"ADVOCACY: Are civil society organisations any good at it? (And what exactly IS it anyway?)" -- Results of an EUMAP survey

In April 2006, EUMAP conducted a survey about advocacy among civil society organisations (CSOs). The respondents answered six questions directed at establishing their level of awareness of what advocacy is, and their assessment of how successful (or unsuccessful) they feel their organisations are at it.

With this survey, EUMAP’s intent is to participate in the ongoing debate on these issues, and contribute to a higher awareness among European CSOs of the importance of effective advocacy for their work. EUMAP would like to thank all those who responded to this survey - mainly European NGOs active in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as one advocacy consultant.

The survey results indicate that:

I. NGOs in Central and Eastern Europe have no common definition of what advocacy is, and also do not agree on the type of activities it covers. Paradoxically, however, they seem to have a common understanding of what it entails.

Respondents to the survey were mostly unable to give a clear and complete definition of what advocacy is. To describe it, they either used synonyms (lobbying; campaigning; communicating to the outside world) or referred to the outcomes it should produce (changing policy, affirming certain values, etc.).

Most respondents however agreed that advocacy entails the concomitant use of several tools. Those tools most often mentioned were: relations with the media, the Government, local government and European institutions; campaigning; relations with the private sector; partnerships with other NGOs; monitoring; training; pilot projects; local NGOs coalitions; submission of policy proposals to the relevant authorities; taking part in conferences; writing articles and publications; preparing leaflets; and sharing experience between communities.

An advocacy professional who participated in the survey gave a more complex list of activities which, interconnected, can be considered as advocacy, including: strategic planning; communications strategies (issue development, public policy outreach); stakeholder relations; media relations; relations with the public sector; relations with the private sector; coalition building; champions/ambassadors; grassroots actions; partnership-building; and negotiation.

According to the same professional, "focusing on one advocacy tactic, such as media relations, to the exclusion of others, such as stakeholder relations, obstructs the advocate from achieving the full potential of the intervention".

EUMAP's take: the practice of advocacy is still relatively young, it is therefore hard to find a definition that can apply to any organisation, in any geographic location. Many have attempted to give a general definition of what advocacy is. Using the basic elements of what are commonly understood to comprise 'advocacy' activities, we also would like to suggest the following formula: Advocacy is the ensemble of lawful, interconnected and most often non-core activities, carried out by non-profit organisations in view of achieving one or more policy or societal changes that the organisation has previously established as its goals. EUMAP would welcome your reaction to this proposed definition of advocacy.

II. Advocacy "goals" and advocacy "strategies" seem to be often mixed up. Clear advocacy strategies seem largely absent from the programmes of the respondents’ organisations. Their stated advocacy goals can instead span from the excessively “micro” to the excessively "macro".

The leader of one NGO explained in the survey that her NGO does not have a clear strategy and that their advocacy activities change in line with new policy developments. Another NGO leader gave instead a very far reaching definition of his NGO’s strategic goal: "to bring Government and public institutions to take responsibility for human rights, and to develop a public political culture that appreciates, understands and promotes human rights".

Other respondents gave answers which can be placed in between the above extremes (no specific goal – very far reaching goal), describing their advocacy goals as, for example, "achieving better governance at the local level", "fighting for the quality of life of minority people", "developing community-based services for people with intellectual disabilities", and "protecting a specific nature site that risks destruction".

According to the advocacy expert, "advocacy must be approached strategically if it is to sustain results. Without a clear idea of those in need and those who can help them, advocacy efforts fall short. Ad-hoc grassroots actions may create publicity, and policy papers may provide important solutions, yet neither tool serves to sustain development impacts without a clear, precise strategy that contributes toward understanding, firstly, and motivates behavioural change, ultimately. Advocacy should seek to define the causes and consequences of a particular problem as much as it motivates stakeholders to enhance relevant policies, programs and services".

EUMAP’s take: we feel that in order to structure advocacy efforts in the most effective way, defining a concrete set of (long-term) strategic advocacy goals, and a subset of (short term) advocacy objectives, is a very important exercise. Such clear definition can also be done internally, without being made public, and can be modified and adjusted over time, according to changes that occur within the organisation or in its external environment. A clear understanding by the NGO itself of a) what it concretely stands for; b) what its specific advocacy goals are, and c) how it intends to achieve them, is key to ensuring a coherent, and affective, advocacy activity. See, for example, EUMAP’s advocacy goals.

