, or project participants to face major risks, such as violence, loss of credibility in the community, or being asked to leave the country?

Are there clear solutions to the problem that involve di�erent programmatic approaches that are likely less expensive or more practical than advocacy?

Other questions to consider:

Source: Adapted from “An Introduction to Advocacy: Training Guide” by Ritu R. Sharma,

33

Objective to identify our advocacy target and enable us to understand and know how we can motivate or in�uence them

Method Stakeholder & In�uence Mapping The power & will matrix, decision & in�uence matrix

Output stakeholder analysis

Input Information and experience Research Survey, polls, Evaluation, assessment report

Note Why do we need stakeholder & power relations mapping? Let us imagine that we want to implement a program that is aimed to change the behavior of migrant workers in managing their income. Study shows that their income are always spent home (remittance) for consumption and never saved partially for future investment or needs. Brie�y, we might think that giving income management training to the migrant workers might address the problem. But which one is actually a more e�ective strategy: income management training to the migrant workers, to the family of migrant workers or both, or perhaps other intervention? The answer of this question really depend on our understanding on the decision making process in the migrant workers family. Basically, to design the right strategy, we have to understand the relations among key stakeholders.

Information and experience from individuals and organizations will be valuable in this exercise. The relations that we build with allies as well as working in partnership are very useful. The more informa tion that we can get, the more rich and useful the stakeholder and power relations mapping that we have.

Useful links: http://www.vsointernational.org/Images/advocacy-toolkit_tcm76-25498.pdfhttp://www.policy-powertools.org/Tools/Understanding/docs/stakeholder_power_tool_english.pdfwww.powercube.net

Next Step?Mapping Stakeholders and In�uence Relations

Focus on the following:

Our main target What do they know about the issue? What their attitude towards our issue? What are their political interests? What are their personal interests?

The following tools might be able to help us in analyzing stakeholders and power relations:1. The Power and Will Matrix 2. Customized Stakeholder and In�uence Matrix

34

“Advocacy is about knowing your politics”- An Advocate

Source: Advocacy Toolkit: Guidance on how to advocate for more enabling environment for civil society in your context, Open Forum for CSO Development E�ectiveness

Picture 4. Power and Will Matrix

POTENTIAL TARGETS

Will

Pow

er

HIGH POWER - LOW WILL

Potential Opponents Potential Opponents

Potential Opponents Potential allies and in�uentials

HIGH POWER - LOW WILL

HIGH POWER - LOW WILL HIGH POWER - LOW WILL

Toma, Costanza de, “Advocacy Toolkit: Guidance on how to advocate for a more enabling environment for civil society in your context”, Open Forum for CSO Development E�ectiveness

11

35

Table 4. Customized Stakeholder & In�uence Matrix

Please bear in mind that this is only a general illustration of the matrix. Everything can be customized to serve the need of each organization and analy-sis should be made as speci�c possible, including speci�c stakeholder. For example, instead of mentioning the Parliament, we can specify it to certain Committee and Champions. Please look at Table 4. for Macondo case example.

36

Advocacy goal: What is our advocacy goal?

Examples:

Parliament

Central Government (Policy-maker)

Minister

Customary Institution

CSO

Media

Stakeholders In�uentialsInterests/Motivations

Power to make change happen

Attitude towards the issue

Importance of the issue to them

What changes we want to see from them

Include decision-makers, in�uential’s and other relevant stakeholders

What actually motivate them? What is their political & personal interest?

Popularity (votes)– access to grassroots

Preserving custom & tradition

Pro�t – selling newsOwner’s interest

Note: In�uential’s should also be included particularly for stakeholders with high power to make change happen

Ideology

Funding

Authority

International image

Minister’s partner

Minister’s advisers

Int. organization

If we are working to advocate a new Law, for example, then Parliament has a strong power to enact the law

Cautious, due to lobby from private sector (for example)

Supportive,Opposed,Cautious?

Reason?

High,Medium,Low?

Reason?

High

Changes that we want to see in forms of behavior and action

Action: To enact the lawBehavior:More transparent: to involve CSOs in the deliberation

37

Actor

Minister of the environment, Mr. Ran

Minister’s advisor, Dr. Fodar

Leaders from LDP political party

Most powerful business leader Ms. Galo and Mr. Amart

Environmental organizations: GREEN and

Few: minority in parliament

None

None

None

Provide advice to Minister

Give or withhold political support to government

Threaten to withhold support for govern-ment. Promote policies that favor business interests

a. Issue press releases to the mediab. Raise awareness

• Strong ties to the legal community• Has mentioned the environ ment in speeches

• Mainly an agriculture expert• Has been a children’s advocate

• Opposed industry interests on other environmental issues

• Both have actively opposed environment laws in politics

• Both have strong support in Macondo• Same political

Minister trust advisor’s judgment, high status with administration

Medium authority

High economic resources

Low economic resources, high information and

a. Proposes environ-mental policiesb. Allocates and controls Ministry resources

a. Translates policy into programsb. Negotiates with foreign donorsc. Delivers public speechesd. Di�erent issues with the president

High

High

High

Medium

Low

Moderate support

Unknown

Support

Strongly oppose

Strongly support

High status authority, low economic resources, medium information

Table 5. Macondo Example: Stakeholder Mapping

Environmental policy deci-sions formally controlled

Activities that a�ect policies

Degree of in�uence on policies

Degree of support for regulating private companies

Motivating interests Resources

38

SVD

Macondo’s community representatives

World Bank


Give loans and grants for environmental projects

None

None

among the public about the conse-quences of environ-mental pollution

May be mobilized when informed about how private compa-nies a�ect quality of water and health of children

• Environmental organizations have a coalition-based in Macondo

• Industrial pollution is part of this year’s agenda

Low to medium

connections to legislature

legitimacy with the public

Low information and economic resources

High economic resources, medium authority

High Support

Support

Devising Powerful Strategy

Chapter 3

Selecting Advocacy Role

Crafting the Message

Conveying Our Message Endorser Working with Media Building Alliance to Strengthen Our Voice

Selecting Advocacy Role

Our strategy should include clear advocacy roles for our organization or project. For example, we can choose to lead an advocacy initiative and directly inform policy makers on environmental policies, or we can choose to support a coalition of local NGOs that advocate for these policy changes. The answer may not always be obvious, but it is important to think carefully about the best role for us to play in our country on the issues we choose. Use the STAKEHOLDER & INFLUENCE ANALYSIS to help in determin-ing which role we have to take for each stakeholder.

