My recent flight from Indianapolis to Charlotte was capped with extra excitement as the pilot executed a rapid pull-out just prior to landing. With clear weather, most passengers likely assumed as did I, that another plane had inadvertently crossed the active runway. Nearly 10 minutes passed as we continued our climb and then started the turns to take us back into the landing pattern.
The pilot finally came on with, "Folks, we have a 'routine emergency.' We've lost our flaps and will have to land using only brakes and reverse engine thrust." He continued with other less-than-soothing assurances. "We practices this type of landing all the time in the simulators. Don't worry about all of the fire equipment that will be visible as we land."
Other than a few accelerated heart rates and the delays and missed flights that followed, the only lasting legacy of the event was the odd combination of words -- "routine emergency."
Are America's Forests Experiencing Routine Emergencies?
America is blessed with some of the most diverse and productive forests in the world. Yet, those forests are plagued by challenges. It is true that total forest acreage has remained relatively constant over the past several decades -- no small feat in the face of a population that has grown by more than a dozen South Carolina's in just 20 years ... 58 million more people with no added space.
Recent USDA Forest Service projections suggest that as many as 57 million acres -- about 7.5% of the nation's total forested estate -- will be subjected to increased housing densities by 2030. Yet, there are two less visible threats that some would consider routine and others dire emergencies: forest health and the loss of markets for wood and fiber.
Threats to the health of the nation's forests fall well outside of historical norms. The Forest Service reports that nearly 12 million acres -- again almost the total amount of all forests in the State of South Carolina -- were lost to mortality in 2009. And 2009 saw an increase of nearly 3 million acres over 2008. The oxymoronic aspect (aka "routine emergency") facet of these challenges is only exacerbated by the closure of dozens of sawmills and pulp & paper mills from coast-to-coast. Without markets to provide economically-viable tools to manage those forests, losses to pests, diseases and in some cases extraordinary wildfires, are often the unintended result.
Growing Recognition of the Importance of Markets -- Too Little; Too Late?
Many concerned about forests -- environmental groups and average citizens -- have often equated harvesting of trees with forest destruction. No doubt, some practices of the past (over-harvesting and high-grading) contributed reality to that perception. But, today, in the face of enlightened self-interest by forest owners who don't want to slay the goose laying the golden eggs; with all states having active forestry agencies -- some with stringent regulatory authority; with outright forest loss being a far more daunting threat than sound forest management; America's forests face new challenges.
We at the Endowment believe that if we are to retain America's bountiful forests, we must make progress in addressing existing and emerging challenges to forest health exploding in the face of globalization and climate change. Too, we believe that markets -- diverse and vibrant ones for traditional as well as emerging products and services -- are among the best tools in the tool box.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Americans and Open Space Conservation
Want to know what someone's "real" interests and priorities are, just look at their calendar. Or, as the old adage goes, look at their checkbook. Another way of saying it is "follow the investment -- whether time or money."
In the most tumultuous of times in American political history the pundits and those running for political office tell us that Americans won't stand for paying another dollar in taxes. But is that really the case?
In the most recent elections -- November 2010; clearly an anti-tax environment -- according to the Trust for Public Lands, those crazy American voters approved an overwhelming 80% of all ballot proposals in support of conservation funding! Twenty-eight of 35 proposals were passes with votes ranging from 59% in Maine for a statewide bond providing for investments in land conservation and the preservation of working waterfronts and state parks to 71% in very conservative South Carolina where votes in Dorchester County approved $5 million in bonds to buy parkland, trails, and wildlife habitat.
Is this an Aberration?
One might consider the votes of 2010 an aberration but such would be a big mistake. In fact, the numbers differed only in that they were higher than a long-term trend whereby open space conservation initiatives typically are passed at the rate of 3 of 4 considered.
What does this Mean?
