Lobby mechanisms for recognition of the importance of civil participation at the local and
national level
Trainer: Kushtrim Islami
How to Build and Manage Coalitions
Because a modern democratic society’s individuals are typically unable to influence public body decision-making
and/or the legal drafting process, they must get together in groups to jointly advance their interests. An individual,
who tries to influence representatives of government on his own behalf, is not considered a lobbyist. Successful
lobbying therefore requires the following preconditions:
1. The presence of an interest group – a group of economic or social entities (for instance NGOs, associations,
trade unions, etc). This group should exist long enough to ensure effective activity;
2. A sense of common interest among the members of such group;
3. The implementation of a certain strategy, including the use of relevant tools to protect the group’s interests.
Effective lobbying can require an intermediary to serve as a link in communication between groups of interest and
authorities. Such an intermediary can be an association that has taken on the function of representing group
interests (e.g., EUROCITIES, the Brussels-based entity that represents the interests of European cities) or an
outsider (e.g., specialist organizations or public relations consultancy) to whom this function is entrusted.
One of the most important tasks in organizing a lobbying campaign is to build a diverse coalition of support, which
will preferably consist of associations, community-based groups and well-respected community leaders. Many
coalitions formed to run a campaign are rather “homogeneous,” i.e., they consist of similar organizations having
similar roots – i.e. only business or environmentalists, trade unions, patients etc. However, there are plenty of
examples of “heterogeneous” coalitions, consisting of community leaders together with religious groups, teachers,
IT associations and local business. For instance in Polish gminas (the basic administrative level in Poland), they
are fighting for public resources to computerize schools in their region.
Bringing together different organizations, which represent many people and various interests, creates a broader
and stronger base for an effective lobbying campaign. Yet regardless of their content, coalitions should always be
bipartisan, avoiding a strong political party affiliation.
USEFUL TENETS FOR COALITION BUILDING
1. Compile a list of local organizations likely to join forces on a particular issue. An attempt should be made to balance the
list with representatives from various organizations: community service groups, environmentalists, civil rights, consumers,
public interest, labour, business, etc.
2. Develop a list of well-known individuals who generally support similar issues, i.e. personalities appearing on radio/TV
programmes, lawyers, “good” business leaders, civic activists, law enforcement group leaders, etc.
3. Contact these individuals and organizations and ask them to join in endorsing a statement of principles as a first step.
Send a copy of the statement with a cover letter inviting their participation. This should be followed up by a phone call.
4. Develop a steering committee of six to ten reliable people. They should meet and develop a list of possible activities for
their organizations and other members of the coalition.
5. Be specific in the kind of action requested of each group. For example, they should be asked to prepare specific
analysis, send letters to their elected officials, represent coalition in radio or TV programs, contact local press etc.
Case Study 1: Macedonian Green Centre Coalition
“Vote for the Environment” Campaign
Marija Risteska, CRPM, Macedonia
Upon Macedonian independence in 1991, it was evident that none of the political parties
had any real green agenda in their electoral campaigns. In 2004, the country hosted local elections,
the first in a decentralized environment in which the municipal and town mayors took on greater
responsibility, resources and rights in managing local affairs. The competing political parties’
mandates focused on urbanism, transport, taxes and education, rather than waste management,
water supply, and air pollution, all pressing urban environmental concerns.
Observing this deficit, environmental civil society organizations from across the country established the
Macedonian Green Centre Coalition. Member organisations included Ekosvest, Proaktiva, Ekonet (all Skopje-based), Green
centre Struga, Biosfera Bitola, Green power Veles, Planetum Strumica and Zletovica from Probishtip. Prior to the local
elections they began their “Vote for the Environment” campaign. Activities were implemented in a coordinated fashion by the
Coalition’s members within their respective cities. Among these were:
 Manufacture and distribution of promotional material for the public (postcards with key environmental concerns,
posters, stickers, banners);
 Several press conferences;
 Multiple appearances at political party gatherings and rallies with banners sending a clear message for the
inclusion of the green agenda in political party programs;
 Dialogue with mayoral candidates in Skopje, Veles and Strumica on key environmental concerns.
The Campaign was successful because through these activities the political parties – mayors especially – have
began to debate environmental issues and even some have begun to implement environmental projects. Meanwhile, during
the 2006 Parliamentary elections the coalition repeated the same tactic, focusing on the protection of Lake Ohrid; energy;
waste management; and the approximation of Macedonian legislation with EU environmental standards. During their
campaign, participating organizations met with representatives of all political parties in Macedonia and advocated for public
participation in environmental policy-making.
Coalitions should be dynamic entities. It takes a delicate balancing act to maintain their cohesiveness. They can
be structured in a variety of ways, but it’s important to maintain some general rules during their formation:
 The initial structure of a coalition must take into consideration fair and equal participation of others
who subsequently join;
 The structure should be as simple and as easy to understand as possible for all participants. It is
important to remember this is not a business, a non-profit, neither a government entity. It is a
network organization that is constructed around one basic purpose (e.g. to influence legislation);
 The coalition’s structure should guarantee easy and open communication between members
(important if trust is to be sustained);
 The organizational structure should enable decisions to be reached through a consensus-based
process (which in practice is difficult to reach and maintain). Reaching consensus is much more
powerful and effective in a coalition than voting.
A simple structure may be as follows:
 Membership of the coalition is based upon specific criteria. These must have each member
organisation’s formal approval;
 General rules and principles are developed for the coalition’s operation;
 Small “working groups” are established and led (by the initial organizers of the coalition and other
key leaders) to facilitate the coalition’s basic operations, such as:
o developing the work plan;
o developing the budget;
o securing the necessary funds to support implementation of the work plan;
o developing the knowledge base;
o ensuring transparent communication between coalition members;
o recruiting new members;
o organizing regular meetings of all coalition members, with the aim being to either assign
responsibility for specific portions of the workplan, gather regular updates and information, and
make necessary changes in the workplan according to the changing environment.
Case Study 2: Coalition-building for a Successful
Stray Cats and Dogs Strategy in Belgrade, Serbia
Danko Cosic, ProConcept, Serbia
Urban and rural Belgrade is – or rather was – full of stray cats and dogs.
In 2006, “ORCA” a city-based CSO working for the respect and care of animals, set
out to realise an official policy endorsed by the city authorities that would ensure the
strays’ humane and efficient control and reduction, thereby solving the medical,
ecological and hygienic problems related to their street lives.
ORCA began by conducting a base line study to analyse the existing
mechanisms for abandoned animals’ control and reduction. The results were used
as a foundation for all further activities. At the same time the study surveyed the
needs and capacities of the city authorities. The aim here was to ensure that subsequent proposals would be accepted by
Belgrade’s public officials. Thus already at this stage, lobbying had begun.
Recognising the need for closer cooperation among the animal care associations in Belgrade, ORCA identified
relevant project partners within the CSO sector. These included “Help Animals,” “SoS Animals,” “OAZA” and “Opstanak”
(Survival). Together, they formed the Belgrade Coalition for Animal Protection. The coalition proceeded to develop a strategy
that proposed the strict regulation of the duties and responsibilities of animal owners, obligatory registration and marking of
pets, measures for pets’ sterilization, and serious punishment for those abandoning animals.