Expert informant. Provide technical advice and information to policy makers (i.e. the primary audience) when the analysis points at their knowledge gap as a part of the problem.

Honest broker. Participates in a policy making process as an objective expert and fair broker of com-peting interests. Attempts to in�uence processes are transparent and based on facts and analysis

Capacity builder. Provides support to third parties participating in a policy process who will in�uence policy makers.

Lobbyist & player.Enter the policy process in full participation and makes direct approaches to in�uence policy, either alone or in coalitions. This strategy involves formulating and presenting positions in public situations or meetings with policy makers.

40

Target Audience Possible Role

Minister of the environment

Most powerful business leader

Environmental organizations


Since the analysis pointed at government’s limited information on environ-mental risks and pollution, provide data to Ministry on environmental damage done by private businesses (role: expert informant)

Provide information to business leaders about other experiences from other countries, where environmentally friendly actions by businesses led to an increase in sales and public recognition(role: expert informant)

Provide support to a coalition led by GREEN and SVD, two well-known local organizations (role: capacity builder)

Empower Macondo community representatives to take part in decision-making processes that a�ect their livelihoods(role: capacity builder)

Table 6. Macondo Case Study Example: Possible Roles for CARE Sta�

Visible: observable decision-making mecha-nism (e.g. political bodies, legislatures, local assemblies and fora)

Hidden: shaping or in�uencing the political agenda behind the scenes (e.g. to defend vested interests by creating barriers to partici-pation and keeping certain issues o� the agenda)

Invisible: ways in which awareness of one’s rights and interests are hidden through the adoption of dominating ideologies, norms, values and forms of behavior.

Closed spaces: where decisions are made by closed groups behind closed doors with little consultation or broad involvement (e.g. parlia-ments, boards, expert groups, etc.)

Invited spaces: where people are invited to participate but within set boundaries; these spaces may be institutionalized or transient (e.g. participatory fora, one-o� consultation)

Claimed spaces: where less powerful groups claim a space where they can set their own agenda (e.g. through social movements, protest or community associations)

Global: power and authority at the global level – global governance - has grown with increas-ing globalization. Supra-national authority is also increasingly held by regional level bodies (e.g. the African and European Union’s)

National: national governments remain a critical entry point for change, particularly for an enabling environment for CSO develop-ment e�ectiveness

Local: sub-national levels of power may vary according to the context but they are impor-tant points of leverage for holding and challenging power

Strategies for participation in local governance may include participatory budget monitoring and control or holding local institutions to account

Focusing advocacy e�orts on government ministries, elected bodies (e.g. parliaments), executive bodies, national political parties, courts, etc.

Targeting supra-national institutions such as the UN, WTO, World Bank IMF, the European Union, the African Union, ASEAN, Mercosur, etc.

Ensuring that voices and messages from these spaces leverage openings in decision-making processes

Gaining knowledge and expertise on key issues and regulations, strategies for negotiat-ing and compromising on the set boundaries for participation

Calling for greater transparency, rights to infor-mation and disclosure, public accountability, demanding for the opportunity to have greater voice

Awareness raising, adult education, participa-tion in research to validate people’s knowl-edge, popular communication to challenge dominant stereo-types and discourses

Strengthening people’s voices and their capac-ity to speak out; overcoming barriers to partici-pation through mobilization; using research and media to challenge how issues are ‘framed’

The following guidance note might be useful to help in determining the advocacy strategy & role

Lobbying, advocacy and mobilization to in�u-ence decision-making processes

41

DIMENSIONS OF POWER WAYS OF CHALLENGING

FORMS

SPACES

LEVELS

Ibid, p.3112

Crafting the Message

Evidence-based advocacy has been interpreted by some de�ned as advocacy that uses data, charts, includes report citations etc. to show the strength of evidence on which a particular argument is based. However, in reality we all know that our advo-cacy target often are unimpressed when they are in numbers and so, even if the argu-ment is more concrete and strong using them. In some or most cases – this is not enough to persuade others.

Some cynical views concerning policy-making :

Please bear in mind that this does not mean that evidence in this context is not impor-tant. IT IS. Knowing our facts and issues is important. We have to build our advocacy plan based on that. But strengthening advocacy means that we are not only talking about bringing the evidence and show it to the stakeholders, but strengthening advo-cacy as a whole including appropriate and more e�ective use of evidence in it. Advo-cacy is also about COMMUNICATION.

