MFS II Joint Evaluation of International Lobbying and Advocacy Baseline Report Bodille Arensman VERSION Jennifer B. Barrett March 21 2013 Arend Jan van Bodegom Karen S. Buchanan Udan Fernando Dorothea Hilhorst Dieuwke C. Klaver Roch L. Mongbo Elisabet D. Rasch Wolfgang Richert Cornélie van Waegeningh Annemarie Wagemakers Margit van Wessel Wageningen UR (Wageningen University, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences and various research institutes) is specialised in the domain of healthy food and living environment. Wageningen UR, Social Sciences Group (SSG) For quality of life Table of contents Executive Summary 7 Acknowledgements 11 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 12 1 Introduction 14 1.1 Background to the evaluation 14 1.2 Scope of evaluation 14 1.3 The complex field of lobbying and advocacy 16 1.4 Structure of report 19 Part I: The evaluation approach 20 2 Evaluation approach 20 2.1 Evaluation aim and focus 20 2.1.1 Priority result areas 21 2.2 Frame for the ILA Evaluation 21 2.2.1 The originality of the methodology: reconciling two frames 21 2.2.2 An actor orientation 22 2.2.3 Model of Analysis 22 2.2.4 Multi-layered realities of advocacy 23 2.3 Guidelines, concepts, and methodology 24 2.3.1 Guidelines 24 2.3.2 Main concepts 25 2.3.3 Evaluation approach: methodology and triangulation 26 2.4 The evaluation planning 27 2.5 Limitations to the approach 27 Part II: The baseline assessment per cluster 29 3 Introduction 29 3.1 The baseline analytical process 29 3.1.1 Organization of the Evaluation Team 29 3.1.2 Operational planning for the baseline report 30 3.1.3 Unit of analysis 31 3.1.4 Case selection 31 3.1.5 Evaluation questions 31 3.1.6 Uniform outcome indicators 32 4 Thematic Cluster: Sustainable Livelihoods and Economic Justice 36 4.1 Overall contextual factors 36 4.2 Methodological issues 37 4.2.1 Concepts used 37 4.2.2 Unit of analysis 37 4.2.3 Data sources 40 4.3 Ecosystem Alliance 40 4.3.1 Reconstruction of T0 42 4.3.2 T0 Reflections 49 4.3.3 Construction of T1 50 4.3.4 T1 Reflections 52 4.3.5 Analysis of priority result areas 53 MFS II Joint Evaluation of International Lobbying and Advocacy 3 van 237 4.4 IMPACT Alliance 57 4.4.1 Reconstruction of T0 58 4.4.2 T0 Reflections 66 4.4.3 Construction of T1 68 4.4.4 T1 Reflections 73 4.4.5 Analysis of priority result areas 74 4.5 Fair, Green and Global Alliance 79 4.5.1 Reconstruction of T0 80 4.5.2 T0 Reflections 87 4.5.3 Construction of T1 89 4.5.4 T1 Reflections 91 4.5.5 Analysis of priority result areas 92 4.6 Hivos Alliance, People Unlimited 4.1 97 4.6.1 Reconstruction of T0 99 4.6.2 T0 Reflections 105 4.6.3 Construction of T1 105 4.6.4 T1 Reflections 108 4.6.5 Analysis of priority result areas 108 4.7 Cluster 1 analysis of priority result areas 112 4.7.1 Pathways of change by priority result area 112 4.7.2 Reflections on priority result areas 116 4.8 Cluster synthesis and future perspective 119 5 Thematic Cluster: Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights 121 5.1 Overall contextual factors 121 5.2 Methodological issues 123 5.2.1 Approach 123 5.2.2 Data sources 124 5.3 SRHR Alliance 125 5.3.1 Reconstruction of T0 125 5.3.2 T0 Reflections 129 5.3.3 Construction of T1 130 5.3.4 T1 Reflections 134 5.3.5 Analysis of priority result areas 135 5.4 Future Perspective 144 6 Thematic Cluster: Protection, Human security, and Conflict prevention 146 6.1 Overall contextual factors 146 6.2 Methodological issues 147 6.2.1 Unit of analysis 147 6.2.2 Data sources 148 6.3 Alliance: Together for Change (T4C) 149 6.3.1 Contextual factors 149 6.3.2 Reconstruction of T0 151 6.3.3 T0 Reflections 156 6.3.4 Construction of T1 157 6.3.5 T1 Reflections 165 6.4 Alliance: Freedom From Fear (FFF) 169 6.4.1 Contextual factors 169 6.4.2 Reconstruction of T0 170 6.4.3 T0 Reflections 176 6.4.4 Construction of T1 177 6.4.5 T1 Reflections 182 6.5 Alliance: Communities of Change (CoC) 189 4 van 237 Wageningen UR, Social Sciences Group (SSG) For quality of life 6.5.1 Contextual factors: Women, Peace and Security Issues 189 6.5.2 Reconstruction of T0 191 6.5.3 T0 Reflections 196 6.5.4 Construction of T1 197 6.5.5 T1 Reflections 205 6.6 Cluster synthesis by priority result areas 209 6.6.1 Introduction to synthesis 210 6.6.2 Agenda Setting 210 6.6.3 Policy Influencing 214 6.6.4 Changing Practice 215 6.6.5 Additional insights 216 7 Reflection on lessons learnt 218 7.1 Conceptual foundations of the evaluation 218 7.2 Lessons learnt that can contribute to further development of the framework 220 7.3 Practical issues and challenges 221 References 222 Appendix 1: Interview respondents 227 Appendix 2. Documents consulted 232 MFS II Joint Evaluation of International Lobbying and Advocacy 5 van 