Once formulated, the strategy was presented during a meeting organized with the Mayor of Belgrade. A series of
meetings followed with city council officials, Belgrade’s Veterinary Health Center and the permanent conference of the cities’
municipalities. The result was a cooperation agreement. The support of veterinarians, experts in the field of animal care,
epidemiologists, and public persons active in cultural issues was important in convincing city officials to adopt the strategy as
official policy. It was then presented to the City’s Department for the Protection of Environment, before official introduction.
It was rolled out during spring 2006. First at a press conference and then a public event called "Destruction is not the
solution!” City officials took part in all promotion, working together with campaign activists and citizens. Other activities included
the distribution of promotional material for the public and children; workshops for primary and pre-school children; informational
booths on the streets of Belgrade; and dialogue with Belgrade’s citizens. ORCA also organized some thematic events and
activities including a celebration of World animal care day; the decoration of a Christmas tree for abandoned animals; and a 15minute documentary film broadcast on the City of Belgrade’s public TV station to realise the strategy. Through these activities
more than 2000 citizens learned how to take care of their animals.
It is very important to pay close attention to the coalition’s members. Sustaining a coalition’s unity and direction is
the greatest challenge for its leadership. This is done through good leadership, good communications and
listening. From the very beginning it is also important to develop the right “personality” for the coalition as an
organization. This will define how it behaves and is perceived, not only by the public, but by others that are to be
influenced by it. The end result - an effective, hard-working coalition, is generally worth the effort.
Although it may seem a considerable level of effort, and may not be required for a small-scale campaign such as
a demonstration or petition which may last only a couple of months it should be considered when looking to
influence legislation. For example in Poland the average length of the drafting and approval process in the
Parliament is about nine months, so the campaign, starting much earlier, would last more than a year. Keep in
mind that the above considerations are desired principles, to be applied or considered. Your efforts should be
focused on applying these principles to the extent the circumstances allow, rather than for instance, taking
advantage of the leadership position within the coalition in trying to dominate other members.
How to Prepare a Lobbying Campaign
It is worth considering that a professional lobbyist should meet three generally recognized requirements:
 A thorough knowledge of the campaign’s subject matter;
 An understanding of how to organize a lobbying campaign and present arguments; and
 A good knowledge of the decision-making process (including the legal drafting procedures where
appropriate).
Focusing your Campaign: Issue Identification and Analysis
DO!
Discover which subjects are most important to the
members of the organization or coalition. Sometimes the
problem is only generally defined or exists in members’
perception as a slogan. The role of a lobbyist lies in
realistically evaluating; i) issues of concern, ii) the available
resources and iii) the preparedness of the organization to
lobby for that issue.
Several tools can be applied in problem
identification including: broad enquiry across the
organisation’s management regarding “hot” issues,
conducting a poll of organization members, clarifying burning
issues at the organization’s official meetings, and reviewing
and analysing an organization’s past activities. The Problem
Tree Analysis is a practical technique for group analysis that
may also be used. It is shown in the Watchdogging module,
while community research and survey techniques are
described in detail in the Effective Communications and
Public Outreach module (see the “Research Tools and
Methods” sub-section).
The study of a designated problem is a vital step in
defining a successful lobbying strategy. The detailed
analysis of the facts enables the organization to:
- formulate their view of the problem;
- find valid arguments in support of it;
- plan their campaign; and
- specify the desired end-result.
An extensive and comprehensive analysis of the
problem will become the core “product” of the
lobbying coalition and later the subject of the lobbying
campaign. It will contain vital facts and arguments,
which later should be tailored so as to be “sold” to
different decision-makers and campaign stakeholders
(“How to Communicate your Key Messages” within
the Effective Communications and Public Outreach
module gives plenty of valuable guidance on how to
do this successfully).
In most cases, developing a good quality document
will take a lot of time and effort. It will likely be
expensive, but it will be worth doing, because a good “product“ increases credibility and the chances for
campaign success. Analytical studies can be entrusted to coalition member organizations’ experts or competent
institutions, universities or even governmental agencies (i.e. in collecting statistical data). On the downside, there
is the risk of being accused of result manipulation. An alternative is to rely on the results of an independent study,
to cite or adapt it. This will have the advantage of being completed more quickly and costing less (since
somebody else has already paid for it). On the other hand, independent study may demand considerable efforts
to tailor it to requirements of the campaign. Case Study 2 above demonstrates how ORCA, a Belgrade-based
CSO set out to realise an official policy for the respect and care of animals, following the completion of a baseline study of existing mechanisms for abandoned animals’ control and reduction.
Organising the Campaign: The Strategic Plan
Before the coalition embarks on its lobbying campaign, it should develop a “strategic plan.” Its development is a
basic activity, vital to achieving the campaign’s desired result(s). It is a day-to-day tool for every lobbyist, but its
significance increases dramatically when the coalition’s action begins. A properly prepared strategic plan covering
all stages of the campaign, streamlines objectives and tools, encourages the efficient use of the organization’s
potential, and prevents chaotic and uncoordinated actions by indicating when and how exactly to campaign. As a
guideline, it allows those responsible for the implementation of certain tasks to follow the accepted strategy, get
their priorities right and know the sequence of their responsibilities. It also facilitates consensus and assures a
common position for member organizations and individuals to monitor the progress of work.
The strategic plan should consist of several components:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Campaign Objectives
Resource Allocations
Responsibilities
Action plan & Timeline
The plan is a document that evolves as
the campaign’s priorities shift, or as
unexpected opportunities or threats
arise. It is important that it be updated
when needed, and continuously
regarded as a working document.
a. Including main goal, intermediate objectives, respective tasks
and actions, and envisaged results
b. The necessary resources for the attainment of the given tasks,
based on declared contributions by coalition members
(monetary or in-kind)
c. Indicates responsibilities for all tasks and actions, based where
possible on coalition members’ specialisation
d. That part which effectively fixes deadlines for the agreed tasks
and actions
(see Annex I for a more detailed description of these components)
Enhancing the Campaign: Enlisting Public Support
Case Study 3: Leading by Example: Montenegro’s
Green Home Demonstrates Effective Public Participation
Goran Djurovic, CRNVO, Montenegro
Danilovgrad is a municipality of central Montenegro with appx.
16,500 inhabitants, located in the fertile valley of the Zeta river. Despite a
2005 Municipal Decision which inter alia recognised its “green” areas, the
CSO “Green home” felt these were not adequately protected (the decision
specifically concerned construction). For this reason, it launched a civil
initiative (see the precise definition of civil initiative under “Organization
and writing of formal petitions” within the sub-section on Direct lobbying
measures), proposing changes and amendments to the decision to
enhance the protection of the city’s green areas.
Dubbed “Participate! Decide! Win!” their campaign started with forming a working group to draft changes and
amendments. Meetings were organised with various institutions having an interest in the issue, with the result being that
members included the public communal services, local self-government, local high school and CSOs. A balance within
the group was maintained so as to assure that no one had a majority and the final proposal was consensus-based.