“Nothing a government hates more than to be well-informed; for it makes the process of arriving at decisions much more complex and di�cult” (Keynes cited in Davies, 2004:2)

“The politician’s prime goal is to be re-elected rather than to respect evidence” (Cook, 1997: 40)

“Government will seek to legitimize their policies with reference to the notion of evidence-based decision-making’ but use research evidence only when it supports its politically-driven priorities” (Kogan, 1999:11)

42

“Evidence is seldom enough on its own, particularly when operating in an adverse political environment. It’s what we do with the evidence

that matters”

Quoted from SMERU Newsletter No. 32 Sep-Dec/2011 “Towards Pro-Poor Policy Through Research”13

Re�ect on the following:

On policy advocacy to DPR (House of Representative) of Republic of IndonesiaCommon issue in the use of research in advocacy is �rst, we rarely �nd rigorous research that is strong and credible enough to be used. Mixed research with qualita-tive and quantitative approach is needed. Second, advocacy is about communication. Sometimes the way the research result is communicated, is not grounded to the needs of policy maker. The message should be simple. The use of individual approach and network is important in working with DPR. Because DPR is a moving target. The rate of turnover is high, depending on the general election system. In Indonesia, every �ve year, new parliament members will take their seats. Most of the time, we will only be able to see them in 10-15 minutes: How can we convey the message to them in only 10-15 minutes?Quoted from interview with Agus Loekman, Public Policy Specialist in ProRep, Chemonics International

The key is to combine the evidence (research, data, etc.) that we have with the knowledge we own and collect from our partners and allies to craft the message in accordance to the information needs of our target. Be sensitive to cultural realities and religious sensibilities. For example, on reproductive health issue: some religious groups that are in�uential or even hold power have strong views or positions on the issue of adolescent reproductive and sexual health educa-tion. In the Philippines, for instance, many catholic schools object to the idea of giving ‘sex education’ to students. What they would rather provide is ‘health and family life education’.”

43

44

Table 7. Di�erences in Information Needs for Three Groups

Characteristic Researchers Policymakers Policy Implementers

Focus on what we need to know to implement policies; prefer asking questions to get answers

Like some detail, but on pragmatic procedures and best practices for opera-tional zing policies and programs

Focus is local and how program models and best practices can be adapted to di�erent circumstances

Action-oriented and pragmatic; often required to respond despite incomplete information and insu�cient resources

Combination of a decent knowledge base with clinical judgment, observation, and the experience of reputable sources

Focus on what we do not know; prefer questions

Focus on what we do know; prefer answers

Kind of information

Level of detail

Source of data

Approach and timing

Criteria for decision making

Views of ambiguity and complexity

Emphasis

More detail on narrow topics

Focus in representative samples that produce knowledge that can be generalized

Cautious; skeptical; tentative; re�ective; progress in research can take years to achieve

Statistical probability; sound research meth-ods and designs; publication in peer-reviewed journals

Excited by ambiguity and complexity

An emphasis on sample, methods, and analysis to improve the quality o future research

Reactive; to enhance re-election chances, must respond quickly in fast-paced, �uid environment; progress can occur within weeks

What is possible through negotiation and compromise; persuasive rhetoric and the single anecdote can be powerful

Counterproductive to embrace complexity because you have to take �rm positions on issues

Little attention to sample, methods and analysis as scholars review only high quality studies

Energized by complex-ity but still have to simplify enough to make decisions

An emphasis on sample to assess similarity to the local context and on methods to allow for replication and adapta-tion

Comprehensive overviews which emphasize malleable factors policy can in�uence

Focus is often comparison of how a policymaker’s constituency stacks up to a similar city, county, state, or region

The following guide note might help us to understand di�erent information needs of di�erent stakeholder groups.

45

Reports of moderate length with some techni-cal language and illustra-tions to allow communi-cating with researchers and demonstrating accountability to policy-makers

Building in a logical progression to the conclusions at the end

Placing the most important conclusions for policy at the beginning

Placing the most important conclusions for practice at the beginning

Organization

Source: The Power of Evidence in Advocacy, edited and compiled by Suma Kaare, Naved Chowdury and Vivian Kazi, 2007

Writing In-depth discussionswith discipline speci�c terminology and technical graphs and illustrations

Concise, easy-to-read reports with accessible language, active voice, short sentences, frequent paragraphing, and simple graphs and illustrations

Box. 9 Developing Message: Using UNICEF’s Tools

Choosing the right words is decisive in getting the message across. Our mes-sage must resonate because the purpose of advocacy is to motivate people to initiate change. Words should be culturally appropriate, so they are understood, clarify the stakes, and motivate people in favor of the cause while reducing opposition.

Use audience-appropriate language. Find out what our audiences know, their concerns, their values and priorities, and what kind of language they use. To capture people’s attention, know their interests, their situations and their vocabulary. Refer to the Stakeholder and In�uence Mapping.

Balance the rational and the emotional in your message. Speak to audiences so the message captures both minds and hearts. Solid data are crucial to estab-lishing the scienti�c (rational) foundation of the message. A human-interest story can reach those who respond to the emotional.

Structure, or frame, the issue and solution:• Translate individual stories into larger social and political problems.• Assign primary responsibility to the problem.• Present a clear solution.• Spell out the proposal.• Develop images that highlight your values

46

PRIMARY MESSAGE: Statement + evidence + example + goal + action desired

AUDIENCE CONCERNS POSSIBLE MESSAGES

Journalists

Source: Advocacy Toolkit: A guide to in�uencing decisions that improve children’s lives, 2010

Civil Society Organizations

General Public

Issue-related practitioners such as trade union

Decision-makers (government ministers, legislators, administra-tors, corporation heads

Donors (foundations, bilateral agencies, multilateral agencies)

Box 10. Case Study: The Global Polio Eradication Initiative: Framing messages for di�erent audience

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative: Framing messages for di�erent audience

The World Health Assembly voted to launch a worldwide goal to eliminate polio in 1988. In response, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative – spearheaded by national governments, WHO, Rotary International, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and UNICEF – became the single largest public health initiative in the world. Since 1988, more than 200 countries and 20 million volunteers have cooperated to immunize more than 2 billion children against polio.

