In 2016, The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs started a new and highly innovative policy programme entitled 'Dialogue and Dissent. Strategic Partnerships for Lobby and Advocacy'. In this programme, the Ministry, NGOs and their partners in low- and lower-middle income countries work together. As partners in lobby and advocacy. And in the development of lobby and advocacy capacity of civil society organisations in low- and lower-middle income countries. This is no easy feat. Presently, the programme is in the middle of developing the partnerships further. Together with Lau Schulpen, Thea Hilhorst and Kees Biekart I developed a research report that charts the expectations of partnerships among those involved, points out challenges and possible ways forward to make the programme into a success. For this research, our team conducted interviews with staff of NGO alliances, Ministry staff (including Royal Netherlands Embassy staff). We also conducted a survey of several hundred partner organisations in low- and lower-middle income countries. Find the report here: http://repub.eur.nl/pub/95390

1. MAPPINGTHE EXPECTATIONS OFTHE
DUTCH STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS FOR
LOBBY AND ADVOCACY
Margit vanWessel,Wageningen University & Research
Lau Schulpen, Radboud University Nijmegen
Dorothea Hilhorst,WageningenUniversity & Research
Kees Biekart, Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University
Commissioned by: Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs

2. Research question:
What expectations do Ministry, NGOs and their partners have
with regard to partnership within the programme ‘Dialogue and
dissent. Strategic partnerships for lobby and advocacy’?
sub-questions:
1. Collaboration and added value
2. Opportunities
3. Risks and other challenges
4. Learning agenda

3. Methods
• Document analysis
• Analysis of background data
• 33 semi-structured (group) interviews (NGOs, ministry department staff,
embassy staff)
• Online survey of partners in low and lower-middle income countries

4. Findings: collaboration
• The basic idea of Partnership is accepted: openness to exploring
possibilities, including the reshaping of relationships and roles.
• Collaboration is expected to happen in a range of areas:
• information exchange
• brokering and facilitation
• mutual influencing
• joint lobby & advocacy

5. Findings: Expectations are differentiated
• NGO Alliances generally aim for more intensive collaboration than the
Ministry
• Department staff tends to approach partnership partly from a supportive
and/or managerial stance, while NGOs often would like more strategic
involvement from the Ministry
• Diverging expectations on the role of embassies

6. Findings: added value
• NGO Alliances generally perceive more strategic value in the partnerships
than the Ministry, rooted in the perceived leverage of the ministry:
• capacity to open doors
• convening power
• (influential) ally and accessible target
• capacity to help protect activists
• Ministry staff see more practical added value in the partnerships:
• strengthening the capacity of civil society
• adjustment of NGO programmes to match their activities
• Access to local information and networks

7. Findings: collaboration and added value (3)
• While the programme title ‘Dialogue and Dissent’ suggests a central place
for differences in viewpoints and interests, expectations for collaboration
and added value are predominantly rooted in perceived alignment of
agendas and approaches.
• Expectations of partnership are influenced by existing role conceptions and
practices of collaboration. Considering partnership from a more
conventional perspective, some interviewees wonder ‘what is really new
here’?

8. Findings: opportunities
• To make use of synergies more strategically
• To make potential frictions more productive
• To combine capacities of all actors involved, contributing to empowerment
of local partners
• To provide space to reconsider evaluations more from a partnership
perspective
NGOs are more outspoken on these opportunities; this also may be read as
an invitation to their governmental partners to think more strategically and
to make the most of the potential of new collaborations

9. Findings: challenges (1)
• Risks: Loss of autonomy; continuity; handling of sensitive information
→ how to safeguard autonomy and how to mitigate or prevent the negative
consequences of a partnership?
• Unknowns: How to be partners? roles and responsibilities? What is
‘strategic’? What is the space for dissent?
→ how to develop shared understandings of partnership in the light of
differences in the levels of ambition, stakes and capacities?
• Limiting factor: Capacity
→ How to deal with gaps between ambitions and the capacity to realize
these?

10. Findings: challenges (2)
• Point of attention: How effectively will partnerships come about?
→ How to realize effective management, communication and trust-building
• Point of attention: Tensions between partner and funder roles; friction
between programmes and other policy objectives
→ How to manage these tensions and friction?
• Point of attention: Accountability demands in light of open-endedness of
programmes and expected nature of results
→ How to advance effectiveness? How to demonstrate effectiveness?

11. Findings: survey partners in low- and
lower-middle income countries
 16 alliances, 538 partners -> 267 respondents (49.6%)
 15 questions, 3 parts:
1. Focus on lobby & advocacy
2. Focus on capacity building of partners
3. Focus on partnership between Alliance members, partners, Dutch government

12. Background, L&A focus and capacity
building
 Relative young with high involvement (in preparing proposals)
 Many new partners
 Focus on L&A regarded as ‘positive’ (L&A is important part of their work)
 Capacity building is priority for 9 out of 10 (although they already regard
themselves as having a good capacity)

13. Focus on partnership
 Most know about partnership-part (83%)
 Involvement of Dutch government can help in all different ways – although some
ways are (slightly) more important than others

14. How important do you regard the following ways in which the
involvement of the Netherlands government or the Embassy
could help your organisation to achieve its objectives for lobby
and advocacy? (N=263) (in %)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Organise meetings with other NGOs working in my country
Bring us in contact with other actors (i.e., opening doors)
Speak up about human rights abuses
Forward our causes at international events
Forward our causes with our government
help protect our staff in case of (political) attack
add legitimacy and credibility to our work
Not important Somewhat important Very important Not relevant

15. Focus on partnership
 Most know about partnership-part (83%)
 Involvement of Dutch government can help in all different ways – although some
ways are (slightly) more important than others
 Partners share a (very) positive opinion about involvement of/with Dutch
government

16. Please indicate your opinion about the involvement of the
Netherlands government and/or its Embassies in this
programme (N=262) (in %)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The involvement sounds nice on paper but will not materialise in practice
The involvement creates the danger of a loss of autonomy for NGOs in the
alliances and local partners
The involvement will pose political risks for my own organisation
The involvement will strengthen our capacity for lobby and advocacy
The Netherlands government is willing to advance our causes in lobby and
advocacy
With involvement of the Netherlands government, our own government will be
more open to our messages
(Totally) agree Neutral (Totally) disagree Don't know

17. Finally
 Consensus
 Positive

18. Findings:Themes for a learning agenda
• Effectiveness and its demonstration
• Programme ambitions
• Partnership
• Handling friction
• Lobby & advocacy
• Capacity development
• Autonomy

19. Silence regarding potential learning
issues
• Integration of capacity development and advocacy
• The role of partnership in capacity development
• The role of local partners
• How to secure focus on capacity development

20. Key themes for further development and
monitoring of the programme
• How to be partners?
• Handling friction
• Capacity
• Evaluation

21. For discussion
• First response, e.g.: Confirmation of own experiences? New insights?
• What do you take away from this, considering the partnership you’re
involved in?
• Propositions for a common agenda flowing from this?
• Propositions for next steps?