Following preparation of the first draft, a series of three public debates was hosted with citizens. These sought
to inform, listen and garner support (besides alert decisionmakers to the groundswell in favour of the amendments).
Suggestions and comments were taken on-board by the working group and inserted into the proposal, which was
undersigned by the meeting participants (Green Home deliberately opted for a more collaborative/less combative
approach than a full petition campaign). Separate meetings were also held with representatives of the political parties
from the municipal parliament, in order to gain their support for the subsequent adoption of the document.
It is important to note that during the 2005-2006 campaign, the support of both local and national media was
pursued. After each and every working group meeting, the media received a press release or a media appearance was
set-up. Furthermore, after the meetings with political party representatives, public announcements were also published.
In this manner, the lobbying process was made very public. This helped contribute to a positive result, because in a short
while the campaign was concluded. Upon the consensus of all political parties, the requested changes and amendments
to the municipal decision were subsequently brought forward by the coalition and adopted by the local Parliament. No
small feat considering that the practice of lobbying is still under-practiced and barely accepted in Montenegro.
The importance of the public’s involvement in one’s lobbying campaign cannot be underestimated, since the
essence of public support lies in the communication of citizens with the deputy they have elected. Professional
lobbyists running a campaign should know how to use the potential of broad-based public support to enhance
arguments aimed at politicians. The main challenge is the ability to bring in members of society that will actively
contribute to the attainment of the campaign goal. Although in Case Study 3 below, representatives of the public
were not brought face to face with their deputies, citizen involvement was instrumental in assuring the campaign
encompassed all key concerns in order that a representative result could be achieved.
A lobbyist intending to garner public support for their campaign should undertake the following steps:
1. Identify all citizen groups whose support is worth enlisting, and describe those features that differs them from
others;
2. For each group, characterize their main problem and position this in the context of your overall goal;
3. Mobilize as many different groups of voters as possible, so they in turn demonstrate their strong support for your
selected citizen groups’ positions.
The advantage of public support is that decisionmakers are provided with facts and comments
based on the personal experience of many people.
To encourage these people to actively present their
views to a parliamentarian or other decision-maker
and support it with a relevant example from their
own experience is a difficult thing. However, when
interested persons are provided with the material
prepared by the lobbyist in a condensed form, they
grow bolder and become more active in expressing
their views and supporting them with examples,
which often impresses decision-makers.
A basic tool that should be prepared to accompany a public
campaign is a booklet containing:
 Condensed information defining the problem;
 Solutions, objectively argued by the campaign
organizers;
 Conclusions from analyses supporting the
argumentation;
 The opponent’s view, with an explanation as to why it
is wrong and what negative social and/or economic
effect its implementation may result in.
Brief material of this nature will help motivate anyone willing
to engage with the government/parliament and present
her/his view.
How to Campaign
A typical lobbying campaign involves communicating directly with politicians and generating public interest.
Lobbying campaigns may include any of the following measures:
DIRECT:
INDIRECT:
 Participation within open meetings
organized by public officials
 Participation in public hearings
 Letters to elected officials
 Organization and writing of formal
petitions
 Use of the Internet and other common
communication tools to share one’s
views with decision-makers
 Personal visits to the offices of the
elected officials
 Public demonstrations
 Direct engagement of the mass media
 Use of the Internet to engage the
general public
 Writing letters to local and national
newspapers
 Phone calls to local radio stations
broadcasting live
 Appearances on talk shows and TV
programmes
DIRECT
In Montenegro there are two main institutions for civil society organisations to approach when looking to influence
environmental policies and laws:
1.
The Government or a line-ministry, where the CSO can seek to impact policy and/or legislation. Targeting
this level of governance is important because the Government is the main policy-maker.
2. The Parliament, which although traditionally has been the “voting machine” for new regulations, is increasingly
becoming the place where policies and new regulations are debated beforehand. Although Parliament is not
yet in a position to take on a more significant role in the preparation of regulations and has yet to become a
place where legal initiatives can be stopped or drastically changed, it is still a significant place to target a
lobbying campaign, particularly those Members of Parliament within the majority group), among whom
important supporters and campaign champions could be found.
In addition, there are two further levels of governance that should not be overlooked
3. The municipalities of Montenegro, where since 2003, they have significant policy-making powers in a number
of areas. In an era and environment of increased decentralisation, Mayors as well as the Municipal Councils
are a significant target for lobbying at the local level.
4. State agencies, public organizations and service providers, through which local and national policies are
implemented. In Montenegro many sound policies lack real implementation. These bodies then become crucial
entry point for lobbyists wishing to see progress.
With this in mind, there are many entry points or “levers of influence” when it comes to communicating directly
with public officials. (Specific channels for influencing legislation are covered later on in this module under the
section “How to influence legislation”). Among these are the following:
 Letters to elected officials
Write the letter in your words and include your own thoughts. Keep it short, no longer than a page. Cover only
one issue and show your familiarity with the subject and its legislative status. Be specific in what you want
from your representative. Give reasons for your position citing your own experience if possible.
Case Study 4: Lobbying Against the Odds in Serbia
Sreten Djordjevic, Consultant, Serbia
The Serbian citizen association EKOD “Gradac” has dealt with Gradac
river protection for 20 years. During the 80’s and 90’s, the association halted the
intensive degradation and began the gradual promotion of this natural region. In
1995, it initiated the process of the river’s formal protection through Serbia’s Institute
for Environmental Protection. A study was completed in 1997 and as a result, the
institute made a formal request that EKOD “Gradac” serve as warden of the
protected area.
The Serbian Law on Environmental Protection doesn’t allow the
accreditation of protected regions under the management of citizen associations.
However, intensive lobbying of ministry and local public officials, institutes, other
expert organizations, political subjects and powerful individuals followed. The
process was accompanied by a media campaign, the organization of a public debate and educational activities for
school children. A decision was finally made in 2001 in EKOD’s favour, when the region was decreed a protected
natural area and their association was assigned trusteeship.
This appointment was achieved on account of their results in the field of nature protection, as well as their
intensive lobbying. The association is thus now responsible for dealing with all cases of harmful interference within
the protected region of the river Gradac. Since 2001, it has successfully brought several cases of litigation to court
without any claim of these being considered groundless, ignored as negligent, or disqualified for being submitted by
unauthorized person etc.
 Organization and writing of formal petitions
To create the biggest impact, a well-known organization should be selected to host/organize the petition.
Circulate the petition around your community to gather large numbers of signatures. Some very effective
locations for collecting signatures are near the entrances to shopping centers, subway stations, busy street
corners, etc. But don’t expect too much, unless the petition is signed by thousands of individuals or by a few
individuals with great public respect.
