The Access to Justice Initiative

Evaluation Report

Civil Society’s Participation in Advocacy Process across Key Legislation and/or

by Laws

Submitted by

Ohnmar Khaing, Lead Evaluator With technical assistance from:

Hlaing Myat, Lin Zaw Min and Pyi Nyein Kyaw

17 July 2016

Acknowledgements The evaluators wish to express their appreciation to the Promoting the Rule of Law Project (PRLP), its Chief of Party, members of staff, for their assistance and support in arranging meetings for the evaluation study. Thanks are also due to Access to Justice Initiative (A2JI) working group members for the time they dedicated to providing inputs to the evaluation. The evaluators also wish to express their appreciation to individuals and representatives from civil society organizations for making themselves available for meetings with the evaluators. All errors and omissions remain the responsibility of the authors.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this report are those of the evaluators. They do not represent to the Promoting the Rule of Law Project (PRLP) or any of the institutions referred to in the report.

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 4

Efficiency ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

Sustainability .............................................................................................................................................. 5

Impact 6

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 6

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Purpose of the evaluation ......................................................................................................... 8

1.3 Course of the evaluation ............................................................................................................ 8

2. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Methods used ................................................................................................................................. 8

2.2 Evaluation matrix ......................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Limitation of the evaluation .................................................................................................... 9

3. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 10

3.1 Anti-Corruption Law ................................................................................................................. 15

3.2 Arbitration Law ........................................................................................................................... 15

3.3 Association Registration Law ................................................................................................ 15

3.4 Disability Law .............................................................................................................................. 16

3.5 Farmland Law .............................................................................................................................. 16

3.6 Four laws ....................................................................................................................................... 17

3.7 Labor Law ..................................................................................................................................... 18

3.8 Legal Aid Law ............................................................................................................................... 19

3.9 Minimum Wages Law ............................................................................................................... 19

3.10 National Education Law ........................................................................................................... 19

3.10 News Media Law ........................................................................................................................ 20

3.11 Peaceful Assembly and Procession Law ........................................................................... 20

3.12 Prison Law .................................................................................................................................... 21

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 22

6. WAYS FORWARD ................................................................................................................................. 23

7. LIST OF ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................... 23

Annex 1. Evaluation Questions .......................................................................................................... 23

Annex 2. Documents Reviewed ......................................................................................................... 25

Annex 3. Persons Interviewed ........................................................................................................... 26

Annex 4. Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 28

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The study considers the participation and advocacy efforts of civil society to influence and to change policy and practice in eleven clusters of main areas: anti- corruption; association rights; disable rights; education reform; freedom of assembly; labour rights and union; land reform and land rights; legal aid; media rights; patriotic laws; and prisoners’ rights. The research methodology comprised a literature review, individual direct interviews (IDI) with CSO representatives and a validation workshop to present the initial findings to the Access to Justice Initiative (A2JI) working group members and relevant stakeholders. The Access to Justice Initiative is a civil society-led initiative designed to support the adoption of structural and policy changes that will strengthen access to justice in Myanmar. The A2JI’s Advocacy Cluster is responsible for identifying issues relevant advocacy strategies to be pursued by A2JI collectively or by individual CSO members. Its smain objectives were to: 1) inform CSOs to effectively influence policy making and policy shaping particularly on access to justice; 2) promote debate within civil society on CSO involvement in the public policy and law drafting advocacy processes; and 3) increase awareness of Myanmar government and public on the enabling environment for participatory legislation process. This evaluation studied an individual/collective advocacy effort on thirteen laws with the goal of making a practical contribution to knowledge in order to change the policy of government to access justice. The study special focus is to put on the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts done by CSOs as well as challenges and the ways forward. Findings were analyzed through conducting individual direct interviews with individuals and series of working group’s discussion/meetings with A2JI members.

Relevance

Many of its laws and policies in Myanmar were adopted rapidly in the lead up to and immediate aftermath of previous Government and with no or little proper public consultation. The activities and objectives of advocacy efforts of CSOs were highly relevant to the current situation where new laws and by -laws were developing and which had an increased demand from civil society and others for more inclusive and transparent government policy-making processes. The CSOs targeted the government for a more engaged, more inclusive and constructive role in policy development as well as civil society needs for transparent process, more information sharing and consultation from the beginning of the law making processes. The evaluation identified challenges, threats, risks, lessons learned and ways forward although lack of qualitative and quantitative facts of the study. Overall the situation is analyzed well and relevant issues identified.

Efficiency The advocacy process appeared to have been well managed in some laws/by-laws and there was an efficient use of the inputs and resources with the main activities focusing directly on achieving the CSOs objectives. CSOs were managed to develop key messages and delivered

5

to relevant legislators, key decision makers and stakeholders. Except given very limited time by the Government relevant committees, the approach of addressing demand and supply was efficient as well as effective as it built government support for and use of CSO participation/consultation at the same time as working to ensure that the CSOs would be able to respond constructively to those openings. However, CSOs faced with difficulties and delays to follow –up the activities and it lead insufficient monitoring of the process and progress.

Effectiveness Myanmar CSOs approach of strengthening the participation (information sharing and public consultation) with Government and Parliamentary Members was effective. There was an impressive range of participation from civil society and its alliances, and they worked on a wide range of issues and regulations/legislation. The advocacy continued many of the elements of an earlier by own funding as well as donor funded projects implemented by a group of CSOs. The CSO representatives met regularly and were a useful forum to share information, coordinate efforts, and at times to meet directly and indirectly with government officials and legislators to discuss and debate issues. The research, assessment, training, seminars, campaigns, media engagement and consultations done by both national and local CSOs seemed to strengthen their awareness on the need to engage more constructively to government.

