Do not duplicate the work of another collaboration. If there is already an appropriate one, then you should join and explore ways in which your organization could add value to the work of current members. But if there is none currently existing, then you could bring together a number of key allies to propose a new collaboration (of the appropriate type) covering the region/issue.

There are (at least) two approaches to developing a collaboration:

1. You create a structure, formalize it and have organizations join.
2. You start cooperation and exchange between groups and together form a collaboration that you subsequently formalize.

Option 1 is short and clear, but the founders have to be able to assess the needs and adapt as necessary.

Option 2 is more engaging and more likely to fill the needs, but is a longer process.

Most animal protection organizations choose option 1. However, a participatory process is recommended (see ‘Key Principles of Partnership Advocacy’). This would usefully include a joint steering group and joint strategic planning.

The main elements needed in the formation of a collaboration are:

• A clear mission and purpose
• The involvement of committed individuals and organizations that share this mission
• Realistic objectives and tasks
• Agreed participatory management, or decision-making structure.

Steering Group

A steering group may be useful from an early stage. This could be a joint steering group - including your organization and other leading organizations carrying out work in the region/on the issue. Consider the relevant skills and experiences of individuals when selected steering group members.

Mission and Purpose

The first meeting should work towards achieving a common sense of mission and purpose. The mission and purpose of the collaboration must be clearly stated, so that organizations that join will fully comprehend the nature of their commitment. Collaboration members should openly acknowledge any differing self-interest, so as to recognize differences but promote trust and respect among the members.

A name will also have to be agreed upon, and a common advocacy goal which each member agrees to collaborate and focus upon.

The strategy should allow each group to contribute its unique approach, with different groups taking different angles and approaches. But it is important that groups work together on agreed priorities, rather than all functioning independently. Also, core messages – including the advocacy ‘ask’ – must remain consistent. It is vital that groups do not work against each other.

Member Skills and Resources Inventory

The steering group should ensure that the relevant strengths of each partner in the collaboration are used. This can be achieved by a skills and resources inventory, asking each potential member to assess their skills and resources, and to determine what they would be willing to contribute to the collaboration

Members will have different skills and approaches, and be able to achieve things in different ways. They will also have various resources (money, premises, vehicles, meeting facilities, equipment etc.). Different groups will also have different contacts. The comparative advantages of each group can be assessed, so these can be exploited, and duplication avoided.

The strategy should also allow each group to express and contribute its unique approach, with different groups taking different angles, perspectives and approaches (e.g. a NGO that works closely with government, such as a service delivery provider, can be responsible for documenting and highlighting ‘best practice’ examples; whereas a combative advocacy group can document and highlight failures – in a hard-hitting campaign). But it is important that groups work together on agreed priorities, rather than all functioning independently.

This process should lead to the identification of skill and resource gaps, and thus the need to mobilize funds and/or carry out capacity-building.

Establishing Roles and Responsibilities

Collaboration tasks and responsibilities should be clearly defined and assignments equitably distributed on the basis of the members’ areas of expertise and resources. At the heart of every successful collaboration, there should be a small group of leaders who are deeply committed to both the issue, and to ensuring that the overall goals of the collaboration take precedence over the narrow interest of individual member organizations. Regular meetings should allow opportunities for members to report on their progress.

Decision-Making and Communication Channels

The collaboration’s structure and decision-making processes should also be agreed upon, since issues such as the level of contributions, involvement in decision-making, and leadership can sometimes cause dissent. More democratic methods, such as rotating leadership, can help although they may slow down decision-making and management.

Regular communication should be established. Make sure that all collaboration members are updated regularly on what other members are doing, what needs to be done, and what progress has been made.

If the collaboration is well organized in its early stages, unnecessary problems can be avoided. Everyone involved must understand and sign up to the collaboration’s mission, structure, operating procedures, and tasks – as a bare minimum. A collaboration’s power lies in its ability to present a united front.

Think carefully before making the commitment of starting or taking part in an animal protection collaboration. World Animal Net’s course on Strategic Advocacy for Animal Welfare includes some valuable advice on the advantages and disadvantages of working in collaborations.

Effective advocacy is best done in conjunction with other organizations supporting the same aim, and having the same broad values and ethics.