Citizens and individuals (but not directly civil society organizations) in Montenegro are entitled to propose a
referendum, an “initiative” (e.g. legal amendment), or a law, regulation and/or general act at both the national and local
level. In theory these mechanisms are tools for practicing direct democracy. However, in order for them to succeed the
new Constitution should be studied carefully. It states that a referendum requires the support of 10 percent of the national
electorate, while at the local level it must be in accordance with the municipal statute – see Case Study 35 for details on a
successful local referendum procedure in Herceg Novi related to the construction of cement silos in Zelenika. Meanwhile,
the right to propose laws, regulations or general legal acts belongs to the Government, a Member of Parliament (MP),
and/or a petition signed by at least six thousand voters and delivered through a registered MP. To achieve this one
should:
First, refer to a particular article of the law over which official compliance or amendment is being called for;
Second, express your request precisely, indicating the reason for it and its objectives (the desired end-result); and
Third, state the implications on society of no response/action; and
Fourth, refer to the financial consequences of the proposed legislation.
For the proposal to be valid, it should be registered officially with the authority from which you request information,
action etc. The registration number (arhivski broj) is a pre-requisite for any further legal processes (in particular, appeals).
Under Montenegro’s Constitution every citizen filing a petition should receive answer.
At the local level, any one citizen can launch an initiative before competent bodies on a specific issue which is of
interest to the local population. The competent body is obliged to react with a decision within 30 days. A civil initiative
(e.g. the adoption or amendment of acts within the competence of local self-government such as taxes, spatial planning
and development – as represented by Case Study 3 several pages previous – public transportation, social and child
protection, construction of temporary objects etc.) can also be launched. In this case, local parliament is obliged to react
by decision within 60 days. The number of signatures required to start a civil initiative varies from municipality to
municipality, but is within the range of one to three percent of voters. Both types of initiative must be clearly justified and
indicate the desired change for the petition’s successful submission.
Case Study 5 below demonstrates how petitioning campaigns (via referendum) can be successfully used to set
back planned industrial investments in areas of considerable natural wealth. Case Study 13 under the section: “How to
influence legislation” at the end of this module, shows how a legal proposal can still fall at the final hurdle without the
necessary support, as was the case in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Case Study 5: The Tara River Declaration:
Stalling Hydro Power Plant Construction in Montenegro
Danko Cosic, ProConcept, Serbia
The Tara river is an important part of Montenegro’s natural
beauty and a great tourist attraction, famous for its rafting tours.
However, a February 2004 agreement between Montenegro and
Republika Srpska would have flooded the lower part of the picturesque
canyon - UNESCO protected since 1976 - along with parts of the Piva
and Sutjeska canyons. Construction of the “Buk Bijela” hydro power
plant would swamp nearly 12km of the Tara river: an area containing
more than 15 springs of clear, drinking water, and a well preserved
habitat for some protected species. The flooding would also badly harm
Montenegro’s tourist industry, leaving a great number unemployed.
Yet information about the planned initiative was scarce – just small articles appeared in daily newspapers. No
official notification and no announcement had been made by the authorities, even towards UNESCO. A number of letters
written by the Žabljak-based CSO “Most” to the authorities explaining their concerns went unanswered. Taking this as a
sign that no help from the officials could be expected, Most decided to defend the Tara river themselves with a campaign
called “I don’t want a swamp, I want Tara.”
Through networking and some institutional connections Most gathered pertinent information (the initial
agreement on the plant’s construction, the potential economic and ecological damage, UNESCO’s views on the
consequences) and posted this on a locally-popular web site, along with an official statement. A petition was subsequently
posted online. It was signed by more than 2,000 people in the course of just a few months, which showed there was great
potential for further engagement and campaign success.
(continued overleaf)
Once the first public protest had been organized, media coverage picked up. Although very short, a report
about a group of people struggling to save the Tara was broadcast by national television. It was enough to enhance the
popularity of the campaign and strengthen public support. Over the course of the next few months, every protest or
related activity received media attention.
Most opted to build a coalition, to more effectively plan and organize their activities. During this time they got
the full support of many domestic and foreign ecological organizations. They planned to call for a referendum, and so
involved a team of legal experts in drafting a Declaration for the river’s protection. For it to be successful (i.e. submitted
to Parliament), they would need 6000 signatures. The CSO posted an online invitation to others in Montenegro to assist
in collecting signatures. The response was amazing: more than 20 offered their support, and a surprisingly large number
were not even eco organizations.
Just two and a half months after announcing the governments’ initiative online, the movement for the Tara
river’s protection had become national. Promotional material (T-shirts, pins, billboards, and a short promotional video
broadcast on local TV stations) was distributed and protests were organized almost around-the-clock. A campaign called
“The day of Tara – Montenegro for Tara” was started simultaneously in 25 cities to collect Declaration signatures and
was planned until it had been submitted to Parliament. Yet almost double the required signatures were collected on the
first day alone. Still the campaign continued and over the next few months, support was received from popular artists, the
Universities of Montenegro and Serbia, and biologists from all over Europe.
A month later, the Declaration was submitted to Parliament, while campaign activities continued unabated: the
main goal being to sustain public pressure and foster the interest of Montenegrin as well as foreign citizens. In November
2004, a delegation from “Most” was invited to a Parliamentary debate and by December, the Parliament voted by a
majority in favour of the Declaration, which explicitly forbids the building of an object that would endanger the Tara river’s
canyon. Thereafter, the government abandoned all plans for building the plant.
 Use of the Internet and other common
communication tools to share one’s views with
decision-makers
Whether you’re communicating via email,
conventional mail, telephone or in person, more
important is what is said, who says it and how it is
said. Volume does not mean effectiveness. One
personal, well-argued email sent to the decisionmaker’s address is more effective than a thousand
identical emails that will most likely be treated as
spam. The real strength of a tool like the Internet is
for your own research and network development.
Case-Study 6:
Online Petitioning in Cyberspace
Avaaz, the Climate Change Action Group used the internet to
strengthen a campaign initiative. In March, 2007, Avaaz delivered
a petition with 100,000 signatures to environment ministers of the
world’s most-polluting countries. The group claims that its efforts
were instrumental in securing a pledge from Germany’s
environment minister and German chancellor Angela Merkel to
place climate change at the top of the agenda for the G8 leaders’
summit in June 2007—a pledge that was upheld.
 Personal visits to elected officials’ offices
A face-to-face discussion is the most effective means of communication. Request an appointment but start at
least ten days in advance. Develop an agenda for the meeting. Always bring written information for the
decision-maker or staff. This should also include information about a specific request for action on the part of
the official. Focus on how the decision affects a broad section of the community. Be prepared to present
statistical data. If the official seems supportive, seek a commitment. If s/he is opposed, ask her/him to keep an
open mind and at least remain neutral. Promise to provide additional information if requested. Although
opportunity for this form of lobbying may be rare, Case Study 4 above concerning the citizens association
“Gradac” and Case Study 7 below from Tuzla, in Bosnia-Herzegovina demonstrates the results personal
lobbying combined with other activities can yield.
