The second issue that APF asks you to consider is the question of leverage: this is a combination of what you can bring to the target policy debate together with what opportunities you can capitalize on in the process to address the challenges and start the process moving. This assessment asks you to look at your research and its insights in a purposeful manner, figuring out how you will use the findings to catalyze the policy change you are seeking. In tandem, you are also seeking to identify suitable opportunities or policy windows in the policymaking process that you can capitalize on with your research findings. Your leverage as a policy advocate often is a combination of the following:
- surprising or new research evidence or analysis
- a new solution to an old problem
- an open policy window or opportunity you can use to push forward a new idea
- support from influential or powerful individuals or groups
Leverage is the combination of what you can bring and use to start moving the process.
In the next case study, leverage underpinned many decisions on the approach to advocacy undertaken.
Case 4: Mongolia
Preventing the signing of an ill-considered mining contract between Mongolian government and international mining consortium (2006–2007)
National and international NGO Coalition
(Open Society Forum, Mongolia and Revenue Watch Institute)
Mapping the obstacles/challenges:
The issue of the potential revenues from mining projects had been a major public issue in Mongolia for a decade or more. Previous contracts or deals by the government with mining companies had been conducted in a very nontransparent manner and there were many claims of bribery and corruption. In 2006, a new law on mining was passed which sought to open up this process and protect the public interest in such dealings. The Oyu Tolgoi mine was a copper and gold deposit on a completely different scale to any previously discovered in Mongolia and had the potential to double government revenue if managed correctly. This contract and its potential outcome was the focal point of discussion among all sectors in Mongolia.
In spite of the new law on mining, the first stage of the negotiation process with the mining consortium was completed with ministerial working group behind closed doors. The Open Society Forum asked to see a copy of the draft agreement and also to be invited into the discussion but was never given access. The only access they had was delivering training on such negotiations to those in the government involved in the negotiation process. One of the other big challenges in this process was a time-related issue: the working group brought the agreement to Parliament on the day before a weeklong national holiday, trying to slip it through the legislature unnoticed. Luckily this did not happen, and Open Society Forum had a three to four-week period to complete an analysis and publish an opinion on the draft agreement.
Assessing the leverage:
In this case, the Open Society Forum’s leverage was a combination of the following:
- Reacting with an analysis of the mining agreement in a very short four-week window: two recognized experts (an economist and a lawyer) showed that most of the risk was being carried by the state and that many important issues were unclear.
- Publishing this expert analysis in an opinion piece that was easy to access by all: “7 Questions on the Oyu Tolgoi Mining Agreement”1 pointed out what issues had not been dealt with. Managing to arrange publication for this article was a major contribution.
- Having an established reputation as an independent player in Mongolia and volunteering their experts as advisors to the government.
- Accessing the expertise of the Open Society Foundations’ worldwide network and Revenue Watch on extractive industries.
- Accessing the draft of the mining contract going to Parliament thanks to Open Society Forum’s strong ties with many people there.
- Acting as a bridge to broader civil society: once they held a meeting with their network to announce the findings of the analysis, CSOs mobilized, and these findings were an important ingredient that led to street demonstrations protesting the agreement.
Setting a feasible advocacy objective:
From the beginning of the process, Open Society Forum was worried about the quality of the deal and the risk of repeating past mistakes on such a hugely important development opportunity. Once they saw the draft agreement, their advocacy objective was to prevent the passing of this version and then to have further and broader consultations to com up with a fairer and more developed deal. By drawing on their network in Parliament, they succeeded in achieving this.
-
Open Society Forum 2007b. ↩︎