Sustainability Many of the efforts made by the CSOs are likely to be sustainable. CSOs have acquired more knowledge about advocacy while they have shared knowledge in their communities and networks. CSOs have built a mechanism for interacting and impacting to government and legislators. The focus on strategies and mechanisms instead of cases meant it changed the structures for proper public consultation. Some changes of laws no matter what the level of success or failure will help ensure continuity of the consultative processes when we now have a new democratic Government. Many respondents hoped that these law reforms will provide the framework for a wider scope of cooperation with citizens and others. CSOs are already reflecting the lessons learned to improve their advocacy approaches to address the content of legislation and policies. There is still a good will to implement this type of consultative process, and over time this should trickle down to others. Most Respondents have already prepared for drafting/amending particular laws which provide better tactics for their continued advocacy activity. This preparation will be ready for when the bill is brought forward for formal/informal discussion. Changed attitudes and law making process and practices are likely to be sustainable as long as these consultative processes remain constructive with the Government. Although the laws are approved, they still need to be amended and implemented.

6

Impact It is at this stage difficult to measure the advocacy efforts since the monitoring is not fully in place so measuring of results and impact is difficult. But in light of the results seen and the expressions and comments received from all respondents interviewed the advocacy work done by CSOs seems to be on track in general. A number of results have been delivered, the alliances and network is growing, more links to partners and stakeholders have been built and CSOs continuously gain experience in advocating and building capacity themselves. More capacity development activities, interventions, negotiations are needed towards successful advocacy. It is likely that CSOs have made a significant contribution towards strengthening the role of civil society in public consultations with government although commonalities and differences among CSOs were identified. It increased the awareness of public and some government officials on the rationale for public consultation and how CSO input could improve public policies. During the advocacy process, it also increased the capacity for some CSOs to participate more effectively. It also helped to improve the enabling environment for civil society to play its role in public policy and law making processes through its focus on improving the procedures. This will increase CSO access and ability to make a more substantive contribution.

Conclusions

• The study/observations are worth noting which suggest that in Myanmar today, law making processes are no longer dominated and controlled by state actors.

• Myanmar CSO’s advocacy on policy is independent of government. CSO influence is not limited to national borders, but extends beyond regional entity.

• Concerns about the legitimacy of CSOs, particularly with regard to whose interests they represent and to whom and for what they are accountable as evidence in the process of certain advocacy actions.

• The different advocacy approaches have yielded credible results from which a number of lessons can be drawn.

• Capacity building is needed for Myanmar CSOs to ensure that they become an important social force capable of complicated legislature to pass the bill into law.

• Simplifying and translating approved laws into local languages as well as including a simple guide on how to use the laws (particularly at the state and local levels) will improve the level of implementation, effectiveness of the laws and future advocacy plans.

• CSO focus and initiatives were relevant and important given the new political era and democratic context in Myanmar.

• CSO’s participation at law making process was done at the right time when the new government is in the process of updating and consolidating its national framework for democratic governance. CSO may seize this opportunity and the partnership it developed with the Government officials who were driving this different process and with the group of CSOs gave the reform effort structure and momentum through its regular meetings, thematic workshops, training, dialogue, information sharing and media engagement.

7

• The advocacy mechanism from some CSOs was extremely useful and provided CSOs and government with a resource to get and share information, discuss issues and obtain consolidated feedback on new policies/legislation.

• However advocacy is not ending process and the work just begun and continued engagement is needed to ensure that civil society takes advantage of the new rules, and that they are consistently implemented by government at the national and regional levels.

1. INTRODUCTION In recent years, successful advocacy efforts to improve the legal environment for civil society are often overlooked. Whether measured in terms of the enactment of more enabling legislation or in terms of the improvement of regressive draft laws prior to enactment, “success” or “failure” in legal reform can and does occur. The key elements or learning points of successful reform initiatives have not, however, been closely examined in this review. This paper seeks to fill this gap by focusing on the elements of successful reform initiatives and lessons learned of CSO’s advocacy works. To help further illustrate and support the learning points, the paper also includes examples from advocacy initiatives to respond to regulatory threats in future. This evaluation of “Civil Society’s Participation in Advocacy Process across Key Legislation and/or by Laws” was carried out in February and May 2016 by an evaluation team with a consultation of A2JI focal points. With the result of this study, it intended to help civil society organizations become an active, informed and key partner in public policy and law making that would be able to react instantly on key public policy areas, and have an enabled environment to play this role. The evaluation was based on three components: • Document review • Individual direct interviews • Group discussions of A2JI focal points

1.1 Background Myanmar has a history of centralized leadership and authority and a lack of constructive civil society engagement in the policy and legislative making processes. The government’s institutional capacity to undertake these consultations was also under-developed. It also found that political and government officials tended to reach out to a select group of individuals or organizations that they knew rather than reaching out to the broader public sector or to CSOs that would be best placed to assist them. There are growing numbers of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), both Non-Governmental and Community Based Organizations (NGOs and CBOs) engaged in advocacy process. Access to justice is one of the most pressing justice issues in Myanmar and has become a major focus of stakeholders in the legal community, including governments, regulators, bar associations, civil society organizations, researchers, and educators.

8

As an initial step the Advocacy Cluster reviewed civil society’s participation/advocacy across key legislation and/or by laws that have either recently been adopted or are pending to identify advocacy strategies or means of engagement that were successful, those that were not, and advocacy efforts that civil society did not pursue, but should have.

This assignment was undertaken by local Evaluation Team, a team leader and researchers.

1.2 Purpose of the evaluation

The objectives of the evaluation were: 1. To assess the significance and relevance of the CSO participation across key legislations

and laws during past years 2. To evaluate the effectiveness and results of the advocacy efforts through strategies and

interventions The result of this analysis will support future advocacy undertaken by A2JI and other civil society associations or organizations.

1.3 Course of the evaluation

The evaluation exercise was carried out between the 12th of February and the 17th of May 2016. Document review and data analysis was followed by individual interviews, A2JI focal group discussions. The preliminary findings were discussed with A2JI focal points on 17th May 2016 and the final report was submitted on 18 July 2016.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Methods used The evaluation followed the methodology outlined in the evaluation plan below to ensure A2JI retains civil society-led implementation, activities will be developed and implemented and included: 1) Document review 2) Individual direct interviews with selected CSO representatives 3) A2JI Focal group discussions The evaluation was carried out in the following steps in full cooperation with Advocacy Cluster members, and in consultation with PRLP;

• The Advocacy Cluster Focal Points identified legislation and/or by laws

• Cluster members nominated interviewees

• PRLP/A2J Cluster arranged the appointments

• Evaluation team developed format for final report and approved by the Advocacy Cluster Focal Points.

