RF_COM_H_103_SUDHA.pdf
Media
- extracted text
-
RF_COM_H_103_SUDHA
3
■E
I
WORKSHOP ON ADVOCACY
May 30-31 2005
CHENNAI, INDIA
Day 1-May 30 2005!
9.00 am
INTRODUCTION to the MEETING
- Participants Introduction
Jose U
9.30 -10.30 am
Defining the SPECTRUM of ADVOCACY
Josie F
10.30 am
Morning re fres hments
11.00 am
The PRINCIPLES (of Advocacy)
Josie F
- Sharing Experiences
12.30 noon
A Case Study Discussion
- Local actions, Global relationships
1.00 pm
Lunch
2.00 pm
Discussion
-Local actions, Global relationships
4.00 pm
A .t t e r n < y o n r e f l e s 11 ip e n t s
4.15 pm
Proactive advocacy
Josie F
Josie F
5.30 pm
1
I
After Dinner
Participants prepare for Simulation Exercise
t Dav 2 May 31 2005
i
8.45 am
Reflection of Program on May 30 2005
9.00 am 10.30 am
Film - Roll Back on Malaria in Tanzania &
Nienke &
Discussion on campaign strategies from the film Josie
10.30-11.00 am
Mor ain a re fres hme nt
11.00 am
Going Glo-Cal: Trials & Triumphs
11.45 - 12.30p.m
Lessons learnt
12.45- 1.00 pm
Critique of national plans
1.00 - 2.00 pm
Lunch
2.00 - 3.15 pm
Simulation Exercise (SE)
3.15-4.00 pm
Jury’s Verdict on SE & Discussion
4.00 pm
A f t e r noo n re f r e s bine nt s
4.30-4.45 pm
Critique of International plans
4.45 - 6.00 p.m
Planning your Campaign (what will You Do Differently?)
Josie F
2
Josie
WEMOS ADVOCACY TRAINING
CHENNAI - MAY 20 - 31 2005
A Case for Simulation Exercise on Advocacy
Nolambi has been devastated by severe tropical storms, political instability and
corruption. Poverty is on the rise. Unemployment is high. Diseases such as malaria and
gastroenteritis are on the increase. Drug addiction poses a serious threat. More cases of
sexually transmitted diseases have been reported after Nolambi opened its beautiful
beaches for tourism. Recently the Ministry of Health warned that an Aids epidemic is
imminent.
For the 35 million Nolambians the situation could not be worse. With the closure of
several companies and a government strapped of cash, young people are leaving the
country in search of employment.
On August 28 2004, Mr Desmond Ali the president of National Organization for People’s
Rights (NOPR), an NGO noticed a news item in the Daily Star on a Public Private
Partnership. The article highlighted that a TNC, Aster Zen will provide pro bono
expertise and resources to develop several health centres and improve water supply and
sanitation. The TNC will provide essential medicines to the poor. The paper added that
“the project brings together like minded people from developed and developing
countries “The project is poised to take action with all stakeholders
l,The PPP will contribute to poverty reduction, employment, better health, empowerment
of women, regeneration of the environment
The news item upset Mr Desmond Ali as he and others in the NGO community were in
the dark about the PPP. He needed to know more. The NGOs are always the last to
know, he said pointing the article to his colleague.
He called a friend in the Economic Planting Unit of the Prime Minister’s office to enquire
further on the PPP news item. The friend provided him some critical information. A
steering committee on the PPP had been set up. It comprised of government officials.
Aster Zen representatives, National Council for Women ^fev-^headed by the Prime
Minister’s wife);\ representatives from WHO, Harvard Centre for International
Development and the National University.
In the course of the conversation with his friend, Mr Desmond Ali learnt that the PPP was
in line with the government’s ambitious 5-year Plan which will witness the privatization
of the health sector, water and higher education.
Mr Desmond Ali and his colleagues swung into action. They mobilized several NGOs,
local politicians and opinion leaders from the community to demand from the
government greater transparency and accountability about the PPP.
The government wanted to avoid a conflict before the PPP could be implemented. It
announced that a meeting would be held with all stakeholders of the PPP and NGOs were
invited. In an unusual move, the government said the media would be present too. The
action surprised many people as Nolambi has a restrictive media environment.
NOPR made several attempts to get more information from NCW, WHO and the
University. All referred NOPR to the government.
■
This case is written by Josie for the WEMOS Advocacy Training Chennai May 2005
Instruction for Participants '.
You will be divided into 4 groups representing:
1) Government
2) Aster Zen
3) WHO
4) NGOs
> Each group is to prepare its case, position, concerns for the meeting on 31st May 2005
at 2.00 pm and advocate its position on the proposed PPP
y>c>S(
•^s
Qin nounCfl
LoQ
NolQroKi
IT.
3*j,. r/)is>s>/c<n z
ho u r><J cck oO
i-|e_cxJLH-)
7 "4
<o
oJj
j r<A onrc)\J <2 A
AJOjCi h')h^<A
I
>-UO
G. ?>\j t-
WG0^. kJ
Cblgzvb' fex(fk jg^^. /
OohAafe^ Ti/s^
(iXSe^ /p;
pex T'Ho^^S Rjp
tO'V’c
cl-pccA)
A A^te< ^g/«^riL
- Le^peasOT• fHfe
<
*
I
(
>
Global Public-Private Partnerships
in Health
Workshop, 30 May- 3 June 2005, Chennai, India
May 2005
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
Contents
Logistics
1. Programme
5
7
1.1. Monday 30 May 2005
7
1.2 Tuesday 31 May 2005
8
1.3 Wednesday 1 June 2005
9
1.4 Thursday 2 June 2005
10
Friday 3 June 2005
11
1.5
2 Consultants
Annex 1
Planning workshop Kenya 2004
Annex 2, 30-31 May training
Annex 3, 1-2 June
3/5
12
13
13
14
16
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
Logistics
Arrival in Chennai
You will be picked up at the airport.
Accomodation
The workshop will be held at:
Hotel Breeze
850, Poonamallee High Road
Chennai-600 010.
Tel :91-44-2641 3334-37
Fax: 91-44-2641 33 01
For more details about the hotel please check their website;
www.breezehotel.com
Contactperson India
Techno Economic Studies and Training Foundation
Mrs. Daisy Dharmaraj
Angie Dare (tel: 0091449840378494)
No. 4 Sathalavar Street
Chennai
India
E-mail: testfoundation@rediffmail.com
E-mail: daremarcusanqie@hotmaii.com
Tel: +91 9 4440 14170
Contactperson the Netherlands
Wemos
Jose Utrera and Geja Roosjen
P.O Box 1693
1000 BR Amsterdam
E-mail: lose. utrera@wemos. nl
E-mail: qeia.roosien@wemos.nl
Tel: +31 20 4352050
5/7
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
1. Programme
1.1. Monday 30 May 2005
By Josie Fernandez
Objectives of Monday 30 May and Tuesday 31 May
1. The participants on the workshop have increased their knowledge on the principles
of good campaigning (advocacy and lobby activities) making use of their own work
experiences.
2. The participants on the workshop have reflected on the application of good
campaigning for the advocacy and lobby activities on GPPIs in health of their
organisations at national level.
3. The participants on the workshop have reflected on the application of good
campaigning for the advocacy and lobby activities on GPPIs in health for the joint
activities of the group at international level.
4. The participants have discussed the contents of the film about Roll Back Malaria in
Tanzania and have discussed and agreed on the possible uses of the film at
national and international levels
5. The group of participants have gained knowledge and skills on linking national and
international campaigns based on concrete working experiences.
6. The group of participants have reflected, discussed and get conclusions on strategic
elements to be taken into account to improve the planning and implementation of
their organisations’ campaigns at national level; and to be included in the planning
and execution of joint campaign activities at international level.
See Annex 2 for background information.
09:00
Introduction of Participants
09:30
Defining the SPECTRUM of ADVOCACY
10:30
Morning refreshments
11:00
The PRINCIPLES (of Advocacy)
12:00
A Case Study Discussion
13:00
Lunch
14:00
Critique of National Action Plans
16:00
Afternoon Refreshments
16:15
Critique of International Plans
17:30
Distribution of Script for Simulation Exercise (SE)
after dinner
participants prepare for simulation
7/9
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
1.2 Tuesday 31 May 2005
By Josie Fernandez
08:45
Reflection of Program on 30th May 2005
09:00
Film Roll Back Malaria in Tanzania’ and discussion on campaign strategies
from the film
10:30
Morning refreshments
11:00
Going Glo-Cal: Trials & Triumphs
12:30
A case study discussion
13:00
Lunch
Simulation Exercise (SE)
15:15
Jury’s Verdict on SE & Discussion
16:00
Afternoon Refreshments
16:30
Planning Your Campaign (What Will You Do Differently?)
8/10
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
1.3 Wednesday 1 June 2005
By Domingos Armani
Objectives of Wednesday 1 June and Thursday 2 June
1.
Evaluation and get lessons learned about the process of collaboration between
Wemos and the other partner organisations and between Southern organisations on
the issue of GPPIs.
2.
Reflection on the points to be taken into account for the last period of the
collaborative work on the issue of GPPIs.
Evaluation and get lessons learned about the outcomes of the collaborative work on
the issue of GPPIs
3.
See Annex 3 for background information.
$
08:00
Opening, presentations & expectations, programme & methodology.
08:30
Introduction - “Evaluation as a learning tool”.
09:00
Evaluation of Phase I - Defining the problem and framing case studies
10:30
Morning refreshments
14:00
Evaluation of Phase II - Doing the case studies
9/11
May 2005
Global Pubfic Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
1.4 Thursday 2 June 2005
By Domingos Armani
08:00
Evaluation of Phase III - Developing advocacy initiatives
10:30
Morning refreshments
11:00
Evaluation of Phase III - Developing advocacy initiatives
13:00
Lunch
14:00
Evaluation of Phase III - Developing advocacy initiatives
16:30
Phase IV - Identifying challenges and relevant questions for planning
19:00
Evaluation of the workshop and closure.
10/12
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
1.5 Friday 3 June 2005
8.30
Reflection on relevant points from workshops about advocacy and
evaluation
9.15
Main advocacy activities of each participating organization
Every organization presents the main objectives and planned activities for
2005
10.15
Break
10.45
Planning joint activities at international level
12.00
Perspectives of collaboration after 2005
12.30
Evaluation
13.00
Closing remarks and farewell
11/13
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
2 Consultants
Mr. Domingos Armani is a sociologist with a degree in Political Science. He is a professor
of the University of the Valley of the River of Sinos (UNISINOS) and the director of Darmani
Consultancy - Development & Citizenship. Mr. Armani works as a consultant in social
development since 1997. He has long experience in conducting the participatory processes
with Civil Society Organizations (social NGOs, movements, philanthropic organizations,
social organizations of churches, etc.), public agencies (public companies, state secretaries,
etc.) and with international institutions. Recently he concentrated his work on institutional
evaluation, strategic planning, formulation of monitoring- and evaluation systems, institutional
development of organizations of the civil society and elaboration and management of social
projects.
Mrs. Josie Fernandez holds a master in Development Management. She is the founder and
Executive President of the of Education and Research Association for Consumers. She now
works as a consultant for the Goverment of Malaysia, FAO, ESCAP, UNDP, Federation of
Malaysia Consumer Associations and Trade Unions.
12/14
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
May 2005
Annex 1
Planning workshop Kenya 2004
Activity___________
1. finalization of case
studies
WHO
All
participants
Period________________________ Remarks
Draft report half June: Daisy,
Laxonie, Thelma, George, Sylvester,
Mwajuma
Final report half July
Draft report half July: Ashnie
Final report end of July: Ashnie
Finished in October
2. finalization of the
report with summary and
analyses of the case
studies
Consultant
Mike
3. Evaluation of
advocacy process
Wemos
Spring 2005
4. Communication on
who has been where through group mail
Wemos
Continuing
5. Report of the seminar
April Nairobi
Wemos
End of May
Rawson
(Medact)
PLANNING OF ACTIVITIES LOBBY AND ADVOCACY
Activity
WHO__
Period______
1. Write a proposal for
lobby and advocacy
All
Beginning of August
2. Write guidelines for
lobby proposal______
Wemos
participants
13/15
Beglming of June
Remarks
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships m Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
Annex 2, 30-31 May training
Background Work for Chennai Training, 30 & 31 May 2005
Dear participants,
When I went through your case studies and experiences vis a vis GPPIs, I picked up the
following problems, which I believe will be the areas of focus for your advocacy, campaign
and lobby efforts.
Do some brainstorming and outline a strategy to find solutions to the concerns and problems.
Problems
k
Challenges
Lack of transparency
programs due to
inaccessibility to
information
CSOs have no control
over programs.
Government is decision
maker
GPPIs, based on
government focus
Concept of GPPI not
understood
Inequalities and
irregularities in
disbursement of funds
Success of PPI based
on amount of funds not
on health outcomes
Program bias in GPPIs
14/16
Recommendation for
Advocacy Action /
intervention
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
Annex 3,1-2 June
WORKSHOP on EVALUATION of EXPERIENCES and LESSONS LEARNED
on GPPIs
Chennai, 1 -2 June 2005
Objectives
The workshop aims at evaluating the outcomes so far and the collaborative work between
the organizations involved in the process as well as drawing lessons learned in order to plan
the next period of activities.
Methodology
The workshop will be developed as a participative and reflexive space/process, where
everybody will have the opportunity to express their views and proposals in an atmosphere
of reflection and learning. The methodology should be able to lead to build commitment and
shared responsibility upon a genuine democratic and participative process.
Throughout the workshop, we will take into consideration different ambits of the discussionthe person, the organization, the country and the whole coalition on GPPIs.
The proposed methodology organizes the debate in four distinct phases, in order to get the
most of the evaluation: Phase I - Involvement in the coalition, defining the problem, framing
the case studies; Phase II - doing the case studies; Phase III - carrying out advocacy
initiatives, and Phase IV - identifying challenges for the next phase.
In each phase, we shall do the evaluation and draw lessons learned oriented by key
questions emerging from the following dimensions: concrete outcomes, process of
collaboration, and capacity building.