The overriding objective was clear: to attain a polio-free world. Primary mes-sages in support of this goal were developed jointly by the Initiative’s partners, and helped maintain and strengthen �nancial support, political commitment, and community engagement. Messages are updated and distributed frequently, complemented by epidemiological updates.

47

Source: Advocacy Toolkit: A guide to in�uencing decisions that improve children’s lives, 2010

The campaign was remarkably successful with its original primary message: Is it possible to eradicate polio. As the work evolved, the original message was updated, and in 2003, messages listed here o�er a prime example of key and supporting messages for a successful advocacy campaign.

Primary messageThe immediate priority is to stop transmission of polio by end-2004 in the seven remaining endemic countries: Afghanistan, Egypt, India, the Niger, Nigeria, Paki-stan and Somalia.

Supporting secondary message for donors and donor governmentsThe global funding gap of $210 million for activities through 2005 remains a great risk to polio eradication.

Supporting secondary message for G8 countriesFrance, Germany and Italy must follow the lead of their G8 counterparts and ful�ll their �nancial pledge and commitment to polio eradication.

Supporting secondary message for endemic country governmentsPolitical commitment and ownership at the sub-national level needs to be established or strengthened to mirror the strong existing commitment at the national level. Ongoing polio transmission in the endemic countries will continue to pose a risk to children everywhere until polio is eradicated.

Supporting secondary message for recently endemic- and polio-free coun-triesThere have been nine importations of polio from endemic countries into previ-ously polio free countries. Importations will remain a risk until polio is eradicated everywhere and should be treated as a public health threat, requiring a full and immediate immunization response.

48

Table 8. Macondo example: Outlining Key Messages for Your Target Audiences

Overall Message

Key MessageTarget Audience

Let’s end pollution in the Macondo River. Children’s lives are at stake. Join our campaign in favor of clean water today.

Policy Change will save the lives of many children and increase your political support.

Environmentally friendly practices will increase your pro�t and save the lives of many children.

You and your children have the right to clean water.

Children in Mocando are dying because they drink water from contaminated rivers. Private sewage companies have polluted these rivers with their disposal of waste. We are asking you to approve an environmental policy for regulating these compa-nies. Enactment of this policy will decrease infant and child mortality in Macondo and increase your political support in the community.

Experiences from many countries show that environmentally friendly businesses have increased their pro�ts. We are asking you to consider these practices, which can bring you public recognition and long-term pro�tability. These actions will also save the lives of many children in Macondo.

Private sewage companies are polluting your rivers. No policies are in place to ensure that private companies protect the envi-ronment. You have the right to demand more e�ective environ-mental regulation from the Ministry of Environment. Taking action can improve the quality of water in your community and reduce the tragic deaths of children in Macondo.

Minister of the Environment

Most powerful business leaders


There are di�erent actions that can be used and combined for our advocacy: lobbying, public campaigning, media work or awareness raising. Again, the key is to re�ect on the stakeholder’s power relations and in�uence mapping that we had done to deter-mine which one is the most appropriate approach for each target audience.

Several tips and case studies to enrich our analysis:

Seeing a positive example can convince skeptical decision-makers, as well as giving the opportunity for community members themselves to speak on their own behalf.The downside is that project visits can be expensive, require lots of planning and time commitment on behalf of participants – particularly the decision-makers, which they may not wish to commit.

49

“Advocacy is also about communication. The way you communicate it, who communicate it become important”

- An Advocate

#1 Arranging a visit as a part of lobbying e�ort

Box 11. Draft Bill Advocacy on Village (RUU Desa)

IRE (Institute for Research & Empowerment) program in advocating the Village Law constitutes part of IRE’s e�orts in promoting village reform. In general speaking, there are four strategies applied to achieve village reform. First, advo-cacy to the drafting process at national level. Second, action research at village and district level, to map the political, social and economical condition of villages and their relation to the district. Third, capacity building for the gov-ernance and communities of villages through trainings and technical assis-tance. Fourth, facilitating the villages to hold dialogues with district, to strengthen their bargaining position before district.

After 10 years of consistent and persistent work in advocating Village Law, IRE is recognized by the Special Committee in the House of Representative (Pansus DPR) that is assigned to process this bill as well as by the Department of Home A�airs. By arranging several visits to villages through good governance prac-tices, among other activities, IRE has managed to build the interest and awareness of parliament members on the urgency of the Bill. The access to grassroots communities also the factor that motivates parliament members to look further into this Bill. Currently the bill has not been passed by the parlia-ment however, it has been included in the national legislative program (Prolegnas) and IRE expects that the law shall be passed some time this year.

Conveying Our Message Choosing the right tool & action

50

Box 12. Using Visits in Bangladesh

The Village Education Resource Centre (VERC) in Bangladesh had been piloting the Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach in six districts between March 2001 and February 2002. VERC reported that the core concept of commu-nity participation and demand-responsive strategy had mobilized communities to stop open defecation in their villages. The pilot was extremely successful and established that any community can achieve 100% sanitation, without external subsidies.During February 2002, VERC, WaterAid in Bangladesh and other agencies, organized a four-day regional workshop in Bogra with a view to sharing the pilot �ndings. It included a �eld trip to VERC’s working areas, where the CLTS approach has been successfully piloted. Approximately 75 participants, includ-ing a number of central and state government o�cials from both Bangladesh and India, and NGO representatives, attended the program. Later a 36-member team from the Indian state of Maharashtra visited, accompa-nied by the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Develop-ment and Cooperatives, in the Government of Bangladesh. With the support and assistance of the Water and Sanitation Programme, the CLTS approach has now been piloted in Maharashtra.