• Lead evaluator developed guidelines for data collection and analysis

9

• Lead evaluator performed analysis of collected data and prepared a CSO Advocacy Report on selected legislation

• Lead evaluator conducted a desk review of the laws selected in order to provide outlines of each law to facilitate data analysis.

• Lead evaluator provided an initial draft report on the lessons learned from previous advocacy efforts led by civil society, including what was effective, what was not effective, and an analysis of the causes for effectiveness/non-effectiveness.

• Lead evaluator finalized CSO Advocacy Report based on discussions outlined in activity plan

• The Advocacy Cluster Focal Points to lead publication/presentation of the final report

Thirteen laws were analysed from 11 clusters of legal reform areas and 32 IDI done out of 40 IDI sample size planned by A2JI focal points.

2.2 Evaluation matrix

An evaluation matrix outlined specific questions used in the interviews and focal group discussions.

Background - Why did they start advocacy (what's wrong with this law)? - What is the status? - Who initiated the process and what was the context?

Process - How did you start? - What home works have you done? - How do you gather support?, etc. (public, media, international, activists, etc.)

Results and recommendations

- What did you achieve, or did not? - Did you satisfy? - Which are the major challenges? How can the group overcome these issues?

Criteria Relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact

2.3 Limitation of the evaluation

The limitations of this evaluation are:

• Communication – A main hindering factor is communication difficulties with respondents since they are too busy to set the date and time with evaluation team.

• Interview process - During the interviews, and it was sometimes difficult for the evaluators to provide useful information or comments. The main reason seems to be that some CSO members have a shallow knowledge of the advocacy while some are experts. It would be better to explain the objectives of interview before asking questions to persuade respondent’s active participation

• Questionnaires ─ Myanmar translation is needed for Questionnaire in order to avoid confusion and save more time during interview process.

10

• Time – Due to time limitations it was not possible to do any extensive travel to meet CSO representatives outside of Yangon.

3. FINDINGS From our evaluation, CSOs have two entry points in the policy making cycle in Myanmar - either at the drafting stage with the responsible Ministry or Agency or at the Parliamentary Committee stage through public hearings/consultations and debates and sometimes working groups. First and foremost, there is clearly some degree of similarities, differences on vision and approaches among the CSO groups. Our respondents told that the practice of advocacy is still relatively young and process. Most situations exist where interaction between the government and Civil society organizations may occur but fail to build the mutual understanding of people needs and trust building to work for specific laws/ legislations. The study found that the existing mechanisms for advocacy efforts in the legislature were 90% done by Myanmar CSOs.

Law Initiative & network Key message

Anti-Corruption Law

This bill was initiated by the Government and few Individuals and Myanmar Lawyer network did public awareness activities.

-The investigation committee should be independent. - CSO should target Judiciary and Administration sectors.

Arbitration Law

- Action Labor Rights - Cooperative Committee for Trade Unions (CCTU) - 88 Generation Peace and Open Society - NLD

- This law needs amendment . - Well preparation (collecting data, documents, record, finding out weakness of law) is essential.

Association Registration Law

The bill was initiated by Ministry of Home Affair- Over 30 groups and it linked with over 400 groups - Most active groups are Local Resource Center (LRC) , Better Life, Pyi Gyi Khin, Triangle Women Group, Paugn Ku

Determination of right person and right place and conducting problem analysis is a key to success of advocacy.

11

International Center for Not-for Profit Law (ICNL) and US based legal advice groups contributed technical analysis.

Disability Law

- Myanmar Independent Living Initiatives (MILI)

- Myanmar Physical Handicap Association (MPHA)

- Myanmar Deaf Community Development Association (MDCDA)

- Yangon Deaf People Association

- Marry Chap Min Deaf School

- Myanmar Autism Association

- Future Stars Self Advocacy Group

- Family Support Network

- Life’s Challenger (ID/Autism)

- Intellectual Disability Development Centre - ျျျျျျျျျျျျျ ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ

- ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ (ျျျျျျ)

- ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ

- ျျျျျျျ ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ

- ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ

- ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ - ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ

- ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ - ျျျျျျျျျျျျျ

ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ - ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ

- ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ - ျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျျ

-The article regarding disabilities in 2008 constitution is not good enough. -This law needs to be amended as rights and protection for disable women and children and skills for them must be added in the law.

Farmland Law

International: Oxfam, International Union of Food, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Worker’s Association Local: Food Security Working Group, Individuals, 88 Generation Peace and Open Society, Land in our hands, Paung Ku, Green Peasant Institute (GPI), Agriculture and Farmers Federation of Myanmar (AFFM)

-All inclusive approach, good practices, building trust, good relationship and understanding among actors and key stakeholders, patience and are important. -Understanding former

12

guidance, rules and regulations are necessary to change the law.

Four laws Four laws were originally initiated by Ma Ba Tha and drafted by the specific the committee under former President office - Individuals advocated these laws - UNDP and US embassy reviewed the law and provided analysis

- Key success is public awareness campaigns , diplomatic briefing, situational analysis, processes reported in UPR process and some 30 countries denounced the Government - Individual and CBOs on ground faced with dangers and threats - Reached out Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and international community through UN Special Rapporteur and diplomatic missions of key countries and EU.

Labor Law - Action Labor Right, - Labor Rights Defenders and Promoters (LRDP) - CCTU - Lawyer U Htay group, - Migration Worker Rights Network (MWRN)

- Government accepts CSO efforts.