III. The relations between European NGOs and the media often seem to be frustrating, although there are also some positive experiences reported. On the whole, there seems to be a constant evolution in this area.

Some CSOs reported in the survey that they feel very frustrated by their relations with the media. They say that, generally, the media is only interested in 'scandalistic' news, and does not pay much attention to any other issue, however important. They also added that they only receive some attention from those few journalists who are personally sensitive to a specific issue.

Other NGOs, however, also acknowledged that they have not been able to sufficiently exploit the potential offered by the media, whether because of their own lack of skills in media relations, or of media representatives' ignorance of specific areas (such as mental health).

Some respondents, however, did indicate that their organizations have fostered constructive media relations. One says that, "media relations have an important role in campaigns’ implementation. We deal with media agencies, newspapers, radio stations, TV, online media. In a recent campaign media widely covered the issue and helped us achieve our goals".

Going more into the details of their media work, one organisation explained that it uses different spokespersons, including people whose rights the organisation defends. Another addsed that, in order to get their views covered, they have found it more effective to write opinion pieces or articles, rather than issuing press releases.

According to the advocacy expert, there are still too few CSOs that achieve the authority to become a regular, reliable media source. Also, CSOs do not make sufficient use of all available media platforms, including internet-based journals and forums and other opportunities brought about by the digital age, such as SMS campaigns and special software for electronic advocacy. Strategic use can also be made of alternative media, such as: community radio, travelling art exhibitions, electronic billboards, postcards and other products that communicate the desired message effectively to the target groups.

EUMAP’s take: NGOs, by definition, deal in depth with issues that do not receive sufficient attention. The media, instead, tend to cover issues that are likely to attract the attention of their readers, and because of the variety of such issues, can rarely go into real depth on one single issue. For these two contrasting approaches to meet, both sides should try to move some way in each other’s direction: NGOs should not passively expect media attention, but should help the media to cover the issues that they are concerned with by providing them with reliable and easily digestible material. The media, on their side, should be aware of their responsibility to inform their readers by making use of the material and experience offered by NGOs and present valuable information to them.

IV. The experience of NGOs (in EU, CEE and SEE countries) interacting with the public sector seems to be reaching some kind of maturity.

In the survey, one NGO leader explained that his NGO's relations with the public sector — at both the central and local level — are usually good. "Even if there are difficulties in attaining the advocacy goals, NGOs are usually given the possibility to speak up and meet officials from all levels of government". According to another NGO leader, "it is crucial to have a relationship with the authorities, because we always start from the idea that we want to collaborate with them. Sometimes we get to confront them, but this is the final approach we take".

Another NGO representative explained that ministry officials regularly consult the NGO on various policy issues. The same organisation nonetheless retains the option of resorting to what he calls 'public advocacy', but only when the Government is not cooperative or responsive, or when the goal is not only to impact policy decisions, but also to bring about changes in social behaviour. Another organisation described in the survey their success in raising a particular issue with the national Government, and having it follow through on their suggestions.

Interestingly, for some NGOs, public sector bodies (including ministries, municipalities, the Parliament, the Presidency, and intergovernmental agencies), are the main target of their campaigns. Other organisations view public sector bodies as one among several targets, "we use all generally accepted strategies, from lobbying national MPs to organising actions in the streets of a small town. The goal is primarily to include the issue presented in the public agenda". Others still, however, consider advocacy as mainly "communication to the outside world, in particular with media and stakeholders […] the impact on the Government is indirect in most cases, except when we are presenting issues concerning an individual case, confidentially transmitted to an individual government office".

The advocacy expert gave some suggestions for further improving Government relations, pointing to the fact that, "CSOs tend to favour inviting Government representatives to a planned event or launch of a publication. If the objective is to create publicity, the CSO may follow that path indefinitely. However, the moment the CSO intends to engage in policy advocacy, its strategy must change. The CSO must develop the resources to advocate within, and among, parliamentary representatives and officials, and parliamentary committees, Government institutions, as well as Government service providers and suppliers… Government relations are a form of inter-personal communication".