We will follow the same methodological steps in the evaluation of Phase I, II and III:
Presentation of guiding questions (on outcomes, capacity building and
process of collaboration)
Individual reflection (or by each organization)
Collective debate
Synthesis of evaluation and lessons learned
In the Phase IV we shall work upon the lessons learned in Phases I, II and III to identify
challenges and questions to be taken into account in the planning process (especially on
joint international advocacy activities, advocacy at country level and strengthening capacities
of participant organizations).
Key-questions for debate (preliminary)
PHASE I - Defining the problem
On outcomes:
■ Were the definition of the problem and the framing of the case study developed
satisfactorily?
■ What could have been better?
16/18
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
On capacity building:
■
What were the most relevant skills and expertise obtained?
On the process of collaboration:
■
■
■
■
■
Did the collaboration from Wemos fulfill the needs on the definition of the problem
and of the building of the frame of the case studies?
Was the collaboration between the participant organizations and between them and
Wemos on this stage taken as an opportunity for the strengthening of the network?
Were any problems of this stage well handled?
What could have been better?
What the participant organizations have learned about the process of collaboration
on this stage?
PHASE II - Carrying out the case studies
On outcomes:
■
■
■
How do we evaluate the quality of the research produced?
How do we evaluate the quality of the advocacy documents produced?
What relevant changes have been produced as a result of the implementation of the
case studies?
On capacity building:
■
■
■
What were the most relevant skills obtained (planning, implementation and analysis
of research for advocacy, etc.)?
What were the most relevant experiences / expertise obtained (international health
policies, international and national health policy actors, international and national
health programmes, national health policy processes, etc.)?
Were there any capacity building opportunities missed at this stage?
On the process of collaboration:
■
■
■
■
Did the collaboration from Wemos for the realization of the case studies satisfy the
expectations and needs? (why?)
Was the collaboration between the organizations carrying out the case studies
satisfactory? (why?)
Were any problems on this stage well handled?
What could have been better?
What the participant organizations have learned about the process of collaboration
on this stage?
PHASE III - Developing advocacy initiatives
On outcomes:
■
■
■
■
■
■
How do we evaluate the quality and usefulness of the materials (leaflets, etc.) and
documents produced?
How do we evaluate the advocacy activities organized?
How do we evaluate the advocacy activities organized around case studies?
Was the process of informing relevant actors and decision markers about GRPIs
adequately developed?
Was the process of informing CSOs and making them aware of GPPIs programmes,
risks and drawbacks adequately developed?
How do we evaluate the process of contacting/forming coalition or networks to work
on GPPI or related issues?
How do we evaluate the changes or processes initiated to bring changes in policies
around GPPIs?
On capacity building:
17/19
May 2005
-
■
■
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
What were the most relevant skills, capacities and experiences obtained (definition
and implementation of advocacy activities at the national and international levels;
influencing policies of national and international actors in health; etc.)?
What were the most relevant experiences / expertise obtained (international health
policies, international and national health policy actors, international and national
health programmes, national health policy processes, etc.)?
Were there any capacity building opportunities missed at this stage?
On the process of collaboration:
■
■
■
•
■
■
■
How do we evaluate the collaboration from Wemos with regard to the definition of
advocacy activities at country and international levels?
How do we evaluate the collaboration from Wemos with regard to the realization of
advocacy activities at country and international levels?
How do we evaluate the collaboration between the participant organizations with
regard to the definition of advocacy activities at country and international levels?
How do we evaluate the collaboration between the participant organizations with
regard to the realization of advocacy activities at country and international levels?
Were any problems on this stage well handled?
What could have been better?
What the participant organizations have learned about the process of collaboration
on this stage?
Preparation work by participants
It is expected that the participants in the workshop bring some reflection upon the key
questions listed above, which will be complemented in the workshop.
The participants should also read the paper on “evaluation as a learning tool”, which serves
as an introduction to the methodology of the workshop.
18/20
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
“Learning through Evaluation”
Domingos Armani
This brief paper was written as an introduction to the Chennai evaluation workshop on the
GPPIs advocacy process.
The paper sets out to argue that all evaluation should be a learning process, presenting
some methodological principles to make it happen.
Evaluation as a learning process is here defined as a methodically organised collective
process of evaluation based on experience, guided by a set of critical questions and
presided overby the sense that learning is a vital conditional for effective social change.
Such an evaluation process promotes the critical analysis of the experience - individual,
organisational and collective - confronting it with visions, expectations, objectives and
outcomes, in order to produce a methodologically sound and socially relevant new
knowledge which systematises the main findings and lessons learned.
It is important to point out that development evaluation has not always meant a process of
learning. Unfortunately, evaluation within the development wisdom, in the North as well as in
the South, has all too often been taken in a rather “beaurocratic” and instrumental fashion,
whereby planning, monitoring and evaluation went around a set of pre-defined results,
outcomes and indicators, allowing little space for open and critical thinking about the factors
which could explain success or failure in complex processes of social change.
Monitoring and evaluation in this sense are closer to “auditing” tools rather than to a learning
experience.
It is strategic to promote evaluation as a learning process because: (i) it contributes to
balance the “results based” kind of evaluation, in which products, results and concrete
outcomes are what really matters and not the rather more intangible experiences and
learning about the process of development itself; (ii) it helps to overcome the traditional
“linear approach” of much of development projects evaluation, whereby social processes of
change are perceived and designed as a simple chain of cause-and-effect, and not as a
complex and simultaneous set of multidetermined changes; (iii) it helps to overcome the
activism and the institutional resistance in many organisations of the South with regard to the
development of a culture of evaluation as institutional learning, and finally because (iv) to
promote “evaluation as learning” is the entrance door to any socially strategic action.
Any initiative of “evaluation as learning” should be developed in accordance with the
following principles:
♦
The evaluation should be conceived, organised and conducted as a process of
critical reflection based on key-questions;
♦
The evaluation should use participative working techniques in order to strengthen
ownership;
♦
The evaluation process should allow the emergence of and be able to deal with all
relevant concerns, doubts, criticism, visions, proposals and tensions;
♦
The process should take into account the power relations which structure the group
in question, in order to stimulate and favour equitable participation, considering all
participants as “citizens” of an evaluative “public sphere”;
♦
The evaluation process should be able to promote agreements and, whenever
possible, valid consensus;
19/21
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
♦
The process should look at and take into account both tangible and intangible
outcomes;
♦
The process should value both individual, organisational and collective experiences
of learning, and
♦
A more focused process of evaluation leads to deeper learning.
Thus, the evaluation of the GRPI advocacy network should be carried out as a process of
“evaluation as learning” in order to get the most of the experience so far and to strengthen
the planning for the coming period.
For that to happen, some specific guidelines are proposed:
The evaluation has to consider different stages of the experience - defining the
problem and framing the case studies, implementing case studies and carrying out
advocacy initiatives;
The process will systematise evaluation and lessons learned at three dimensions of
the experience, outcomes, capacity building and the process of collaboration.
♦
The learning has to be valued in individual, organisational and coalition terms;
♦
The methodology should strengthen the sense of ownership and commitment of the
participant organisations over the evaluation in order to empower the network itself;
♦
The discussion in the workshop will be guided by a set of key-questions for
reflection, and
The evaluation and lessons learned shall be inputs for the planning of the next
period.
Porto Alegre
May 2005
20/22
30RAP200434
June 2004
“Global Public Private Initiatives in Health, Research
for lobby and advocacy”
Annex 6. Causes, consequences,
solutions
Problem: Increasing influence of Private sector at global level = GPPIs_____________
Causes
Consequences
Solutions (through
advocacy and lobby
actions)
- Inequalities grow
- Poverty -related diseases
- Poverty increases
are increasing
- Economical policy reforms
- Less resources for health
- Diminishing role of
- Private sector increasing role
governments
in health
- Governments take less their
- Health as commodity
responsibilities for social
- Less attention to right to
problems (corruption, another
health
priorities)
- Short term / technical
- Market as solution of
solutions
problems
- Donors increase resources
- Increasing power of TNG
for vertical programmes
- Diminishing credibility of
- Less attention to structural
WHO - getting less
solutions
resources
- Less attention to equity
- Less resources for
strengthening of health
systems
-WHO looks for resources of
private sector - partnerships
- Increasing number of PPPs
- WHO role as moral authority
/ normative institution
diminished
- Conflict of interests
- Lack of transparency
36/49
30RAP200434
June 2004
"Global Public Private Initiatives in Health, Research
for lobby and advocacy”
Annex 7. Summary important items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
R
J
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
Promote South-South solidarity
Technologies and skills in Southern countries should not be hindered.
GPPI should not introduce new medicines when they are not needed.
Demand transparency and democracy and diminishing of corruption / and to
take responsibility of social problems.
Have strong laws sustaining health policies.
Industries should be held accountable.
Information on GPPIs should be publicised.
WHO should be revitalised ***.
People’s movement should be strengthened.
Root causes of health should be addressed **.
Augmenting self-reliance **.
Increase local capacity of health systems for sustainability **.
Challenge TNC to change attitudes **, pay social tax.
Increase awareness on the right to health and the obligation of the states to
promote, protect and fulfil it. Access to health care.
Demand universal basic income grant.
Altering market system.
Develop powerful and accountant mechanisms.
More research on GPPIs.
Altering market systems/challenge TNC’s
WHO revitalisation
People’s movement strengthening (networks)
Address root cuss of health problems
Increase local capacity of health systems / self-reliance
]•
37/49
30RAP200434
"Globa! Public Private Initiatives in Health, Research
for lobby and advocacy”
June 2004
Annex 8. Criteria for ranking issues
- Result in a real improvement of people’s life
- Result in better health for all, specially vulnerable groups and poor
- Fulfillment of the right to health
I
- Be widely supported
I
- Match in international / national agenda
- Promote sustainable improvement of health
- Look for solutions of the root causes of illnesses
- Promote integral solutions to health problems
I
- Improve access to health services for all
- Promote and facilitate participation
I
- Empower people
r
- Improve accountability to the public
- Strength national health systems
- Help to develop local resources
- Facilitate regulation of private sector
38/49
30RAP200434
“Global Public Private Initiatives in Health, Research
for lobby and advocacy”
June 2004
Annex 9. Checklist for choosing an
issue
CHECKLIST FOR CHOOSING AN ISSUE
Criteria
The solution of an
National level
Issue 2
Issue 1
issue should be
- Result in a real
improvement of
people’s life
- Result in better
health for all,
specially
vulnerable groups
and poor
- Fulfillment of the
right to health
- Be widely
supported
- Match with
international /
national agenda
- Promote
sustainable
improvement of
health
- Look for solutions
of the root causes
of illnesses
- Promote integral
solutions to health
problems
39/49
Issue 3
Issue 4
Issue 5
30RAP200434
“Global Public Private Initiatives in Health, Research
for lobby and advocacy”
June 2004
- Improve access
to health services
for all
- Promote and
facilitate
participation
- Empower people
- Improve
accountability to
the public
- Strength national
health systems
- Support the
development local
resources
- Help to develop
local resources
- Promote increase
of resources for
health
- Facilitate
regulation of
private sector
Other
Other
40/49
1
WORKSHOP on EVALUATION of EXPERIENCES and LESSONS LEARNED
on GPPIs
Chennai, 1 -2 June 2005
Objectives
The workshop aims at evaluating the outcomes so far and the collaborative work
between the organizations involved in the process as well as drawing lessons learned
in order to plan the next period of activities.
Methodology
The workshop will be developed as a participative and reflexive space/process, where
everybody will have the opportunity to express their views and proposals in an
atmosphere of reflection and learning. The methodology should be able to lead to
build commitment and shared responsibility upon a genuine democratic and
participative process.
Throughout the workshop, we will take into consideration different ambits of the
discussion - the person, the organization, the country and the whole coalition on
GPPIs.
The proposed methodology organizes the debate in four distinct phases, in order to get
the most of the evaluation: Phase I - Involvement in the coalition, defining the
problem, framing the case studies; Phase II - doing the case studies; Phase III
carrying out advocacy initiatives, and Phase IV - identifying challenges for the next
phase.
In each phase, we shall do the evaluation and draw lessons learned oriented by key
questions emerging from the following dimensions: concrete outcomes, process of
collaboration, and capacity building.
We will follow the same methodological steps in the evaluation of Phase I, II and III.
-
Presentation of guiding questions (on outcomes, capacity building
and process of collaboration)
Individual reflection (or by each organization)
Collecti ve debate
Synthesis of evaluation and lessons learned
In the Phase IV we shall work upon the lessons learned in Phases I, II and III to
identify challenges and questions to be taken into account in the planning process
(especially on joint international advocacy activities, advocacy at country level and
strengthening capacities ofparticipant organizations).
Key-questions for debate (preliminary)
PHASE I - Defining the problem
On outcomes:
■ Were the definition of the problem and the framing of the case study
developed satisfactorily?
■ What could have been better?
On capacity building:
2
■
What were the most relevant skills and expertise obtained?
On the process of collaboration:
Did the collaboration from Wemos fulfill the needs on the definition of the
problem and of the building of the frame of the case studies?
■ Was the collaboration between the participant organizations and between them
and Wemos on this stage taken as an opportunity for the strengthening of the
network?
■ Were any problems of this stage well handled?
■ What could have been better?
■ What the participant organizations have learned about the process of
collaboration on this stage?
■
PHASE II - Carrying out the case studies
On outcomes:
■
■
■
I low do we evaluate the quality of the research produced?
How do we evaluate the quality of the advocacy documents produced?
What relevant changes have been produced as a result of the implementation
of the case studies?
On capacity building:
What were the most relevant skills obtained (planning, implementation and
analysis of research for advocacy, etc.)?
■ What were the most relevant experiences / expertise obtained (international
health policies, international and national health policy actors, international
and national health programmes, national health policy processes, etc.)?
■ Were there any capacity building opportunities missed at this stage?
■
On the process ofcollaboration:
Did the collaboration from Wemos for the realization of the case studies
satisfy the expectations and needs? (why?)
■ Was the collaboration between the organizations carrying out the case studies
satisfactoiy? (why?)
■ Were any problems on this stage well handled?
■ What could have been better?
■ What the participant organizations have learned about the process of
collaboration on this stage?
■
PHASE III - Developing advocacy initiatives
On outcomes:
I low do we evaluate the quality and usefulness of the materials (leaflets, etc.)
and documents produced?