- Gain trust from

13

- Labor Unions - Yaung Chi Oo (Migration) - Mekhaung Migration Groups (6 countries) - U Kyaw Myint Law Firm - Myanmar Overseas Employment Agencies Federation (MOEAF) - ILO

Employers and Employees

Legal Aid Law

It was drafted by MPs from legislative branch, the Attorney General’s office, few selected lawyers and Myanmar Lawyer Network Paung Ku, Myanmar Lawyer Network involved.

People need to know the laws and participate in actions. Lawyers must be very active for legal reform. This Law should be amended during the current Government period.

Minimum Wages Law

-Myanmar Industries Craft and Services Trade Unions of Federation (MICS), Myanmar Worker Unions Network (MWUN) -ILO contributed technical assistance nd trainings

Federations and Unions have better bargaining power

National Education Law

-National Network for Education Reform (NNER) -All Burma Federation of Student Unions- ABFSU -88 Generation Peace and Open Society, Student Union - Myanmar Teacher Union -Experts, Ethnics Education Schools, Schools at religious buildings

Planning Advocacy strategy and tactic is important.

News Media Law

It was initiated by Ministry of Information. - Myanmar Journalist Network (MJN) -Myanmar Journalist Union (MJU) -Myanmar Journalist Association (MJA) -UNDP -UNESCO - Human Rights Organization based in UK - Pyi Gyi Khin

-Building good communication channel with kep stakeholders -Discussed with over 1000 journalists in 9 cities and visited 30 media houses for the advocacy and lobbying.

14

Peaceful Assembly and Procession Law

The Law was initiated by the Ministry of Home Affairs. - Individuals and lawyers, - Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) - 88 generation and its networks and CSOs - Technical assistance was provide by UNOCHA and foreign and local experts (volunteers) based in Mae Sot AAPP office

Awareness raising, inclusiveness and mobilization of actors and stakeholders. evidence based advocacy tools are important.

Prison Law This law was drawn by Ministry of Home Affairs - Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) - 88 Generation Open Society - NLD -Individual lawyers; U Aung Thein, U Robert San Aung - Amnesty International

-The most successful advocacy is groups received a strong public support -Advocacy messages reached to Secretary Clinton and UN Special Envoy

In our review, very limited CSO respondents had ever taken part in any stage of legislative consultations. Most respondents (98%) worked with networks and partners for advocacy. Some of the key findings noted in reporting or during interviews included:

• CSO’s advocacy effort provides norms and networks of trust that can improve the efficiency of laws/by laws by facilitating coordinated public action.

• CSO made a significant contribution towards strengthening the role of civil society in legislation process with government and parliamentarians

• The growth and increased pressure from CSOs for greater access to law/policy making have raised the profile of civil society participation in policy development.

• The whole process of drafting the Bills was not transparent way and no proper public consultations conducted

• The Law making process took only 2 - 3 months and the President signed an approval very quickly before the end of the old Government.

• Engagement of the public awareness and advocacy process like a more generic training, or workshop, which covered unnecessary issues made the process delayed and stopped.

• Any collective advocacy towards/against the laws/by laws observed while the window for public consultation /CSO consultation was opened.

• Experiences people are important in bringing success of advocacy process

• CSO need technical assistance and well preparation before starting the advocacy process

• New government should understand that public consultation is necessary in making laws.

• It’s difficult to measure level of up taken by law makers, the government.

15

• CSO need to aware of advocacy process as ‘unfinished business’, ‘hot situation’ ‘confrontations process’ , make sure to use ‘non-violence strategies’

• All laws must be in line with Constitution and relevant International Law The study shows that CSOs need to; • Identify/research what the needs of the people are: Advocacy activities need to identify the spokespersons for and against the change proposed and engage them to alert the government to any adverse effects of the proposed change. • Set the agenda in establishing objectives, strategies, and goals of the advocacy plan, principles and key messages of the plan. • Inform advocacy policy through platforms and processes where goals will be transparent and inclusive to all relevant parties and partners. • Monitor and evaluate the process and progress. Civil Society in Myanmar is a force for more human centred development.

3.1 Anti-Corruption Law This bill was initiated by the Government. Respondents feel that the law is perfect itself with characteristics of international legal standards. But in practice, the problem is that this law is not implemented and enforced in a consistent manner. CSO should target Administration Department and Judiciary. Even though there was a window for public consultation, mainly through newspaper advertisement of the drafted bills, there was no obvious collective effort from the civil society or professional association to engage in this law drafting process. If there is an ongoing advocacy on anti-corruption issues, the focus should be on the implementation and enforcement of this law, not necessarily about changing or amending it. It is noticed that advocacy efforts done by individuals and Myanmar Lawyer Network.

3.2 Arbitration Law The negotiations have been done at township levels. Advocacy process includes collection of data, documents, records and study weakness of the law. Most prominent success was Arbitration Law was passed in 2012 although it still has traps for workers. So it needs to be amended. Minimum wage, 3600 Kyats per day, was approved in Dec 2015 after long fighting with government and employers. It indicates that advocacy done by individuals and involving networks from Action Labor Rights, 88 Generation Peace and Open Society and NLD. CSO should advocate for Punishment law for employers and employees.

3.3 Association Registration Law

The bill initiated by Ministry of Home Affair. The CSO advocacy working group initially formed with 30 organizations which are linked with over 400 groups both in Upper and lower Myanmar. Success was Ministry of Home Affair agreed to cancel and liberalize some demands by CSOs. The bill was approved by parliament and they mentioned many inputs by

16

CSOs included in the law. The working group developed problem analysis and stakeholder mapping. Final target point of working group is to become “Freedom of Association”. Respondent said that international assistance (technical supporting and funding) are really important for the advocacy but CSO has to realize side effects of the international supporting. CSO should determine concrete principles before advocacy and sometimes it may be wake point for advocacy groups. Lessons learned were CSO need to build trust, transparency and collaboration. CSO should digest the subject what they would like to target. One respondent said networking and coalition will be better as some former colleagues are in parliament and new policies might come up.

