Standard 12:Advocacy
Our Commitment:
We are committed to influencing
key decision-makers to make and
implement policies and practices
that work in favour of people who
are poor, vulnerable and
marginalised.
Members of a farmers organization in Zoungou
village, Burkina Faso, meet to discuss the issues
and policies that affect them
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
124
Standard 12:Advocacy
The issues
Poverty, marginalisation and vulnerability to disasters all have both causes
and effects. ‘Causes’ are the things that lead to these things happening; the
reasons why they exist. ‘Effects’ are the repercussions; the things that occur
as a result of poverty, marginalisation and vulnerability to disasters. For
most NGOs, it is easier to address the effects (for example, by providing
shelter to people made homeless by an earthquake or anti-retro viral drugs
to people living with HIV) than it is to address the causes (for example, by
putting early warning and preparedness systems in place for people living in
earthquake zones or educating people about how to prevent contracting
HIV).
Most NGOs are recognising that they need to address the causes, as well as
the effects, of poverty, marginalisation and vulnerability to disasters if the
impact of these things are going to be reduced. Disaster Risk Reduction
(DRR) is one way of doing this. Advocacy is another way.
Here is an analogy to explain:
Imagine that you are standing by a river and someone in front of you
has floated downstream and is drowning. What would you do? You
would probably help to pull that person out of the river. But what if
it happens again and someone else floats downstream and starts
drowning in front of you? What if it keeps happening? How many times
can you keep pulling people out of the water? You can keep trying,
but you will probably burn out.
If you are able, you might start teaching people how to swim, so they
can stay afloat and get themselves out of the water. But someone,
somewhere, needs to head upstream and find out why people are
falling into the river in the first place. They then need to do
something to try and prevent anyone else falling in and drowning.
Each time someone falls in the river and starts to drown, it is as if a
disaster is occurring. Rescuing these drowning people is similar to
relief work, in that we are responding to an immediate need in the
face of a crisis. Teaching people to swim is like our longer-term
development work, in that we are empowering them to cope with the
situation they are facing. Heading upstream to make investigations,
and to try and prevent people from falling into the river in the first
place, is where our advocacy work fits in.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
125
Standard 12:Advocacy
At the root of many situations of poverty, marginalisation or vulnerability to
disasters, there is often a law or policy which needs to be addressed.
Advocacy aims to change these policies. It does this in several ways:
 It may seek to bring a new law or policy into existence, to address and
unjust situation;
 It may seek to prevent a new law or policy coming into existence if it
would be unjust;
 More often, it may seek to change an existing law or policy, which is not
working properly or which is badly worded.
 Most frequently, it may seek to implement an existing law or policy,
which is perfectly adequate, but is not actually being put into practice.
Every time advocacy takes place, it is targeted at the government
departments, institutions or individuals that are responsible for making,
deciding and implementing policy. These people are collectively called
‘decision-makers’. They can be in the community, at the local or national
level, or even the international level.
Advocacy can be done directly by those affected by injustice, or on their
behalf, or through a combination of both. Anyone can undertake advocacy
work. It does not have to be done by professionals or experts. Good
advocacy work empowers people. It enables people to speak for themselves
and their communities. It helps them to influence decision-makers in
strategic and contextually appropriate ways, so that they are able to access
what they are entitled to and what is rightfully theirs.
Example 1:
In an emergency setting, people might be malnourished. Advocacy
work might involve asking the local health authority to provide money
to local hospitals, in order to enable them to provide facilities for
treating malnutrition. When money is given, the hospital might be
able to build a stabilisation unit for people who are malnourished.
Example 2:
After a conflict, people might be urged to return home, but there
might be no water and sanitation facilities back home. Sometimes,
there is a government resolution in place to provide water and
sanitation. Advocacy work might involve speaking out to the local
authority in the home districts and urging them to comply with the
provisions of the government resolution. When they comply, water
and sanitation facilities are provided, and people are more willing
and able to return home.
Example 3:
A national government may have devolved powers, and transferred
funds, to municipal authorities to spend on public services. Where this
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
126
Standard 12:Advocacy
is the case, advocacy work might involve empowering local
communities to engage with their municipal authorities, by actively
participating in the processes involved in setting the budget, and in
influencing decisions about how to allocate municipal spending
towards different public services.