 Participation within open (public) meetings organized by public officials
Participating in these events (for example meetings of candidates during the election campaign) gives a good
opportunity to attract the public’s attention and, through the event’s media coverage, strengthen support for
your campaign cause before a wider audience. This can be achieved in two ways:
- when the politician hosting the meeting is expected to be your supporter – ask the right question, giving
the politician the opportunity to address the issue;
- when the politician is your opponent – pose the question in a way that allows you to elaborate the cogent
argument, forcing the opponent to clearly outline her/his view or assuming commitments.
Case Study 7:
Clear Goals + Key Players, Public Support
Personal Visits, Letters to Elected Officials
= Sound Results
in BiH
Tihomir Knežiček, Consultant, BiH
Tuzla is a former industrial town still prone to poor air
quality. Five stations monitor ambient air conditions across the
town. Until mid-2006, results were republished from official sources
by the media on a monthly basis. Critical air quality conditions
were often breached, however, due to the then existing
arrangement, the population was not informed and preventative
measures could not be taken. Besides publishing untimely data,
the information itself was hardly understandable for ordinary
citizens. In reaction to these conditions, a coalition of organizations established a task force to execute a campaign, intended to
yield nothing less than a daily report on Tuzla’s air quality. Here’s how they succeeded…
In January 2006, the NGO known as the Centre for Ecology and Energy Tuzla (http: ceetz.org) invited a series of
key figures and players to join them: representatives of the Institute for Public Health Tuzla, professors from the University of
Tuzla, representatives of the OSCE and other NGOs, to discuss a possible campaign concerning the above topic. They quickly
agreed upon the campaign goal, formed a task force, attended a training workshop on advocacy, and within a month had sent
their first letter to the Ministry of Physical Planning and Environmental Protection of Tuzla Canton (the ministry responsible for
air quality monitoring). In their letter they requested the ministry’s cooperation in improving air quality reporting. Two days later
(Feb. 3rd), the task force had its first meeting with Jadranka Mirascic, the minister, during which time she was introduced to the
campaign’s goals and the coalition’s concerns. This first official communication with the highest level decision maker did not,
however, generate concrete results. The coalition’s concerns went unanswered.
Over the next two months, three letters were sent to the cantonal ministry. During this period of intensive direct
lobbying, the university’s professors requested a channel of communication be opened with lower-ranked ministry officials,
those persons familiar with the issues at hand. Meanwhile, the coalition task force met several times, so as to effectively
implement a parallel public campaign at the same time. Thus the media (radio, TV and newspaper) were involved while a street
survey of Tuzla’s citizens was carried out, and promotional material was distributed. The campaign was also supported by
billboards, radio jingles and workshops within Tuzla’s schools. The media eventually reported on the campaign a total of 39
times.
Following a number of informal agreements,
the ministry’s representatives changed their response.
They formally reacted in writing on May 10, and
invited the task force for a discussion one week later.
A specific conclusion was not reached at this time,
but a second meeting in June resulted in a principle
agreement and accepted model for informing citizens
on a daily basis about the air quality on the ministry’s
webpage at: www.vladatk.kim.ba (see opposite). Within
seven months, the campaign was successfully
concluded.
 Participation in public hearings (NB: Public hearings do not solely concern discussion of draft policy or legislation. In
Ukraine for instance this term is used for any kind of meeting organized by a CSO or public administrative body to discuss
a controversial issue with interested groups and individuals).
If you are presenting a testimony, consult experts and study the literature to know your subject. Write the
testimony based on factual data. Also write a summary (1-3 pages) as the basis for the presentation. Know the
names and important facts, about the legislators’ issue for instance. Try to talk to the committee members
before the hearing so that they’re familiar with your issue and arguments. Give copies of your testimony to the
committee’s chairperson in advance of your presentation. Talk, don’t read if possible. Do not waste time.
Explain why the tabled proposal is good or bad, what are the fiscal implications, etc. Do not repeat what others
have already testified. Don’t be antagonistic. The Public Participation module gives details on the formal
opportunities to participate in public hearings vis-à-vis projects, permits, policies, programmes and plans.
INDIRECT
There are also many entry points or “levers of influence” for communicating indirectly with public officials. In
looking to secure your campaign objective it is generally necessary to combine both direct and indirect measures.
However, when public officials pointedly refuse to even enter into a dialogue with campaign representatives, then
involving the public en masse is the next resort. Although, as Case Study 8 below shows, even this won’t always
be sufficient to achieve all campaign objectives.
Case Study 8: Quick off the mark, but last over the line:
Lovanja’s Sanitary Landfill in Montenegro
Goran Djurovic, CRNVO, Montenegro
In 2002, the coastal municipalities of Kotor, Budva and
Tivat began scoping the location of a temporary regional sanitary landfill.
Attention focused on Lovanja, situated close to the entrance of Tivat town at
their municipal border with Kotor. When the local CSO “Evropski dom”
(European House) learned of the planned project, it reacted by enlisting the
support of 12 civil society organisations in a campaign intended to find a new
location for the landfill.
The coalition collected relevant information and identified a handful of key public messages: the landfill would
not meet acceptable ecological standards, was too close to Tivat airport, and would hinder the development of tourism
(despite the fact that the landfill was part of infrastructure development plans to boost the region’s touristic capacity).
Armed with these arguments, the coalition quickly collected 3500 signatures from Tivat’s citizens in order to validate their
response. Their public debate: “Lovanja ante portas - Geese saved Rome - Who is going to save Lovanja?” was
attended by local government representatives and public enterprises (e.g. the regional waterworks).
The campaign, however, was dogged by Tivat municipality’s management by a tri-partite body consisting of
local authority and central Government representatives (the consequence of a crises within the authority) that remained
indifferent to the approaches of Evropski dom, provide answers to key questions, or invite them to related meetings.
Local councillors, representatives of local authorities, the President of Montenegro, and the Ministers of Tourism, Health,
Environment Protection and Urban Planning also remained impassive. Only representatives of the World Bank (who had
put up a loan for the construction of the landfill) agreed to meet with the campaigners, but were not ready to suggest the
state and local authorities consider alternative locations. Despite Lovanja’s citizens then forming a board for the
protection of property rights (it was their land that should be surrendered for the purpose of construction), a meeting with
the Montenegrin Government’s vice-president also proved unsuccessful.
Two protest walks by the CSOs and citizens of Tivat and Kotor followed, while landowners in Lovanja initiated
a court proceeding against the municipality of Kotor for its insistence it was the owner of the land in question. At the
same time Tivat’s local assembly skipped hosting a formal decision-making session, and without a formal decision,
agreed the landfill will be located in Lovanja, for a period of min. three years. “AD Lovanja” was founded to manage the
facility, which has been in use since July 2004. The cessation of disposal activities was intended for December 2007.
However, with a decision for a more permanent location of the landfill yet to be adopted, the landfill continues to be used.
So despite the determined efforts of citizens and CSOs, and positive coverage via the local media, the yearlong campaign enjoyed limited success. Although it failed to prevent the operation of the facility, the authorities today at
least have not even dared to think about converting the temporary landfill into a permanent facility. In retrospect,
Evropski dom might rather have used the signatures they collected to call for the adoption of a local or state level legal
act, that could have officially called for the landfill to be relocated elsewhere.