3.4 Disability Law

The Disable Rights Law was initiated by the Department of Social Welfare at the end of 2012 and early 2013. CSOs were given very short notice to provide into draft law. We learned that Initial consultation and Internal Networking is important how CSO should plan strategically. Media relation was largely done by individual organization. The group worked both with Lower house and upper house from the Parliament. Inclusiveness and collective leadership is key for the success of advocacy. Good practice was constructive engagement with the Parliament. The process was politically quite weak. Advocacy messages were conveyed to the Ministry through national conferences, local and international media and meetings with decision makers and stakeholders. This law needs to be amended as rights and protection for disable women and children and arts for them must be added in the law. The respondents suggest having thematic or collective networking with common voices and advocacy points. Weaknesses were lack of legal advices and facts and figures to convince the legislators. In the future, this law needs to be amended as rights and protection for disable women and children.

3.5 Farmland Law

The farmland law was initiated by the Parliament in March, 2012. CSOs did public awareness and advocacy to the parliament and other importance stakeholders such as President,

“Five steps of advocacy strategy”

1st step ; Organized working group with interested organization and networks, built trust among members, consult with local and international experts, developed stakeholder mapping and contacted international organizations 2nd Step; Conducted series of consultation to determine level of target for trade-off, organized public awareness, and designed the options as negotiation tactics 3rd Step ; created lobby channel between Ministry of Home Affairs, MPs and other respective committees from the parliament, selected the champions and limit right place and right person. 4th Step; developed media strategy to deliver advocacy messages to the stakeholders indirectly, held press conference and give the concerned message to Ministry 5th Step; Ministry agreed to cancel “Criminal Punishment” and “not require for registration” from the draft law.

17

relative ministries, farmland management bodies (Committees) and affairs committees in the parliament. CSOs approached the lawyers and other consultants to develop the advocacy points which are would like to amend and add to the mother law. Local media and social media effectively supported. Weak points of CSOs include understanding on legal process and preparation procedure for advocacy. CSO has to understand each process legal reform as well as keys stakeholders to appear effective advocacy. Most CSO used engagement and negotiation at different levels. Some CSO faced with funding difficulties. Another challenge that MPs do not understand the land cases and not interested in land reform as well as most MPs do not know what they should do. CSO should be patient dealing with the Government. Sometimes they used peaceful demonstrations. CSO needs to link more groups and networks locally and regionally to learn and share advocacy works. The most significant success is CSO’s cases reached to UN Geneva Convention. Research and assessments are necessary to raise the concerns and to amend the law.

3.6 Four laws Four laws known collectively as the Race and Religion Protection Laws include Monogamy Law, Religious Conversion Law and Interfaith Marriage Law, The Religious Conversion Law and Population Control Law were submitted to the Parliament of Myanmar in December 2014. These controversial four bills threatened fundamental human rights, were originally initiated by local group called Ma Ba Tha (Association for the Protection of Race, Religion and Buddhism). Civil Society groups explicitly opposed this agenda in the very beginning.

“Effective advocacy tool: Signature Campaign” A group of women famers (10 headed household leaders) initiated the campaign. The slogan of the campaign is ‘good seeds, good price, and stable market’. They sent the results and documents of campaign to government. But Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation did not accept it but asked to send campaign results via mail. Therefore we sent via General Post Office, which is costly for farmers. The Ministry never contacted the group. But after this continued effort, paddy price become stable.

18

There was no single leadership; rather the collective leadership responsibilities were shared among women’s right networks, human rights networks and CSO/CBO networks organized around the nation. CSO reviewed the laws with the assistance of local and international experts. Advocacy group met lower house (as public hearing) and upper house bill committee (bilateral) separately. Individual advocates were faced with threats and attacks during the time of very tense and polarized pre-election political climate. Religious and communal conflicts and violence happened throughout country. Respondent suggests CSO need to aware of taking risky situation like public mobilization was very risky business. As a result of advocacy efforts, these four bills and associated unlawful attempts were well reported in UPR process and some 30 countries denounced Myanmar Government for these bills. Strong commitment amid serious personal risk; Gathering of diverse groups and Inclusion of minority group are set to be CSO’s standing point. Unity of CSOs and advocacy habit (example, conduct regular meeting with MPS) is important.

3.7 Labor Law

CSO started advocacy journey in 2012 as negotiator for labour rights. First, they discussed with labour leaders, second they attended the ILO’s trainings and meetings of labour law. Then, they discussed with relevant stakeholders. In Dec 2013, Ministry of Labor invited CSOs and discussed 2012 labor law, to amend labour concern into it. Most successful points are the government accepted CSO groups and gained the trust from employers and employees.

“Suggestions for Advocacy”

‘Be brave in doing right things’ ‘Winning or losing is not important but doing right things matter in the history’ ‘We are wise women as a whole in Myanmar”_ Slogan of face book campaign, sticker campaign, T-shirt campaign

“Lessons learned”

• Don’t intervene in very hot situation as labours might do confrontation with you.

• Must know laws and issues to solve

• Research is essential

• Advocacy is never ending, it is unfinished business

19

3.8 Legal Aid Law

Leagal Aid Bill was drafted by a group of people: MPs from legislative branch; the Attorney General’s office; and a group of lawyers from Mandalay and Yangon who are members of Myanmar Lawyers Network and a few selected lawyers based on the African model and adapted to the Myanmar context. Some legal expert from Africa and Indonesia are also involved in drafting of this Bill. Respondents agreed that no public consultation was done nor was a wider participation of other neither lawyers groups nor CSOs was mad in drafting the Bill. This Law should be amended during the current Government because the whole process of Law making took only 2 to 3 months and the President has signed his approval very quickly before the end of the old Government. Legal Aid Bill was passed 31 Dec 2015 which is not helpful legal aid activities. New government should understand that public consultation is necessary in making laws.

3.9 Minimum Wages Law Successes: The Government approved minimum wage at 3600 Kyats per day. The minimum

wages law was raised awareness among workers. At least, workers know how to work with/under federation and Workers Unions for better bargaining power to the employers. Lessons Learned: Research and networking is essential part of advocacy. CSO groups discussed relevant cases

from Thailand (300 baht per day) Malaysia (120 Ringgit per day) and Indonesia (65 USD per month). Then workers set their own standard.