EUMAP’s take: public sector bodies (including Government, Parliament and local authority bodies) are, in our opinion, the number one advocacy target for CSOs, as they have more power that any other advocacy target (such as the media; public opinion; or stakeholders) to make and implement decisions, thereby turning an advocacy goal into reality. Clearly, however, they do not act in a vacuum; thus the need for other advocacy targets to help sustain the effort surrounding an advocacy goal, both before and after a specific policy decision has been taken.

V. CSOs are also aware of the importance of mobilising stakeholders. However, a clear understanding of how to turn relations with stakeholders into an advocacy strength, seems to still be largely absent.

Establishing and developing relations with stakeholders is referred to in more vague terms by the survey’s respondents, who nonetheless allow that stakeholders (i.e. any person or organisation with a "stake" of any kind in the issue) are important for successful advocacy.

Some refer only to those stakeholders that are 'allies'. One says that the organisation uses stakeholders as media spokespersons. Another mentions the fact that they seek to achieve support from as many stakeholders as possible, so that the issue has a critical mass of supporters and the competent public authority is obliged to take into consideration the issue. A third one explains that they make alliances with other advocacy groups on common specific aspects of a campaign.

One NGO representative also mentioned the need to deal with stakeholders that are not allies, "During a recent environmental campaigns we witnessed how business can financially influence governmental decisions".

According to the advocacy expert "sustainable advocacy is found in the level and commitment of the partnerships that carry out the intervention. That is, the CSO may take a lead position, yet government institutions and private sector companies must contribute to lengthen the outcome". She therefore advises NGOs to, "closely involve stakeholders in the planning and implementation of an advocacy strategy and have them sitting on boards and among the pool of consultants that the CSO employs to carry out its objectives. Stakeholders should further assume ownership of particular interventions by providing material, financial or moral support".

EUMAP's take: relations with stakeholders are important, but also complicated and complex; they require diplomatic balancing acts and organisational capacity. They tend to grow more involved as soon as a CSO, and the environment within which it functions, becomes more experienced, mature and self-confident.

VI. While all respondents seem to clearly indicate the importance of advocacy for achieving their goals, organisational aspects seem to be the one element that destabilises the whole structure. Financial limitations are a clear problem. The idea that advocacy is just an additional task that any member of staff can deal with, seems also to be responsible for the fact that only very few of the respondents have advocacy as a separate organisational task within their organisation.

One organisation indicated in the survey that advocacy is the responsibility of the management, but that all management members also have a different main role within the organisation. The same person also mentioned the lack of finances for printing out leaflets.

Another NGO mentioned that, although they coordinate the activity of many local monitoring teams, they do not have one person within the organisation specifically responsible for advocacy. Another respondent indicates that advocacy, "is part of the main activity, a continuous commitment, not only within a project or a series thereof".

The advocacy expert explained that in one organisation where she works, "there is one advocacy coordinator on staff, who works with a pool of consultants from multiple media organisations, advertisers, website designers, as well as participants and beneficiaries. The advocacy coordinator develops precise strategies for each intervention. The Executive Director and Chair of the Board promote the advocacy agenda publicly, while Members of the Board and other staff (3) promote the advocacy agenda as part of their regular work. Consultants like her look for ways to connect the CSO with potential participants and supporters".

EUMAP’s take: Not being a 'core' activity of an organisation, and given the difficult financial situation in which CSOs often find themselves, advocacy often ends up being the responsibility of all… and finally of nobody. This is understandable, as the limited resources available are given to more compelling and urgent tasks than going to conferences, or chatting with media or government officials. However, NGOs should also consider advocacy as an investmen, in terms of 1) the prestige and the further developments that an advocacy success can bring; and 2) the return that relations with media, government, donors and other stakeholders can bring. If a CSO cannot afford a staff member or a consultant with the specific skills and dedication to advocacy, it can still establish clear advocacy targets as well as a strategy to achieve them, and regularly refine them. These could serve as guidelines for all the NGO’s staff in their daily relations with the outside world. A coherent and consistent approach to all advocacy targets can be an excellent first step towards a more structured and effective advocacy.