■ How do we evaluate the advocacy activities organized?
■ How do we evaluate the advocacy activities organized around case studies?
■ Was the process of informing relevant actors and decision markers about
GPPIs adequately developed?
■ Was the process of informing CSOs and making them aware of GPPIs
programmes, risks and drawbacks adequately developed?
■
7
How do we evaluate the process of contacting Tonning coalition or networks
to work on GPPI or related issues?
■ How do we evaluate the changes or processes initiated to bring changes in
policies around GPPIs?
3
On capacity building:
■ What were the most relevant skills, capacities and experiences obtained
(definition and implementation of advocacy activities at the national and
international levels; influencing policies of national and international actors in
health; etc.)?
■ What were the most relevant experiences / expertise obtained (international
health policies, international and national health policy actors, international
and national health programmes, national health policy processes, etc.)?
■ Were there any capacity building opportunities missed at this stage?
On the process ofcollaboration:
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
How do we evaluate the collaboration from Wemos with regard to the
definition of advocacy activities at country and international levels?
How do we evaluate the collaboration from Wemos with regard to the
realization of advocacy activities at country and international levels?
How do we evaluate the collaboration between the participant organizations
with regard to the definition of advocacy activities at country and international
levels?
How do we evaluate the collaboration between the participant organizations
with regard to the realization of advocacy activities at country and
international levels?
Were any problems on this stage well handled?
What could have been better?
What the participant organizations have learned about the process of
collaboration on this stage?
Preparation work by participants
It is expected that the participants in the workshop bring some reflection upon the
key-questions listed above, which will be complemented in the workshop.
The participants should also read the paper on “evaluation as a learning tool”, which
serves as an introduction to the methodology of the workshop.
Case study for discussion for Chennai 1 raining 05
What the Poor Themselves can do to Achieve Access to Healthcare
Actions for access to health for the disadvantaged consumers:
I. Information and education
Based on these findings. Association Senegalaise pour la Defense de I’Environ-nement et des
Consommateurs (ASDEC) a Cl member in Senegal, conducted a senes of information an
XaSSons on “How to access safe drugs and healthcare services” with consumers in
the disadvantaged areas in the suburbs of Dakar.
The discussions at these sessions were aimed at infonnmg ASDEC members and the
community on the Bamako Initiative, a strategy promoting the use of essential generic drugs
made accessible to the great majority of people at affordable prices. The policy is unknown to
most patients. Resource persons who include doctors were part of the pane introducing the
topic and answering questions from the community.
Discussions centred on the rational use of drugs and disease prevention.
2. Representation and lobbying
Advocating for the right to the satisfaction of basic needs - particularly of the most
disadvantaged, is the cornerstone of activities of any consumer association. In the are of
health, Ligue des Consommateurs du Burkina (LCB) has been granted the status of board
member within the Centrale d’Achat des Medicaments Essentials Generique (CAMEG) in
Burkina Faso. The institution is in charge of importing and selecting essential drugs of good
quality at a competitive price.
That status allows LCB to lobby board members, who include doctors, to promote the use of
generic drugs whenever possible, as substitutes for more expensive, branded drugs.
LCB regularly conducts visits to pharmacies to ensure that generic drugs are prominently
displayed on counters.
3. Fostering relationships between community and health structures
In an effort to promote better partnership between its members and a local community clinic,
as well as control costs, ASDEC signed a memorandum of understanding with the clinic. This
ensured that ASDEC members would be charged a low price of 1000 Fcfa (US$2) per month
for medication. Most clinics charge between 7000 to 10, 000 Fcfa (USS14-20) per month.
As for tests, ASDEC members would pay only 20 cents per test.
4. Promoting alternative medicines
Environment et Developpement du tiers Monde (ENDA), another CI member has been very
active in promoting the use of medicinal plants. This is in view of the fact that many people
do not have access to healthcare services and conventional drugs and therefore rely on
medicinal plants for treating their ailments. Additional factors which influenced the use of
medicinal plants are culture and lack of financial resources.
ENDA and the Department of Pharmacy at the University of Dakar jointly collaborated on a
project where a plot of land was allocated to grow plants used by traditional healers. The
plants were then analysed by the university scientists.
Plants that have prove to be effective in curing diseases are put in plastic bags labeled and
sold by pharmacies and traditional practitioners.
Leaflets with information about the plants and their curative properties, dosage, indications
and contraindications are distributed in order to allow more people to grow and use them.
5. Changing community behaviors for better health
Most discussions held by consumer organizations on health at the community level focus on
prevention as the way to better health.
One of the main sources of ill health is lack of water and sanitation in disadvantaged
communities, notes ASDEC.
The organization initiated a project in one of the poorer districts in Dakar, where four to five
families composed of five to ten persons each share one tap in rented premises. To manage
the water - the cost of which is expensive - the families had been filling a jar in the morning
and closing the tap for the rest of the day.
Each family member would then dip a pot into he jar for their domestic use (drink, toilet,
cooking, etc...) for the day.
With support from EU, ASDEC ensured that a faucet was attached to the jar, so that the users
do not put their hands into the jar thereby contaminating the water.
A similar operation for better hygiene was carried out by LCB in a campaign “Clean hand
operation'. In most traditional large families and restaurants meals are eaten using fingers.
Everybody washes their hands in the same bowl of water. This generally leaves dirty water
for the last few person to clean their hands. The campaign uses a simple technology: a kettle
and a small receptacle. Water from the kettle is used to wash one’s hand which is collected in
the receptacle. This ensures that the next person washing his/her fingers has access to clean
water from the kettle.
The success of the campaign was such that most restaurants in Burkina Faso adopted the
technology. As for street food in Benin, Association pour la Protection du Consommateur et
de son Environnement an Benin (APCEB) promoted the use of meat-safe with glass or net to
protect food sold to children at schools or at markets.
By:
Mbacke Ndeye Soukeye Gueye, Association Senegalaise pour la Defensa de
rEnvironnement et des COnsommateurs (ASDEC)
Taken from:
Consumers International (1998). What the Poor Themselves can do to Achieve Access to
Healthcare. Poverty: Rallying for Change (p.66-67). Consumers International:
Penang
.4 case study for discussion on community action at Chennai Workdi on. \1ay Vis
The INPACT Project in Thailand
In April 1999, a project outline was drawn up between the Population and Communit}'
Development Association (PDA), Monsanto Company (USA), Monsanto Thailand, the
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Department of Agriculture (Thailand).
The project, entitled “Innovative Partnerships for Agricultural Changes in Technology”
(INPACT), aimed to use a micro-credit system to encourage rice framers in the Nang Rong
and Lamplaimart Districts in Buri Ram Province, Northeast Thailand, to use Monsanto’s
pesticides and other technologies.
According to the project, both IRRI and Monsanto would train fanners on how to use their
recommended technologies. The technologies include:
land leveling
Monsanto’s conservation tillage technology
tractor operation
use of herbicides
use of seeds with “improved quality and traits”
harvesting and threshing technology
The participating fanners would then work with PDA to teach other fanners to “increase the
number of farm households impacted”.
The intentions of the project are clear:
1. To develop the large-scale extensive and industrial rice farming in Thailand;
2. To introduce the use of Monsanto’s herbicides in Thai rice fanning and increase the
sales of its pesticides; and
3. To improve Monsanto’s tarnished name through alliances with established
development groups.
It was also likely that the project would be used to introduce Monsanto’s genetically
engineered seeds or its hybrid seeds into Thai rice fanning. Monsanto is currently developing
rice genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides. It also holds patents on the infamous
Terminator Technology - which makes seeds sterile and prevents farmers from saving seed
from year to year as they have for generations. Such a technology would be especially
damaging to Thai rice farming, given that the high quality of Thai rice is the result of
generations of careful selection and breeding by Thai fanners.
INPACT claims that it’s goal is to “improve the livelihood of the rural community in North
East Thailand”, but the outline suggests the opposite. The project is actually designed to
reorganize Thai rice fanning in such a way that multinational agribusinesses, such as
Monsanto, can make profits. For example, the project would use Monsanto’s “conservation
tillage”, described in Monsanto’s annual report as “the practice of substituting the judicious
use of herbicides for mechanical tillage.” At the same time, the project aims to mechanise
Thai rice fanning with tractor operations and thrashing technology. In other words, INPACT
will create farms suited to Monsanto’s technology and its financial interest.
Here's how one reporter from the Bangkok Post described the initial operation of the project.
“During the last planting season, the atmosphere in Mr. Sawat s village of Ban Fak Khlong
was electric. Oversized tractors ploughed the selected fields, showcases of advanced land
leveling technology. There was talk that next year the vehicles could be operated by laserguided remote control.
And that was only the tip of the hi-tech iceberg. Buckets of herbicide and fertilizers were
given away, and once in a while hordes of local and foreign specialists would drop by. Either
to observe or offer their views on productivity”.
Mechanised farms that are highly dependent on the products of multinational companies will
never improve the livelihood of Thailand’s rural communities.
Taken from PAN-AP, JZOOO.
Background for discussion on space for advocacy for CSOs.
STATE-NGO RELATIONS
The state’s role is central in the rights-based approach to consumer protection. The state has
so
md
|KliCieS
TTie discourse on what the ‘state’ is has not stopped since people began organizing
themselves into commumtes and established rules to govern their behaviour. The numerous
taki^plac^116
hist°ricaI and PoIiticaI Period the discourse on the state is
Some of the notable definitions are:
An aggregation of different families and villages, organized for the purpose of
providing facilities for the promotion of a happy and prosperous life” - Aristotle
A people organized for law within a definite territoiy” - Woodrow Wilson
An association which, acting through law as promulgated by a government endowed
to this end with coercive power, maintains within a community territorially
demarcated the universal external conditions of social order” - R.M. Maciever
These earlier definitions all point to a convergence of the concept that is well-encapsulated by
The State is the institution through which the dynamics ofpolitics are organized and
formalized. 1 he state consists ofcitizens with their rights and duties, institutions and
jurisdictions, principals and power. It is a network ofstructured relationships.
Lipson distinguishes the “State” from the “government”:
, , , fstate has ^government, and the latter signifies those specific persons who
hold official positions and wield authority on behalfofthe state/Government therefore
implies a distinction within the state between the rulers and ruled (Ali Qadir, 2001).
iS USed tllrou8hout this book. Shinichi Shigetomi (ed.) describes in The State
and NGOs: Perspective from Asia (2002) the major attributes of an NGO.
For an NGO to have legitimacy, its decision-making process must be independent of the
Government. An NGO Must be: (1) non-governmental, (2) non-profit making, (3) voluntaiy
(4) not ad hoc, (5) altruistic and (6) philanthropic.
,th
course when it is conceded or the state has abdicated.
wsieu except ot
NGOs are often referred to as the third sector, after the public and private sectors. NGOs in
developing countries perform varying functions such as delivering services, creating
economic activities and carrying out advocacy work. The functions of NGOs are primarily
determined by the needs and situations in the countries they operate.
The functions undertaken by NGOs are determined not only by their philosophy and
ideological orientations and financial resources, but also by the economic and political spaces
available to them.
When the state, market and community fail to deliver the resources and services to meet the
needs of the citizens, NGOs can be seen accessing that economic space. Conversely, if the
state, market and community supply more resources and services to the citizens, the
economic space for NGOs proportionately shrinks.
One of the state’s primary functions is to provide the basic needs of its citizens, including
food, housing, health and education. The market’s role is to supply adequate quantities of
goods and services efficiently and at a low cost. The community on its part caters for social
needs through such activities as religious giving and philanthropic ventures. Citizens also
benefit from sharing community-owned resources such as forests, parks and irrigation
systems.
Bangladesh, where extreme poverty has crippled human development, for example is one of
the countries in Asia which ranks among the top countries in terms of the extent of NGO
activities providing services and economic activities. Some of these NGOs such as BRAC are
very large, employing 15 000 staff, and its services reach 5 million people. The state depends
on NGOs to supply public services due to a severe lack of resources. There are close to 3
million NGOs in India; about 56 000 in Pakistan, 400 000 in Thailand and an equal number
in the Philippines. In Sri Lanka, Sarvodaya connects 7 000 villages. The Orangi Pilot
Research in Pakistan reaches 1.5 million urban slum inhabitants.
Global communications have helped to define similar ideals within NGOs even if their
functions differ. “An indication of the similarities is the existence of a host of keywords, such
as ‘participation’, ‘community development’, ‘empowerment’, sustainable development’ and
‘women’, which seem to be emphasised, albeit to vaiying extents, by NGOs around the
world” (Shigetomi, 2002).
A major factor that must be addressed in any discourse on NGOs is how the political space
determines the operations of NGOs even if their ideals are universal. Indeed some scholars
have stated that the vibrancy of a country’s NGO sector may indicate the social development
and political characteristics of the state.
Being weak in resources, Bangladesh depends on NGOs to supply essential services and to
eradicate poverty. In such a situation, the Government has no reason to prohibit the activities
of NGOs. They have nothing to expect from the state and therefore have no incentive to
launch political activities. The net result of these factors is the existence of vast economic and
political spaces in which NGOs are very active. Because the state is weak, NGOs can receive
funds directly from international donors and implement projects with local authorities.
In the Philippines, the Aquino administration expanded the political space forNGOs, and this
e to a marked increase in political activism. However, unlike in Bangladesh NGOs in the
Philippines believe that the state has an important role to play in the distribution of resources,
he hegemonic political force can appoint its own members to important administrative
positions, so that NGOs compete with other forces to secure political influence. As a result
actIvlsm 1S seen as operative to influence the decision-making process (Shigetomi,
Hie foregoing discussion which has touched on the spaces for the proliferation of NGOs
would be incomplete if State-NGO relations are not raised. How NGOs manifest themselves
bung about pohcy reforms or achieve their goals and ideals is contingent on their
relationships with the state. This is more so in the case of the advocacy activities of NGOs.
Interactions between individuals, groups or societies take place within a set of social rules
A l sociefles have a system of rules governing and regulating their members. The state
establishes a set of rules that it applies uniformly to all its constituent societies across the
boundanes, and which it enforces m the name of safeguarding ‘the public interest’. Some of
these rules regulate private mteractions among its citizens, such as meetings. Others regulate
the distribution of resources. These rules and laws determine the “political space” and
economic space for NGOs respectively.