Box 13. Advocacy Case Study: Local Regulation on the Health of Mothers and Newborn Infants in Bandung District

SAPA Institute, a non-pro�t organization established in Bandung working on reproductive health and anti-violence against women issue, has worked to advocate the enactment of local regulation on the health of mothers and new-born infants – aimed to reduce the mortality rate. After three years of advocating draft local regulation to local parliament (DPRD) and received a slow response, SAPTA Institute tried a di�erent strategy. Aside from emphasizing the relevance of this law to the 4th and 5th goal of MDGs, SAPTA also arranged visits to communities so that the local parliament could hear direct stories from them. SAPTA could see a change in terms of response from the local parlia-ment immediately after this strategy was executed. The local regulation on the health of mothers and newborn infants of Bandung District was �nally enacted in 2009. And based on the assessment conducted in 2012, the impact of the local regulation is really good. The assessment showed increase of the numbers of women medically supported delivery (70.2%) compared to traditionally supported delivery – dukun beranak (32.7%). Before this local regulation is enacted, more women went to traditional midwives (dukun beranak) for giving birth.

We often generalize the idea of working with media as an important strategy to reach the public. Nevertheless, in order to gain the full advantage of working with media in terms of achieving our goal, we have to be smart.

“The owner of media is often a part of local economic interaction. Therefore, we need to �rst map the available media in our arena to be able to determine the most appropriate strategy…” – quoted from interview with Dadang Trisasongko, Secretary General of Trans-parency International-Indonesia

There are already many guidelines on how to engage and use the media, as well as tips to work with media, however, these are the few others to consider:

Grab the media interest. Use the stakeholder’s power relation & in�uence mapping. We should research the media itself: which publications or program already cover our issue or similar issue? How do they pick up new stories? How free are they to say what they think (censorship, government control)? Who is behind the media (owner, share-holders, etc.)?

Build a media contact list. Build relations with journalists, editors, media people. Maintain them as our contacts.

Use surveys, polls, research or other information to make informed decisions on what to use. Think about the following illustration:

51

#2 Working with Media

Transparency International Indonesia had conducted the Youth Integrity Survey (YIS) to assess the condition of youth integrity in Jakarta city. The survey provides baseline on the current integrity level of youth and their level of engagement in anti-corruption. Developed from a similar survey by TI Korea Chapter (2001-2009), this year YIS was conducted in four countries: Indonesia, Fiji, Sri Lanka and South Korea.

The survey is based on the notion that corruption is a social-political problem that needs to be tackled through generational change, both on the level of society and government. With population as many as 26% (62 million) of Indonesia inhabitants and 31% (2,9 million) of Jakarta inhabitants based on 2010 census, youth is a key target group for long-term anti-corruption e�orts.

Aside from revealing how youth in Jakarta perceive integrity, this survey also reveals that education system, school/university, family and peer groups as the most in�uential institutions in shaping the character and behavior of the youth. As source of information, TV is seen by youth as the most in�uential channel followed by internet and social media. However, it turns out only 18% youths feel there is su�cient information on anti-corruption regulation, while the rest feel it is limited or none.

Explore new and traditional media. Remember who is our target audience and analyze their background, demography characteristic and values – which media will be most in�uential for them: new or traditional, or both?

52

Box 14. Social media and the Arab Spring

2011 saw a rising tide of citizen-led protest across North Africa and the Middle-East against autocratic and corrupt regimes. Dubbed the ‘Arab Spring’, this sudden wave created a ‘domino e�ect’ with activists in one country following and gaining con�dence and support from those in others. Although this pattern has been witnessed before in other contexts, the novelty in the Arab Spring was the mass use of digital media, mobile phones, and satellite TV. These tools helped bring together disparate groups from Morocco, to Egypt, to Tunisia, Lybia, Syria,Bahrain and Yemen around a common cause transcending borders, openly defying state control and bypassing conventional media channels.

At the height of the protests, during the Tahrir Square occupation in Cairo, Twit-ter witnessed between up to 45 ‘tweets’ per minute from Egypt, most of them in English. This provided a platform for immediate media attention and global visibility. Social media also provided protesters with information about how to counteract the security forces, with maps showing locations for protest meet-ings as well as practical advice on what to do if attacked with tear gas.

As governments desperately tried to clamp down on protesters by blocking social networking sites (Tunisia) or cutting all communication systems (Egypt), this only fuelled discontent ultimately contributing to their demise. The role of social media in the Arab Spring has been hotly debated.

Ultimately, social media are the only tools that may help galvanize public sup-port where there is a common cause and in the right circumstances. Despite being pivotal in Egypt and Tunisia social media did not have such an impor-tant role in Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, for instance. In the absence of strong political leadership for alternatives, social media may in�uence the outcome for authoritarian regimes, but play less of a role in shaping the powers that emerge to take its place.

Source: Advocacy Toolkit: Guidance on how to advocate for a more enabling environment for civil society in your context, Open Society Forum for CSO Development E�ectiveness

53

Box 15. Participatory Development Communication: a perspective from Africa

Given the limited access condition of some population groups to mass commu-nication media in Africa, , the communicating capacity of the local community resides in so-called traditional media resources and channels (traditional lead-ers, drama, concerts, songs, storytelling, puppetry, drumming, dancing, etc.). They serve as reliable channels of news and information gathering, processing and dissemination in many rural communities, and often address local interests and concerns in local languages and cultural contexts which the community members can easily understand and with which they can identify.

E�ective applications of participatory development communication approaches and strategies at the grassroots and community level should explore the use and harnessing of pervasive traditional communication instru-ments and resources. Traditional media often serves as e�ective means of chan-neling development issues.

