Applied research grantgiving programs support individual projects relating to conservation-oriented research. Such grants may support research or support conservation-oriented applications of already-completed research. Most applied research grantgiving programs use an open competition process, attracting qualified grantees via widely broadcast calls for proposals detailing grant program goals and objectives, eligibility criteria, types of grants available, award amounts, and deadlines for applications. Most employ selection processes combining peer review and decision making by the grant managers. Traditionally such research grant programs do not involve much ongoing contact with grantees. Yet even with limited program budgets and staffing, there still are many ways managers of applied research grants can facilitate ongoing guidance and capacity strengthening for grantees, as these BSP programs illustrate.
One component of BSP, as originally conceived, was a Research Grants Program designed to support conservation-oriented research in developing countries worldwide. Funded by the USAID Global Bureau, this evolved into the Conservation Impacts Grant (CIG) Program. BSP staff member Meg Symington originally ran the program alone, then she was joined by Ilana Locker, who eventually took over its management; both juggled program management with their many other BSP responsibilities.
CIG was designed to support the development of improved capacity for site-specific, conservation-oriented, applied research, which aims to get those already interested in conservation to pay more attention to the scientific underpinnings of conservation activities. CIG funded research by individuals and institutions in many academic fields, including biology, ecology, economics, anthropology, sociology, and public health.
CIG held grant competitions in 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1996. Proposals, submitted in English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese, were evaluated by peer reviewers, and about 1 in 10 were funded. Overall, the program awarded research grants of up to US $15,000 each to 152 projects in 43 countries with USAID in-country missions in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa and Madagascar, and Asia and the Pacific. During one year the competition was also open to post-Soviet countries, and one grant was awarded in Hungary.
BSP's most recent grantmaking endeavor was the Ukraine Conservation Initiatives Grants Program, quickly conceived in October 1996 when another program (not based on grantgiving) proved infeasible. Given its inherited budgetary and time constraints, the Ukrainian program, funded by USAID's Kyiv mission, had to be completed within two years. The program was co-managed by Eastern Europe division Director Bruce Leighty, a biologist, and Tatiana Zaharchenko, a Ukrainian environmental lawyer experienced in democratization processes, both based in Washington, D.C. A BSP contact person in Kyiv provided ongoing local administrative support. Leighty provided program and technical guidance, sharing decision making with Zaharchenko, who carried out most of BSP's hands-on involvement. Zaharchenko has maintained her working ties in the region and used her "insider" understanding in the complicated process of running a U.S.-based grant program in Ukraine. From the outset, she consulted with Ukraine's scientific, government, and NGO communities about ongoing conservation-related activities and their expectations for and reservations about this program.
BSP wanted to ensure that the program's design addressed certain key scientific and socio-political realities in Ukraine, a post-Soviet country in transition. Ukraine historically has not been accustomed to openness in any system's implementation, including project funding and administration. Even so, Ukraine's longstanding research tradition had yielded results, providing an extensive national base of natural science—especially botanical—knowledge. Building on that tradition is a challenge, since Ukraine's many capable researchers have virtually no funding sources for either basic or applied research. To address these realities head-on, BSP determined two principal program objectives. It would spur specific activities with conservation impacts by allowing Ukrainian scientists (including students), NGOs, and other institutions to take research results and apply them to raising awareness of biodiversity issues, thus capitalizing on their country's scientific knowledge base. It would do this by conspicuously enacting an open, transparent, grantmaking process. To help meet these objectives, BSP also determined that the close involvement of a Ukrainian expert advisory panel would be integral to all stages of program design and implementation, and, it was hoped, to post-program follow-up.
The program's December 1996 Call for Proposals brought in 72 applications. One month later, 22 competitively awarded grants of between U.S. $275 and U.S. $4,800 went to individual scientists and NGO activists. Twenty projects were completed, and three of the most successful ones received follow-on grants to enhance their long-term conservation impact.
For grantgiving programs intended to benefit the development and output of a particular research community, no matter how narrowly or widely that community is defined, open competition can be a logical choice. Everybody in that research community may compete as peers, and usually be judged by peers, a process that reflected the scientific ideal of uniform standards and equal access.
Open Competition
CIG sought to benefit a widely defined and dispersed "community" of conservation-oriented researchers in developing countries across the world. To ensure a truly open competition and attract a high volume of responses, BSP circulated the competition's Request for Proposals (RFP) through as many communication outlets as possible: in journals, newsletters, e-mail listservs; through individual contacts among BSP consortium members; with university professors and career offices; at other conservation and development organizations; and at all of USAID's mission offices. The effort paid off Applications came in each time from NGOs that had not been heard from previously. Later CIG competitions particularly emphasized disseminating the RFP as broadly as possible in Africa and Asia, since Latin America, with a longer history of NGO and research program activity (and fewer language barriers), consistently garnered about 50 percent of grants each competition.