NGOs can change the political space available to them through advocacy, and some of them
make this function central to their operations. Other NGOs choose to focus on the economic
space and gear their activities towards providing services. For example, in countries where
economic growth has brought wealth to the people, such as Singapore and Taiwan, there has
been little political space for decades. In the case of Taiwan, advocacy NGOs have focused
on the democratization of governance and decision-making processes with some success.
Thepohtical and economic spaces are not the only factors that demarcate the boundaries of
NGO work. How NGOs utilize these spaces depend on a number of factors such as culture
and religion, and the leadership and capacity of the NGOs.
Economic Space for NGOs
State
Areas left uncovered by the
Three sectors form the
economic space for NGOs.
Community
Market
Source: Shinichi Shigetomi (ed.)(2002). The State and NGOs Perspective from Asia
Economic Vacant Space and Political Activities by NGOs
State
Vacant space unfilled by
the sectors
NGQ
Market
Community
Source: Shinichi Shigetomi (ed.)(2002). The State and NGOs Perspective from Asia
Question to participants: What proactive advocacy actions will you take in this situation
(Asian financial crisis 1997 -1998)?
The Crisis and Health: A Common Set of Problems
Medical costs are increasing. Exchange rate depreciations have meant large increases in
medical costs given the high import content of pharmaceuticals, including vaccines and
contraceptives. In Indonesia, imports account for 60% or more of the pharmaceuticals used in
the country, and drug prices have reportedly increased two or three fold. This change in
relative prices is unlikely to be fully reverses, and will require long-term adjustments in drug
consumption patterns.
Private consumption expenditure isfalling, particularly among the rising numbers of
unemployed. Many households are less able to pay for the out-of-pocket cost of medical care,
whether provided by the private sector or the public sector facilities that typically charge
nonzero user fees. This is important because private spending finances 50% of aggregate
health expenditures in East Asia. There is already evidence that private sector users are
switching back to the subsidized public sector, while some potential users - especially among
the poor - may have to switch to lower quality providers, or even forego medical care
entirely.
Public health expenditures are declining. Budgetary pressures can reduce public subsidies
which protect the poor from the increased financial risks of illness. This either increases
financial hardship, or reduces use of medical services. Moreover, increased demand for
public services from former uses of private facilities could divert public subsidies from the
poor. In the long term, cuts in operations and maintenance outlays will also undermine the
productivity of the public infrastructure. Reduced public expenditure also threatens priority
public health programs, such as immunization against childhood diseases and TB control.
Indonesia’s past experience with fiscal adjustment in the mid-1980s demonstrates the
vulnerability of public health programs to public expenditure cuts.
World Bank (1998). The Crisis and Health: A Common Set of Problems. And our rice
pots are empty (p.294). Consumers International: Penang
Source:
Fernandez, Josie (2004). State-NGO Relations. Contested Space’ FOMfik
‘ ngagement with the Government (p.8-13). FOMCA: Selangor
"Learning through Evaluation”
Duriiiii^OS Artriurii
This brief paper w as written as an introduction to the Chennai evaluation workshop
on the GPPls advocacy process.
The paper sets out to argue that all evaluation should be a learning process.
presenting some methodological principles to make it happen.
Evaluation as a learning process is here defined as a methodically organised
collective process of evaluation based on experience, guided by a set of critical questions
and presided over by the sense that learning is a vital conditional for effective social
change.
Such an evaluation process promotes the critical analysis of the experience
individual organisational and collective - confronting it with visions, expectations,
objectives and outcomes, in order to produce a methodologically sound and socially
relevant new knowledge which systematises the main findings and lessons learned.
It is important to point out that development evaluation has not always meant a
process of learning. Unfortunately, evaluation within the development wisdom, in the North
as well as in the South, has all too often been taken in a rather “beaurocratic” and
instrumental fashion, whereby planning, monitoring and evaluation went around a set of
pre-defined results, outcomes and indicators, allowing little space for open and critical
thinking about the factors which could explain success or failure in complex processes of
social change.
Monitoring and evaluation in this sense are closer to “auditing” tools rather than to a
learning experience.
It is strategic to promote evaluation as a learning process because, (i) it contributes
to balance the “results based” kind of evaluation, in which products, results and concrete
outcomes are what really matters and not the rather more intangible experiences and
learning about the process of development itself; (ii) it helps to overcome the traditional
“linear approach” of much of development projects evaluation, whereby social processes of
change are perceived and designed as a simple chain of cause-and-effect, and not as a
complex and simultaneous set of multi determined changes; (iii) it helps to overcome the
activism and the institutional resistance in many organisations of the South with regard to
the development of a culture of evaluation as institutional learning, and finally because (iv)
to promote “evaluation as learning” is the entrance door to any socially strategic action.
Any initiative of “evaluation as learning” should be developed in accordance with
the following principles:
♦ The evaluation should be conceived, organised and conducted as a process of
critical reflection based on key-questions;
♦ The evaluation should use participative working techniques in order to strengthen
ownership;
♦ The evaluation process should allow the emergence of and be able to deal with all
relevant concerns, doubts, criticism, visions, proposals and tensions;
♦
The process should take into account the power relations which structure the group
in question, in order to stimulate and favour equitable participation, considering ah
participants as "‘citizens” of an evaluative “public sphere”;
*
The evaluation process should be able to promote agreements and, whenever
possible, valid consensus;
♦ The process should look at and take into account both tangible and intangible
outcomes;
♦ The process should value both individual, organisational and collective experiences
of learning, and
♦ A more focused process of evaluation leads to deeper learning.
Thus, the evaluation of the GPPI advocacy network should be carried out as a
process of “evaluation as learning” in order to get the most of the experience so far and to
strengthen the planning for the coming period.
For that to happen, some specific guidelines are proposed:
♦ The evaluation has to consider different stages of the experience - defining the
problem and framing the case studies, implementing case studies and carrying out
advocacy initiatives;
♦ The process will systematise evaluation and lessons learned at three dimensions of
the experience: outcomes, capacity building and the process of collaboration.
♦ The learning has to be valued in individual, organisational and coalition terms;
♦ The methodology should strengthen the sense of ownership and commitment of the
participant organisations over the evaluation in order to empower the network itself;
♦ The discussion in the workshop will be guided by a set of key-questions for
reflection, and
♦ The evaluation and lessons learned shall be inputs for the planning of the next
period.
Porto Alegre
May 2005
ADVOCACY INSTITU TE
• '■ Al J.,S - * I f-.A./'-R
•'
'Vs AM:')
TIPS FOR MAKING A COALITION WORK
Coalitions expand the numbers and expertise of those working on an issue; they can unite
unlikely allies and bridge essential gaps. When effective, coalitions mass and focus the
collective skills, resources, and energies of their constituents. When ineffective, they can
drain energy and resources, exacerbate institutional and personal rivalries and conflicts,
paralyze flexibility, and deaden initiative.
There are several basic rules that can make coalitions more effective and help avoid the
greatest dangers. Use these rules to supplement the constant "care and feeding" of
coalition members, which must remain a high priority.
1. State clearly what you have in common, and what you don't.
The goals and objectives of the coalition must be clearly stated, so that organizations
that join will fully comprehend the nature of their commitment. At the same time,
coalition members must openly acknowledge their potentially differing self-interest.
By recognizing these differences, coalition leaders can promote trust and respect
among the members, while stressing common values and vision.
2. Let the membership and the issue suggest the coalition's structure and
style.
Coalitions can be formal or informal, tightly organized or loose and decentralized.
The type of coalition chosen will depend on the kind of issue as well as the styles of
the people and organizations involved. Coalitions evolve naturally, and should not be
forced to fit into any one style.
3. Reach out for a membership that is diverse - but certain.
Coalitions should reach out for broad membership, but not include those who are
uncertain or uncommitted to the coalition's goals or strategies. The most effective
coalitions are composed of a solid core of fully committed organizations, which can
draw together shifting groups of allies for discrete projects or campaigns.
Overreaching for members can result in paralysis and suspicion. There's nothing
worse than a strategy planning session where coalition members are eyeing each
other suspiciously, instead of openly sharing ideas and plans.
4. Choose interim objectives very strategically.
Interim objectives should be significant enough for people to want to be involved,
but manageable enough so that there is a reasonable expectation of results. They
should have the potential to involve a broad coalition and be of sufficient interest to
gain public and media attention. Interim objectives should be chosen so they build
relationships and lead toward work on other, more encompassing objectives.
© 2004 Advocacy Institute, Washington, DC
ADVOCACY INSTITUTE
-■4A.KIMC -<-C .V
■:? IEA?,=F5I- ■-
.^Ffr - -.r AM;?
Jr. ■ AIEAKIr
5. Stay open to partnerships outside the forma! coalition structure.
A coalition must be able to work with a great diversity of advocacy groups, but all
groups need not belong as formal members. Organizations whose goals are more
radical, or whose tactics are more extreme, are often more comfortable and effective
working outside the formal coalition structure and informally coordinating their
activities.
6. Take care of the coalition itself.
At the heart of every successful coalition, there should be a small directorship of
leaders who are deeply committed not only to the issue, but also to the coalition
itself, and to the importance of subordinating the narrow interest of their individual
organizations to the overall goals of the cause.
7. Maintain strong ties from the top to major organizations.
The coalition's leaders must also have strong ties to the major organizations and
their leaders must be strong. This commitment must be communicated within the
organization, so that its staff members clearly understand that coalition work is a
high priority.
8. Make fair, clear agreements and stick to them.
Coalition tasks and responsibilities should be clearly defined and assignments
equitably apportioned. If a member is falling down on the job, that should be dealt
with promptly. Meetings should allow opportunities for members to report on their
progress.
© 2004 Advocacy Institute, Washington, DC
EVALUATION: THE NECESSARY SYNTHESIS
An instrument of the present to build the future
Background document for the first meeting of
the WCC (Latin America) Evaluation Commission
Ana Maria Bianchi dos Reis
Salvador - Bahia - Brazil
1993
Introduction
In recent years evaluation has been an important item on the agendas of funding
agencies and NGOs that support people’s movements. Similarly, it is an issue
increasingly raised among agencies of civil society and the State, whether they are
involved in production or provide services.
What is the significance of this fact?
What issues are being discussed when an evaluation is a
self-defined need and when it is requested by external
partners?
What about the evaluation is specific to people's
movements, NGOs, ecumenical service organizations
and agencies?
What is the role of the different actors in the process?
What are the basic methodological issues: theoretical,
philosophical and ideological presuppositions; criteria,
phases, procedures, instruments?
What are the repercussions of evaluation processes on
the life of organizations and progi'ammes that are
evaluated?
These are some of the aspects of the question that can be studied; this paper proposes
to begin the study, as a contribution to the work of the WCC in Latin America, in
dialogue with funding agencies.
The sharing of experience of each of the participants of the Evaluation Commission
will allow us to arrive at conclusions and proposals that broaden the present approach
and can be useful in each particular situation and in reaching our common goals.
I. Context v. concept
In terms of political economy, the world’s frontiers are becoming less rigid because of
the need for mutual support.
Given this fact, a planetary situation is clearly emerging that transcends national
interests and moves towards solutions that can only be reached in the ’’unity of
diversity”.
At the same time, we are at a frontier, a hiatus in world history' when the paradigms on
which the organization and administration of society7 were founded are being
questioned as a result of historical experience.
Evaluation: The Necessary Synthesis - 2
This growing awareness of the economic, political and ecological interdependence for
equilibrium on a world level and the common challenge to find solutions redraw the
significance of social movements, people's organizations, advisory bodies and
international cooperation.
With different emphases depending on particular contexts, the dichotomy between the
discourse and the practice of organizations and programmes is becoming evident.
Along the same lines, it becomes increasingly urgent to make the transition from a
practice centered on the denunciation of social conflicts to investment in the
formulation of proposals that solve existing problems. The basic focus gradually
stops being the destruction of the old to be construction of the new.
Evaluation emerges in this context as an instrument to verify the effectiveness of action
- to ensure its significance, to check its contemporary relevance. To this end, it has
been necessary to reformulate the original concept and practice which were based on
the idea of control, comparing what was planned with what was achieved; traditionally,
such evaluation took place at the end of a project.
The hallmark of the new concept is the awareness that there must be ongoing
adjustment, that constantly joins knowledge and practice so that goals can really
be reached.
This is a concern common to those in both public and private sectors who want their
projects to be implemented.
Thus, the main subject of evaluation is no longer the past, a specific action or a
multisectoral project that has already taken place and that can/should only be evaluated
after it has ended, generally within the limits of input v. product analyses.
Even when it is held at the end of a working cycle - and depending on the methodology'
used - evaluation can still be a process if the content is identified as of current interest:
objectives, goals, technical procedures, management conditions and the part played by
each specific action in the broader (economic, political and cultural) context that gives
it meaning.
In this sense, evaluation can be spoken of as the necessary synthesis, able to point
to issues of different kinds that shape the achievement of objectives during the
programmes’ existence.
IL The Approach
Most evaluations originate in questions about the effects and impact of programmed
action:
• The effect - the most immediate, direct result of an action.
Evaluation: The Necessary Synthesis - 3
• The impact - the broader result that changes significant relationships, acting as a
multiplier and generating other processes.
Analyses of efficiency and efficacy are made under these two headings.
. Efficiency takes in the ability to design, choose and use the methodologies,
techniques and procedures that are most suitable to carrying out the actions and,
therefore, to achieving the goals.
. Efficacy conesponds to the effectiveness and the quality of the result obtained.
When an organization decides to evaluate its work or one of its programmes, or when
a funding agency requests evaluation of one of the programmes it finances, these
elements and many others are in play. Among them, perhaps the most important is the
ability to perceive the specificity and to have an overview of the work, in other words,
its conjunctural characteristics, its potential and its structural limitations.
The analysis of the process and the analysis of the results are both influenced by
the parameters thatform the basis of evaluation.
For example, a project may not have reached its operational goals, compromising a
study of results (effects, impact, in the traditional aproach). During the project's
development, however, fundamental progress may have been made as compared to
the previous experience of the group - increased awareness of citizenship, technical
training, broadening of horizons (learning how organizations operate, hearing about
other experiences, participating in other groups facing similar problems, founding
organizations, exercising community administration, for example).