Traditional media provides horizontal communication approaches to stimulate discussion and analysis of issues, as well as sensitizing and mobilizing communi-ties for development. However, one must be cautious about romanticizing the abilities and impact of traditional media in development. Like other communi-cation and information means, they have their weaknesses and limitations in time and space; they are particularly de�cient in simultaneous dissemination of information about development issues across wide and geographically disperse populations.

Research and experience in the use of traditional media indicate that they are most e�ective in participatory communication of development in rural commu-nities when combined with mass communication resources, especially radio. The challenge facing practitioners of participatory development communica-tion in African countries is to be su�ciently knowledgeable of both the poten-tials and limitations of traditional media and about how to skillfully harness and combine them with other communication and information forms for develop-ment.

Source: The Advocacy Sourcebook, WaterAid

Once there is an understanding of who holds the power to create the necessary changes and what they need to hear (Stakeholder’s power relation and in�uence analysis), it is possible to identify the people and institutions that can in�uence them: the messengers.

Messengers are those who have in�uence, or power over, the key targets to bring about the desired change. Because they do not have the direct power to make the necessary changes, messengers are a ‘secondary’ target audience. Media, religious leaders, community-based organizations and donors could all be considered as a secondary target audience for an advocacy objective to in�uence policy changes. They can’t change policies directly, but they can in�uence those who can.

For example, Partnership for Governance Reform advocates anti-corruption issues and working with religious leaders from Nahdlatul Ulama and Muham-madiyah, both are prominent Islamic Organizations in Indonesia.

Strategic dissemination of the message can be as crucial as the message itself. The choice of messenger could provide credibility, clarity or empathy to the message and the issue. A local community leader, religious leader, celebrity or children’s group, for example, may sometimes be more e�ective in delivering a message and being heard. The decision of who will make an e�ective and strategic messenger depends on the advocacy priority, and on internal and external assessment of the advocacy situation.

54

#3 Choosing the Messenger

55

Box 16. UNICEF Case Study: Celebrities as Messenger

Popularly recognized people with experience, credibility, and a public image that harmonizes with advocacy goals, bring media attention to issues. The celebrities who commit their high-pro�le recognition, talent and understanding to support a cause can serve as highly e�ective messengers.

UNICEF has long-time experience with enlisting the help of well-known actors, athletes and singers. Danny Kaye was the �rst Ambassador-at-Large, in 1954, followed by Audrey Hepburn, and building into the current distinguished roster of international, regional and national Goodwill Ambassadors. Celebrities supporting UNICEF have a wide range of talents and achievements, but they all share the commitment to improving children’s lives.And in each case, a celebrity’s association with UNICEF happens because she or he has already demonstrated that commitment.*

The success of UNICEF’s relationships with Goodwill Ambassadors includes engaging them in the organization’s strategic thinking and keeping them up to date on successes and challenges in implementing program and policies in the �eld. Ambassadors regularly receive UNICEF press releases; UNICEF and UN reports, publications and news; and video clips of program and events. They are invited to conferences or brie�ng events, and through �eld visits, they can get a �rsthand experience of UNICEF’s work on the ground. For important campaigns or �eld visits,Goodwill Ambassadors also receive detailed brie�ngs from UNICEF sta� at head-quarters or on location, and suggested speaking points for media interviews.

* United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Goodwill Ambassadors & Advocates’, UNICEF, New York, updated 18 May 2010, www.unicef.org/people/people_ambassadors.html, accessed 24 June 2010.

Hitting the Road: Implementation, Monitoring &Evaluation

Chapter 4

Implementation

An Operational Plan Making the Best Out of a Partnership

Monitoring Roadblocks & Elements of Advocacy Monitoring

Evaluation Becoming a part of Learning Initiative

ImplementationAn Operational Plan

There is no universal template for developing advocacy strategy plan. Furthermore, advocacy is a very dynamic work in a very dynamic environment. Rapid responses and change of plans often occur in the midst of the journey. Organizations might develop one they consider the most appropriate and comfortable for their own use. Just make sure the important elements are incorporated into the strategy plan and that this will be used to monitor and evaluate our advocacy e�ort.

57

Table 9. Advocacy Strategy Plan

Look at the Stakeholder’s Power Relation & In�uence Analysis. Be speci�c! Remember that this will be the basis of our strategy.

What is the message that we want to convey to this particular stakeholder?

Specify the advocacy the main strategy action that we will execute

Who is in charge in doing what?

Note:In a coalition or partnership work, it is important to have a common understanding on who is doing what according to the strength of each partner.

What do we need to execute the strategy

General Advocacy Objective:

Stakeholder A Stakeholder BTarget

Specify changes do we want to see from this particular stakeholder: • Behavior • ActionNote: 1. This can also be elaborated into short, medium, long-term goal – if needed2. Be speci�c about the changes that we want to see

Goal

Interest/ Motivation

Key Messages

Strategy

Input

PIC

ImplementationMaking the Best out of a Partnership

There is no universal formula whether we have to work in a coalition or partnership to achieve a successful advocacy. But there are good reasons why.

To strengthen our work. This is not only about strength in numbers. But when we are working in an environment where there are many NGOs and CSOs working with di�erent or similar issues. Our sole message will be drowned in the midst of di�erent ideas. It is better to consolidate that through a coalition or partnership work. Moreover, by doing it, we also reduce the possibility of other organizations that might interfere with our advocacy work just because they do not understand. By working in coalition or partnership, we will be able to build the same understanding about an issue and work together to solve it.

To increase our legitimacy. More organizations working in a coalition or partnership can mean more constituents represented through that coali-tion or partnership. More constituents might be seen as more access to grassroots and thus might be more appealing to the decision-makers, parliament members and political parties. Moreover, take a look at the case of AGENDA’s advocacy in AICHR (Box 4.) One of the reason why AGENDA was able to be engaged in the ASEAN’s mechanism in AICHR is because AGENDA is considered as being able to represent ASEAN region since it is a regional partnership – the �rst regional partnership that consist of NGOs and DPOs in ASEAN countries working in disability rights and election issue.

