4. Financial Analysis

4.1 The cost of community-based ecological monitoring. 4.2 BCN Financial Summary

---

4.1 The cost of community-based ecological monitoring.

The BCN is all about evaluating enterprise-based approaches to conversation. To do this, the BCN staff and especially grantees have expected considerable effort into ascertaining the social, biological, and economic impact of the various BCN-funded interventions, In last year's Annual Report, we pointed out that, on average, one-third of project budgets were set aside for all types of monitoring. However, not surprisingly, what we've learned over the past four year's is that money is not the answer.

As illustrated in a number of the stories from the field, original monitoring programs, especially ones for ecological impact, were too complex (read academic), ill-focused, and unsustainable from a community perspective. As discussed in section 2.1, a strong theme across the stories is that in order for conservation to be sustainable, communities must be given better "tools" to understand what is happening, why, and how to adapt to the new situation. For this reason, 13 of the 20 projects have moved toward community-based monitoring. Community-based monitoring pushes the collections, analysis and use of the information down to the community level, and, as a result, is much more likely to be sustainable, lead to better natural resources managements decisions, and be cheaper. However, as illustrated in the stories, community-based monitoring does not necessarily -- and in fact rarely -- involves just the community. Appropriate expertise is crucially important during the start-up phase and on a periodic basis to ensure that the monitoring suits the community's needs for information.

The purpose of this sections is to illustrate what it has cost to implement community-based monitoring at a terrestrial and a marine site. The two examples described be low are, in our view, two of the better examples of community-based monitoring within the Network. Do we have answers regarding the conservation impact? As stated numerous times earlier, no. But we believe that the project teams have made successful enabling investments for the technical skills necessary to do community-based monitoring. We will keep you informed as their progress.

Experiences has demonstrated that there are two phases investment for a community-based monitoring program: the start-up phase, and the operational phases. Under the initial start-up phase, investment made toward the monitoring are high due to the fixed cost associated with this phase, including: a) purchase of monitoring equipment; b) the competition of rapid assessments leading to the design of an appropriate monitoring approach; c) external technical support and consultations provided to facilitate and local resident in the design and initial implementation of the monitoring approach and working out any methodological 'bugs'; e) travel costs associated with bringing project partner staff and external consultants into the field to work with the community in setting up the monitoring. On-going costs are typically at significantly lower levels once the original investment has been made. The costs include travel for project staff to the monitoring site, equipment, workshop expenses and a minimal participant stipend.

Below are two examples to illustrate representatives costs and cost categories for the start-up and on-going operation of a community-based ecological monitoring program. The first example is from a non-timber forest product project in the Salomon islands and the second example is from a marine product harvesting project in Fiji.

Example 1 -- Solomon Islands Ngali Nut Project (#19)

The primary purpose of the community-based biological monitoring program was to capture the impact of harvesting Ngali nuts (Canadium Indicum) for the production of a seed oil. As such, data needed to be collected on the tree's growth, yield of nuts, and regeneration, as well as the current nut harvest rates to ascertain the sustainability of the harvest.

To date, the grantee's monitoring efforts for a project based in the Salomon Islands have resulted in one of the most comprehensive and successful examples of community-based biological monitoring. Estimated actual costs associated with the start-up phase of the Ngali nut monitoring (1996) were $14,500, and 1997's operational cost totaled $5,725. These costs are summarized in the following pie-charts.

Solomon Islands

Cost Categories	SI Start Up Costs	SI Operating Costs
Food and Lodging	3 people, 29 days	1 person, 18 days
Travel	2 round trips U.S. to Solomon Islands, 1 round trip Australia to Solomon Islands	1 round trip U.S. to Solomon Islands
Equipment	compass, tape measure, etc.	tape measure
Training & Workshops	data books	flipcharts, pens, paper
Consulting Fees	14 days, 1 consultant	18 days, 1 consultant
Participant Stipend	4 people, $6/person, 14.5 days	9 people, $6/person, 5.5 days

Two conclusion that can be drawn from the above are 1) the start-up costs are nearly twice the first-year operating costs, and 2) while the total is reduced in the operating stage the cost allocation has remained the same-consultancy and travel costs are roughly the same portion of the total monitoring costs.

Several factors contributed to the high start-up costs of the Ngali nut project:

Logistical difficulties. The project site where the Ngali nut trees are located is quite a distance from the project office so there are substantial staff travel costs associated with the monitoring programs.