For BSP's Ukrainian program, running an open competition meant explicitly promoting the merits of a democratically based funding philosophy, in counterpoint to the patronage-based funding Ukrainian researchers had long known from their own government. With open competition, BSP affirmed the recognition that all interested researchers, based in universities, NGOs, remote nature reserves, or elsewhere, are members of one Ukrainian research community, with equal rights to compete through one process rewarding scientific merit and project feasibility.
With research funds so scarce in Ukraine, the program had to cope with a crucial decision about just how wide open this open competition really could be. Several prospective advisory panel members said they would not join the board if doing so would disqualify them from competition. As practicing researchers, they could not afford to set aside this rare possibility for project funding. Zaharchenko, particularly concerned about transparency issues, sought input from other grantgivers in Washington, D.C. and then resolved this dilemma by developing clear procedural rules for funding review. Panel members competing for grants would not participate in the initial written evaluation of their own proposals and would leave the room when their proposals were reviewed during an advisory panel meeting. Panelists could not weigh in on their own proposal's fate, nobody's integrity would be compromised, fair and equitable decision making would prevail, and the open competition would remain wide open to the entire Ukrainian research community.
Selection Criteria and Guidelines
CIG proposals had to demonstrate a project's scientific merit, feasibility, and potential conservation and policy impact. Since CIG was designed to support the development of improved capacity for site-specific, conservation-oriented applied research, the program would only fund research topics related to: 1) utilization, management, and monitoring of biological resources; 2) cultural and societal influences on biodiversity conservation; and/or 3) economic and other incentives for biodiversity conservation. To save everyone's time, later RFPs also specified types of proposals CIG would not fund, a practice the Ukrainian program also adopted.
The CIG managers soon found that the most prevalent failing among proposals was researchers' failure to articulate the linkages between their projects' objectives and methods. Because clear objectives and appropriate methods are fundamental to successful research, in the last two competitions CIG added a list of suggestions to its RFP that would help applicants clarify research objectives, explicitly relate them to research methods, and clearly express both in their proposals. They also added a "Summary Sheet" checklist of information that applicants had to include in their executive summary.
The Ukrainian grants program was designed to help researchers employ their findings in activities that raised biodiversity awareness and affected conservation. Therefore, its Call for Proposals specified that applicant projects must be action-oriented (not research-oriented), and aimed at producing solutions to specific biodiversity conservation challenges in existing or potential "specially protected" areas in Ukraine. As with CIG, funded activities had to concern protected area resources management and utilization, cultural and social influences, and/or conservation incentives.
The Ukrainian-language Call for Proposals was carefully worded to reflect Ukrainian conservation realities. Its message was clear: applicants could not claim a project was conservation-related just because it would take place in an existing or potential specially protected area. Ukraine has many kinds of "specially protected" areas, from strictly protected Nature Reserves to other designations that are really "paper parks" wholly lacking protection. If the area in question was really a paper park or only a potential protected area, applicants were instructed to be forthright about those realities and focus their application on the steps they planned to take to effect its transformation into a true conservation area within Ukraine's new economic and political context. Such steps might include promoting a change in the area's legal status and exploring its ecotourism potential.
Deadlines
Both the Ukrainian and CIG programs employed fixed proposal deadlines, which allowed BSP and peer reviewers to judge the merit of each proposal in light of all others in a given competition. With a fixed deadline program, managers had to marshal their resources and institute certain administrative efficiencies to process a stack of proposals—more than 300 in each CIG competition—within several weeks, through screening, peer review, funding decisions, and applicant notification. Because they were running a worldwide program, CIG grant managers sometimes adjusted deadlines for applicants in countries with sluggish or unreliable mail and e-mail systems, while still respecting the overall review schedule. Operating in only one country, the Ukrainian program had prospective grantees submit applications directly to the program's contact person in Kyiv. Even then, the logistics of getting applications from remote locations to the capital city on time sometimes proved daunting.
Proposal Review
For both programs that failed, proposal review started with screening by program managers to eliminate proposals failing to meet basic program requirements. Most such CIG proposals addressed inappropriate topics or earmarked too much money for U.S.-based researchers, with insufficient involvement of host-country organizations or principal investigators. The Ukrainian competition screened out two proposals, one from a government entity and another seeking several times the specified maximum.