To support and compliment our advocacy work. Advocacy work takes years to harvest fruits, as mentioned in the Chapter 2. Organizations cannot depend on donor funding that are limited in terms of timeframe and project-oriented. One of the ways to carry out the advocacy work is by sharing the responsibility and task with partners or other organizations in the coalition.

58

“We look to develop partnerships with those organizations where we can �ll a unique niche. What we do is research. We try to partner with organizations that can use that research to make policy change, and

then monitor that change on the ground.”— Advocate

Aside from all positive things a partnership or a coalition can bring to the table, never-theless, working and maintaining a coalition or a partnership have its own challenges. The following are few tips in building and strengthening a coalition or partnership.

59

Box 17. Building a Coalition or Partnership

Building a Coalition or Partnership

Existing expertise. Build on the existing knowledge, expertise and analyses in your partner network. This will prevent unnecessary duplication of e�orts and generate enhanced support from the participating organizations.

Joint policy analysis. Carry out a joint analysis of the policy environment at di�erent levels (local, national, international) to serve as a starting point for the elaboration of a joint lobby and advocacy strategy.

Set clear advocacy objectives. Set clear and realistic lobby and advocacy objectives in relation to speci�c issues. Be as SMART as possible and take into account the policy environment. Maintain su�cient strategic �exibility to respond to changes in the policy environment.

Joint strategy. Work with and from a joint strategy. Network members must operate using the same strategy, but must bear their own responsibilities for their delegated tasks.

One voice. Stimulate cooperation between members of the network in order to facilitate speaking through one voice. Working closely together at di�erent level (grass-roots, provincial, national, international) is a prerequisite.

Share information. Stimulate the sharing of information on the mission, vision and activities of the participating organizations. Network members in the network must be aware of each other’s strengths and weaknesses to achieve the necessary complementarity and be able to speak through a single voice.

Look for complementary members. Seek to incorporate strong member organizations with complementary areas of expertise. This is not only important for evidence-based advocacy. It also allows for member organizations, depend-ing on their respective expertise, to take on di�erent advocacy roles (e.g. research, creating public awareness and public support, organizing campaigns, lobby government institutions, etc.).

60

Clear roles and responsibilities. Make sure all network members are clear on their roles and responsibilities, the coordination and any substructures within the network (e.g. subgroups working on speci�c lobby and advocacy topics). This will contribute to more e�ective and more consistent messaging.

Leadership. Clarity on the leadership of the network is essential, not only to motivate members but also to enhance the network’s visibility.

Source: Guidelines on Lobby & Advocacy, ICCO, June 2010

Box 18. Strengthening the Network

Strengthening the Network

Timely communication. Ensure comprehensive and timely communication within the network to exchange information on new evidence, new policies, new stakeholders, etc.

Establish simple but e�ective communication guidelines (e.g. working with focal points, sharing contact details, making one person responsible for commu-nication, etc.).

Build capacity among members. Invest in capacity-building for members of the network, e.g. on lobby and advocacy methods, drawing up stakeholder and power analyses, strategizing for lobby and advocacy, etc. Use coaching methods to provide continuous feedback to network members during the planning and implementation phases of your lobby and advocacy activities.

Remain open to change. Ensure your network remains open to linking up with potential stakeholders that may present themselves, in order to strengthen the network’s lobby and advocacy e�orts.

Monitoring. Staying abreast of current political and policy developments at all relevant levels, as well as of the progress at the level of the member organiza-tions is essential to the timely adjustment of the network’s advocacy strategies and enhancing its potential impact.

Source: Guidelines on Lobby & Advocacy, ICCO, June 2010

Challenges in monitoring and evaluating advocacy work

61

Advocacy is often a long-term activity and policy change may be incre-mental and slow and its implementation may lag signi�cantly behind legislative change. It is therefore often hard to say when a signi�cant change has occurred.

The process of change is often unpredictable.

Multiple objectives – advocacy objectives may sometimes be process oriented and include policy changes, program changes, networking, opening up democratic space for citizens and increased accountability from service providers.

Hidden decision-making processes may be used by bureaucracies and politicians.

Cause and e�ects are usually di�cult if not impossible to clearly demon-strate, as you will be working to in�uence using a number of advocacy tools, and it may not be clear which activity made the di�erence to the direction taken by the decision-maker.

Advocacy work is often carried out through networks and coalitions and whilst this is likely to increase the visibility and power of advocacy work, it also makes it more di�cult to attribute the results to the work of a particu-lar organization or assess the exact contribution of each organization or group.

A variety of approaches is commonly used at the same time, some are more confrontational, others based around private debate. This combina-tion may be e�ective but renders the evaluation of the contribution of each approach di�cult.

Much advocacy work is unique with little repetition.

Monitoring & Evaluation

Then, how can we monitor and evaluate our advocacy work?

62

Table 10. Advocacy Monitoring & Evaluation Elements

• Does our strategy work for that particular stakeholder? If not, why? What works?

• Is there any other alternative strategy to try?

• Did our message reach the key audiences? If not, how can we better reach those audiences?

• Did our audiences respond positively to our message? Which messages worked? Why? Which did not work and why? How can we alter the messages which were not effective?

• Which formats for delivery worked well? Which were not effective and why? How can these formats be changed or improved?

• Did we receive any media or press coverage? Was it helpful to our effort? How could our media relations be improved?

Advocacy Objective/ Goal

Strategy

Message delivery/communi-cation

• Focus on the changes in behavior and action level (outcome) and impact instead of merely output.