Example 4:
A country may not have any policy concerning care for people living
with HIV/AIDS, although the government and NGOs may implement
their own ad hoc systems. In this scenario, advocacy work may involve
taking the initiative to gather together interested and relevant groups
and organisations, and then working together to draft a suitable
policy and present it to the government for approval. It would need to
reflect good practice, and the members of the working group would
need to commit to ensuring it is implemented after it is approved.
Without advocacy work, projects and programmes will only address the
immediate problems without also addressing the underlying causes that have
caused the problems in the first place. Without advocacy work, preventative
measures will be limited, and underlying power structures will be
unchallenged. Without advocacy work, beneficiaries may not be aware of
their entitlement to have their basic rights fulfilled, nor the responsibility of
powerful decision-makers to fulfil those rights.
Biblical foundations
The advocacy quality standard recognises that we have a responsibility to
speak for those who are poor, weak, vulnerable and destitute, before those
who are powerful decision-makers. The Bible has many examples of
advocates: Moses, who pleaded with Pharaoh to set the Israelites free from
slavery in Egypt; Nehemiah, who challenged the government officials to stop
exacting usury; and Esther, who risked her life to ask the king to stop
oppressing the Jews. The Bible urges us to “Speak up for those who cannot
speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and
judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:8-9).
Good Practice commitments
In the context of our projects and programmes, being an advocate means
asking, “Is there an unjust policy underlying this situation, or a policy that is
not being implemented? Who has decision-making power to change and/or
implement it? How can I influence them to favour people who are adversely
affected by poverty, marginalisation or vulnerability to disasters?”
As an organisation, Tearfund is committed to influencing the key decisionmakers in relief and development situations, so that their policies work in
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
127
Standard 12:Advocacy
favour of people who are poor, marginalised or vulnerable to disasters. For
example:
 In a conflict situation, we might advocate to tribal chiefs to encourage
peace building and power sharing.
 In a place vulnerable to flooding, we might advocate to wealthy
landowners to allow access across their land so that those who live in the
flood risk zones can get to safety on higher ground.
 In a place vulnerable to earthquakes, we might advocate to local
authorities to reinforce the structure of public buildings and to put in
place preparedness measures.
 In a place where HIV/AIDS is prevalent, we might advocate for increased
access to anti-retro viral medicines.
 In a setting where access to water and sanitation is limited, we might
advocate for government funding to pay for bore holes, pipes, wells,
latrines and other infrastructure.
 In a context where people are frequently displaced, or forced to become
refugees, we might advocate for land rights to enable them to settle.
Advocacy is all about influencing these powerful people to act in equitable
ways. It is about urging them to make and implement just decisions and fair
policies, and it is about holding them to account for their promises.
Close links to other Quality Standards
Our commitment to advocacy has close links to:
 Values, with our commitment to justice;
 Disaster Risk Reduction, as the root causes of vulnerability are often
issues of policy;
 HIV, recognising that policy issues need to be addressed where HIV is a
priority concern.
Where to look for further information:
 Tearfund advocacy toolkit (ROOTS 1&2):
http://tilz.tearfund.org/en/resources/publications/roots/advocacy_to
olkit/
 Seeking Justice for All (PILLARS guide):
http://tilz.tearfund.org/en/resources/publications/pillars/seeking_ju
stice_for_all/
 TILZ advocacy learning zone – including ‘Why Advocate’ guides on
HIV/AIDS, climate change, disaster risk reduction, governance and
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
128
Standard 12:Advocacy
corruption, and water, sanitation and hygiene:
http://tilz.tearfund.org/Topics/Advocacy
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
129
Standard 12:Advocacy
Practical Steps to carrying out our Advocacy commitment
Identification
Step 1: Identify the problem
issue that needs to be
addressed and gather
information about its causes
and effects
Step 2: Identify the policies
that relate to the problem
issue, at which level they
sit, and who has
responsibility for them
Design
Step 3: Identify key
stakeholders and establish
relationships with them
Step 4: Assess the risks and
benefits of going ahead with
advocacy
Step 5: Put it all together in
an action plan and integrate
it into your project plans
Implementation
Step 6: Engage in advocacy
using the most contextappropriate methods
Step 7: Continually reflect
on what is being learnt in
order to continually
improve
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
130
Standard 12:Advocacy
Step 1: Identify the problem
issue that needs to be
addressed and gather
information about its causes
and effects
To undertake advocacy, you need to
identify the key problem issues need
to be identified. A budget line needs
to be set aside, at least initially, to
pay for the initial research involved.