Key Success Factors for Collaborations

• Common sense of ‘mission and purpose’ (in the words of John Hoyt, former HSUS and WSPA President).
• Involvement of mission-driven and committed individuals.
• Active and experienced steering group.
• Participatory decision-making and democratic methods (with sensitivity to power differentials).
• United front: Everyone involved must understand and sign up to the coalition’s mission, structure, operating procedures, and tasks – as a bare minimum.
• Clear and achievable strategy, with clear action-orientated goals and objectives, and shared roles and responsibilities.
• Work together on agreed priorities.
• Skills and resources inventory: understanding each organizations’ comparative advantages - know and use available expertise, skills, contacts and resources.
• Clear membership and selection criteria.
• Permitting different groups to take different angles, perspectives and approaches (e.g. a NGO that works closely with government, such as a service delivery provider, can be responsible for documenting and highlighting ‘best practice’ examples; whereas a combative campaigning group can document and highlight failures – in a hard-hitting campaign).
• Clear conflict resolution procedures (open acknowledgement and resolution of differences).
• Foster trust, openness and honesty among members.
• Cooperation, not competition.
• Capacity build around actions – developing expertise.
• Motivate and empower members.
• Effective communication and information sharing.
• Common/shared research and investigations.
• Platform to take a ‘helicopter view’ of shared concerns, against the policy environment – ensuring effective strategy and clear priorities.
• Share credit, and celebrate successes.

Biggest Problems

• Power play and domination
• Ego (including problems over credit/branding)
• Funding
• Difficulty of agreeing on clear objectives and priorities
• Workload sharing (passive members)
• Time-benefits - time consumed on debate, not action
• Inclusion of potential opponents/'targets'
• Difficulty of managing a set of relationships - with inherent conflicts
• Lack of effective outward communication
• Lack of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

There are some key principles and recommendations that were developed specifically to cover advocacy collaborations, but also apply to many other animal protection collaborations. These are summarized briefly below:

• Participatory approaches: Develop ‘ownership’ and ‘buy-in’ through participatory planning from an early stage. This would usefully include a joint steering group and joint strategic planning.

• Action-orientation: Work together on agreed priorities. To maximize outcomes, design the collaboration’s work around actions, rather than unfocused discussions. Ensure that clear action-orientated goals and objectives and developed, and shared roles and responsibilities.

• Skills and resources inventory.

• Know and play to strengths: Understanding each organizations’ comparative advantages - expertise, skills, contacts and resources – and using these to fulfill the collaboration’s goals.

• Integration: Advocacy should not be seen as something separate to your organization’s program work. Advocacy should be integrated into all program work, including ‘service delivery’ work carried out for government. Every practical animal welfare problem should be analyzed in order to discover root problems and find sustainable policy solutions – with advocacy work introduced to achieve these. Advocacy should be introduced throughout your organization’s planning and budgeting processes.

• Share visibility: The principle of conducting advocacy with partners implies that the visibility that accrues through the work will be shared. Any reports produced as part of the work should include the logo and contact details of each of the main author organizations. Similarly for any public events (conferences, marches, campaign actions, press releases etc.), consideration should be given to how each organization could be profiled and/or credited. Partnership guidelines should be prepared on the use of photos and video footage for publication and communication.

• Focus on capacity development: Build and use ‘best practice’, and make ‘continuous improvement’ part of the collaboration’s ethos. Each piece of advocacy should leave partners in a stronger position. Expertise in areas such as: advocacy, media, communications, policy, and organizational development should be utilized and shared throughout. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) should be central to this process. Where advocacy campaigns cover a number of countries or regions, local knowledge and risk analysis should be valued and shared.

There are various models of formal collaboration. There is also some confusion about names for these various forms of collaboration (especially from country to country)!

We find it useful to distinguish four main models of joint working which are commonly used by animal protection organizations:

• Networks: primarily for information sharing.
• Alliances: longer-term strategic partnerships.
• Coalitions: usually formed for a single issue or campaign.
• Federations: a form of ongoing collaboration where organizations join together into a union or association, with each maintaining control of their own affairs.

The section on Existing Collaborations lists some of the major formal collaborations within the movement. There has been an attempt to categorize these, but this has proved difficult - as there is clearly significant confusion about the definitions, as reflected in many of their titles and descriptions!

What Sort of Joint Work?