3.10 National Education Law

EPIC (Education Promotion and Implementation Committee) and Ministry of Education drafted and sent it to the parliament. Parliament made draft education law itself. NNER (National Network for Education Reform) also has education proposal. National Education Law/Bill was approved in parliament on 30 Sept 2014. Main success; Groups gained public support and media. Thinking of people (parents, teachers and students) is changed and they understands advocacy.

“Preparations: Boiler rooms”

• Translated bill and sent it to international experts and local experts sent back analytical feedback.

• Studied UN principals.

• Organized camp and discussed with legal experts from 14 regions to address Legal Aid Bill and find out its issues and weakness and what articles must be amended and what parts are good, analyse why, what, how to change the bill.

• Met MPs to seek their advices

“Words of the day”

We don’t want to have history, but we want results for workers.

20

Suggestions includes organizations need to know strategies and tactics of advocacy. Organizations should organize forums, workshops, seminars to reach dialogue. Organization need to make sure that they use non-violence strategies for confrontations process. One of respondent said the main challenge of the advocacy is that the stakeholders do not understand the concept of democratic education and inclusiveness education. In addition, advocacy groups did not find time and chance to do awareness to the stakeholders about the concept. Advocacy groups (or working group) should be care on the participation and value of other alliance organizations or networks.

3.11 News Media Law News Media Law was initiated by Ministry of Information. No chance was given to participate and discuss by CSOs when the Ministry prepared the draft. Myanmar Press Council (now Myanmar News Media Council) was formed and started advocacy process in 2012. Key advocacy tactic is a combination of negotiation and public action. Respondents rated their advocacy success at 75-100 percent for News Media Law, as public views were added in the law. Advocacy process includes;

- Discussed with 1000 journalist from 9 cities - Consulted among network members and alliances - Approached media experts and lawyers - Developed stakeholder mapping and analysis - Debate with the Ministry - Debate with MPs and the Ministry - Conduct trainings for media and public awareness activities - Take time to educate to the public and stakeholder directly and indirectly, even

though to journalists inside the media community - Sometimes tea party was great strategic action between MNMC (Myanmar News

Media Council) and stakeholders (MPs). - International assistance for technical and funding from International Media Support

(IMS), Deutsch Welle, UNESCO, Reporters San Frontiers (RSF), International Federation of Journalists and International Committee to protect Journalists (ICPJ) based.

3.12 Peaceful Assembly and Procession Law

Peaceful Assembly and Peaceful Procession Law was initiated by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The advocacy strategy is quite successful which is indirectly presented with evidence based results and to mobilize public into the advocacy process. Strategic planning is very important to full fill the objectives and to reach the target points. One respondent feels that their advocacy has not lost. It suggests organizations must learn the process from MPs.

“Battle of Ideology”

NNER used engagement and they organized other alliance to be involved in the advocacy process Student Union choose to go for public action MTF (Myanmar Teachers Federation) tried to organize internal community, education departments in the universities.

21

Organizations should draft law of their own. Advocacy groups should include points of views from both opposition side and government side. It’s always right that you seek advices from experts and government officials. The big challenge was that most of activists putting efforts for advocacy process were arrested by the police under this law. On the other hand, some activists were waiting for trails under the Peaceful Assembly and Procession Law.

3.13 Prison Law

Prison bill was initiated by Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry was not meet with any interest groups for that draft. After the drafting process was launched, the CSO coalition, led by the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) and Federation of Political Prisoners Society (FPPS), identified the problems and weakness of draft law. Both groups have been engaged in collective efforts to broaden the engagement of parliamentarians.

4 LESSONS LEARNED ✓ Work needs to continue to maintain the momentum for greater civic inclusion and to

ensure implementation of the new regulations at both the ministry and parliament levels. This study moved the process forward but the improved structures need to be used by all CSOs and public officials to be effective and to improve the quality of public consultations and content of public policies.

✓ Advocacy and reform efforts should have a monitoring and evaluation plan that tracks the status of progress/failure and challenges faced during implementation. This could be institutionalized by creating a joint monitoring and evaluation mechanism with the parliament’s committee/relevant department that implemented the changes.

✓ Research and networking is essential part of advocacy.

The evaluation analyzed the advocacy process from prison law is marked by three important features: 1. Creating strong public support and advocacy campaign. Organizations undertook extensive efforts to include public in country and abroad. In addition, it reached out to other CSOs networks and secured cross-sector support of the process. 2009 signature campaign is the most successful campaign. They targeted 888,888 people, got about 700,000. They sent it to Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations. UN accepted it. 2. Use of expertise. They relied on extensive comparative and domestic expertise and analysis to create solid legal arguments. The expertise and research was essential in developing comments to the law and in presenting various legislative models and experience from other countries to feed into the local deliberations. 3. Advocacy strategy. They engaged in a well-planned and extensive advocacy campaign to promote the CSO-developed draft law and to prevent the regressive Governmental draft law from being adopted. They developed own advocacy materials – documentary, reports, photo exhibitions in the advocacy efforts that were distributed to various stakeholders and received attention from international governments. The campaign required broadening the group of stakeholders, talking to all political parties in the Parliament, and reaching out to the media and local branches of international CSOs.

22

✓ Some processes were politically quite weak. CSO should consider thematic or collective networking with common voices, and prepare advocacy points.

✓ CSO should plan personal relation strategy. ✓ Wise use of local and international media is very effective for advocacy. ✓ Organizations should plan strategic thinking and systematic management for both

funding and human resources. ✓ Engagement and negotiation is a way to maximize gain and minimize lose.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

To strengthen similar initiatives in the future, the evaluation team recommends: ✓ Regular monitoring mechanism for CSO’s advocacy efforts. CSO should gather

information and record it to measure the impact of its advocacy activity/campaign. Monitoring compares the early inputs (human, material and financial resources) and for our outputs that will be seeing of (activities, interventions), and results (achievements) against advocacy plan and actions. For example, to see if our media campaign is successful, we would keep a record of press coverage. To see if our lobbying efforts have been successful, we would count the letters of support from Ministers, etc.