It is good practice for these issues to
relate to emergency, or existing,
projects and programmes, rather
than being freestanding.
A facilitator needs to listen to those affected and ask them questions,
perhaps through semi-structured interviewing or focus groups, and then
agree which issues are priority needs. This process may link with the Disaster
Risk quality standard, where capacities and vulnerabilities are identified.
Once the main problem issues have been identified, a facilitator needs to
work with the beneficiaries to identify the main effects and causes of the
issues. This can be done using a problem tree, a contextual analysis, or
another similar tool. To identify the causes, it is helpful to keep asking why
problems exist until you find the root cause which may be related to
policies, culture or finance. An allocated resource person then needs to
gather information about the causes and effects. Local churches can be key
information providers.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
131
Standard 12:Advocacy
Step 2: Identify the policies
that relate to the problem
issue, at which level they
sit, and who has
responsibility for them
Using the information gathered in Step 1, you
need to research and identify whether a policy
or policies or practices relate to the problem
issues and, if so, what they are. At the same
time, you need to establish whether the policy
or policies are local, provincial, national,
regional or even international. You also need
to identify who has responsibility for the policy
or policies. All this will help determine the level at which advocacy is
undertaken. For example:
 If the problem issue relates to land ownership, there might be a local
authority policy or certain practices about land rights, so any advocacy
would be done at local level and targeted at the local authority.
 If the problem relates to HIV, there might be a national policy in
place, which allocates decision-making to provincial level, so any
advocacy would be done with the provincial authorities.
 If the problem relates to resettlement of internally displaced people,
there might be a national government policy about resettlement, so
any advocacy would be done at national level and targeted at the
national government.
 If the problem relates to climate change, this is not confined to
country borders, and there are regional and international policies in
place, so any advocacy would be done at regional or international
level and targeted at regional bodies, such as SADC, or international
bodies, such as the UN.
This process of identification could be done through independent research or
through conversations with other peer agencies. (See Step 3) The level of
detail and the amount of information needed will vary in different
situations, but it always needs to be easily accessible, in the language and
format most appropriate for the target audience that you will influence, and
updated regularly.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
132
Standard 12:Advocacy
Step 3: Identify key
stakeholders and establish
relationships with them
You need to identify other people
who are concerned for the same
problem issues as you. You could do
this through a stakeholder analysis
or another similar tool. Amongst
others, you will need to establish relationships with other peer agencies and
the communities affected by the key problem issues, including the
emergency if it is a disaster setting.
It is good to identify other people who are concerned with the same problem
issues because it allows potential for joint advocacy action. This has several
advantages. Firstly, it generates a more powerful collective ‘voice’, which
decision-makers are more likely to listen to. Secondly, it offers some
protection for those involved in speaking out in advocacy, because any
repercussions are directed at the collective group rather than the individuals
involved. Thirdly, it enables those with less experience in advocacy to learn
from those with more experience.
National church bodies can be key stakeholders, and they often represent a
wide network of local churches. The church often has natural links with the
wider world. It may be in touch with a district co-ordinating body such as a
diocesan office, through which it may have access to, and contact with,
NGOs and INGOs. It will also be recognised by, and often have contact with,
local government. It can act as an introduction agency and gate-keeper
between the NGOs, INGOs and the local community. The church can also
pass information through its networks and structures to the national level
and the wider church.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
133
Standard 12:Advocacy
Step 4: Assess the risks and
benefits of going ahead with
advocacy
Advocacy is not always a suitable course
of action in every situation, so it is
important to assess whether to go ahead
with it. This is only possible once Steps
1-3 have been completed, i.e. you have
done your research, you have gathered
your evidence, and you have identified
your key stakeholders. You can do this using a risk/benefit tool, such as a
SWOT/BEEM analysis, or you could speak with other peer agencies and the
communities affected about the potential risks and benefits involved. What
is important is that the decision about whether or not to go ahead with
advocacy is made and approved by your leadership.
Step 5: Put it all together in
an action plan and integrate
it into your project plans
If the decision is made to go ahead with advocacy,
in full awareness of the risks and benefits, the next
step is to put all your preparatory work together in
a plan of action. Wherever possible, your plan should be incorporated into
your project log frames or equivalent theory of change tools. In addition to
the normal components of your log frames (or equivalent), you must be clear
about your allies, your targets (who you will influence), your assumptions,
and the risks/benefits involved, as these all need to be monitored and
evaluated.