Collaborations can come in different shapes and sizes including:

• Formal: Members formally join the collaboration, may pay dues, and are identified as collaboration members on letterhead, collaboration statements etc.
• Informal: There is no official membership, so members are constantly changing. With membership turnover, the issues and tactics of the collaboration may also shift.
• Geographic: The collaboration is based on a geographical area. It can be local, national, regional, continental or international.
• Multi or Single Issue.
• Permanent or Temporary.

Members contribute resources, expertise, and connections to an advocacy effort, and bring greater political and popular support. Different types of collaborations will attract different organizations.

These collaborations can cover all of the main approaches to animal protection work:

• Advocacy
• Education (including educational programs for schools, further education and animal industries training)
• Practical Programs

They can cover any (or all) of the main categories of animal protection issues:

• Companion animals (pets) - including stray control
• Animals kept for farming purposes - including fish farming
• Animals used for experimentation – including science, research and testing
• Wildlife and zoo animals
• Working animals
• Animals used for sports, leisure and entertainment

As regards the different approaches, the most common use of collaboration in the animal protection movement is for joint advocacy. As can be seen from the information on Existing Collaborations, some issues are better covered than others.

Education is less well covered by collaboration, but it has been included in some; such as the Pan African Animal Welfare Alliance (PAAWA), ACT Asia and the SPCA movement. The US National Link Coalition focuses on ‘The Link’ (between human and animal abuse), and is an effective means of promoting humane education (as well as cross-agency collaborative programs).

Practical programs are covered for some issues (e.g. companion animal management, sanctuary management), but largely absent in other areas of animal protection.

The main issues not yet well covered by collaborations appear to be: farming/fish farming (with aquaculture being a massive growth area in ‘developing’ countries), wildlife (welfare aspects not covered by SSN), working animals (albeit that the Brooke has well-developed expertise in this area) and animals used for sports, leisure and entertainment (especially circuses, which are now the subject of many advocacy campaigns across the world).

The use of national and regional/continental collaborations is invaluable – and becoming increasingly popular. They not only help strengthen the movement across a country or region, but also enable focus on identified priority issues, prevent duplication, dissipate damaging competition, and provide a national/regional focus for advocacy and international and funding support. Collaborations at regional level are becoming increasingly important in order to advocate for animal issues at regional economic community (REC) level, and for the development and implementation of the regional animal welfare strategies promoted by the World Organization of Animal Health (OIE). At country level, they are vital for supporting the development and effective implementation of modern laws and enforcement, humane education, and practical programs in priority areas – especially pilot projects followed by advocacy for their ‘roll-out’).

We promote and facilitate the formation of collaborations, offering guidance and support where needed. Working together with others can help to strengthen the animal protection movement and bring about sustainable change for the animal cause. Effective collaboration can generate strong and powerful advocacy, greater professionalism, and empower those involved - building their capacity, reputation and fundraising potential.

This section contains information on different models of joint working; including networks, coalitions, alliances and federations. It considers the advantages and disadvantages of joining such collaborations, and provides advice on forming and managing new ones. It also includes information on existing collaborations, and some useful resources.

Type of Collaboration
Key Principles of Partnership Advocacy
Key Success Factors and Problems
Forming and Managing Collaborations
Existing Collaborations
Useful Resources

Category:

Optional

Description and Purpose:

This is a reference tool that builds understanding of the M&E requirements of grantors.

Method:

Read the following tips for evaluating advocacy, and incorporate lessons learned into your M&E system.

Discuss Evaluation Expectations Early
Grantors and grantees can arrive at a common understanding early on of reasonable advocacy expectations and of ways to demonstrate the grantee's contribution.

Develop Long-Term as well as Incremental Goals
Policy goals may take years or even decades to achieve. For instance, a grantee may have a long-term goal of including humane education within the schools curriculum nationally within ten years, and an incremental goal of including human education in all primary schools of one state/province within one year.

Use Benchmarks to Measure Outcomes, Progress, Capacity Building
A sample outcome benchmark may be obtaining a $1 million government funding for humane education programs; a progress benchmark could be support gained from a key policy-maker; a capacity building benchmark may be educating 100 supporters about the issue and mobilizing them to contact officials.

Use Benchmarks of Success that Target Relevant Audiences
Target audiences may include public officials, the public/constituents, other organizations, and the grantee’s own organization.

