Process Lessons

• Simplify the proposal writing process. National and local level NGOs and organizations often have great ideas for a conservation program. However, they are frequently thwarted from getting outside funding assistance due to often lengthy and complex proposal submission processes and their inexperience in writing proposals. Instead of issuing a standard call for complete proposals, it is probably more effective to solicit brief concept papers from potential applicants. Your field staff can then work with the candidate groups to further develop their proposal. This work not only reduces the quantity of information needed in a proposal, but is also of considerable assistance in the evaluation and grant-making process. Technical assistance can also be provided through this field presence at the proposal writing stage.

  Example: Our program started that we wanted to work on the grassroots level with community groups. At the same time, we required 60+ page proposals (before appendices!) with detailed business plans, biological and socioeconomic monitoring plans, and budgets that had to be written in English and submitted in duplicate to Washington DC with a fax number attached to them. Needless to say, it would have been easier for all concerned had we had our field team in place to follow the concept paper process outlined above.

• Specify the details of the partnership between grantee and grantor in clear terms. To avoid misunderstandings and disruptions in activities, it is important to clearly specify the nature of the partnership between grantor and grantee in terms of the roles and responsibilities of all parties. A particularly sensitive issue in hypothesis testing programs is the ownership and use of data collected about projects. Disputes can only be avoided if all parties agree to terms before the issues arise. Keeping in view the evolving nature of partnerships, you should periodically review and revise the terms of these relationships.

  Example: In the beginning, we had rocky relationships with a few groups over who would have control over and access to data. Over time, we have begun to iron these differences out.

• Maintain transparency for processes and decision making to keep expectations realistic. One of the biggest problems facing a grant making program is expectations. While soliciting ideas for projects; and deciding which projects will be funded, it is critically important that the expectations of local NGOs, people's organizations, and communities be kept realistic. Criteria for selection of projects and mutually agreed upon milestones need to be clearly communicated and transparent to all stakeholders.

  Example: The BCN Planning Grants were a double-edged sword. On one hand, they gave groups the resources needed to develop full-fledged Implementation Grant proposals. On the other hand, especially since more groups received Planning Grants than could get Implementation Grants, they created very strong expectations among partner organizations and community members. These expectations in some cases seriously damaged BCN's ability to work with these groups. The process would have perhaps been easier if we had followed the concept paper application idea outlined above.

• Insist that baseline monitoring data be collected BEFORE long-term funding is provided. Given all their other responsibilities (implementing activities, maintaining social relations, and dealing with bureaucratic requirements), it is often easy for project staff to let monitoring efforts slip -- monitoring is quite often the "incremental" activity that groups address after all the other work is started. Owing to the importance of monitoring to a hypothesis testing program, it is critical that you provide an additional "incentive" to ensure that monitoring data are collected while still providing the funds to do so.

  Example: Many BCN-funded projects have gone months or even years before finding the time to begin collecting monitoring data.

• Help national and local NGOs meet financial accounting rules. Often, one of the most difficult aspects of project management for national and local NGOs is managing the money that you give them. If you can provide assistance early on in dealing with the money, it will simplify your relations greatly in the future. Anticipating this technical assistance need and simplifying the reporting requirements can go a long way toward keeping the local partner's efforts focused on the conservation activities.

  Example: BCN experience in the field indicates that approximately 30 percent of the staff time in the first two years of the program was spent assisting NGOs in fulfilling their USAID financial reporting requirements. One of the most useful steps we have taken is to send our administrative staff to the field to work directly with our partners on financial systems.

• Use multiple sources of information to test your hypothesis. No single source of information (e.g. proposal, technical report) is sufficient to lend complete insight on evaluating complex conservation or development issues. Instead, it is best to triangulate from a number of different sources.

  Example: BCN staff use many sources of information including original proposals, technical reports, site visits, meetings, information from other donors and NGOs, newspaper articles, and the detailed monitoring information collected as part of the project by the grantees to enhance its understanding of the projects.

• Ensure that the duration of the grant is adequate for ensuring sustainability of the project. Donors generally like to see results as soon as possible. Most conservation efforts, however, require years if not decades of work to succeed. It is imperative therefore that your program be designed keeping the long-term nature of most conservation projects in view.

  Example: The BCN experience indicates that three to five years is too short a time to ensure either the financial viability of the enterprises or the adequate development of a community of stakeholders that would guarantee the sustainability of the conservation effort. Indeed, in most cases this time frame is too short to even get the basic monitoring frameworks functioning adequately so that the hypothesis can be tested.

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