Next, both programs implemented peer review processes. The CIG program managers roughly grouped that competition's eligible proposals by language and research topic, and then selected a review committee that could provide matching expertise. CIG peer review committees got bigger as competition applications increased in number. Each committee included at least one person from each BSP consortium partner and one from USAID, primarily supplemented by others in Washington, D.C.'s conservation NGO community. CIG reviewers were not paid for pre-meeting preparation, but they received an honorarium for the review meeting itself.
About three weeks before the review meeting, each CIG primary reviewer received 20 proposals, each of which s/he was to classify as 1) must fund, 2) fundable, 3) uncertain, or 4) reject. In addition, s/he was to provide question-driven "reviewer comments" on a form the CIG managers supplied. During the program's last two competitions, each review panel member also acted as a secondary reviewer, reading another batch of about 20 proposals to classify them and, if time permitted, provide comments.
During the one- to three-day meeting, principal reviewers briefly presented each "must fund" proposal, and secondary reviewers added comments. The committee then quickly skimmed the proposal's executive summary, confirming or challenging the reviewer's funding decision, possibly drawing on personal experience with the state of research on a given topic in a particular country, or with the applicant or institution. Most proposals required only a 15-minute discussion before the committee confirmed its final funding decision. Proposals rated below must-fund by principal reviewers rarely made it to committee discussion.
CIG Staff Advice for Efficient Proposal Review Meetings
|
In the Ukrainian program, Zaharchenko and Leighty made the final funding decisions after the advisory panel met to provide its input. Having BSP, the outsider, take the responsibility as the final funding arbiter shielded the Ukrainian advisors from possible adverse reactions by disappointed colleagues. This made sense in a country where money is scarce and where both panelists and applicants are members of one research community—a situation that will remain the same long after BSP has left the scene. Still, the Ukrainian program was designed to rely heavily on the advisory panel, modeling a transparently deliberative decision-making process among professionals from different sectors and disciplines.
Lawyer Zaharchenko was intent on assembling an advisory panel of experts whose science skills complemented her own specialty in democratic procedures. At BSP's invitation, several Ukrainian professionals joined the panel, as did two government-nominated members, one put forward by Ukraine's Cabinet of Ministers, and one by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety. Reflecting the high proportion of botany-related applications, Zaharchenko made sure several botanists were among the panel members. Except for honoraria provided for proposal and final report reviews, all advisory panel members served without pay. The government representatives had no special powers or privileges.
Four panelists assessed each submission, responding to several questions and following a rather complex rating system. If proposals on topics outside all advisors' expertise received only low ratings, BSP took the precaution of having a non-panelist Ukrainian expert do an additional review, but no outside reviewer ever recommended for funding. With hindsight, Zaharchenko notes that a much simpler rating system still would have weeded out applications below a 50 percent rating. The form's reviewer comments section, later conveyed to applicants, was an unqualified success.
Subsequently the entire advisory panel met for two 10-hour sessions to discuss all the applications meeting the 50 percent cutoff, about half of the original 72. If anyone had special reasons to discuss a proposal that fell below the cutoff, they could introduce it, but nobody used this option. Zaharchenko ran the meeting as a neutral facilitator, sometimes raising queries to help the panelists consider the full range of pertinent issues. During a coffee break, one reviewer demonstrated how unprecedented the approach was for Ukraine, telling Zaharchenko that this was all very interesting, but asking, "When will you tell us who we should select?" She had to persuade panelists that BSP really did seek their independent guidance, not a rubber stamp on its decisions. That reviewer said afterwards that serving on the panel "had been the best lesson in democratic procedures I've ever experienced."
During the discussions BSP took notes on the panel's funding recommendations. These were based on their individual and collective judgments about the relevance, merit, and feasibility of each proposal. BSP later prepared a table detailing the overall recommendations and the individual advisor commentaries. Although it turned down one popular proposal that did not fit the program's aims, BSP funded virtually all the projects unanimously recommended by the advisory panel and selected none that no one had recommended. Sometimes the advisory panel submitted a split recommendation to BSP, nearly always reflecting the panelists' own professional affiliations: NGO representatives leaned toward the more activist proposals; and academic scientists were more inclined toward the more research-oriented ones. In these cases, Zaharchenko and Leighty discussed each side's views at length, weighing the pros and cons before making their final decision. The accord between BSP's decisions and the panelists' recommendations demonstrated both BSP trust in the panel's capacity to steer the program's course within Ukraine and the general accord between BSP and the Ukrainians on its objectives.