Case Study 9: Illegal Demonstrations in 2007 in Hungary
 Public demonstrations
Public demonstration should be
used as a last resort instrument for
mounting pressure on decisionmakers. The timing of the
demonstration should be closely
coordinated with the decisionmaking process. Citizen
associations enjoy the right to
launch a public initiative (e.g.
demonstration). To mount a “public
gathering,” an application or
notification usually has to be
submitted to the relevant police
station (see the box below
concerning the specific rules and
procedures, and see the adjacent
case study as regards what can
happen when you don’t follow them).
Do invite the media and nominate a
coalition spokesperson.
Budapest Times, November 2007
Organising a Public Gathering
According to the Law on Public Gatherings (Official Gazette No. 031/05-1) CSOs can organize peaceful gatherings
and public demonstrations. A gathering of more than twenty citizens in a public place expressing political, social and other
beliefs and interests constitutes a public gathering. In the interest of the security of those attending these gatherings, the
organizer (a private person, group of citizens, or legal entity) is obliged to submit an application for its hosting, at least five days
before it is scheduled to take place. He/she does this by submitting the application to the public administrative body in charge
of police affairs. It should comprise of:
1) information about the purpose of gathering;
2) location (incl. start and finish points), date and time (start and duration) of gathering;
3) information about the organiser or his representative;
4) personal information about the leader of the gathering;
5) number of security staff;
6) estimated number of participants.
Should the police consider the gathering to be a threat to public order and safety, i.e. that not all necessary security
measures have been undertaken, or that the application was incomplete vis-a-vis the above points or was applied for later than
five days beforehand, it can ask the organizer to cancel the event. Note that cancellation may also occur if: i) the gathering is
proposed for a location where gatherings cannot be held; ii) its purpose violates guaranteed freedoms and human rights, or the
use of violence, national, racial, religious or other hatred or intolerance; iii) there is a danger that the gathering may endanger
the safety and/or health of people and property, or that public peace and order would be seriously hampered.
 Direct engagement of the mass media
Coalitions should give special attention to cooperating with the mass media. The voice of the media is heard at
all levels and their power is also enhanced by the fact that they are perceived as an objective source of
information. The right use of the media in a lobbying campaign can serve to engender public support. The
wrong use of the media, however, can backfire on the campaign. The best way to deal with the media is to
establish permanent contact with them, long before enlisting them in the lobbying campaign. Prior to
collaboration, it is advisable to prepare answers to the following questions:
 What is the goal of the campaign?
 Who are we trying to convince, so as to attain this goal?
 What information should be conveyed to them?
 What is the best method of conveyance, within the available means? Does it include cooperation with
the media?
When clear answers to the above questions have been determined, answer this set of questions:
 What form of media should be relied upon to deliver this information in the most effective way?
 What will be the best form for presenting the information to the media?
Consider it necessary to identify all local media sources that may share an interest in the campaign issue. A
list of all dailies, weeklies, news agencies, radio and TV stations should be made including those active on the
Internet. All should be monitored to identify which journalists could take an interest in the campaign issue
(names, office addresses, phone and fax numbers, email addresses, subjects of their specialization). Vital to
one’s relationship with the media (specifically electronic) is knowledge of the daily deadlines for broadcasting
or publication. Besides which, TV and radio do not care for yesterday’s stories. Contact with the media can
take on different forms, such as:
 Press release;
 Press conference;
 Interviews with individual journalists;
 Informal meetings with selected journalists;
 Participation in a radio, television or press-organized debate (described above).
Each of these has its own specific procedures, which, if properly applied, can be effective in bringing the
campaign issue not only to the media, but to the public. The press conference warrants particular attention.
The Press Conference
Many organizations believe the most attractive method of contact with the media is a press conference. This may
be true, but it should be remembered that realising an effective press briefing is a serious challenge that takes professional
preparation. Besides the organizational aspects, this includes the content and form of information to be presented.
The most important detail is to have a valid reason for organizing it. The mass media want a newsbreak, which
draws the public’s attention and is socially significant. So it should be borne in mind that a press conference that doesn’t
address an interesting event for the public and the media can be counter-productive, i.e. antagonize the media or even
become an object of ridicule.
The first rounds of invitations to the press conference should be issued well in advance: as a rule, 5–7 days
beforehand. They should be followed by phone calls to the selected journalists, representing the “most important” media. In
order to raise interest in the event, your invitation should be brief and contain an aptly formulated theme, which could be
considered news.
All reporters attending the conference should be registered by identifying their names and the media they
represent. Hardcopy materials, including a press release, should be handed to reporters during registration. These materials
should bear the campaign’s motto and provide (at the end) brief information about the organizer, coalition members, names
and positions of presenters and all contact addresses.
There should be as few people sitting at the table during the press conference as possible: the chairperson and
two-three experts. Information should be clear and concise. Speeches should be made without notes. From the beginning
the main issue should be emphasized, with everyone sticking to the point. Presenters should try to use plain language and
avoid professional jargon.
Time for questions and answers should be set aside until after the speakers’ address. Reporters should be
provided with opportunity to individually ask questions to a particular expert, right after the end of the conference or at any
convenient time.
 Using the Internet to engage the general public
Web-pages and online advocacy is fast-growing in
popularity, but it works only as long as you can
attract a large or constantly changing crowd to your
website. Most likely this can only be achieved in
tandem with other tools like radio or public events.
Do expect to undertake considerable promotion via
diverse channels, as unsolicited email will likely be
treated as spam. Again, don’t expect too much
from this kind of action.
Case-Study 10: Internet-based
Advocacy with the BBC
On behalf of their correspondent, Alan
Johnston, BBC World Service Radio
utilized both the Internet and the
airwaves to raise awareness about his
abduction in Gaza, and encourage
signature of their petition for his release.
By the time this occurred, they had
collected over 200,000 signatures and
comments – evidence that the Internet
has become a natural extension of advocacy work.
 Writing letters to local and national newspapers
A printed letter to the editor is a chance to reach thousands of readers and to influence public opinion, alert the
public on key issues, correct media bias, etc. Make your letter concise. If it is not published the first time, try
again.
Case-Study 11:
Virtual Campaigning in Chile
In Chile activists challenged the
new Transantiago transportation
policy on the popular (6 million
members) 3D online environment,
Second Life. During their virtual
protest Second Life avatars
burned Transantiago buses in
front of government buildings and
wore specially printed t-shirts.
While nothing has yet emerged in
terms of tangible policy, the
protest garnered plenty of media
coverage, which in turn has
caught the authorities’ attention.
 Phone calls to local radio stations broadcasting live
Do call-in and ask questions from those who appear on radio/TV shows. Ask
the official how s/he intends to decide/vote on the upcoming issue. Let others
know what you think. Encourage listeners to contact decision-makers
concerned by the issue.
 Appearances on talk shows and TV programmes
Lobbying campaign leaders should take every opportunity to participate in
various kinds of TV programmes. Campaign organizers should monitor
relevant programmes and inform as many allies as possible about the
opportunities, so they could take part and express on-air in their own words
the coalition’s message. Should more than one coalition member participate,
make sure all repeat the same message. The main arguments should be
prepared beforehand and roles and responsibilities divided between the
show’s participants.
How to Lobby Effectively
Quite often representatives of
DON’T!
lobbying coalitions fall into the
trap of thinking that “the facts
Confuse your own views with those of the organization’s members. This is
speak for themselves” and that
one of the most serious mistakes lobbyists make. A lobbyist’s role, particularly when
decision-makers ought to react
it comes to discussion with politicians, is to act on behalf of the organisation’s
in an obvious way to
members, and not to present his/her own views – even if s/he believes they are the
most beneficial for the organization. A lobbyist should remember that, as an expert
information which describes the
in a given area, s/he will always be responsible for fulfilling tasks set by members of
problem. The point is, however,
the organization.
that some data is not available
for decision-makers, it is
presented subjectively, or it is written in the language of experts, which is often incomprehensible to outsiders
(including most decision-makers). The task of a lobbyist is therefore to work with such information in order to
deliver it to the authorities in a “digestible” form, by adjusting it to the perception and needs of particular recipients.
Valid arguments, based on an overall analysis of a given problem and its implications (see “Focusing your
Campaign: Issue Identification and Analysis” above) will cause public officials to take notice of different
viewpoints and to recognize the information provided by the lobbyist. The reasoned and skilful justification of
one’s position in turn helps the organization to become the decision-maker’s partner.
Always remember, effective lobbying is based on cooperation and tradeoffs, not on confrontation alone. One
should not be afraid to come up with critical remarks, but discussion should be an exchange of views, not insults.
An old saying goes: “Lose your temper, and you lose the argument.” And one of the principal rules of a lobbyist is
“never burn bridges behind you”. In other words, a lobbyist needs to act so that, during the next campaign,
decision-makers - current opponents - could be future allies.
How to influence legislation
When it comes to influencing
legislation, a generally
recognized requirement is a
good knowledge of the
decision-making process,
including legal drafting
procedures (see text box
overleaf). Even without formal
channels to participate in the
process, there are various
direct and indirect entry points
that have already been detailed
above. Some additional
guidelines are given below.
One of the basic principles for
effectively influencing the
process is to begin at the
earliest stage possible. If for
instance interested
organizations plan to present
their critical opinion just a few
days before parliament’s final
vote – it’s definitely too late to
achieve a positive result. Here
are some tips on when and
where to get involved:
Case-Study 12: Influencing Legislation in Poland
via the Public Hearing
In July 2005, the Polish parliament adopted the
law “Lobbying activities in the lawmaking process.”
Lobbying is defined as any lawful activity with the aim to
influence public bodies in the lawmaking process.
Lobbying activities can be performed only by officially
registered professional lobbyists (entitled to operate on
behalf of a third party). Lobbyists must present a
registration certificate whenever they enter into contact
with representatives of the public authorities. Heads of
public institutions are obliged to announce all contacts
with lobbyists in the Public Information Bulletin, available
on the Internet (where the official register of lobbyists is also contained). The law also
introduces the Polish parliament to a new institution in the lawmaking process – a public
hearing. This involves the presentation of testimonies from both proponents and opponents of
the legislation. In practice, most of the hearings are devoted to presenting the proponents’
view. The chairperson of the sub/committee will favour the legislation and control the majority
of the committee members.
TIP!
If your coalition finds itself in such a hearing, your representatives should look at its
relationship with the minority members. If they appear to be strongly opposed to the legislation,
consider asking them to intervene. Such an intervention can only be successful when you
already have established contacts with the selected members of the committee and have
proved to be a trustworthy ally. In any case, your intervention requires the provision of
information and reasoned argument about the probable effects of a proposed piece of
legislation. Information and argument offered on behalf of the coalition members will compete
with information offered by those on the other side of the issue in question. Consider that CSO
representatives who provide incorrect numbers or poorly organized arguments will lose
credibility quickly.
First, regularly monitor the relevant official sources about upcoming legislation - government administrations
are often obliged to inform citizens. It is important to monitor these when they exist and react accordingly –
analysing the issue if it’s of concern, or identifying experts who can support you in dialog with the
administration, politicians and in public discussions.
Second, rely on private connections. In most cases, draft regulations are worked out in numerous
governmental offices or those offices of the local administration. If at all possible, enter into dialog with the
authors at this early stage (this is the traditional entry point for lobbyists). At this comparatively low
administrative level, there’s room to present a coalition’s own analysis and argumentation and be listened to
by the government experts working on the draft. Be aware that this can be a unique opportunity which may
not occur at later stages (although even once the bill enters parliament there is increasing opportunity to
lobby parliamentarians). Smart coalitions (especially those that know their long-term objectives and have
prepared strategic action plans), maintain good relationships with these offices and monitor their initiatives.
As a result, they are well-informed about upcoming changes.
Third, legislative systems have various “access points” for interested stakeholders. There are
subcommittees, committees, public hearings, forums to present individual opinions, etc. There may also be
instances of draft laws being sent to CSOs for comment, and/or being made available on the Internet. If you
are invited to comment, be aware you may not be informed as to how these have been taken in account.
Your coalition representatives should be familiar with these and the respective institutions and be ready to
present the coalition’s opinion in the required form. If such opportunities are not announced formally, cultivate
your relationships with ministry staff and rely on private connections to keep abreast of such possibilities.
When they do emerge, share the information with your allies and coalition partners so you can act promptly.
Legal Drafting Procedure in Kosovo
The legal drafting procedure, while often short and rushed, should work as follows: The line-ministries draft new
laws and bylaws that regulate or implement policies, procedures etc. Usually it will be produced by a working group of civil
servants and experts/professors and sometimes practitioners. The draft is sent for comments to other ministries and state
agencies, recognized as stakeholders in the policy-making process. After completion, the draft is sent to the government’s
legal secretariat for technical evaluation (so as to be harmonised with the legal system). Once finalized, it is forwarded to the
General Secretariat to be scheduled on the agenda of the government session for adoption. After being adopted, the
proposed bill is sent to the Parliament. Before appearing on the parliamentary agenda, a parliamentary board discusses and
passes opinion on the bill. If “passed,” the law is forwarded to the parliamentary plenary where the competent minister (or
deputy minister) will present the bill and all MPs will review, discuss and vote.
According to existing regulations, the public is almost entirely excluded from the legal drafting process. However,
under the Law on Public Administration (O.G. No. 38/03-1 and 022/08-21), there are grounds for collaborating with the
government ministries, through their “enabling participation in the work of working groups dealing with issues of mutual
interest or for normative organisation of adequate issues.” Whatsmore, under the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament,
representatives of scientific and competent institutions, other legal persons and (very occasionally) non-governmental
organisations, competent persons and scientists may be invited to take part in discussions of bills within competent
parliamentary boards, without formally enjoying the decision-making right. Therefore it is worth your while writing to
government and parliamentary committees to let them know of your interest.