You might decide to appoint a dedicated staff member within your project
team (such as a Policy Officer or an Advocacy Officer). This would apply if
you have identified a major issue that needs dedicated capacity to research
and address it (otherwise Project staff can coordinate advocacy activities as
part of the project).
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
134
Standard 12:Advocacy
Step 6: Engage in advocacy
using the most contextappropriate methods
Your plan then needs to be put
into action and you need to start
advocating! This means clarifying
your main advocacy messages, and then establishing relationships with key
decision-makers who you are targeting with your advocacy messages. Your
advocacy methodology will vary depending on the decision-makers and other
stakeholders involved, but could include meetings, phone calls, letterwriting, petitions, information boards, leaflets, local radio, street marches
and other mass mobilisation methods, or any other means that are
appropriate. The methods you choose must be context-specific and those
that are most likely to influence changes.
Step 7: Continually reflect
on what is being learnt in
order to continually
improve
This final step involves reflecting on
the risks and benefits identified in Step
4, now that advocacy is underway.
Were the assumptions made in Step 4
correct? If not, what plans and actions
need to change in light of what is being
experienced? It is important to make
adjustments to your advocacy approach
to ensure it is effective.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
135
Standard 12:Advocacy
Project Examples
In Niger, a partner working with pastoralist communities advocated
against a government decision to create a law that would negatively
impact the livelihoods o nomadic herders. They met with government
officials to explain the potential problems with the proposed law, and
made recommendations for how it could be improved. They also
requested that pastoralist communities be consulted. After this
happened, the government decided to stop the law proceeding.
In Mozambique, a partner advocated for a law setting out the rights of
people living with HIV to adequate food security. Together with others,
they lobbied the government officials responsible for health and food
security, and they helped to draft a new law. After the law was passed,
they worked with others to ensure that people living with HIV were
aware of what it said, and to ensure that local authority leaders knew
what they had to do to ensure the law was implemented.
In Haiti, a partner, working in coalition with others, advocated against
barriers to education, and especially the two big barriers of
accessibility and affordability. They developed relationships with, and
met with, key government officials, requesting a national policy that
would commit to reducing the cost of education, whilst improving the
quality of education. Following extensive sector-wide dialogue, the
government passed an appropriate law, and the partner, with the
coalition, is seeking to ensure it is implemented.
In Bangladesh, a partner advocated with local Disaster Management
Committees (DMC) to provide resources to reinforce embankments to
protect them against annual river flooding. They also contacted a
journalist to publicise the problem and their proposed solution. The
journalist wrote media articles and the DMCs, not wanting bad
publicity, committed the required resources, which the affected
communities utilised to build embankments.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
136
Standard 12:Advocacy
A partner in India advocated with local landowners in a flood-prone area
to be able to build a raised evacuation route across their private land.
Their successful negotiation with 47 landowners resulted in a safe
evacuation route from the frequent flooding.
In Niger, a partner as part of its work with a pastoralist group has tried
to change the text of the “Code Pastoral”, a government law outlining
the rights and entitlements of pastoralists. The partner has also worked
to ensure these rights are understood on the ground by the community
and local authorities so that the existing law can be better implemented.
A partner in Zimbabwe discovered that many of their beneficiaries
(households caring for orphans) were being left off lists for receiving
official food aid. They therefore advocated on behalf of these
households to be included on the distribution list.
In Afghanistan, a project team identified the need to raise awareness
about World Water Day and to work with media groups to have
information on water issues and the importance of water conservation in
Afghanistan broadcast by radio. The team produced an 18-minute special
radio programme and then lobbied the government and private radio
stations for free broadcasting of the programme. The media houses
initially objected to this, but through persistence and by making
reference to the life saving nature of these messages for the Afghan
people, one radio station agreed to waive its fees and then other major
radio stations followed suit by agreeing to free broadcasts.
A project manager in Darfur, Sudan recognised that the local hospital
which was running a therapeutic feeding centre did not have sufficient
rooms to accommodate the patients. After lobbying donors to recognise
the need for upgrading the service available, UNICEF provided the
necessary funding to provide new rooms.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
137