Without the benefit of rich and expensive studies, perhaps there are a few conclusions that are warranted. While few voters are supportive of sending more tax dollars to Washington and beyond, they seem to be very concerned about what is going on right in their backyards. In short, people are very concerned AND willing to pay for the quality of life close to home.
It is encouraging to see that a growing number of Americas also are coming to an understanding that conservation doesn't just mean "buy and set it aside." Rather, many of these self-assessed funding initiatives are designed to promote conservation of working farms, forests, and ranches. Perhaps there really is a way to "have your cake and eat it too" by 1) keeping lands on the tax rolls and providing jobs and commodities to meet consumer needs; 2) while also ensuring that those lands will retain their important ecological and broader societal benefits such as open space, wildlife habitat, and clean air and water -- what some call the "natural infrastructure" or environmental "services" that lands provide.
It may be too that many are beginning to look at the future through the eyes of their grandchildren and come to the conclusion that we must do a better job if we are to leave future generations with options and a quality of life. Whatever the real reasons, it is interesting to note that this trend has continued for many years in good economic times and in bad. There must be something there.
In the most tumultuous of times in American political history the pundits and those running for political office tell us that Americans won't stand for paying another dollar in taxes. But is that really the case?
In the most recent elections -- November 2010; clearly an anti-tax environment -- according to the Trust for Public Lands, those crazy American voters approved an overwhelming 80% of all ballot proposals in support of conservation funding! Twenty-eight of 35 proposals were passes with votes ranging from 59% in Maine for a statewide bond providing for investments in land conservation and the preservation of working waterfronts and state parks to 71% in very conservative South Carolina where votes in Dorchester County approved $5 million in bonds to buy parkland, trails, and wildlife habitat.
Is this an Aberration?
One might consider the votes of 2010 an aberration but such would be a big mistake. In fact, the numbers differed only in that they were higher than a long-term trend whereby open space conservation initiatives typically are passed at the rate of 3 of 4 considered.
What does this Mean?
Without the benefit of rich and expensive studies, perhaps there are a few conclusions that are warranted. While few voters are supportive of sending more tax dollars to Washington and beyond, they seem to be very concerned about what is going on right in their backyards. In short, people are very concerned AND willing to pay for the quality of life close to home.
It is encouraging to see that a growing number of Americas also are coming to an understanding that conservation doesn't just mean "buy and set it aside." Rather, many of these self-assessed funding initiatives are designed to promote conservation of working farms, forests, and ranches. Perhaps there really is a way to "have your cake and eat it too" by 1) keeping lands on the tax rolls and providing jobs and commodities to meet consumer needs; 2) while also ensuring that those lands will retain their important ecological and broader societal benefits such as open space, wildlife habitat, and clean air and water -- what some call the "natural infrastructure" or environmental "services" that lands provide.
It may be too that many are beginning to look at the future through the eyes of their grandchildren and come to the conclusion that we must do a better job if we are to leave future generations with options and a quality of life. Whatever the real reasons, it is interesting to note that this trend has continued for many years in good economic times and in bad. There must be something there.
Monday, January 03, 2011
2011: The Year of the Rabbit ... and Forests
The Chinese calendar recognizes a dozen animals on a rotating basis each with their special "year." Last year was a very powerful one with the tiger holding the seat of honor. As we approach Chinese New Year 2011 (February 3), the rabbit will take center stage.
Similarly, the United Nations (UN) establishes a cause for annual global recognition and attention for its member countries. With a pre-planning schedule that is the envy of even the most obsessive scheduler, the UN voted in December 2006 to make 2011 "The International Year of Forests."