On the other hand, perception of current conditions and structure in each project does
not cancel the need to consider the quality of activities (efficiency). Similarly, the
effective use of (financial, methodological, technological) resources deserves analysis,
but in conjunction with the structural conditions that shape the achievement of stated
goals.
The fact is that a new approach to evaluation does not necessarily exclude categories
of traditional analysis (effects, impact, efficiency, effectiveness) or even the studies of
input v. product, especially when economic undertakings are being viewed.
For the evaluation to be an objectively useful instrument it must go beyond the
interpretive limits of results and social context and work on combinations between:
process1
social context^
process
structure
process
results
v.
u
v.
V.
V.
V.
result2
structure^
social context
results
structure
social context
When movements or organizations propose self-evaluation, the approach is usually
located in the combination process v. structure. Here, the basic questions are:
Evaluation: The Necessary Synthesis - 4
•
how are we acting to overcome certain structural limitations?
•
are we using the most suitable methods, strategies, procedures?
When agencies or other external partners request an evaluation, they are usually
referring to the combination situation v. results, having the following question as
basis:
•
have we contributed to solving or dealing with these issues, and with what results?
This difference of focus, not always explicit, is an element in many of the difficulties
that precede, accompany or result from evaluations.
Different conceptualfoundations and criteria with regard to the nature and identity
of people's movements, ecumenical organizations and NGOs, as well as different
readings of the national situation, of development and of social change, have often
prevented evaluations from serving everyone - agencies, organizations and the
population ofgrass-roots groups - as an educational experience able to enhance the
results of their common goals.
III. Specificity
Does evaluation have a specific nature when applied to people's movements, NGOs,
ecumenical organizations and funding agencies?
To study this issue, we should consider the specific roles and objectives, and then
review the concept ofpartnership and define its political-pedagogicalfunction.
First of all, one should understand whether the different structures involved
(agencies, NGOs, ecumenical organizations and social movements) have the same
goal in mind
Is it a question of producing what seem to be solutions already found by the First
World or of making possible the construction of new alternatives?
To what extent do these new solutions include what humanity has already learned and
on what points should they7 take on the challenge of finding new ways forward?
What is the contribution of each structure - where are they integrated and where do
they become differentiated and assume their own identities?
Partnership is not necessarily linked to common practices but to common
commitments. This fact is based on awareness of the many aspects of social change.
The essence of partnership is therefore diversity - the possibility of approaching these
various aspects.
Evaluation: The Necessary Synthesis - 5
The search for clarity7 of roles, part of a current common effort by many of the
organizations to define the identity of each, raises the following important issues:
• the increasing complexity7 of reality and the need to review concepts and
experiences, reformulate methodologies and broaden coordinated action; this means
being prepared to face the new context of practice.
• the definition of criteria and priorities that lead to deeper knowledge and action,
which corresponds to the political review of social roles.
The evaluation process can reveal the various roles clearly and identify the real
meaning of partnership. The parameter for this is contextualization of the activities
under evaluation from the following perspectives:
historical characteristics;
priorities in a given situation, which define objectives;
political relationships that are at stake;
suitability of methodology;
pedagogical orientation;
real capacity for change;
multiplicative effect of the process;
management support for the system as a whole; among others...
Each movement, NGO, ecumenical organization or agency7 should consider, from its
own particular perspective, different constellations of the items above that can be
analysed and should make its best contribution to the whole.
For this to occur, partnership in evaluation must be founded on ethical, cultural and
political principles that can discriminate between common areas of analysis and
common work and areas where those most directly involved in the processes under
examination should make the choices.
The importance of the ’’unity of diversity” is that it makes it possible for each people,
each group, to be faithful to its history and culture and develop its own solutions.
Under this approach, at the same time as identities are confirmed and therefore roles
are better defined, rich potential for partnership is created because the contribution of
each partner becomes clearer.
For example, it is possible, on this basis, to broaden the concept and practice of
cooperation, as the agencies note the variety of experiences to which they are
contributors and witnesses and can create important educational tools, used to
stimulate cooperation and exchange of experiences between groups of different regions
and countries through specific consultations or other forums for sharing.
IV. Guidelines and Significance
Evaluation: The Necessary Synthesis - 6
The pace at which life is anticipating political and methodological proposals and the
sharpening of social conflicts tend increasingly to demand from organizations that
support the popular movement at the international, national and local levels that they
be agile, competent and open to change - in the sense of paying constant
attention to the changing situation and not being tied to specific forms; these are
basic conditions for preserving the historical significance of the movements, of
the advisory services and of the role of NGOs in society.
In this context, evaluation activities are no longer carried out as
measurements demanded by funding agencies at the end of a project,
but as an instrument able to establish links between the past, the
present and the future - looking at the past be able to understand the
present and looking at the present to be able to head into the future.
In the evaluation of an organization (NGO) from this perspective, it becomes necessary'
to:
• remember the recent history of the organization;
• detail the characteristics of the fields of action and of the groups/themes with
which the projects act, of the existing processes of popular mobilization and of
their social significance;
• review objectives and structui’e, internal organization and working methods,
development and ability to adjust to new priorities and challenges;
• evaluate the degree to which the adopted guidelines, objectives, strategies,
criteria and tools are appropriate5 and fit present conditions.
With this content, the evaluation can provide an opportunity for retraining staff and
renewing the management system, which will necessarily have an impact on the
development of the work. In this case, external evaluators may address their task
as the training of team members for evaluation of their own practice, supporting
the review of their frames of reference and the renewal of their concepts and
operations.
Hence, evaluation is an essentially educational process in which practice is understood
as a synthesis of a variety of conditions - internal and external, conjunctural and
structural, theoretical and operational.
That is why it is hardly possible to evaluate a project (the practice as such, the
performance of groups that are supported) without knowing the more general aims of
the organization and the objective conditions for reaching them.
On these premises, the following methodological guidelines for evaluation can be
drawn up:
a) Analytical integration of consensus and difference, objectivity and
subjectivity, internal organization and external practice, thinking, feeling and
Evaluation: The Necessary Synthesis - 7
action allow clearer perception of where we are and where we can and will go
(evaluation from within);
b) Knowledge of the economic, socio-political and cultural situation of groups we
work with is the main basis for evaluating our practice - the key to identifying
the present relevance of our action;
c) The perception, by the groups with which we work, of our practice, the
knowledge of discoveries made and questions raised in the meetings held, the
analysis of the content and nature of the demands received, are signs of how
far the activities are appropriate and efficient (evaluation from outside);
’’What someone else sees in me is also what I am.”
d) The identification of trends, both internal and external to the organization
(related to the groups that are supported, and to national and international
prospects, for example) is necessary for evaluation to be an instrument for
future practice.
’’Not only the past, but especially the future is a point of reference in
the evaluation process.”
Evaluation can be held:
a) Before a project is executed, as a prior feasibility study, including consideration of
how well the proposal (project) fits both the objectives/priorities of the movement
or organization and the context, whether of a region, a population sector, a
movement or an organization;
b) During the development of an activity or project, as systematic study of the most
important aspects - evaluation in process - providing information about the
development of each stage of execution:
• faithfulness to objectives;
• methodological suitability (content and instruments), which may reveal
mistakes in the original diagnosis of the context;
• responses obtained (levels of mobilization, organization, stages of execution,
problems solved, impasses, indication of new goals);
• adequacy of planned resources;
• systems of coordination and management.
The importance of this system lies in the fact that, in its planning, it allows the
organization's staff to make the changes in the course of development that practice
shows to be necessary, thus avoiding the accumulation of mistakes that may
compromise attainment of the stated goal.
Evaluation: The Necessary Synthesis - 8
This kind of evaluation also makes it possible to keep abreast of changes in
conjuncture or structure during the project’s lifetime and, if necessary, to reorient
the previous proposal.
c) After the activity', as an Evaluation of Results.
Here too - as well as verifying the attainment of goals - it is possible to consider all
of the aspects included in an evaluation in process, although the opportunity to
“correct the direction” of work being evaluated is lost; even so, larger programmes
and the more constantly used methodologies can be reviewed on the basis of these
partial results.
The object evaluated can be an organization, a programme, a project, an activity or
an event. The procedure and instruments are, however, suited to each specific
situation and always include all of the players involved.
The fundamental guideline in all modes of evaluation is the
participation of those directly involved in the work. All of us
(agencies, ecumenical organizations, NGOs and movements) are
dealing, at different levels and in different ways, with a common
question which includes the review of the principles that govern both
forms of behavior and social relations, within the framework of
questioning the current system of appropriation of knowledge, wealth
and power.
Hence, all of our actions (including evaluation) - besides their technical quality contain a political commitment to carrying them out within a different pattern of
relationships which can, in itself, provide an experience that points to the
“something new” that the project under evaluation aims to build.
The fetishism of traditional evaluation was built on very fragile bases, set up as a
process able to define in a linear, external, directive and supposedly neutral way the
value and future of the “object” evaluated.
Therefore, a large proportion of evaluation reports have ended up in the drawers of the
bureaucracy and have meant nothing more than the necessary ritual to complete a
series of stages included in theories of planning, though without real force as
production of knowledge, much less as instruments to strengthen the organizations and
develop more coherent and effective practices.
The new concept of evaluation emphasises the production of knowledge on the
basis of inflection about the practice and its context, as an educational and
political act.
Under this approach, evaluation is in itself a political practice and as such is a
privileged process from a subjective, group, institutional and historical perspective.
On a subjective level, evaluation processes create opportunities, often desired, for
review of practice, in a synthesis that is always sought and is difficult to make, viewing
the different dimensions of the work and its personal and social content.
Evaluation: The Necessary Synthesis - 9
At this level, some basic questions arise:
• what aspects of myself are involved in my work and how do they affect, for better
or worse, the achievement of objectives9
• what aspects of my work have most impact on my life and how do they affect, for
better or worse, the development of my potential and the attainment of my goals?
• which of my own issues do I need to work on for my work to achieve its goal and
for my life to be fulfilling'?
On a group level evaluation can be the necessary forum to break down routines and
to review concepts, methods, meanings, priorities, identities and differences that
interfere in the results of team work without being explicit. In this sense, the
evaluation process may provide opportunities for sharing, greater discussion and
training which allow the group to grow in solidarity, competence and performance.
On an institutional level evaluation links various aspects of the project’s
organizational and political life. The fundamental elements emerge in analysis of
the relationship between the objectives and the context (problem) to which they
refer and which give them meaning. Analysis of the situation - its history,
characteristics and current trends - is the frame of reference for evaluation of
management and follow-up systems and of the pedagogical proposal. The key to this
analysis is the question of suitability of roles, functions, flows, resources, methods and
instruments to fulfil objectives.
On a historical level evaluation, being an instrument for updating views of the
context, also helps update commitments and thus is ‘a guarantee of the contemporary
relevance” of the political objectives of the institution: an opportunity to review
priorities, to redefine goals and to broaden the approach of the institutional process as
a whole.
In this sense, evaluation ensures a correspondence between the rhythm of reality and
the internal conceptual and organizational movement of the institutional structure or
programme. That is why it has a historical, a transforming power.
Precisely because significant changes only take place fully through the articulation of
these different dimensions (subjective, group, institutional and historical) evaluation is
an instniment of the present to build the future - a future that will certainly
depend on the broadening of our awareness, on the flexibility of our concepts
and on our creative and interactive capacity - qualities that only the real
evaluation processes allow to develop.
Notes:
Evaluation: The Necessary Synthesis -10
1) process - includes the quality of the planning of the methodology, of the
instruments adopted by a group to carry out its action (Logos and Techne). It also
includes the group’s management capabilities.
2) result - is the product of the work done.
3) social context - is the particular situation or condition resulting from the
combination of social, economic, political and cultural factors.
4) structure - corresponds to the social structure, the pattern of distribution of wealth
and power that defines the differentiation apparent in the social relations existing in
a given society.
5) appropriate - has the sense of fitting the characteristics and priorities of the groups
with which an organization works.
Evaluation: The Necessary Synthesis - 11
DOING ADVOCACY!
WEMOS Advocacy Training in Chennai, 2005
Overview by Josie Fernandez & Sarah Amin
Doing Advocacy
2
Policy advocacy, campaigns and lobbying activities are central to the work of civil society
organizations. Advocacy is an important strategy for mobilising action to create impact and
effect change, influence policy agenda of government and non-govemment, change business
practices, advance the interests of communities, raise awareness of public on an issue and
promote accountability in society.
Public health advocacy is difficult and challenging. It challenges government, industry, public
health workers, religious institutions, charities and communities.
The practice of public health advocacy despite its importance has not been taken seriously by
the health community.
NGOs must therefore take the lead in public health advocacy. They need to build their
capacity in this discipline.
Programmes such as the WEMOS Advocacy Training Workshop Chennai provide
excellent opportunities to strengthen NGO advocacy actions.
1. CONCEPTS
U DEFINITIONS:
Advocacy refers to “a set of skills - including grassroots organising, lobbying, fundraising and substantial media savvy - to create a shift in public opinion and mobilise the
necessary resources andforces to support an issue, policy or constituency
Policy Advocacy is not a separate programme. It is an integral part of the overall programme,
strategy and interventions for change. It must be conceptualized and developed in the context
of the realities experienced by the community whose rights have been violated.
Advocacy refers to an active support, a call, and a plead for a cause on action, belief, an
agenda, issue (s), principle(s). Advocacy also advances a particular school of thought.
Policy Advocacy is advocacy to change certain policy matters or government program of
action. Policy advocacy is aimed at influencing legislators, government policymakers and
non-govemment and private agencies to change, amend, reform their policies and programs.
Public Advocacy is advocacy to support and propagate issues through influencing public
opinion and generating public support. Through public advocacy, policy advocacy is
disseminated into the mainstream of society. This may involve public relations such as
advertising and information campaign.
Legislative Advocacy is an advocacy in the form of a lobby within the legislative mill. It is a
weapon that can be used for people to exercise their rights within the democratic framework,
their legislative and collective interests and aspirations.
(Note: It is much more than lobbying for or against a certain piece of legislation.)
