Thanks for the post Engin. Also echoing what you wrote Steven. Wanted to add that my (still limited) experience with training orgs in M&E, is that there's a lot we can learn about the effectiveness of animal interventions by improving the use of M&E. Calculating actual impact seems more difficult, but hopefully we can step by step narrow the knowlegde gap, and better know how to spend an additional 100m.

A late reaction James and Marieke. However, I wanted to say thanks for sharing this well-thought-through document. In my view, it highlights how a Theory of Change on an organizational level can contribute to making choices and strategizing. Love it.

Thanks Cameron! :-)

We'll post again as soon as we've got new insights to share.

Interesting perspective I had not thought about in this way before. It links very well with more common views of highly valuing the input (and needs) from your target communities. 

Blake Hannagan and I are currently piloting a MEL training and coaching program for animal and vegan advocacy charities. Part of it is to investigate up to what level organizations can and should collect quantitative data, and when they'd better rely on more qualitative information; realizing the MEL in the animal space might be a bit different from MEL in global health or poverty.

Thanks for writing this!

Thanks for writing this thought-through cause exploration. Looking forward to see if and what comes out of this.

On a very low scale I'm already developing the implementation of this combination of looking at the potentially most impactful interventions on their own, and system's thinking which is more about "in what phase of a transition does it make sense to implement what type of interventions". For the moment I'm concentrating on the Multi Level Perspective (Loorbach/Geels etc) and Sustainable Market Transformation model (New Foresight).

I will read some of the literature you mention in the notes, to broaden my horizon.