UN General Assembly Resolution 61/193 set as preamble, "Convinced that concerted efforts should focus on raising awareness at all levels to strengthen the sustainable management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests for the benefit of current and future generations,"
1. Decides to declare 2011 the International Year of Forests;
2. Requests the secretariat of the United Nations Forum on Forests of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the Secretariat, to serves as the focal point for the implementation of the Year, in collaboration with Governments, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests and international, regional and subregional organizations and processes as well as relevant major groups;
3. Invites, in particular, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, as the Chair of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests, within its mandate, to support the implementation of the Year;
4. Calls upon Governments, relevant regional and international organizations, and major groups to support activities related to the Year, inter alia, through voluntary contributions, and to link their relevant activities to the Year;
5. Encourages voluntary partnerships among Member States, international organizations and major groups to facilitate and promote activities related to the Year at the local and national levels, including by creating national committees or designating focal points in their respective countries;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session on the state of preparation for the Year.
Similarly, the United Nations (UN) establishes a cause for annual global recognition and attention for its member countries. With a pre-planning schedule that is the envy of even the most obsessive scheduler, the UN voted in December 2006 to make 2011 "The International Year of Forests."
UN General Assembly Resolution 61/193 set as preamble, "Convinced that concerted efforts should focus on raising awareness at all levels to strengthen the sustainable management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests for the benefit of current and future generations,"
1. Decides to declare 2011 the International Year of Forests;
2. Requests the secretariat of the United Nations Forum on Forests of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the Secretariat, to serves as the focal point for the implementation of the Year, in collaboration with Governments, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests and international, regional and subregional organizations and processes as well as relevant major groups;
3. Invites, in particular, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, as the Chair of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests, within its mandate, to support the implementation of the Year;
4. Calls upon Governments, relevant regional and international organizations, and major groups to support activities related to the Year, inter alia, through voluntary contributions, and to link their relevant activities to the Year;
5. Encourages voluntary partnerships among Member States, international organizations and major groups to facilitate and promote activities related to the Year at the local and national levels, including by creating national committees or designating focal points in their respective countries;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session on the state of preparation for the Year.
The Endowment Accepts the Challenge
Not surprisingly, we at the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, think that on this issue, the UN is right on target! While forests aren't the only issue in the world, they definitely are among the most important. As sources of the world's greenest of all products (wood and paper), homes to nearly incalculable wildlife, the sources of clean water for hundreds of millions of the world's human residents and places for recreation as well as spiritual re-creation, we think forests are worthy of recognition and honor.
Forests and Americans
As the work of the Endowment centers almost exclusively on those forests that fall within the borders of the United States, with an occasional joint-venture across the border with Canada, we don't have to think long or hard about the importance of forests. North America is indeed a continent of forests with cultures deeply rooted in forests. From the King's Trees (white pines) of New England to the once ubiquitous American chestnut that blanketed the Appalachians to the bald cypress swamps of the deep south to the giant redwoods and sequoias of California, tree cover blankets fully one-third of the nation.
But even where forests were not the natural dominate vegetative cover, wherever our people have gone so too have trees and forests. What American city doesn't have an Elm Street, Oak or Maple? We've learned that urban forests not only make our yards and cities more beautiful, but they make them more livable as well. Trees serves as natural filters for our rain and air, they lessen the blast of heat in the summer and cold winds in the winter.
The Year Ahead for the Endowment
Our work is rooted deeply and daily in forests. That won't change. However, as one of our organizational commitments to the International Year of Forests, we will be more intentional about sharing our approach to forests and the people that they serve through a monthly installment of our Blog to share more about what we are doing to advance sustainable forestry and the needs of those people nested within forest-rich environments.
So, to all Americans everywhere, "Happy Year of Forests!"
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Growing the Market for Sustainably Produced Wood Products
Through November 30, 2010, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Research and Promotion Branch is accepting public comments regarding a proposed Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order. Following are excerpts from the Endowment's comments on that proposed order.
Among the first initiatives undertaken by the Endowment was a study that led to the report, "Commodity Check-off: The Potential for North American Softwood Lumber." The study led to the creation of the Blue Ribbon Commission for Softwood Lumber Check-off (BRC). At that point the Endowment was joined by the BiNational Softwood Lumber Council (an industry support group also created under the Softwood Lumber Agreement 2006) in advancing and providing financial support to the BRC.
