When one thinks of conservation, it is not uncommon for the name Ducks Unlimited Canada to come to mind. A nonprofit, charitable organization with representation throughout the country, it has been committed to wetland conservation for close to 70 years. And, in its quest to do its job – and to do it right – Ducks Unlimited has been rubbing shoulders with a varied list of federal, provincial and territorial decision-makers, doing its utmost to effect public policy change in line with its mission and goals.
With the proliferation of organizations pushing for change, public policy efforts are playing a starring role in many of their endeavours. And so they should, says Sean Meagher of Public Interest, a strategy and communications company devoted to, among other things, helping nonprofit organizations promote public policy. “Shaping public policy, in part, shapes an organization’s capacity to serve the people they are meant to be serving,” he says. Of course, some of those efforts are more successful than others, and despite a list of achievements, limitations still stand in the way of effecting the desired change. So, what can nonprofits be doing differently? What measures can they adopt to best tackle public policy issues, capture the ear of decision-makers, and influence legislative action?
Trust me
Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) seems to have some of the answers. “One of our advantages is we’re non-confrontational and we don’t prescribe public policy,” says director of government relations, Barry Turner. A confrontational group has a lesser chance of impacting change, he offers, adding rhetorically, “does a government really want to sit down with an organization that will publicly criticize them on the street the next day?” But the biggest strength of DUC, according to this former federal politician, lies in the trust it garners among decision-makers and others in the field of conservation. And that trust can move mountains or, rather, conserve wetlands. In fact, it is that faith that often compels legislators to approach the organization for its opinions on various environmental matters of concern. So, rather then constantly having to knock on doors to be heard, DUC can sometimes play a consultative role, a much more empowered and energized position to be sure.
But is this level of trust simply the result of an organization boasting seniority and largesse? Nope, though it definitely helps. It actually has, as its source, scientific fact and the credibility it bestows. “Our policy recommendations and our field programs are based on sound, peer-reviewed science,” explains Turner. “We don’t promote pie in the sky ideas.” The goal, he says, is to be credible, professional, and have a solid reputation. In that sense, nonprofits may actually have an advantage over the corporate voice in their public policy initiatives. After all, he points out, charitable organizations are not out to sign a contract, sell a widget or a service. “We are not looking for anything other than the protection of the environment and wetlands, the betterment of society. We’re don’t have profit as the bottom line.”
It is this approach that has led to some of Ducks’ biggest accomplishments. Case in point: the Agricultural Policy Framework of 2003 included a program called Green Cover Canada, aimed at conserving and restoring grasslands and wetlands, primarily in the prairie provinces. Largely attributed to the hard work and efforts of Ducks Unlimited, the program has led to the conversion of almost 600,000 acres of marginal land from annual crop land to permanent cover.
Who’s on board
Behind each and every successful DUC campaign is the support of a strong and well-connected board of directors, another boon to any organization’s public policy efforts. “After more than 70 years of activity, members have a lot of influence,” Turner claims. In fact, a strong board can be even more essential to smaller nonprofits that struggle with limited resources and hands-on-deck. Groups like the National Anti-Poverty Organization (NAPO). With a mission of eradicating poverty in Canada, the organization works tirelessly to influence federal policy on various issues affecting Canadians because of poverty, particularly, income security. And with a board made up largely of people who’ve experienced poverty firsthand, the organization has been spurred on by its shared, heartfelt passion. “Some of Canada’s unsung heroes in the anti-poverty movement have served on this board,” says executive director, Rob Rainer. “Our board is an activist board,” he continues, “and we extend our reach, in part, because our directors are across the country and can represent [us] at meetings and consultations.”
Despite its small size, NAPO is still well-known on Parliament Hill, often receiving invitations to give presentations on anti-poverty issues. And the organization has certainly made its mark over the years. For instance, NAPO was one of the first non-governmental organizations in the world to receive standing to appear before the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. And they’ve been back twice since that historic first appearance in 1993, presenting their evidence on how Canada has failed to live up to its international human rights obligations.
Can you hear us?
Most recently, NAPO has come out with a mission statement that envisions poverty’s eradication in Canada by 2020, a goal they expect to reach through a combination of political will, corporate social responsibility, and community engagement. “It’s doable,” posits Rainer. “We will be starting to rally individuals and organizations and I anticipate a multi-year campaign.” But despite their undeniable cachet, NAPO’s ability to effect policy change is limited. After all, a small organization with scarce resources and two staff members can only do so much. “We’re just a little mouse squeaking at the door, though we squeak as best as we can.”
United we stand
To counter these obstacles, some turn to the old adage: strength in numbers. NAPO knows it well. “We can’t do it by ourselves; it will take many organizations to lobby for this,” he says of their current goal. And for those who build associations, the power to affect public policy is multiplied. “Efficiencies can be achieved through coordination, coalitions, networks,” echoes Teri Kirk, vice-president of government relations and public policy at Imagine Canada. Every sector in Canada has learned that coordinating their voice and putting their money in a pot has proven to be a most effective method, she continues. “But our sector has only begun to do that, to define themselves as a sector with a common voice, so this is fairly new.”
That said, there have been powerful examples of successful coalitions in the sector. Take the Canadians against Cancer campaign, a coalition of 60 organizations set up to demand a new approach to cancer research activities in Canada. And they got it. At the other end of the spectrum are illustrations of poorly coordinated initiatives. Recently, for example, the Standing Committee on Finance called upon sector organizations to make representations around amendments to charitable donations tax credit. Unfortunately, the nonprofit sector lacked a cohesive voice and provided a number of differing recommendations. The Committee was unimpressed. “The message was: ‘until you folks decide what you want and ask us with a fairly consistent voice, we’re not going to do that work for you’,” says Kirk.
Sean Meagher provides another reason why collective action is a good idea. “Many organizations aren’t comfortable sticking out like a sore thumb on the advocacy front,” he says. Building associations helps individual organizations avoid feeling singled out and allows them to pool resources, getting more bang for their buck. And, he adds, nonprofits can also gain from building alliances with labour, business groups and others networks to create even broader associations in support of a particular public policy. “They not only maximize the impact of their limited resources for advocacy, but they broaden the relationship and engage other people that may not have otherwise engaged in advocacy.”
Legislative challenge
Another public policy challenge for some nonprofits lies in the provisions of the Income Tax Act, which stipulates that charities can only spend 10% of their resources on specific forms of advocacy. Rainer claims the law not only keeps NAPO’s hands tied, it has also undermined the organization’s charitable status, leaving them without the benefits of philanthropic support.
With more than 400 staff in Canada, offices in every province and territory, and a yearly budget of $83 million, Ducks Unlimited Canada has the advantage of not feeling the effects of the 10% Rule. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have their own obstacles. “The biggest challenge is trying to cultivate a culture of real concern and subsequent action of the need for more environmental protection,” says Turner. “And we have to do that with politicians, senior civil servants and landowners.” To overcome the challenge, they’ve focused on creating children’s educational programs and encouraging the election of those environmentally aware. “If you want to get green policies, elect green thinkers,” asserts Turner.
Elisa Birnbaum is a freelance journalist, producer and communications consultant living in Toronto. She is also president of ellecommunications.ca and can be reached at: info@ellecommunications.ca.