2
Doing Advocacy
3
Global Advocacy is advocacy to address the threats of globalization, liberation and
implement international agreements and conventions.
Media Advocacy (eg. public information campaigns, social marketing approaches or
media advocacy initiatives) "'is the use of media to amplify our voices and be heard in our
efforts for change.” Advocacy means “using all our faculties, our voices included, to make a
difference”.
Says S. Chapman in Advocacy for Public Health: A Primer, “media advocacy seeks to
develop and shape (“frame”) news stories in ways that build support for public policies and
ultimately influence those who have the power to change or preserve laws, enact policies, and
fund interventions that can influence whole populations.
Note: Participants are encouraged to add in your definitions ofAdvocacy
1.2 PURPOSE OF ADVOCACY:
Some of the purposes ofAdvocacy:
• Reform existing polices
• Remedy social problems
• Introduce new policies
• Create Awareness
• Use Information
• Increase the power of people and groups and to make institutions more responsive to
human needs.
• Change attitudes generally and policies specifically.
• Focus on social justice and shared responsibility (eg. on prevention initiatives) rather
than on individual change or individual treatment.
* Question to participants:
- Using your experiences, add other purposes of advocacy
1.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF ADVOCACY
•
•
•
•
Assumes that people have basic rights, needs, and those rights are enforceable (e.g.
right to representation, right to adequate health care, employment, etc.)
Works best when focused on something specific. (Clear Objective will keep different
interest groups on common ground).
Primarily concerned with rights and benefits to which someone or some community is
already entitled.
Policy advocacy is concerned with ensuring that institutions work the way they
should.
3
Doing Advocacy
4
1.4 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF ADVOCACY
Lay down the fundamental principles or each policy Advocacy programme such as:
•
•
•
•
Involve affected community you are advocating
Involve all stake holders
Have a generated approach and dimension
Address all stages of the “issue”
7.5 LEVELS OF ADVOCACY
•
•
•
•
•
Local
National
Regional
International
Multi-levels/multi-pronged
1.6 SPACE FOR ADVOCACY
Systems of governances, institutional mechanisms provide the space for CSOs to actively
participate in advocacy and oppressive laws can restrict related activities.
CAUTION:
Advocacy Can Be Threatening!
•
•
•
•
•
A successful advocacy campaign doesn’t make friends; it makes enemies.
It points a finger, names and starts a fight. It tells who is responsible and how to fight
back.
It challenges vested interest in the status quo (both in private and public sector).
Implementing policy change can adversely affect powerful corporate and bureaucratic
interest.
It creates conflicts as it can be contested by your opponents,
2. MANAGEMENT OF ADVOCACY
2.1 ELEMENTS IN PLANNING AN AD VOCACY CAMPAIGN
•
Do a SWOT analysis o your organizations to identify where you can make an impart.
Elements for an Advocacy Strategy:
•
Do a SWOT analysis of your organizations (identify where you can make an impact)
4
Doing Advocacy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5
Establish Commitment, Passion
State the Problem
Develop a set of goals and objectives (Goal and Objectives)
Identify the target audience (s) to engage
Identify other groups who are affected or could be affected through your advocacy
campaign (Stakeholders)
a) Formulate the advocacy message/slogan (Identify Focus)
b) Identify the media needed to get the message out to the target audience
Prepare a plan of action and schedule of activities (Work plan)
Identify resource requirements: human, organisational, and financial
Enlist support from other key players, other NGOs, the Public, the government
International agencies (Allies)
Identify monitoring and evaluation criteria and indicators
Assess success or failure and determine next steps
Identify possible conflict areas even with allies. Develop conflict resolution
mechanisms (Add more elements from your experiences)
Develop materials for every stage of the campaign
Make use of Legal and Regulatory Mechanisms to seek protection compliance and
accountability
Create channels for Public Participation
2.2 THE ACTION PLAN
The Action Plan should have:
• List of Activities with Time lines
• Resources needed or the Activities
• A List of Responsibilities
• Some areas of the Action Plan
2.3 THE RESEARCH PROCESS
A. Statement of the research problem:
•
•
•
•
•
•
What do you want to find out?
What is your topic?
What is the purpose of the research?
Who are its’ end users?
Do a statement of its hypothesis (if necessary) You may already know the problem, so
a hypothesis is not necessary
Terms must be defined in a way that it is unmistakably clear in the contest that it is
used (operational definitions of more complex concepts must be made).
5
Doing Advocacy
6
B. “Ensure Good Data/Data are Important”
•
•
•
•
Advocacy should be based on strong and credible data (evidence based)
Data is an important basis for presenting an argument
What kind of data?
-Data on the extent of the problem - to show size of the problem
-and how it is distributed across the population - to show problem is linked to
specific social and environmental variables - it justifies concern and social action
Detailed information can substantiate policy recommendations (all legislation must be
based on findings or a set of facts that provide the rationale for enacting law)
C. “Ensure Clear Analysis of the Issue”
•
•
•
Connect the problem with the cause/source (eg. local policies, practices, etc.)
Good analysis depends on reliable research
Pin point effective solutions (eg. policy options, changes in practices). Research can
suggest new options).
D. “Report research findings”
1. Reporting and disseminating information gathered provides solid foundation for advocacy.
•
Create an expert group after the Research
2.4 SETTING GOALSAND OBJECTIVES
A. “Goal Setting is Critical”
•
•
•
•
•
Develop and define clear and specific goal(s) and objectives
A Goal is the overall outcome you want to achieve
Objectives focus on what must happen to accomplish the overall goal
A Goal provides a sense of direction, a unifying theme and a specific end point
Goals establishes a standard for groups to evaluate progress and gain feedback
2.5 IDENTIFYING TARGET AUDIENCES
•
•
•
•
•
Establish the positions of power, like in acupuncture - putting pressure where it is
most effective.
Assess who has power? (Policy makers and other institutionalised interest are often
major barriers to the advocate)
Who and what institutions must be targeted to achieve the goal and objectives?
Ensure that who you identify has the power to make the change.
What are the ways to gain access to them and to influence the process of policy
enactment? (eg. personal contact, media, as a voter or tax payer, etc.)
6
Doing Advocacy
•
7
Study the opposition carefully: learn their arguments, develop counter-arguments,
carefully analyse their interests. Know your enemy.
2.6 STAKEHOLDERS (refer to your case studies and experiences)
The best plans are formulated by those involved and by a variety of different backgrounds
•
•
•
•
Who is affected by the problem (environment) that your organisation is concerned
with?
Whose voice is usually heard - and whose voice is usually not heard?
Who will be on our side - and who will be against us?
Whose views will we give priority to?
2.7MEDIA ADVOCACY
Public health advocacy is the strategic use of news media to advance a public policy initiative,
often in the face of opposition (Chapman, 2003).
Identify tactics for your Advocacy Strategy
A. Lobbying
-Seek representation - example in regulatory boards, shareholders
-Identify effective lobbyists; involve those most effective by the problem;
-Practical guidelines:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Know your legislators records
Try to arrange a specific appointment
Emphasise shared concerns
Know the facts
Your best arguments are your own
Organise your arguments clearly
Be prepared with pointed questions. Make them specific but not
offensive
Be specific with your requests
Try to keep your visit short
Don’t be discouraged.
B. Boycotts
i.
•
•
•
publicity is key to the success of a boycott;
letter writing, leaflets, posters, demonstrations, bumper stickers,
pickets, mass media may all be used to tell people about the
boycott;
distribute boycott pledges inappropriate areas and get people to
commit/sign;
7
Doing Advocacy
•
•
8
threat of boycott is a powerful weapon - use it as a lever in
preliminary negotiations
n.
iii.
iv.
Pickets
Public shaming
Letter-writing campaigns
• mass letter writing campaign to pressure local, state and
national legislators, administrators, and celebrities to take a
stand on the issue;
• letters should be personal, well-informed, neat, brief, and
frequent;
• when writing to legislators, identify yourself as a constituent,
voter, taxpayer, active citizen, member of X committee, etc.;
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
Visual aids (e.g. campaign logo)
Marches & rallies
Sit-Ins
Symbolic Actions
Question to participants: Add to the list
2.8 ASSESS YOUR RESOURCES
•
•
•
Evaluate your assets: staff, money, facilities, reputation, media contacts, allies,
membership, etc. (organisational strengths and community capacity)
Ask yourself: Can I win? or rather Can my organisation afford to loose?
For long term goals, build a sense of community and community power, of team spirit,
expand the leadership base, deepen the leadership’s experience, and broaden the
organisation’s membership and contact base.
2.9 MONITORING & EVALUATION
Useful techniques for monitoring:
Document reviews
Surveys
Discussions
Observations
Listening to community members
Brain-storming
Informal conversations
Mappings
8
Doing Advocacy
9
2.10 SET UP MONITORING INDICA TORS
•
•
•
•
Process indicators - what is happening in the advocacy project?
Output indicators - all the project activities
Outcome indicators - what the project has produced
Impact indicators
2.11 ASSESS, REFLECT, And REVISE!
•
•
Assess success or failure and determine next steps.
Set time limits on certain tactics and develop an alternative plan if original tactics
don’t work
Note: This paper will be revised after the Training Workshops and sent to all participants
9
Page 1 of 4
■ PSI | Home
jwww.world-psi.org
FOCUS 1/05
Public Private Partnerships:
Not a magic pudding!
Public Private Partnerships, PPPs, are nothing new. In the public sector today, such partnerships - under
different names - exist at all levels, from the cleaning of the local school to national infrastructure projects
to the UN (Kofi Annan's) Global Compact.
What's new is that there are so many PPPs - of so many different kinds - that there is a genuine need for
international guidelines on how to deal with them. PSI has delivered a critique of the draft guidelines.
Who would write guidelines on PPPs? Well, the United Nation did. The UN Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE) has been working on Guidelines on Good Governance of
Public Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development for quite some while and, last
November, held a meeting in Toronto, Canada, to finalise them. In UN terminology, "Europe"
includes Europe and North America.
PSI had been asked to comment on the consultation paper. Keith Reynolds and Stan
Marshall from the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) represented PSI at the
meeting. The following is a short version of their presentation. (In the article, "PPPs" stands
for Public Private Partnerships and "PFI" for Private Finance Initiative, a related concept.)
Only one pocket
The UNECE draft guidelines assume that PPPs are the preferable way to deliver services. It
states: [PPPs] benefits include additional resources, new technologies, speedier delivery and customer satisfaction.
Let's focus on two of these benefits.
First, do PPPs add resources? We say in Canada that the taxpayer only has one pocket. Regardless of who does the
taxing - federal, provincial or municipal governments - the taxpayer pays. We forget about the taxpayer's single
pocket when we involve private companies in the delivery of public services through PPPs or PFI. Citizens pay for
services, either through taxes or user fees.
As the Treasury Department in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, colourfully described it, "Private provision of public
infrastructure is not a 'magic pudding'* that can alleviate the resource constraints governments necessarily face."
And they go on: NSW and Victoria do not regard the use of private finance or public private partnerships as a means of
expanding the overall level of resources available to it to spend on government-funded social infrastructure. Even
though social infrastructure may be financed by the private sector, the government, through payments made through
the contract's life, will ultimately fund it.
PPPs do not make more resources available. They fund and provide these resources in an untraditional way. Such
provision adds financial and social costs.
The same goes for speedy delivery. In the UK, where they have the most experience in using PPPs/PFI, the Treasury
admits: A PFI transaction is one of the most complex commercial and financial arrangements which a procurer is likely
to face. It involves negotiations with a range of commercial practitioners and financial institutions, all of whom are
likely to have their own legal and financial advisers. Consequently, procurement timetables and transaction costs can
be significantly in excess of those normally incurred with other procurement options.
School project cancelled
http://www.world-psi.org/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section-Horne&CONTENTID-5370&T...
28/05/2005
■ PSI | Home
Page 2 of 4
The UNECE document says that PPPs are idea! vehicles to achieve integrated objectives [economic, environmental and
social processes] because of their multi-party, multi-sector structure.
This has not been our experience in Canada.
The Province of Nova Scotia was one of the first to get heavily involved with PPPs, developing a program to build 30
schools in the province. The program was cancelled within a few years because it was significantly more expensive than
traditional procurement.
It also led to some absurd developments in the schools themselves. In one case, children were not allowed to play on
the grass because it would create a cost to the concessionaire in maintaining the turf. In another case, the
concessionaire had an agreement to receive 30 per cent of all concession sales in the school - so they demanded 30
per cent of funds raised by parents on "hot dog days".
In another case, British Columbia's Government decided it wanted health support services (cleaning, food services,
etc.) delivered through a PPP. It passed legislation, tearing up collective agreements, which resulted in thousands of
workers being laid off and replaced by people making 40 per cent less money. When remaining members of the union
involved went into bargaining, the Government introduced legislation again. When the union went on strike, the
Government introduced back-to-work legislation, which provided for the lay-off of thousands more workers and
retroactive pay cuts. The province came within a hair's breadth of a general strike, as workers from all sectors walked
out in support, but finally conceded a limit to the number of workers who would lose their jobs to the PPP model.
You will understand why we are dubious about the ability of PPPs to deliver integrated, economic, environmental and
social objectives.
990 years
The UNECE document lists public management as an area of advantage for PPPs: PPPs allow governments to attract
private sector funding and involvement, without incurring the adverse political repercussions sometimes associated with
full-scale privatization. Government retains a significant role and can guard against private sector excesses. It can also
retain ownership of the assets in question, and avoid the perception of "selling out" to foreign buyers. The PPP
approach, in other words, avoids undermining the essentially "public" character of many infrastructure projects.
Yet PPPs are not traditional contracts for the delivery of services. They are very long term. Contracts of 30 to 50 years
are common. In British Columbia, the Government signed a deal for the operation of the British Columbia Railway that,
with renewal options, may last 990 years. That is not a typographical error!
At the short end of the time scale, these contracts last for a generation. The likelihood they will then be returned to
public operation is remote. The "essentially public nature" of such infrastructure projects is, in fact, eliminated.
Finally, the UNECE draft suggests that PPPs with effective procurement regimes lead to lower costs. This is not
surprising: effective procurement procedures also lead to lower costs in traditional delivery.