The Need for Check-off
Grow the Market for Renewable Products: North America is a continent of forests and a society founded on forest products. In spite of the fact that wood is the greenest of all building products, it has increasingly lost share to competing products (e.g. steel, plastic and concrete) that are not renewable, require greater energy consumption in production and have more environmental impacts. The widely fragmented forest products sector has never been able to mount and sustain a broad-based research and promotion program to grow its markets due to lack of broad participation in underwriting those activities. A USDA check-off is the only solution to remedy this situation.
Provide Markets to Encourage Management of Forests: North America is plagued by increasing forest health challenges driven by globalization and climate change. Varied and vibrant markets for forest products are the most important tool in providing outlets that encourage and allow forest owners to appropriately manage their holdings. A strong promotion program funded by a check-off will stimulate new and increased demand for forest owners' products, and the expanding revenue streams that will flow from this will support management required by new forest health challenges.
Focus on Growing: An Indisputable Business Case: We believe that one of the greatest gains from check-off will come in improved relations between the U.S. and Canadian industries through a laser-like focus on the all important need to grow markets for the good of all. North America's forest industry has long experienced conflict between the U.S. and Canadian systems, which continues today. While these issues go unresolved, competing products continue to take market share from wood. Both countries and their respective industries will benefit greatly from a collective focus on growing the market pie through a powerful promotion program funded by a check-off.
Family-Supporting Jobs in Rural Communities: By their very nature the growing, harvesting, manufacturing and renewing forests and forest products are rural. The forest products industry has been one of the most important pillars of rural community life through provision of family-supporting jobs. Growing markets through concerted research and promotion will retain and create needed jobs.
Keeping Forests as Forests: Forests blanket one-third of the United States and those forests are held primarily by families -- some 11,000,000 of them. If we hope to retain those non-public lands as forests for the many benefits they provide to society (e.g. sources of wood products, homes to wildlife, places for recreation, providers of water, etc.) it is important that we provide the economic incentives -- markets -- for those trees when landowners need to sell to meet their management and economic objectives. A check-off can be a strong driver to maintain forests as forests.
Check-off: Extending Lessons from Traditional Agriculture to Forests
American farmers have shown for decades the importance and power of collaboration to grow markets for their products. The literally hundreds of millions of dollars that have been provided through voluntary self-assessments under check-offs have led to new products and markets through research and expanded consumer understanding, appreciation and use. We feel strongly that the forest products industry as represented by softwood lumber producers domestically and those from around the world who wish to access the U.S. market will benefit greatly from adoption to check-off.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Staffing for the Future
From inception in late 2006 until just recently the Endowment operated with what we believe is the leanest staff model in our peer group. That model -- three full-time staff and a rotating university intern; later augmented with a part-time financial consultant -- served us well through our start-up and early program implementation phase.
As we've learned more about how we can best achieve our mission and stick to our niche, the Board and staff have been looking at options to ensure that we can meet the needs of the future. Our leadership began discussions in mid-2009 and presented a staffing plan for the Board late that fall. After thorough discussion and review the Board agreed that it was time to make some adjustments. As a result, we beefed-up the finance role and added depth to the program staff. Those changes, which we'll address in a bit more detail, position us well for the next several years.
Getting our Financial Systems in Order
The Endowment began like few other organizations with a one-time infusion of funds that had to be placed under management all at once. While many organizations have the benefit of a "quiet period," often of three years or more to allow the corpus to grow, the Endowment had no such buffer. Our overhead costs began on day one even as we were just starting to consider how best to achieve our challenging missional objectives. Timing is everything. Our entry into the market allowed us the all-too-brief euphoria associated with the upward ride of an aging bull market; followed by harrowing declines associated with the "Great Recession."