Tell the Story
Tell the story behind the benchmarks. Explain the process, and why something did or didn’t work.

Make Use of Available Evaluation Resources and Plan Ahead
Organizations' self-evaluations can be very informative. When planning to use outside evaluators, grantees should include them in early budgets.

Make the Evaluation Fit the Nature of the Advocacy Work Conducted
As an example, obtaining face-to-face meetings with key officials to discuss a policy issue might sound routine. In fact, the meetings might be hard-won, critical steps in an effort to influence policy-makers, and should be documented and evaluated accordingly.

Adapted from: Investing in Change - A Funder’s Guide to Supporting Advocacy A publication of Alliance for Justice

Category:

Optional

Description and Purpose:

This tool is an example of an advocacy evaluation case study.

Method:

Analyze and write up an advocacy case study, using the following questions as a guide to structure.

The case study should take three to five minutes to explain.

1. What was the problem?
2. Who decided to advocate on the problem (i.e. brief details of the NGOs/AW organizations involved)?
3. What was the advocacy objective?
4. Who did you advocate to?
5. What methods did you use?
6. What difficulties did you face?
7. How did you overcome any difficulties?
8. What were the results of your advocacy?
9. What factors (or activities) contributed to these results?
10. 1If appropriate: where did you obtain the evidence or information that was used?
11. 1What sources of assistance/support did you find most helpful?
12. What did you learn from doing this advocacy?
13. Why do you think this is an important example?
14. What do you think your organization could learn from this example?

Use photos, drawings or other ‘visuals’ to provide a human/animal angle to your information. Are the people and organizations featured in your case study aware of how it might be used, and what the consequences might be?

Consider including the following:

• Content & Process
• Description of change – initial situation; what has changed; how it happened
• Explanation for choice – who was involved; why this change is meaningful/relevant
• Lessons/recommendations – what this change tells us
• Selected by participants as part of review process
• Reasons for choice and lessons/recommendations for follow-up discussed as part of selection process

Category:

Recommended

Description and Purpose:

This tool can be used as a guide to the evaluation of your advocacy outcomes and achievements (for example, when setting indicators).

Method:

The following types of change can be used as a guide when developing an advocacy evaluation system. They show a whole range of areas where positive outcomes and achievements can be brought about (including: your own organization, partners, coalitions, policy-makers, animal status and welfare, and the general public).

The suggested changes:

• Recognize the importance of partnerships/coalitions, relationships and capacity building
• Recognize the various stages towards effective policy reform
• Value civil society change
• Include attitudinal change
• Include subjective success criteria (which are recognized as necessary)

Your Own Organization

• Changes in policy
• Changes in working practices
• Changes in capacity and skills
• Changes in knowledge, awareness, and opinions (both on issue and policy context)
• Changes in working relationships (with partners or coalitions)
• Changes in policy influence (e.g. level of access to officials, consultation, part in decision-making etc.)
• Changes in profile or reputation

Partners

• Changes in policy
• Changes in working practices (e.g. numbers working on advocacy for the first time, having advocacy strategies, advocacy research programs, advocacy M&E etc.)
• Changes in capacity & skills
• Changes in knowledge, awareness, & opinions (both on issue & policy context)
• Change in importance ranking of the issue
• Changes in working relationships (e.g. with coalitions)
• Changes in policy influence (e.g. level of access to officials, consultation, part in decision-making etc.)
• Changes in profile or reputation

Coalitions

• Changes in policy
• Changes in working practices (e.g. number of members working on advocacy for the first time, improvements to strategic planning, implementation, M&E, research, investigations or policy monitoring, management practices etc.)
• Number of CSOs working on the issue
• Level of activity
• Changes in capacity & skills
• Changes in knowledge, awareness, & opinions (both on issue & policy context)
• Change in importance ranking of the issue
• Changes in working relationships (participation, trust, involvement etc.)
• Changes in structure and control (decentralization & democracy, facilitative leadership, diversity, dynamism etc.)
• Increased synergy & coherence (of beliefs, strategy, activities etc.)
• Changes in policy influence (e.g. (e.g. the issue taken on board by other interest groups, trades’ unions, professional bodies; level of access to officials and consultations; or the coalition brought into more decision-making bodies etc.)
• Changes in profile or reputation