✓ The process of consultation and participation should be improved through a more structured and consensual mechanism between civil society and the government.

✓ Increasing alliances with other CSO networks and obtaining support from international donors and the key stakeholders and the public by sharing key messages and legal materials are also important.

✓ Media involvement. Many evidences from the study show turning the debate in the press from generally critical of the sector to generally supportive through an effective media campaign.

✓ Outreach to and denunciation of the revised bill to government entities. The CSOs met with some representatives of the government and tried to explain the negative impact the bills will have on the society.

✓ CSO to focus other key areas but not limited to. - Amendment or abolishment the laws which were created under Burma Socialist

Programme Party (1962) - Rule of law (constitutional reform) - Environment and foreign investment - Business Sector such as construction and public utilities - Ratification on International Human Rights treaties (ICCPR) - Educational reform - Economic reform - Research and development - Freedom of association - Judiciary Reform - Rights and protection for disable women and children - Punishment law for employers and employees - Land rights

23

- Investment and mining Laws

6 WAYS FORWARD

Based on the evaluation findings, the team highlights: ✓ Civil society should continue to build on its engagement and partnerships with

government to further improve the public consultation processes. There is still momentum from this process that should not be lost. The main part is CSO to ensure the new structures or creative mechanisms are utilized by public officials at both national and regional levels.

✓ Civil society groups should leverage openings and support agents of change to make meaningful reforms. Collaboration with MPs and Government officials (champions) who want to professionalize their offices or reform their systems offer opportunities to lead a systemic change. CSOs should support these openings to deepen and widen them through support to build their professional capacities.

✓ Track the implementation of the reforms made by the project by establishing a joint government - civil society monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the public consultation process. As part of this, civil society with the government could develop a joint monitoring mechanism that would track implementation process and produce report regularly to measure the implementation of the laws/by –laws effectively.

✓ National CSO continue to work with regional level CSOs to advocate for more inclusive participation at regional levels. The successful strategy used by CSO working groups (example, Association registration Law) at the lower/upper levels could be replicated at the regional levels. This would allow for adaptation of the law reform concept to the local circumstances, including use by groups from the ethnic minorities.

Through this evaluation, A2JI focal points were able to deliver the needed expertise and tools to enable CSOs to efficiently and effectively make law reforms. This review reflected the years of international support to civil society and the continued efforts of participating CSOs to make the law/policy making processes more inclusive in their individual areas of interest. This study also showed the usefulness and effectiveness of continuing international funding. Many of the advocacy results achieved were because the strategic foundation for a coordinated advocacy effort working with CSO groups and networks.

7 LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1. Evaluation Questions

Theme

Key question Related sub-question

Background/Context

1. Overview of the advocacy effort

- When did the advocacy effort begin and how long did it last?

- Who began the advocacy effort?

24

The Process Itself

- Who joined the advocacy effort?

- Why did you start this legal advocacy process?

- Was it a bad law you wanted to change or did you need new

legislation to protect some fundamental rights?

- What process was used to select this advocacy effort?

- What support was received for the advocacy effort?

- Who provided that support and what support did they provide

(examples: financial, technical, public support)

- Generally, what types of advocacy efforts were undertaken?

- Was there any relevant condition to political context at that

time?

- Were there any challenges and internal issues you faced

during the process?

2. What was the status of law when you started the legal advocacy?

- Old, repressive but existing law? New bill which was drafted but you were not satisfied? Or your desired law was totally non-existence? - Had it broad society-wide impact or did it affect particular segment of society?

3. Had somebody else initiated the process, who was it and in what context?

-

4. How did you start the advocacy?

- Details on how you initiated the process? Who took the leading role? How did you set your target and what was it?

5. Did it require preparation before beginning the advocacy?

- Did you do research for evidence, stakeholder mapping and analysis, strategy development, etc.?

6. Networking/coalition-building

- Were networking or coalition-building efforts undertaken? Why or why not? - If yes, was the effort successful or unsuccessful? Why? - Were there communication issues between members of the network or coalition? o If yes, what was done to resolved those issues? Was it successful? Why or why not? - How could the networking/coalition-building efforts have been improved?

7. How was the advocacy effort funded?

-

8. How did you garner support?

- Sympathy from MPs, popular and international support, media coverage and activism? - If it was a broad-based process, how did you reach out different groups, including those who will have direct effect or underprivileged ones? - How could those efforts have been improved?

9. Media/International Advocacy Group

- What efforts were undertaken to have the domestic media cover the advocacy effort? - What efforts were undertaken to have the international media cover the advocacy effort? - What efforts were made to gain support from international advocacy groups? - Where these efforts successful? Why or why not? Which media outlets or international advocacy groups were interested in the advocacy effort?

25

10. Please explain the process of advocacy engagement. How has the process evolved?

- Was it a long process or one-off? What were the critical incidents of engagement with law makers? Donors? Opposition party members? International advocacy groups? Any back and forth, ups and downs, turning point, etc.?

11. Government response

- What was the government’s response to the advocacy effort? - What could have been done to improve the government’s response?

Results 12. What do you think as major achievement?

- How were those achievements obtained? - What lessons were learned?

13. What were the major failures?

- What led to those failures? - What lessons were learned?

14. What are the problems still remaining?

-

15. Are you satisfied with this result?

-

16. What are the impacts of your advocacy?

- Direct impacts, changes, etc.? Any positive or negative externalities?

Recommen-dations

17. What are the good practices you would recommend from your advocacy?

-

18. What are the lessons learned?

- If you had a second chance, how would have done differently?

19. How would you recommend others who would like to start similar advocacy process, but in post-2015 context?

- How easily and under what circumstances could these successes be replicated? - How easily and under what circumstances could failures be avoided?

20. What are the other laws and legal frame works to do advocacy?

- Did you notice any public consultations happened and if yes, how did it happen?