But for the wisdom of a Board that had adopted a "down market" programmatic investment spending plan before the market declined, things would have been even more chaotic. The good news of the saga is that we have been very successful in forging strong partnerships that have allowed us to "leverage" our diminished spending potential to still have a total impact near that anticipated pre-market decline. In short, we've been able to commit nearly $40 million to missional investments.
The flip side of that coin is that each of those partnerships -- especially those with federal agencies -- has added complexity and need for additional review and controls. Thus, we "up-graded" our part-time Chief Financial Officer role to a full-time Director of Finance. Kim Morgan, a deeply experienced CPA, joined us in March to help steer the financial ship day-to-day.
Re-directing and Expanding the Program Team
The Board also agreed that it was time to add some all-star strength to the program team that had been represented by significantly less than two full-time equivalents of the original three-person model. We began with a commitment to add senior experience. With the addition of a Senior Vice President who brings rich program experience augmented by a re-direction of our community development program, we were able to do just that. These two new team members -- Peter Stangel and Alan McGregor -- respectively, along with our President who also serves a dual role as a program officer, position us well for the future. Each brings significant experience and a proven record of success.
Stirring the Technology Pot
As if adding three new faces to a five-person staff model all at once wasn't enough, we determined that is was also time to up-grade our information technology systems. That transition has proven challenging but holds significant promise of better days for those who survive the journey.
The Future is Now
As we begin the second half of 2010 -- which coincides with the second half of our fourth year as an entity -- we believe we are well positioned to serve the needs and challenges of these trying times. Our five full-time team members are individually and collectively excited to be granted the privilege of being a part of the important work being undertaken by the Endowment and our partners. Too, we want to assure you that even with this significant growth -- from 3+ to 5 -- we remain among the leanest organizations of our kind and we don't expect that to change.
One of our beliefs is that this small staff model, while challenging at times, ensures that we keep the focus on delivery at the wholesale vs. retail level. We plan to remain a grantmaking institution that works with strong partners in the field to achieve important "systemic, transformative and sustainable" advances for the nation's working forests and forest-reliant communities.
As we've learned more about how we can best achieve our mission and stick to our niche, the Board and staff have been looking at options to ensure that we can meet the needs of the future. Our leadership began discussions in mid-2009 and presented a staffing plan for the Board late that fall. After thorough discussion and review the Board agreed that it was time to make some adjustments. As a result, we beefed-up the finance role and added depth to the program staff. Those changes, which we'll address in a bit more detail, position us well for the next several years.
Getting our Financial Systems in Order
The Endowment began like few other organizations with a one-time infusion of funds that had to be placed under management all at once. While many organizations have the benefit of a "quiet period," often of three years or more to allow the corpus to grow, the Endowment had no such buffer. Our overhead costs began on day one even as we were just starting to consider how best to achieve our challenging missional objectives. Timing is everything. Our entry into the market allowed us the all-too-brief euphoria associated with the upward ride of an aging bull market; followed by harrowing declines associated with the "Great Recession."
But for the wisdom of a Board that had adopted a "down market" programmatic investment spending plan before the market declined, things would have been even more chaotic. The good news of the saga is that we have been very successful in forging strong partnerships that have allowed us to "leverage" our diminished spending potential to still have a total impact near that anticipated pre-market decline. In short, we've been able to commit nearly $40 million to missional investments.
The flip side of that coin is that each of those partnerships -- especially those with federal agencies -- has added complexity and need for additional review and controls. Thus, we "up-graded" our part-time Chief Financial Officer role to a full-time Director of Finance. Kim Morgan, a deeply experienced CPA, joined us in March to help steer the financial ship day-to-day.
Re-directing and Expanding the Program Team
The Board also agreed that it was time to add some all-star strength to the program team that had been represented by significantly less than two full-time equivalents of the original three-person model. We began with a commitment to add senior experience. With the addition of a Senior Vice President who brings rich program experience augmented by a re-direction of our community development program, we were able to do just that. These two new team members -- Peter Stangel and Alan McGregor -- respectively, along with our President who also serves a dual role as a program officer, position us well for the future. Each brings significant experience and a proven record of success.
Stirring the Technology Pot
As if adding three new faces to a five-person staff model all at once wasn't enough, we determined that is was also time to up-grade our information technology systems. That transition has proven challenging but holds significant promise of better days for those who survive the journey.
The Future is Now
As we begin the second half of 2010 -- which coincides with the second half of our fourth year as an entity -- we believe we are well positioned to serve the needs and challenges of these trying times. Our five full-time team members are individually and collectively excited to be granted the privilege of being a part of the important work being undertaken by the Endowment and our partners. Too, we want to assure you that even with this significant growth -- from 3+ to 5 -- we remain among the leanest organizations of our kind and we don't expect that to change.
One of our beliefs is that this small staff model, while challenging at times, ensures that we keep the focus on delivery at the wholesale vs. retail level. We plan to remain a grantmaking institution that works with strong partners in the field to achieve important "systemic, transformative and sustainable" advances for the nation's working forests and forest-reliant communities.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Choosing What NOT To Do
One of the more difficult steps in making sound decisions about how to focus an organization’s programmatic investments for maximum impact is to decide what NOT to do. Early on the Endowment’s Board developed a list of “ineligible” activities to help avoid the trap of “trying to be all-things-to-all-people”—a dilemma that afflicts many non-profits.
Some Things the Endowment Always Says No To
Some of the early “Nope, can’t go there” things were the proverbial no-brainers for a national endowment focused on sustainable forestry: sporting or booster clubs or religious activity. Others were imbedded in our “organic act”: political activity and humanitarian or disaster relief (under the Softwood Lumber Agreement that activity was handed to Habitat for Humanity).
Still others were on the “do not call list” as they would divert from the Endowment’s desire to be “systemic, transformative and sustainable” in the type of change we hoped to promote. Among those were: debt retirement, capital campaigns, annual fund drives and honorary functions. While a significant donation to a single organization’s capital campaign might be transformative to that entity, it isn’t likely that the Endowment could chart an approach that would be “systemic” in such endeavors nor could it be “sustained.”
While not perfect, we’ve found that initial list of things “not to do,” very helpful in focusing our Board and staff time and the organization’s limited financial resources on areas that offer greater potential value and return.
Conferences and Forums
An additional area that we adopted early, but had not put on the “ineligible” list (although we’ve now added it), is the whole arena of conferences and forums. Not surprisingly, we get lots of calls and requests for $5,000 or $50,000 “sponsorship” of some very important conferences. In choosing not to fund this type of activity we are in no way minimizing their value. In fact, our staff pays a registration fee and attends several such meetings every year to expand understanding of current or emerging topics.
There are two primary reasons that we’ve opted not to provide funds for such meetings. First, we don’t believe that it is possible to appropriately measure benefits against our desire to be “systemic, transformative and sustainable.” Secondly, and perhaps just as importantly, given that there are so many worthwhile opportunities to provide conference support, we’ve found that it is far easier to be consistent by not supporting any rather than in trying to explain to others why their conference isn’t going to gain Endowment support if we just funded a similar one somewhere else.
The Importance of Consistency
We know that the need for financial support in the not-for-profit sector is great and growing. We know too that for every time we are able to say yes to someone’s great idea, we at the same time must say no to dozens of other worthwhile projects and initiatives. Finally, we know that we don’t have all of the answers. We welcome ideas and input. In fact we aggressively seek it via open exchanges such as our Blog, through periodic convenings of experts in a given topical area and through reading and listening as we travel across this great country. In all of this we attempt to be transparent and consistent in how we treat everyone. All the while we seek to stay true to our Board’s desire to really move the needle of change. Thus we continue to focus our actions and our resources.
Some Things the Endowment Always Says No To
Some of the early “Nope, can’t go there” things were the proverbial no-brainers for a national endowment focused on sustainable forestry: sporting or booster clubs or religious activity. Others were imbedded in our “organic act”: political activity and humanitarian or disaster relief (under the Softwood Lumber Agreement that activity was handed to Habitat for Humanity).
Still others were on the “do not call list” as they would divert from the Endowment’s desire to be “systemic, transformative and sustainable” in the type of change we hoped to promote. Among those were: debt retirement, capital campaigns, annual fund drives and honorary functions. While a significant donation to a single organization’s capital campaign might be transformative to that entity, it isn’t likely that the Endowment could chart an approach that would be “systemic” in such endeavors nor could it be “sustained.”
While not perfect, we’ve found that initial list of things “not to do,” very helpful in focusing our Board and staff time and the organization’s limited financial resources on areas that offer greater potential value and return.
Conferences and Forums
An additional area that we adopted early, but had not put on the “ineligible” list (although we’ve now added it), is the whole arena of conferences and forums. Not surprisingly, we get lots of calls and requests for $5,000 or $50,000 “sponsorship” of some very important conferences. In choosing not to fund this type of activity we are in no way minimizing their value. In fact, our staff pays a registration fee and attends several such meetings every year to expand understanding of current or emerging topics.
There are two primary reasons that we’ve opted not to provide funds for such meetings. First, we don’t believe that it is possible to appropriately measure benefits against our desire to be “systemic, transformative and sustainable.” Secondly, and perhaps just as importantly, given that there are so many worthwhile opportunities to provide conference support, we’ve found that it is far easier to be consistent by not supporting any rather than in trying to explain to others why their conference isn’t going to gain Endowment support if we just funded a similar one somewhere else.
The Importance of Consistency
We know that the need for financial support in the not-for-profit sector is great and growing. We know too that for every time we are able to say yes to someone’s great idea, we at the same time must say no to dozens of other worthwhile projects and initiatives. Finally, we know that we don’t have all of the answers. We welcome ideas and input. In fact we aggressively seek it via open exchanges such as our Blog, through periodic convenings of experts in a given topical area and through reading and listening as we travel across this great country. In all of this we attempt to be transparent and consistent in how we treat everyone. All the while we seek to stay true to our Board’s desire to really move the needle of change. Thus we continue to focus our actions and our resources.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Soliciting the Best of the Nation’s Creative Conservation Thinkers
The Endowment is in the midst of implementing a new program in partnership with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) made possible by a new Grants Leveraging Category contained within the agency’s Conservation Innovation Grants Program (CIG). Through a pending Request for Proposals process the Endowment is seeking to identify projects and partners for implementation under the Endowment’s successful 2009 CIG submission entitled, “Healthy Watersheds through Healthy Forests Initiative.”
At this point we don’t know if NRCS will continue the Grants Leveraging Category of CIG going into the future. What we do know is that we found the thought process that led us to the winning 2009 submission -- with the support of input from a number of conservation professionals from across the country -- to be a stimulating way to bubble up important initiatives and priorities. In short, it allowed us to build on our original public input process as the Endowment set its strategic programmatic priorities. We’d like to engage you in continuing that process as we think ahead to 2010.
About CIG
The purpose of CIG is to stimulate the development and adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies while leveraging the Federal investment in environmental enhancement and protection. CIG projects are expected to lead to the transfer of conservation technologies, management systems, and innovative approaches (such as market-based systems) into NRCS technical manuals, guides, and references or to the private sector. CIG does not fund research projects. It is a vehicle to stimulate the development and adoption of conservation approaches or technologies that have been studied sufficiently to indicate a likelihood of success, and to be candidates for eventual technology transfer or institutionalization. CIG funds projects targeting innovative on-the-ground conservation, including pilot projects and field demonstrations.