Expert consultant. It was decided at the outset of the project to bring in a very knowledgeable technical advisor (consultant) to the project who commands a fairly sizable consulting fee. It was also decided that a BCN staff member and another consultant should be present during the initial phase of monitoring to help conduct a training workshop.

Top-down planning. In order to induce community members to attend the workshop, the project had to pay a small daily stipend to cover food, travel and other miscellaneous costs.

Each of these factors was mitigated in the following year. For example, just one consultant made a second trip to the Solomon Islands after the start-up phase and the most of the equipment used for monitoring has been purchased at the outset. The costs of putting on a training workshop in the Solomon Islands is very minimal. Subsequent monitoring costs will be lower still because there is no need for a consultant to travel to the Solomon Islands for some time.

Example 2 -- Biodiversity Prospecting in Fiji [#20]

In comparison, the costs associated with this next project, a marine project located in Fiji, are almost one third of the preceding project. This program was structured in such a way as to minimize start-up costs and provide initial training in monitoring so that on-going monitoring efforts would be very low in cost.

Factors that contributed to the low start-up costs are:

Narrow focus. The survey design was simplified; for example, the same set of questions was applicable to all three species of plants being monitored.

Feasible sampling area. In addition, the species being monitoring are in small plot very close to the village and project office so that travel costs are very low.

Pared-down consultancy. The project was designed to utilize a single consultant only once during the initial phase. Operating costs are extremely low at $245 per year because there are no additional workshops for the project and no need for outside consultants. Participants stipends in Fiji are also much lower than in the Solomon Islands, which helps in bringing down the costs.

Fiji

Cost Categories	Fiji Start Up Costs	Projected Fiji Operating Costs
Food and Lodging	21 people, $13/day	1 person, $15/day
Travel	1 round trip ticket U.S. to Fiji; local travel	local travel
Equipment	compass, tape measure, etc.	tape measure
Training & Workshops	flipcharts, pens, paper	pens, paper
Consulting Fees	23 days	0 days
Participant Stipend	14 people, $3.20/person for transport	14 people, $3.20/person for transport

Conclusion

BCN experience has demonstrated that community-based ecological monitoring programs can collect the data that resource management decisions. The examples discussed here are intended to illustrate that the start-up and operating costs do represent a significant reduction over what was originally planned in project proposals. This reduction can be as much as 75 percent below original projections. A key element of these programs, and a majority of the cost, is typically the outside expertise to design a targeted, culturally appropriate, and simple monitoring plan. It remains to be seen how effectively the communities use the information although we feel that conservation will have the best chance of occurring if decision making is pushed down to the local level.

For more information...check out the BCN Web site (www.BCNet.org) or write to us. Full reports on the two monitoring examples used here are available in the "library" section of the web site. All or portions of these reports can be electronically downloaded.

4.2 BCN Financial Summary

			Disbursements
Budget Items	Authorized Amount1	Total Obligations To Date2	FY 1993 10/92-9/93	FY 1994 10/93-9/94	FY 1995 10/94-9/95	FY 1996 10/95-9/96	FY 19973 10/96-9/97	Total Disbursements To Date
Salaries/Benefits	2,116,079	2,412,072	112,607	530,117	574,955	570,245	624,148	2,412,072
WWF Indirect Costs	1,464,633	1,380,168	84,821	350,808	346,788	303,561	294,190	1,380,168
Travel & Per Diem	620,542	495,669	3,841	127,650	134,437	106,937	122,804	495,669
Other Direct Costs	862,634	861,119	62,066	153,114	266,294	197,839	181,806	861,119
T/A, Advisory Groups	1,798,612	479,537	309	140,153	70,610	177,387	91,078	479,537
Small Grants	483,000	256,194	0	0	64,648	33,135	158,411	256,194
Grants	12,654,500	11,493,758	19,660	1,127,768	1,802,563	2,795,525	2,181,033	7,926,549
TOTAL	20,000,000	17,378,516	283,304	2,429,610	3,260,295	4,184,629	3,653,470	13,811,308

Notes:

¹Original program was for five years; program now include an 18-month no cost extension for 6.5 total years.

²Expenses for salaries, indirect costs, travel, other direct costs, and technnical assistance are disbursed through 9/97.
Expenses for grants are total Planning and Implementation Grants and small Grants awarded through 9/97.

³Line item expenses for FY97 vary slightly from official financial reports due to location of small grant expenses in accounting system.

WHY BIODIVERSITY   FIELD STORIES   PARTICIPATE   RESULTS   MARKETSPACE ABOUT THE NETWORK   WHAT'S NEW   LEARNING MATERIALS   SEARCH   LINKS   SITE MAP   HOME