It is also worth noting that under the same rules of procedure, the Minister is obliged, during the preparation of any
law which concerns the rights, duties and legal interests of citizens, to make its draft text publicly available via the media and
to invite all interested parties to pass comment, make proposals and submit suggestions. While this obligation is rarely
respected, there are emerging examples, for instance the series of municipal public consultations hosted by UNDP and
MANS on behalf of the respective ministry for the draft Law on Spatial Planning in 2004.
So despite these limited opportunities, there is room to get involved informally. Monitoring the website of the
environment ministry (online at: http://www.mturizma.vlada.cg.yu/) will enable you to remain appraised of policy and legal
developments, while checking Parliament’s webpage at: http://www.skupstina.cg.yu/index1.php?module=17&sub=12 may
also keep you up to date regarding announcements about bills and other proposed acts on their agenda.
Once you are clear on when and where to get involved, it is important to possess a thorough knowledge of the
debated issue, and to know its “history” and “political” context. Therefore representatives should always know the
answers to the following questions:
1. Why and how did a specific issue appear
as a draft regulation?
The draft regulation’s author can be a government
body whose goals may by purely pragmatic: to
improve the situation in the sector. In this case the
drafting body is often open to the opinions of others
to learn what impact that particular solution may
have, if implemented. But it can also be that the
regulation was drafted in response to obligations
made under an election campaign. In that case, one
of your objectives will be to lobby politicians.
2. Is there a clear understanding of why the
law is needed?
Public authorities sometimes apply inappropriate
tools when trying to solve a problem. You as
coalition representative may present argumentation
and suggest other ways of solving the problem, not
necessarily requiring regulation (which at the same
time should not contradict the crucial interests of the
coalition).
3. What other interest groups support the
draft?
Quite often a government body, which formally
sponsors a draft law, is not in fact its real developer.
Other interest groups may have persuaded the
government body to sponsor a particular bill. When
the original drafter is identified, it should be easier to
develop an effective strategy.
4. Is the coalition prepared to come up with
an alternative solution?
When legislators propose an unfavorable bill, it
often causes strong disapproval among all those
groups who believe they will be negatively affected.
Your attempts to influence the decision-making
process should contain proposals (“alternative
solutions”) which - where appropriate - take into
account the interest of the opposite side. The basis
for such proposals should be contained within a
credible analytical document that weighs the
alternatives.
DON’T!
DO!
Fall into the trap of
becoming critical. All too
often, groups fearing they will
be negatively affected,
communicate their criticism to
the authorities and to the
public via the media. In most
cases it is counterproductive.
Indiscriminate attacks on the
authorities force them into
taking a defensive position:
they obviously don’t want to
lose face in the eyes of the
public.
Consider investing in an expert to study a given problem from all angles, analyzing also the
position of new regulation’s initiators. This should answer the question as to why this particular
regulation is being proposed as a solution to the problem and what arguments are likely to be put
forth by the other side. Failure to know such factors creates the impression of a non-professional
coalition behind your “campaign” and could cost you a clear result (see Case Study 13 below).
Such analysis should show what it is that has caused the current situation, and also provide
information as to the impact of a regulatory act/administrative decision on life and the activities of
members of the coalition, as well as on various aspects of their natural, cultural, social and economic
environment. It is also important to explore the impact of the regulatory act, for instance on public
welfare, including the health risk or a community development. The developed material should be
supported with the cost-benefit analysis and a description of who is to gain and who is to lose as a
result of the introduction of such a new rule.
Guidelines on “Focusing your Campaign” are included earlier in this module.
Case Study 13: So Near Yet So Far:
Foiled by the Counter-Lobby in BiH
Tihomir Knežiček, Consultant, BiH
As the following case study shows, not studying a problem
from all given angles and knowing adequately one’s opponents can
cost you your campaign, even after you’ve fought hard to bring a legal
proposal through the decision-making process.
A campaign for the protection of Konjuh mountain was
started in 2000 by the local CSO, the Association of Banovici Engineers.
Konjuh mountain is located close to the central part of BiH. Its territory
incorporates the municipalities of Zivinice, Banovici, Kladanj, Zavidovici
and Olovo and a unique area of natural beauty, rich in untainted
running water, biodiversity, skiing facilities and tourism potential.
However, uncontrolled tree felling within the forests of Konjuh has caused a permanent biodiversity imbalance and is
negatively impacting on drinking water resources. The natural reservoir at Krabanja, which supplies drinking water to the
20,000 or so citizens of Banovici town has seen its reserves depleted over the last five years, resulting in the town facing
water shortages, especially during the summer.
Three projects were implemented by the Association of Banovici Engineers, all directed toward the relevant
ministries and government of Tuzla Canton - all without a clear result. Their basic demand was to draft and adopt a law
for the protection of Konjuh mountain. The request was fully in line with the Physical Plan of Tuzla Canton, where Konjuh
mountain had been declared as an area of special interest.
Owing to the constant pressure of various lobby groups, a decision was however, tabled, and its title modified
three times by the cantonal Government: from Natural Park to Natural Monument to Protected Area. In November 2004,
the government debated the draft law, and after hosting a public hearing in September 2005, submitted the law to the
cantonal assembly for adoption. The proposed law specified the size of protected area to be approximately 8100
hectares, the termination of all natural resource exploitation (wood, water, mineral resources) and full protection of the
mountain’s unique flora and fauna specimens.
In spite of the government’s positive reaction to the CSO’s campaign and resulting action and decision, and the
support given by the municipality of Banovici and non-governmental sector, the law is still is pending. Why? Because the
opponent lobby groups’ support has its origins in two groups. First, the state-owned company, “Forests of Tuzla”
(headquartered in Kladanj). And second, representatives of the private sector who make their living from tree felling,
transportation, sawmilling and processing. Combined these constitute major revenue sources, besides which many
politicians have wood business interests and therefore do not support the law. Furthermore, a number of cantonal
assembly members are from Kladanj, and represent the interests of powerful businessmen. So, after eight years of
permanent lobbying, projects, campaigns and legal initiatives, Konjuh mountain remains unprotected and a gradually
destroyed natural beauty, on account of the so-called “Forest Lobby” of Tuzla Canton.
How to Evaluate the Success of a Campaign
Once a campaign has been concluded, the lobbyist must undertake several measures, irrespective of its outcome:
1. Inform members of the organization and coalition about the outcome of the campaign. Special thanks
should go to deputies, officials and all supporters for their backing.
2. Since lobbying is a collective effort, a short description of the critical phases and partial successes and
failures during the course of the campaign will be useful to all participants. Prepare a short report for the
management of the organization or coalition, and file it with other related documents. This should lead in
turn to developing a list of activities worth conducting in the future.
3. Separately record how individual decision-makers decided, those who strongly backed their position,
and those strongly against it. The lobbyist should also describe the degree of support and participation in
joint efforts of outside organizations, deputies, officials, experts and leaders supporting the coalition.
This will help avoid disillusions in the future and possible failures as well, since the strength and
influence of a lobbyist depends upon the strength of the support they receive. This list of contacts and
their description is one of the most valuable things a lobbyist has – it is the main tool of their work.