The Endowment Approach to CIG
Rather than approach the CIG program as a single applicant wishing to implement a specific project at the field level in one of the listed areas of National Concern – water resources; soil resources; atmospheric resources; grazing land; forest health or wildlife habitat – we believe our strength and core competence is found in developing a thematic approach to CIG that tests a single idea or technology in differing geographies. Thus, more rapidly proving the technology and vetting its use in a range of circumstances. For instance, under our 2009 grant we will be seeking to link up-stream water producers (e.g. forest landowners) with downstream water users/consumers ultimately by monetizing the water component of ecosystem services of forests. We anticipate deploying strategies and practices in two to three well-funded watersheds in different parts of the country to gain deep knowledge that can then be used by NRCS and others to transfer those learnings to other watersheds across the country.
Opening the Idea Box
As we think ahead to 2010 and a potential partnership with NRCS again (should such prove possible and be a direction approved by the Endowment’s Board) we want to engage you in bubbling-up those great ideas that meet the spirit of CIG and that would provide measurable results on the ground to advance forest sustainability and the needs of rural forest-reliant communities. We see this as a dialogue that extends the reach of the Endowment and helps us to benefit from the best of ideas from across the country. We offer two ways for you to engage. First, you may chose to just respond to this Blog or if you don’t wish your thoughts to be seen on the web, send your ideas directly to us – michelle@usendowment.org . Either way, we appreciate you taking the time to share with us so that we may consider ways to better target the Endowment’s work to achieve our important mission.
Let the creativity begin!
At this point we don’t know if NRCS will continue the Grants Leveraging Category of CIG going into the future. What we do know is that we found the thought process that led us to the winning 2009 submission -- with the support of input from a number of conservation professionals from across the country -- to be a stimulating way to bubble up important initiatives and priorities. In short, it allowed us to build on our original public input process as the Endowment set its strategic programmatic priorities. We’d like to engage you in continuing that process as we think ahead to 2010.
About CIG
The purpose of CIG is to stimulate the development and adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies while leveraging the Federal investment in environmental enhancement and protection. CIG projects are expected to lead to the transfer of conservation technologies, management systems, and innovative approaches (such as market-based systems) into NRCS technical manuals, guides, and references or to the private sector. CIG does not fund research projects. It is a vehicle to stimulate the development and adoption of conservation approaches or technologies that have been studied sufficiently to indicate a likelihood of success, and to be candidates for eventual technology transfer or institutionalization. CIG funds projects targeting innovative on-the-ground conservation, including pilot projects and field demonstrations.
The Endowment Approach to CIG
Rather than approach the CIG program as a single applicant wishing to implement a specific project at the field level in one of the listed areas of National Concern – water resources; soil resources; atmospheric resources; grazing land; forest health or wildlife habitat – we believe our strength and core competence is found in developing a thematic approach to CIG that tests a single idea or technology in differing geographies. Thus, more rapidly proving the technology and vetting its use in a range of circumstances. For instance, under our 2009 grant we will be seeking to link up-stream water producers (e.g. forest landowners) with downstream water users/consumers ultimately by monetizing the water component of ecosystem services of forests. We anticipate deploying strategies and practices in two to three well-funded watersheds in different parts of the country to gain deep knowledge that can then be used by NRCS and others to transfer those learnings to other watersheds across the country.
Opening the Idea Box
As we think ahead to 2010 and a potential partnership with NRCS again (should such prove possible and be a direction approved by the Endowment’s Board) we want to engage you in bubbling-up those great ideas that meet the spirit of CIG and that would provide measurable results on the ground to advance forest sustainability and the needs of rural forest-reliant communities. We see this as a dialogue that extends the reach of the Endowment and helps us to benefit from the best of ideas from across the country. We offer two ways for you to engage. First, you may chose to just respond to this Blog or if you don’t wish your thoughts to be seen on the web, send your ideas directly to us – michelle@usendowment.org . Either way, we appreciate you taking the time to share with us so that we may consider ways to better target the Endowment’s work to achieve our important mission.
Let the creativity begin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