• What else can we do to move our objective forward? Would building new alliances or increasing our media outreach help move our objective through the decision-making process?

• If our objective does not seem achievable, should we alter it? What would be achievable?

• Could we achieve part of your objectives by negotiating or compro-mising?

• How much does the policy/program change reflect our objective? Did we win our objective? Entirely, partly or not at all?

• Can/should we try to achieve the rest of our objective during the next decision-making cycle?

• Or should we move on to an entirely new advocacy objective? What are the pros and cons for each decision?

• Did the policy/program change make a difference to the problem we were addressing? If we achieved our objective in whole or in part, has it had the impact we intended?

63

Use of research and

data

Coalition work

• How did using data and research enhance our effort?

• Were data presented clearly and persuasively? How could our presentation be improved?

• Did our advocacy effort raise new research questions? Are more data needed to support our advocacy objective? If so, are the data available elsewhere or do we need to conduct the research?

• How was our coalition successful in drawing attention to the issue and building support for the advocacy objective?

• Was information distributed to coalition members in a timely fashion? How could information dissemination be improved?

• Are there any unresolved conflicts in the coalition? How can these be addressed and resolved?

• Is there a high level of cooperation and information exchange among coalition members? How could internal coalition relations be enhanced?

• Did the coalition gain or lose any members? How can we enlist new members and/or prevent members from leaving?

• Does the coalition provide opportunities for leadership develop-ment among members?

• How was our network helpful to your advocacy? How can we expand your network?

Source: Adapted from the Advocacy Sourcebook, WaterAid

EvaluationBecoming a part of learning initiative

Turn the evaluation process into a learning initiative, instead of only a-one time activ-ity in the mid-term or the end of advocacy phase. Documenting the work and captur-ing process and lessons is very crucial to this end.

Capturing, re�ning and sharing knowledge is an important learning process. As advo-cates, we might see writing or any paperwork like an additional chore or burden. And we do not have time to carry out this particular task, particularly if we do not see the bene�t in helping us achieve the changes we desired directly.

Nevertheless, documenting process, lessons learned, good practices and evaluation result needs to be done if we want the learning process to inform our future work or even other organization’s work in the future. We need to think about the strategy of executing this task:

Utilize the communication & documentation division– or alike, if any, to write and capture it.

In coalition, utilize the coalition. Some organizations have interest and attention as a learning organization. They might be up for this role.

64

Reading List

An Introduction to Advocacy: Training Guide by Ritu R. Sharma

Advocacy Toolkit: Understanding Advocacy”, published by Tearfund, 2002

Advocacy Toolkit: Guidance on how to advocate for more enabling environment for civil society in your context, Open Forum for CSO Development E�ectiveness

Advocacy Toolkit: A guide to in�uencing decisions that improve children’s lives, UNICEF, 2010

Advocacy Tools and Guidelines: Promoting Policy Change by CARE, 2001The Advocacy Sourcebook, by WaterAidBest Practices for Advocacy: A Dozen Tactics, Tools & Strategies, developed by ACTION, November 2007

Beyond the Cause: The Art & Science of Advocacy” by Independent Sector, 2012

Bridging Research and Policy: Context, Evidence, and Links, Working Paper 173, by Emma Crewe and John Young

Grass-root Advocacy Handbook, published by PACT Cambodia, 2006

Guidelines on Lobby & Advocacy, ICCO, June 2010

Lahirnya UU Penghapusan Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga (PKDRT): Sebuah Bentuk Terobosan Hukum dan Implikasinya Terhadap Hukum Nasional” by Ratna Bantara Munti, M.Si as the Coordinator of Jangka PKTP/ Director of LBH APIK Jakarta)

Making Research Evidence Matters: A Guide to Policy Advocacy in Transition Countries, Open Society Foundations, Eoin Young & Lisa Quinn, 2012

Mapping Political Context: A Toolkit for Civil Society Organizations, by Robert Nash, Alan Hudson and Cecilia Luttrell, published by Overseas Development Institute July 2006

Advokasi HIV dari Akar Rumput ke Atas: Panduan untuk Memperkuat Respon Lokal, an advocacy initiative of APCASO and Yayasan GAYA with the support of AFAO

Parliamentary Advocacy in the Extractive Industries: An Illustrative Guide for Civil Society, by Policy Forum

65

Interview list:

The Power of Evidence in Advocacy, edited and compiled by Suma Kaare, Naved Chow-dury and Vivian Kazi, 2007

Press Release, Launching of Youth Integrity Survey (YIS), Transparency International Indo-nesia

SMERU Newsletter No.32 Sept-Dec/2011

What Makes an E�ective Advocacy Organization: A Framework for Determining Advocacy Capacity, prepared by the California Endowment, January 2009

http://www.ti.or.id/en/index.php/press-release/2013/05/10/launching-of-youth-integrity-survey-yis-2013

1. Dadang Trisasongko (Secretary General – Transparency Indonesia)2. Matthieu Salomon (Asia Paci�c IKAT Program Manager – Revenue Watch Interna tional)3. Julieta Ferreira Da Silva (Caucus Perempuan dalam Politik – Timor Leste, POWER)4. AGENDA5. Agus Loekman (ProRep, Chemonics-USAID)6. Abdur Rozaki (IRE – Institute for Research & Empowerment, Advocate &Researcher)

66

About this User Guide

This User Guide is produced through compiling various external documents and drawing the lessons from those documents and interview with a few practitioners. Most of the materials used in this User Guide is taken from these documents and adapted to serve the purpose of learning.

67

This contact Info : Lenny Hidayat ( [email protected]) Ruth Alicia ( [email protected])

ug2 lenny hidayat

Documents