Not very transparent
The draft guidelines also lists features expected in a transparent process: [Transparency includes] taking into account
the interests of all "stakeholders" for example, local citizens, NGOs, employees/trade unions, civil society, investors,
lenders, government.
The paper goes on to cite a project that had been subject to a referendum, saying that: This method of consulting with
citizens beforehand is particularly salient in transport projects.
CUPE's experience in Canada is that transparency is usually absent from such projects. Take the Richmond-AirportVancouver rapid transit project (the RAV line) in British Columbia. Consultation here was limited to a discussion of the
broad outline of the project. Not surprisingly, when asked, people say they are in favour of rapid transit.
At no time in the RAV "consultation" was the public asked if private management of public transit was acceptable, nor
were they allowed to discuss different options for delivery of the service, including significantly less expensive
alternatives.
A CUPE survey discovered that people did not want private sector management of the line. Residents wanted to see a
http://www.world-psi.org/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section-Home&CONTENTID-5370&T ...
28/05/2005
' PSI | Home
Page 3 of 4
more cost effective project.
A decision not to ask questions like this is not consultation: it is salesmanship.
In the UK, the Association of Certified Chartered Accountants examined PFI in roads and hospitals, specifically looking
at issues of transparency. They found that: the difficulties experienced by the research team in obtaining and
interpreting the financial statements of the relevant parties do not generate much hope that patients, road users,
taxpayers and other citizens can see how society's resources are being used. It is significant that more information is
made available both by the companies and the Government to the capital markets than to the public at l3rge. Within
the financial statements there is little information about the impact of PFI contracts on the performance of the procurer,
and there is a build-up of commitments and implicit guarantees within very long-term contracts about which there is
little transparency.
Value for money?
On accountability, the document identifies features that should be present: the public should be assured that there is
value for money and the procedure for awarding the contract should be fair.
In British Columbia, the Government biased the RAV procurement process: it would not fund any project that did not
involve a PPP for the operation and partial-financing of the line. The consultants designing the Public Sector
Comparator** used a discount rate which had been rejected in the UK as giving an unfair advantage to the private
operation. Even a small shift in the discount rate used can make a significant difference as to which method of
operation shows value for money.
However we did support one aspect of the consultation paper that touches on accountability and transparency: the
statement that an independent audit office is useful and can work to ensure that the public receives value for money
from the PPP project. But such an office must be truly independent and adequately funded. In Canada, auditing work
tends to be done by consultants working for the project management team and the results are neither independent nor
useful. They are often secret. (In British Columbia, while the Government was establishing its PPP agenda, it was also
cutting funding for the Auditor General's Office. As a result, the Auditor General said he had insufficient funds to review
the RAV project.)
Sound scepticism
Weak governance, a lack of transparency and corruption not only have negative repercussions on the project concerned
- they also lead to a feeling of frustration and resentment amongst the population toward PPP, and this hostility can
delay the full implementation of a successful PPP program, UNECE notes.
This reflects the reality that Canadian trade unionists have faced: the lack of accountable governance and transparency
are hallmarks of such programs. We doubt the programs can exist without them. We are frequently told when a PPP
project fails that there is nothing wrong with the model: the individual contract was a problem. How many failures does
it take before it's recognized that the model is at fault?
PPPs are the product of an ideology that says the private sector- can do anything better than the public sector, an
ideology that shows contempt for public workers and the work they do.
We were asked how guidelines could be developed to assist government in getting started in PPPs. The question
demonstrates the bias that PPPs are an optimal way to proceed. We would urge that the guidelines be developed to
encourage a sceptical approach to such projects: the sort of scepticism shown by the UK's Association of Certified
Chartered Accountants who studied the PPP/PFI model of infrastructure delivery:
Our analysis suggests that PFI is an expensive way of financing and delivering public services that may, where public
expenditure is constrained, lead to cuts in public services and/or tax rises. In contrast, we suggest that the chief
beneficiaries are the providers of finance and some, but not necessarily all, of the private sector service providers
rather than the public sector.
PS The UNECE secretariat is still working on the final draft of their PPP guidelines. They have received a number of
proposed changes that require substantial rewriting and they need to find funds to get this finished. Their intention is to
ensure that the PSI-CUPE comments are reflected in the final version (and to involve PSI in further work in this area).
* The Magic Pudding is a pie, except when it's something else, like a steak, or a jam donut, or an apple dumpling, or
whatever its owner wants it to be. And it never runs out. No matter how many slices you cut, there's always something
http://www.world-psi.org/PrinterTemplate.cfm7Section—Home&CONTENTID 5370&T...
28/05/2005
- PSI | Home
Page 4 of 4
left over. It's magic. From a children's book by Australian writer Norman Lindsay (1879-1970).
** There is a provincial requirement to conduct a "Public Sector Comparator" to assess the costs and benefits of a
project that is completely publicly owned and operated.
PPPs and the WHO
There is a lot of experience as to how public-private partnerships work at the local or even national level. How about
the global level? The United Nations have its Global Compact and agencies, such as the World Health Organisation,
have extended their interactions with the private sector for a number of years.
The first close look at how it works is Public-private Partnerships and International Health Policy-making, a 115-page
report written by Judith Richter, an independent researcher. The Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs had commissioned
the report.
If that sounds a bit much, an 8-page policy brief (not a summary of the report) Public-private partnerships and Health
for All - How can WHO safeguard public interests? analyses the safeguards put in place by the WHO since 1998, when
its former Director-General started promoting closer ties with the private sector. It shows that safeguards for public
interests continue to lag behind. Conflict of interest considerations seem to be seen as obstacles towards innovative
ways of working with industry. The brief outlines ten tasks for the WHO (and some suggestions for Finland and like
minded countries) that may help ensure the independence and integrity of the WHO and its member states.
Both publications can be found on global.finland.fi
Hard copies can be ordered free of charge from keotilaus@formin.fi
http://www.world-psi.org/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section-Home&CONTENTID-5370&T ...
28/05/2005
Question to participants: What proactive advocacy actions will you take in this situation
(Asian financial crisis 1997 - 1998)?
The Crisis and Health: A Common Set of Problems
Medical costs are increasing. Exchange rate depreciations have meant large increases in
medical costs given the high import content of pharmaceuticals, including vaccines and
contraceptives. In Indonesia, imports account for 60% or more of the pharmaceuticals used in
the country, and drug prices have reportedly increased two or three fold. This change in
relative prices is unlikely to be fully reverses, and will require long-term adjustments in drug
consumption patterns.
Private consumption expenditure is fallings particularly among the rising numbers of
unemployed. Many households are less able to pay for the out-of-pocket cost of medical care,
whether provided by the private sector or the public sector facilities that typically charge
nonzero user fees. This is important because private spending finances 50% of aggregate
health expenditures in East Asia. There is already evidence that private sector users are
switching back to the subsidized public sector, while some potential users - especially among
the poor - may have to switch to lower quality providers, or even forego medical care
entirely.
Public health expenditures are declining. Budgetary pressures can reduce public subsidies
which protect the poor from the increased financial risks of illness. This either increases
financial hardship, or reduces use of medical services. Moreover, increased demand for
public services from former uses of private facilities could divert public subsidies from the
poor. In the long term, cuts in operations and maintenance outlays will also undermine the
productivity of the public infrastructure. Reduced public expenditure also threatens priority
public health programs, such as immunization against childhood diseases and TB control.
Indonesia’s past experience with fiscal adjustment in the mid-1980s demonstrates the
vulnerability of public health programs to public expenditure cuts.
World Bank (1998). The Crisis and Health: A Common Set ofProblems. And our rice
pots are empty (p.294). Consumers International: Penang
LOCAL SITUATION, GLOBAL RELATIONSHIPS;
THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST PARAQUAT
x '■
v
Background
Paraquat, a highly toxic pesticide with no antidote has been the subject of campaigns for
more than 20 years.
rFrf, 91
Paraquat is a herbicide widely used in agriculture particularly in developing countries.
Paraquat was first synthesized in 1882 but its herbicide properties were discovered only
in 1955 by ICI (forerunner of Zeneca). Today Paraquat is Syngenta’s controversial
herbicide Syngenta was formed when the Boards of the Swiss company Novartis and
Swedish - British Astra Zeneca decided to merge their seeds interests, setting up the first
global, dedicated agribusiness company.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has described Paraquat as “the only highly toxic
herbicide of the post-war years”. Paraquat poisoning is a severe health problem in many
developing countries. One teaspoon of concentrated Paraquat can result in death (by
ingestion). Paraquat damages lungs, kidneys, liver nails, skin and eyes. It is a major
suicide against in developing countries. Paraquat is a serious environmental concern as it
is highly persistent in soil, contaminates water and has lethal affects on animals such as
birds and hares.
Paraquat was first synthesized in 1982 but its herbicidal properties were discovered only
in 1955 by ICI (forerunner of Zeneca). Paraquat began to be used-n Malaysia in 1961.
Paraquat has been banned by 13 Governments to date, following a long history of
connection to poisonings and deaths. And Malaysia is the first Asian country to reject it.
But industry lobby has been very active.
EARLIER CAMPAIGNS
By the mid 1980s, several Malaysian NGOs carried out a series of campaigns against
Paraquat, calling for its ban.
Paraquat was on Pesticide Action Network’s Dirty Dozen list for elimination.
The campaigns in Malaysia calling for a ban against Paraquat were sporadic until
recently. Whenever reports of Paraquat related poisonings or deaths were reported in the
media, NGOs responded with calls for its ban.
In 1986, Friends of the Earth Malaysia and Consumers of Association of Penang
organized a protest and sent a memorandum to ban Paraquat.
In 1988 the Education & Research Association for Consumers and Pesticide Action
Network Asia Pacific (PAN AP) carried out a survey of violations of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) International code of code on the
Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO code). Many aspects of the Code were violated
in Malaysia. The results of the survey received wide media coverage. Once again there
were calls for a ban on Paraquat.
CHANGING STRATEGIES
Tenaganita, a Malaysian NGO has been working with plantation workers particularly
women since 1991.
In 1991, Tenaganita conducted a preliminary study with 50 women workers in six
plantations. This study was followed by another study which resulted in strengthening
the ban Paraquat Campaign.
In 2002, Tenaganita and PAN AP published a pesticide monitoring report Poisoned and
Silenced, identifying Paraquat as a main offender in palm oil plantations and
recommended it to be banned. The study was based on women workers from selected
plantations in Malaysia. There are about 30,000 women pesticide sprayers in the country.
Tenaganita continued with its community work, kept the paraquat campaign pressure by
mobilizing national and international support.
Malaysia banned Paraquat in August 2002. By July 2005, Paraquat is to be completely
removed from the shelves. The collaboration of the National Poison Centre, Malaysia, in
the study and other related activities by Tenaganita and PAN AP was an important factor
in the government banning Paraquat.
But Syngenta has been doing all it can to undermine the ban! Syngenta also used the EU
2003 decision not to ban Paraquat, and urged the Malaysian government to lift the ban on
Paraquat, “based on the European Union’s findings that the pesticide no longer poses a
danger to health”.
SUSTAINING THE CAMPAIGN
The single most important factor that has sustained the campaign against Paraquat is
community empowerment says Tenaganita.
Tenaganita mobilized plantation workers in 40 plantations in Malaysia through
education, training and building leadership skills. Today representatives of plantation
workers, who are mainly women, speak at international conferences and shareholder
meetings on the effects of Paraquat poisoning.
But the plantation pesticide sprayers have to continuously to battle many workplace
challenges such as harassment and conflicts with local union leaders. The National
Union of Plantation Workers does not see Paraquat as its concern or cause. In fact it has
negotiated an extra increase in wages for the sprayers. Interestingly, local union leaders
are employed as sub-contractors for pesticide spraying work
INTERNATIONAL LINKS
Before the Malaysian Government banned Paraquat, PAN AP & Tenaganita made links
with Berne Declaration (BD) based in Switzerland, as a strategic move to bring in groups
in home country of the major agro-chemical TNCs.
In 2003, a former plantation worker traveled to Switzerland to join BD in their action at
Syngenta’s Annual General Meeting.
The circle of collaboration on the Paraquat campaign widened with the involvement of
PAN UK, PAN Germany, Berne Declaration, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation
(SSNC), Foro Emaus (NGO based in Costa Rica) - all involved in the publication
“Paraquat - Syngenta’s Controversial Herbicide” which was jointly published in 2002
Campaigns against Paraquat have been carried out in Indonesia, Costa Rica, S. Africa,
Cambodia, and Vietnam. Some examples of the Campaigns:
> Cambodia has banned the use of Paraquat
> China: Syngenta has built a new factory in Nantong, Jiangsu province of China.
Syngenta describes China as a “new growth opportunity”
> An NGO is currently involved in the Ban Paraquat Campaign in China
> Indonesia launched a campaign to ban Paraquat
No opportunity must be passed. Tenaganita and PAN AP monitor closely national and
international lobby activities of the Paraquat related industries - the manufacturer and the
employer (the plantation industry). That monitoring has brought the two organizations to
an important conference and a Round Table on criteria for sustainable palm oil labeling.
Tenaganita paid RM2,000 to attend the Sustainable Palm Oil Conference in 2004. The
organization distributed copies of Poisoned and Silence, much to the discomfort of the
conference organizations.
As a result of the attendance at this conference, and the work among plantation workers,
Tenaganita was elected as member of the Round Table on Sustainable Oil Palm. The
Round Table works on the criteria and standards for a labelling of Sustainable Oil Palm.
Among these standards are rights of women and workers.
But it is PAN AP which is a full member of the Board as Tenaganita a community
organization could not afford the 2000 Euros for membership.
Setback:
In 2003, the Malaysian ban suffered a setback when the EU Commission in 2003 decided
not to ban Paraquat.
Syngeta has used the EU decision to urge the Malaysian government to lift the ban on
Paraquat “based on the European Union’s findings that the pesticide no longer poses a
danger to health.
And late last year, Syngenta urged the Government to lift the ban on Paraquat based on
the European Union’s findings that the pesticide no longer posed a danger to health.
ACTION AGAINST EU DECISION ON PARAQUAT
PAN AP, PAN Europe & the Swedish Society for Nature Conversation sent a Joint Open
(protest) Letter to the EU Commission that Syngenta is using the EU’s decision to
challenge the Malaysian ban.