237 Wageningen UR, Social Sciences Group (SSG) For quality of life Executive Summary The MFS II grant framework has awarded €1.9 billion through the MFS II grant framework to 20 Dutch Co-Financing Agencies working towards strengthening civil society in the global South and achieving sustainable reduction in poverty. The overall purpose of the joint MFS II evaluation, of which this baseline report is one part, is to account for results and to contribute to the improvement future development interventions. This segment of the overall evaluation focuses on international lobbying and advocacy programs of 8 MFS II alliances grouped into three thematic clusters: Sustainable Livelihoods and Economic Justice; Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights; and Protection, Human Security, and Conflict Prevention. The ILA evaluation has the aims of: 1) assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of ILA programs funded by MFS II; 2) developing and applying innovative methodologies for the evaluation of ILA programs; and 3) providing justified recommendations that enable further development interventions. The originality of the evaluation of MFS II ILA programs lies in the “bridging” approach taken, seeking to merge two positions in evaluations sometimes positioned as irreconcilable. The evaluation aims to reconcile the linear evaluation tradition that compares outcomes at a certain moment in time against a set of objectives, with the evaluation perspective that acknowledges complexity and recognizes the adaptive capacities of programs. The evaluation is built on theories of change, and seeks to acknowledge the complex realities in which actors involved in international lobbying and advocacy programs operate. The focus of the evaluation is on the agency of actors and the adaptive capacity of their institutions. Drawing upon multiple types of data sources, the evaluation strives to account for the interaction between internal and external processes that shape eventual outcomes. This baseline report is to serve as a description of the context and situation within the alliances at T0 (2010/2011) and an analysis of changes realized or in progress at T1 (2012). The evaluation will measure outcomes against a theory of change at different moments in time. As the programs have started already in 2011, the first round of data gathering in this report needed to capture two moments: T0 (the MFS II approved proposal) and T1 (the moment of data gathering). As such the methods used focus on: document and desk study; in depth semi-structured interviews; outcome harvesting; and reconstructing the theory of change. As each cluster synthesis notes separately, it is somewhat premature to make sweeping claims about concrete contribution of alliance activities to changes and program successes in agenda setting, policy influencing, and changing practice. There is great diversity of alliances both within and between the three thematic clusters, in terms of scope, topical issue, and geographic focus. Despite the diversity and importance of the varied contexts in which the different alliances work, some preliminary key points emerge, and can be presented in terms of the priority result areas of agenda setting, policy influence, and changing practice. Priority result areas Across the three thematic clusters, baseline findings are presented by the priority result areas identified as critical by the Call for Proposals. For each priority result area, the evaluation team has identified uniform outcome indicators (used across the evaluation) and specific outcome indicators (focused indicators used within the clusters or individual alliances). Agenda setting The first priority result area involves strategic awareness-raising amongst the public, private sector, and/or in political arenas. Uniform outcome indicators considered under agenda setting include the extent to which 1) within the program, the relevant members of an alliance determine, share, and keep up-to-date their policy positions and strategies; 2) alliance and other actors become aware of MFS II Joint Evaluation of International Lobbying and Advocacy 7 van 237 issues at stake, organize themselves, and adhere to the position of the ILA program; 3) lobby/advocacy targets react upon the positions taken by the ILA program; 4) relevant NGOs and/or other stakeholders involved in the program are invited to participate in meetings (or organize meetings) relevant for the issue(s) by lobby/advocacy targets on public/private sector policies or those of international institutions; and 5) the terms of the public debate are influenced: New civil society perspectives and alternative approaches are introduced into the policy debate.