Annex 2. Documents Reviewed Burma’s draft association law; a government chokehold on civil society, uscampaignforburma, October 3, 2013 Civil Society Advocacy in Uganda: lessons learned, The ASPEN Institute. Monogamy Bill (2014), Art. 2, ONLINE BURMA/MYANMAR LIBRARY. Myanmar: Parliament Must Reject Discriminatory ‘Race and Religion’ Laws, Amnesty International website, March 3, 2015 National Education Law 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_National_Education_Law_2014

26

UDF-KOS-08-265, Empowering Civil Society Inclusion in Democratic Policy-Making in Kosovo, Final Project Narrative Report, May 2012

Annex 3. Persons Interviewed

Date Person Organization

Subject

12 Feb 2016 U Kyee Myint High Court Lawyer Anti-Corruption Law Legal Aid Bill

26 Feb 2016 Dr. Nyein Zarni Naing

Advocacy and Networking Coordinator,

Land Core Group

Land Law

28 Feb 2016 Daw Aye Thynzar Maung

Myanmar Disable Women Association Disability Law

28 Feb 2016 U Aung Myo Min Executive Director, Equality Myanmar Four Law

20 Mar 2016 U Htar Oake Founder of and Managing Director of Eden Shelter for Disable Children

Disability Law

4 April 2016 U Ko Ni Legal Advisor in NLD, High Court Lawyer, Author

Anti-corruption Law

5 April 2016 Ma New Zin Win Executive Director, Pyi Gyi Khin Association Registration Law

5 April 2016 Ko Ag Nay Paing All Burma Federation of Student Unions (ABFSU), Member of Action Committee of Democracy Education

Education Law

5 April 2016 U Tin Mg Oo Federation of Political Prisoners Society (FPPS)

Prison Law

6 April 2016 U Bo Kyi Joint Secretary, Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) (AAPP)

Prison Law

6 April 2016 Daw Than Than Htay Chairperson, Agriculture and Farmer Federation of Myanmar (AFFM)

Land Law

7 April 2016 Bo Bo Generation Wave- GW Peaceful Assembly and Procession Law

8 April 2016 U Myint Kyaw EC, Myanmar Journalism Network Media Law

8 April 2016 U Sithu General Secretary, Land In Our Land Law

8 April 2016 U Kyaw Min Swe Myanmar Press Consul (MPC) Medial Law

9 April 2016 U Arkar Mo Thu General Secretary, Myanmar Teachers’ Federation(MTF)

Education Law

9 April 2016 U Zaw Yan Myanmar Farmers Network Land Law

11 April 2016 Daw Thu Thu Mar Member of Research and Advocacy Working Group, National Network for Education Reform (NNER)

Education Law

27

11 April 2016 Ko Thiha Kyaing

Executive Director, Phoenix Association Association Registration Law

18 April 2016 Daw Mar Mar Oo Deputy Secretary, Labor Department, The 88 Generation Peace and Open Society

Labor Law

20 April 2016 U Kyaw Myint Managing Partner, U Kyaw Myint Law

Firm,

Former Chairman and current Leader of

Management Team, Myanmar Legal Aid

Network (MLAW)

Board Member, South East Asia Legal Aid

Network

Legal Aid Law

21 April 2016 Daw Naw Susanna Hla Hla Soe

MP, Upper House, NLD Former Director and Founder of Kayin Women Empowerment Group

Four Laws

27 April 2016 U Thiha Saw Executive Director, Myanmar Journalism

Institute

General Secretary, News Media Council

President, Myanmar Journalists

Association

President, Myanmar-US Friendship

Association

Media Law

29 April 2016 Ma Thyn Zar Oo Program Director, The Plan: Public Legal

Aid Network

Legal Aid Law

1 May 2016 Daw Khin Myo Su Chairperson, Inclusive Person with

Disabilities’ Business Organization

Myanmar (Purple Lily Group),

Secretary, Future Stars Self-Advocacy

Organization of Persons with intellectual

disabilities

Disability Law

6 May 2016 U Thurain Aung Director, Action Labor Rights Labor Law

8 May 2016 U Naw Aung Vice Chairman, Myanmar Industries Craft and Services Trade Unions of Federation (MICS)

Minimum Wages Law

8 May 2016 U Kyi Min Hteik Member, Arbitration Department, Worker

Unions’ Coordination Committee, and

Myanmar Industries Craft and Services

Trade Unions of Federation (MICS)

Arbitration Law

10 May 2016 U Hanzar Mg Executive Director, Better Life

Organization

Association Registration Law

11 May 2016 U Aung Myo Kyaw Office Manager, Association for Political Prisoners (Burma) (AAPP)

Peaceful Assembly and Procession Law

28

12 May 2016 Dr. Kyaw Thu Executive Director, Paung-Ku and Board member, Myanmar Legal Aid Network (MLAW)

Legal Aid Law

17 May 2016 Daw Mya Sabai Phyu

Director, Gender Equality Network (GEN)

(formerly the Women’s Protection

Technical Working Group)

Four Laws

Annex 4. Acronyms

A2JI AAPP ABFSU IDI CBO CCTU CSO EPIC EU GPI ICNL IMS LIFT LRDP Ma Ba Tha MWRN MPC MOEAF MTF NGO NLD NNER PRLP SDC

The Access to Justice Initiative Assistance Association for Political Prisoners All Burma Federation of Student Unions Individual Direct Interview Community Based Organizations Cooperative Committee for Trade Unions Civil Society Organization Education Promotion and Implementation Committee European Union Green Peasant Institute International Center for Not-for Profit Law International Media Support Livelihood and Food security Trust Fund Labor Rights Defenders and Promoters Association for the Protection of Race, Religion and Buddhism Migration Worker Rights Network Myanmar Press Council (now Myanmar News Media Council) Myanmar Overseas Employment Agencies Federation Myanmar Teachers Federation Non -Governmental Organization National League for Democracy National Network for Education Reform Promoting the Rule of Law Project Swiss Development Agency for Cooperation