In Sweden two initiatives began in 2003:
1) Swedish government suit in European Court of Justice, to decide on overruling
EU Commission’s approval of Paraquat
2) Civil Society suit initiated coalition of groups:
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco
and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), the lUF’s European regional
organization EFFAT-IUF, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Pesticides
Action Network (PAN) Europe, the Dutch Society for Nature and Environment
and the Swedish Society or Nature Conversation (SSNC)
Meanwhile the Malaysian Government is reviewing the ban although in 2004 the
Agriculture Ministry stated that the ban would remain on the grounds that Paraquat poses
unacceptable risks to the main users and less risky alternatives are readily available in the
market.
The battle continues.
This case study has been specially written by Josie Ffor the WEMOS Chennai Advocacy
Training - May 30-31 2005.
Acknowledgement:
resource materials.
The writer thanks Tenaganita and PAN AP for interviews and
Background Work for Chennai Fraining, 2005
Dear participants.
When I went through your case studies and experiences vis a vis GPPIs, I picked up the
following problems, which 1 believe will be the areas of focus for your advocacy camnaism
and lobby efforts.
6
Do some brainstorming and outline a strategy to find solutions to the concerns and problems.
Problems
■
Lack of transparency
programs due to
inaccessibility to
infonnation
■
CSOs have no control
over programs.
Government is decision
maker
■
GPPIs, based on
government focus
■
Concept of GPPI not
understood
■
Inequalities and
irregularities in
disbursement of funds
■
Success of PPI based on
amount of funds not on
health outcomes
■
Program bias in GPPIs
Challenges
Recommendation for
Advocacy Action /
Intervention
! Problems
: Challenges
I
I ■ Misappropriation of
funds
Recommendation for
I tdvnrarv Apfinn /
|
— *• •
a
t
i ----------------Intervention
:---------------
■ GPPI funding may be
source of conflict
between government and
CSO
■ Multinationals profit
(partnerships only where
profitable)
■ Governments cannot
advocate generic
medicines
■ Nothing is free}
Conditions attached to
initiatives
■
Does not strengthen
public health system
Note: Bring this along for the Chennai Advocacy Training duly filled. ...josie 5/5/05
May 2005
Problems
Challenges
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
Recommendation for
Advocacy Action /
Intervention
Misappropriation of funds
GPPI funding may be
source of conflict
between government and
CSO
Multinationals profit
(partnerships only where
profitable)
Governments cannot
advocate generic
medicines
Nothing is free!
Conditions attached to
initiatives
Does not strengthen
public health system
Note: Bring this along for the Chennai Advocacy Training duly filled. . . .josie 5/5/05
15/17
IDENTITY - COORDINATION - COMMUNICATION
1
Name
2 - Slogan
3 - Mission
4 - Coordination
- @ communication (with copy to all group)
a. Focal point?
b. If yes, tasks
c. Who?
d. What need to be done
5 - What are we?
- page in PHM website: PHM circle on GPPIs.
-Who?
6-5 issues for advocacy
7- Everybody talks on behalf of the group
8 - Inform everybody about advocacy activities
- @ communication (with copy to all group)
9.- Inform everybody about relevant upcoming events
- @ communication (with copy to all group)
10 - Share concerns in email
- @ communication (with copy to all group)
ADVOCACY STRATEGY
3 levels: national, regional and international
National:
• information, to agencies NGO’s
• Form coalitions
• Create materials for community level
• Involve academic institutions
•
Having in mind that we must involve the media
Regional:
• Enhance collaboration in the regions (India, Africa, Europe)
- Who?
Global:
• To be (for the coming months)how to be represented in
international meetings and conferences. Have to present our
reports
Preparation
Who
Event__________ When
17-24 July
Cuenca Ecuador________
High level forum - 15-17 November
- Global health
partnerships
Paris
September
MDGs - New
York
UN Con kun u
AIDS conference December
September
CEHAT
conference______
November
Week of
international
,
Health Netherlands
•
-
Approach individual GPPIs
Who?
When?
•
Use of summary report
CAPACITY BUILDING
• For capacity building we will take into account the capacity
development needs and contexts of the members of the group.
- Express needs to the group?
Share information and learn from the experiences and evaluation of
associated groups
- Use @ communication
•
Processes and context of CB should be continuous in nature and
contribute to sustainability
- Next meeting
- When?
•
- Where?
•
Process of CB should be updated regularly and periodically by
conducting Reality Checks like feedback.
PME
• It should be continuous and inbuilt right from the beginning.
- Key questions?
-Who?
- By when?
•
-Who?
•
-Who?
•
•
- How?
Checks should be regular
Review methodologies used with reference to situation
Review campaign strategies (be flexible)
Establish data base for materials for reference
-Who?
- By when?
OTHER
Main lessons phase I:
• Communication is very important, also coordination and have one
' ■pefsorFresponsible for the communication (roulate this task every year)
• When you write to issues of interest of the whole group, you should cc
the rest of the group. Also some organization can still improve their
internal communication
• We need a clear view who we are, what we do, what we are we going
to do. This should be clear from the beginning
• The guidelines on the case studies should be less extensive, or it
should more clear to people how to us this guidelines.
• We should be more conscious about ownership. It is good that people
feel responsible.
• We should continue, we have come far already
• When material is produced it should be distributed among the other
organizations, and also translated if possible
• We should be aware that it takes time to get the subject
institutionalized into the different organizations
• How to evaluate the quality of research produced was done through ;
good research design and methodology that included many
stakeholders
• Quality data manager
• Comments received on drafts sent out to stakeholders
• Advocacy as part of the design of the case study
• Limitation - some stake holders were not included
• difficult to connect GPPIs to the national health systems
• How to evaluate the quality of advocacy documents
• Feed back eg questions
• No of target groups implementing the documents utility
• Executive summary printed on its own (COST EFFECTIVE AND
MORE ATTRACTIVE)
• Limitation - more resources are needed to produce documents for
different target groups
• Discussion at governement level
• More knowledge of the disease
• Awareness of bad habits, initially taken for granted, ex. Bad cold chain
management
• Changes at policy level eg Unicef came up with assessment of
immunizable coverage in other areas not covered by study.
• water and sanitation policies to be reviewed
• Shortcoming of LF case (management highlighted)
• Capacity building skills obtained, Wemos played a part). Different
organisations had to develop own in-house skills for planning,
implementation and role for advocacy
• Expertise; Wemos played a part through initial meetings and provision
of relevant documents. Limitation on advocacy should have come
earlier to enable the organizations design case studies specifically
geared towards advocacy
• Process of collaboration; discussed earlier in the plenary
I
I
Due to diversity in the nature of case studies and the differences in the
participating organizations, lack of adequate collaboration was not too
much of an issue, however as we moved towards advocacy the need
for collaboration will become greater.
Lessons learned from the casestudies (Phase II);
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Miscommunication, lack of communication
Cooperation
Wemos visited everybody, the information was not well exchanged
between the different organizations
Methodology problems, what should they write about, not aware that
we should link GPPIs with other issues for our campaign
You should start together from day one, people who joined later found
it difficult
Insufficient coordination, no sharing of experiences between the
organizations, Wemos was in the middle
We should to work together with the ministries, work together with
them, not just criticize them.
Case studies should be involved in other processes, not stand on its
own
Multiple ways to get the information
It is difficult to get the information you want (from government/local
people)
You should keep communicating, during your case study, not only
when the case study has finished
Advocacy starts when you start your case study, not only afterwards
Reports are too long to be interesting for governments
Be friendly when approaching the government officials, if this failes you
can also point to the right to information, seek media attentions
Lessons learned from phase III:
Wemos
• The materials, leaflets, booklets and videos were well received, we did
questionnairies among our audience to hear their opinion
• We found out people are very interested in the casestudies (at WHO,
international meetings etc.)
• You have to be very well prepared when presenting the case study
report, be prepared for questions, objections. It is very important alos to
know who is taking the decisions on GPPIs
• Networks took up GPPIs as an agenda point (PHM and HAI)
• We need better communication
CIN
•
•
•
We have an approach how to develop advocacy, form a coalition,
distribute the report. A lobby document in with we put our
statements/demands
Write lobby letters
Search contact with the local media
Contact with policy makers, CSO
If we see results, action, response from the government on what we
do, we see increased interest by CSO, local organizations
Our materials need to be focused, simple clear message
Approaching the WHO (international level) was disappointing, we were
not prepared when we shared our results with the WHO official, involve
the other organizations which did case studies should have also been
involved
It takes time to reach a policy change, at a global level
HTS/ CHC
There is a disconnect of what we want and how we try to achieve it
The subject is abstract. We need a clear strategy
PHM
Disseminate the findings of the case study with other organizations,
officials
Media attention
The risks were discussed among different groups
Coalition building was difficult, a lot of privatization/globalization
We did a presentation in the Netherlands, discussion with the
pharmaceutical companies, PHM believes in locally produced
medicines, we need international advocacy to find out what they think
about us
Collaboration was good, advocacy through the video
Collaboration in advocacy is important, work with alliances (chose
carefully),
Communication is essential
Good drug report is essential
Continuation, see where we are heading to
JMS/PHM
• Put forward the key-findings of the report
• Our advocacy activities should be based on the case studies
• We need to make clear what are GPPIs
• We need to focus on the risks of GPPIs
• Advocacy is a tool for constant communication, keep in contact with the
government
• We need some suggestions for the government
• Advocacy towards policy makers is missing in our proposal
• The advocacy also needs follow up, is lacking now
• Capacity building
Test foundation
• We need to work together with other organizations, like PHM
• On which basis do we disseminate the results of the reports
• Who are the keyplayers that should be targeted
• The try outs need to be evaluated
• We need to think out a strategy
•
•
Select alliances, but we need a secretariat, one responsible person for
this alliance is very important, produce lobby letters together
Documents produced should be available to everybody
WBVHA
• We want to distribute our report on a cd
• We got feedback, it is god work, released many important things
• We have contact with the community level, gives us important
information about what the local people feel and go through
• Health workers are deviding to much time to the polio initiative
• Our material should go to the policy makers and have community
stories
• We will produce a film on GPPIs, with a community face
• We need comities of other partners and players
• Community capacity building: was build up as much as possible
• Ina campaign we need campaign materials that take into consideration
the different levels in the society
• For the national level we need a small committee
• Each state comes up with 15 year plans in which they pay attention to
combat different health problems. We must bring in our
recommendations here.
May 2005
Global Public Private Partnerships in Health
Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
Word of welcome to the Advocacy Training
Workshop 30 and 31 May 2005
Dear Participants,
Welcome to Chennai!
The Advocacy Training Workshop from May 30 - 31 2005 is your workshop. It will be very
interactive, reflective and activity oriented.
The Advocacy Training Workshop is about capacity building based on your experiences,
successes and difficulties as activists, partners and experts in advocating a rights based
public health system.
The workshop will take you through the spectrum of advocacy - > Advocacy as an important
strategy for mobilizing action for equity in health > the different tools that can be used for
campaigns, the management of Advocacy and the challenges to sustain advocacy.
The sessions covering the spectrum of Advocacy will focus on national and international
campaigns. They will be examined more critically so that you can develop more effective and
strategic ways to confront the challenges you face in implementing your programmes and
campaigns.
Advocacy is continuous, and not limited to the period of a campaign. Advocacy is about
Rights, about Policies, Laws, Regulations, Representation and Power blocks
Globalization, liberalization and multilateral trade agreements pose greater challenges than
ever before for civil society in all these areas at the national and international levels.
To address all these elements of Advocacy we need to build the capacities of communities
and organizations. Your case studies on GPPIs and the other case studies of national and
international campaigns will help you interrogate and analyze the numerous tools and
strategies that you can employ for successful campaigns. Additionally you will have excess
to advocacy related resources at this workshop to inspire you to confront the difficulties that
you will continue to face in public health advocacy.
Your active participation in this workshop will enhance the status of advocacy in
strengthening local action and global campaigns.
Wemos, Jose Utrera
And facilitator Josie Fernandez
May 24, 2005
6/8
Colophon
Title: “Global Public Private Partnerships in Health”. Workshop, 30 May-3 June, Chennai, India
Author(s): Jose Utrera, Josie Fernandez, Domingos Armani, Geja Roosjen
Date: May 2005
Acknowledgements:
Wemos Foundation
P.O. Box 1693
1000BR Amsterdam
The Netherlands
T+31 20 435 20 50
F+31 20 468 60 08
E info@wemos.nl
www.wemos.nl
From: C or porate Social Investing
1 he confused State of Corporate Philanthropy
Step I: Replace the traditional notions of corporate philanthropy with a broader concept
called corporate social investing.
Step 2: Identify a significant business reason for every' corporate social investment and obtain
as much business value from social investments as is allowable and practical.
Step 3: Limit corporate social investments to 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organizations and
exclusively public institutions (or comparable organizations outside the United
States).
Step 4: Make an open statement that endorses corporate social investing or supports a broader
concept that allows for social investing to be developed.
Step 5: Send a clear message to employees and other stakeholders that the CEO endorses
corporate social investing.
Step 6: Produce a written corporate social involvement report that includes a review of social
investments at least once a year.
Step 7: Commit now or by a specified date at least 2.5 percent (3.5 percent for manufacturing
corporations that donate product) of an average of a company’s last three years of
pretax profits for corporate social investing.
Step 7. Amendments for manufacturing companies:
A. Use only salable products that can be provided in a timely maimer and in reasonable
quantities to any 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization or exclusively public institution
as corporate social investments.
B. Report all product investments to the public at their retail fair market value (or
average manufacturer’s price for regulated industries).
C. Regardless of how much product is invested, make case investments of at least 1.5
percent of a pretax net income (PTNI) three-year rolling average.
Step 8. Postpone some or all social investing if projected business conditions warrant such
action.
Step 9: Lock in influential line and staff leaders as co-owners of the corporate social
investing program.
Step 10: Assign day-to-day management responsibility for corporate social investing to a
position that is no more than one executive away from the CEO or COO.
Taken from: Corporate Social Investing
Author: H'eeden Curt
Published by: Berret-Koehler Publications, San Francisco.
Position: 1266 (4 views)