Policy/Policy Makers

• Changes in policy
• Change in legislation
• Successful legal action
• Changes in working practices – including implementation & enforcement
• Change in budgets (allocated to issue, spent on issue, & value for money)
• Increased accountability on issue
• Increased forums for issue (committees etc.)
• Change in written publications or statements
• Changes in capacity – including size of unit(s), or number of individuals working on issue
• Raised profile or coverage of issue
• Changes in knowledge, awareness, & opinions
• Change in importance ranking of the issue
• Changes in working relationships (with civil society, coalition &/or advocates)
• Increased opportunities for participation of civil society (openness, transparency, consultation, joint working groups etc.)
• International agencies with interests in the issue identified, and their procedures for applying support mapped

Animal Status and Welfare

• Changes in knowledge, awareness, and opinions
• Change in importance ranking of the issue
• Improvements in access to rights
• Improved service delivery
• Development of groups or forums for co-operation & mobilization
• Development of animal welfare leadership
• Changes in advocacy capacity & skills
• Changes in advocacy practices & activity
• Number attending meetings on the issue
• Changes in policy influence (e.g. level of access to officials, consultation, part in decision-making etc.)
• Changes in profile or reputation

Other
It is also possible to evaluate other broader changes in public awareness e.g. through opinion polls, focus groups etc.

And to measure media coverage (against media type, number of programs/articles, length of coverage etc.) and public activism (e.g. by number signing petitions, writing representations, attending demonstrations etc.).

NB. Do not forget to measure ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ indicators of change. For example, to capture the soft indicators, you could keep a diary or spreadsheet that records every time the issue is raised in meetings, or raised directly with you. Record if the language used changes. Try to measure if you are being increasingly seen as a key player on the issue e.g. do people defer to your view in meetings, are you getting more requests for information, are you being contacted more for your opinion etc.

Category:

Recommended

Description and Purpose:

Tips on negotiation techniques.

Method:

Consider the following tips on negotiation techniques, and try to incorporate any that are suitable for your situation.

Negotiation Techniques

Negotiation is a process, not an event. There are predictable steps: preparation, creating the right climate, identifying interests, and selecting outcomes, that you will go through in any negotiation. The following are some tips to help with this process.

Know Yourself
Assess your strengths and weaknesses. Use your strengths and avoid or play down your weaknesses.

Do Your Research
Know who you’re negotiating with. What’s his or her reputation as a negotiator? Know their likes and dislikes, and past record.

Style
Develop a sympathetic style of negotiation technique, and adapt this to suit the other party. The negotiation should leave a positive atmosphere, and not be antagonistic. Use body language and props effectively, and make good use of timing.

Practice Double and Triple Think
It’s not enough to know what you want out of negotiation. You also need to anticipate what the other party wants (double think). The smart negotiator also tries to anticipate what the other party thinks you want (triple think).

Really good negotiators are able to read the other person/people. They can take the role of an Objective Observer, retaining a calm, inner state of mind.

Build Rapport
Build a relationship over time. Be like them, and make them like you!

Build Trust
Without trust, there won’t be communication. Always be honest and trustworthy. Respect confidences, and deliver commitments.

Develop External Listening
Your inner dialogue (and worries) can stop you listening to others effectively. You should turn off this inner dialogue and concentrate on listening externally. Then you won’t miss important non-verbal messages, facial expressions of voice inflections etc. Also, use open questions, and check out anything you don’t understand.

Move Beyond Positions
In a negotiation, begin by stating your position. Later, when the trust has deepened, you and the other party can risk more honesty and identify your true interests. As a negotiator, you should ask questions that will uncover the needs or interests of the other party.

Own Your Power
Don’t assume that because the other party has one type of power, e.g. position power, that he or she is all-powerful. That is giving away your power! Assess the other party’s power source, and also your own. And use this! Your power will include internal power (for example, self-esteem, self-confidence etc.), as well as external power.

Know Your BATNA
BATNA stands for Best Alternative to A Negotiated Agreement. Before you begin a negotiation, know what your options are. What trade-offs are there? Can you walk away from the deal? What other choices do you have? What are the pros and cons of each choice? Effective negotiators are able to let go of their positions, giving up one want and choosing another.

Five Basic Principles

• Be hard on the problem and soft on the person
• Focus on needs, not positions
• Emphasize common ground
• Be inventive about options
• Make clear agreements

The following may also be helpful: