Issuu on Google+

• • •

Galvanising issue: The catalyst that started the campaign galvanised members which gave energy and momentum. Nature of alliance: New form of working, sectors brought out of silos, enhanced voice and learning. Expertise of membership: Steering group/working groups. Moving from ‘reactive to proactive stance: Not in constant reactive/protest mode, but offering solutions and new thinking. Getting consensus on broad policy area (ERA Roadmap) despite size and diversity of the membership.

• • • • •

• • •

• •

New thinking on standards required to improve the effectiveness of the equality & human rights infrastructure. Members expressed (through evaluation) “the value of a broader alliance to progress the equality & right infrastructure debate in their stead”. Opening that comes with institutional change in public sector to advance new agendas. Willingness amongst newly appointed Commissioners to develop better engagement with civil society.

• • •

Limited resources which have diminished significantly since beginning of 2013. Large number of members to keep on board. Difficult to maintain a sustained collective voice. Nature of alliance working: hard to sustain links across the silos. Difficult to sustain active involvement: Getting members to invest time and effort in ERA as well as taking up issue.

Diminished capacity of sector/ERA members. Limited understanding (across civil society groups) of the importance & potential of key elements of the infrastructure (this is essential to mobilising sector to protect and develop the infrastructure). Challenge to move beyond ‘silo’ approach. Balancing ‘high-level’ advocacy approach with grass-roots mobilisation. Difficulty in keeping issues concerning the broader infrastructure on the agendas of media/political stakeholders/ ERA members. Unreceptive civil service & unresponsive politicians.

Workshop A: Equality & Rights Alliance (ERA)


Equality and rights alliance swot analysis