Applicant Notification and Follow-up
Both the CIG and Ukrainian programs provided all applicants with written feedback from reviewers. The CIG staff sent unsuccessful applicants a form letter listing other potential funders and encouraging them to rework their proposal. They also sent specific reviewer comments and review session notes detailing why a proposal was not funded. In some cases rejected applicants who revised did get CIG funding in a later competition.
In order to make sure the Ukranian program would not be mislabeled as a foreign-imposed patronage program just as it was entering the mainstream of Ukrainian scientific and conservation activity, BSP went to great lengths to explain to all applicants and the community at large exactly how the transparent, rule-based procedures functioned, and to demonstrate its Ukrainian gestation. In a four-page memo sent to all applicants, the press, and all leading foundations and NGOs in Ukraine, Zaharchenko detailed who was on the advisory panel, the exact steps in the grant selection process, and examples of awarded grants. Rejected applicants also received individual letters conveying their rankings and summarizing panelists' written comments. When successful applicants signed their contracts in Kyiv, they discussed with Zaharchenko the details of advisors' recommendations for project implementation or modifications. Subsequently, a list of all awardees was published in the Conservation News in Ukraine Bulletin. BSP received extensive Ukrainian feedback expressing appreciation of the extra effort to provide a clear view into the grantmaking world and into transparent democratic processes.
Although grantee capacity strengthening often holds little prominence in programs giving small grants to researchers, it was a very important component of the CIG and Ukrainian grants programs. The CIG program had no field staff and little administrative overhead, and it could not offer on-site Technical Assistance (TA), but CIG managers still regularly exceeded their program's minimal obligations, interacting whenever they could. Such efforts were well appreciated. As one CIG grantee recalled, "I felt very comfortable calling BSP when I had problems. I can honestly say this was the first time I felt there was genuine interest in assisting me." TA was a feature of the Ukrainian grants program, particularly through the advisory panel, but also through BSP staff. One Ukrainian grantee, Tatiana Kotenko, recalled, "If I experienced difficulty in a particular area of my grant, I always approached BSP for guidance; BSP approached me with assistance as well. This ready interchange resulted in my better understanding of BSP demands, needs, and tasks and the better outcome of my project."
Field Presence
Limited funding ruled out field visits for the CIG staff. Mexican grantee Patricia Negreros-Castillo, an assistant professor of forestry at Iowa State University, commented, "I would have loved to have had someone from the program visit the site [in Mexico], but I understand that logistically, it was almost impossible." Locker recalls, "At times grantees felt frustrated that we did not have the budget to visit their projects in person, but we tried to compensate for that in a number of ways." CIG managers encouraged other BSP staff members to meet with grantees and discuss their projects when traveling nearby. It was hard for other BSP staff already facing full agendas to add the task of meeting with CIG grantees, but grantees did appreciate the attention when that was possible.
The Ukrainian grants program intentionally did not establish a formal BSP field office in Ukraine because BSP wanted the Ukrainian advisory panel to provide most of the on-site expertise. Zaharchenko did make some field visits to Ukraine during 1997, mostly in August, while reviewing grantee intermediate reports. She met with as many grantees as possible in Kyiv to respond to their questions, verify that projects were running smoothly, and encourage them to do further outreach and awareness-building about their work among local government and communities.
At that time Zaharchenko, accompanied by advisory panel member Professor Vasyl I. Komendar, a respected Ukrainian botanist, conservationist, and Carpathian specialist, also worked in a few brief visits to grantees in the Carpathian Mountains who could not get to Kyiv. The two together provided grantees with complementary input, Zaharchenko particularly about democracy issues, and Komendar on scientific and activist concerns. Zaharchenko encouraged grantees to disseminate project results via local media outlets to heighten community awareness. Komendar shared his knowledge of other studies in the region, emphasizing the importance of building upon instead of duplicating earlier efforts, and his many provocative questions helped grantees evaluate their own progress.
Caravanning in UkraineWhile traveling to visit grantees with advisory panel member Professor Vasily I. Komendar, Ukrainian grants manager Dr. Tatiana Zaharchenko chanced upon a novel way to impart greater value to a project site trip—the caravan approach. "When we began our field visits, we spent half of the first day with grantees from a young local NGO. Komendar quizzed the NGO on various aspects of their research until Yaroslav Dovganich, the leader of that grantee group, the NGO Ecoclub Karpaty, commented that the grantees had not thought that BSP would take their work so seriously, but now he realized that we did. As we prepared to leave them to visit the next site, these grantees asked if they could join us to "make sure you are as hard on the next bunch as you were on us." They did come along, and we actually ended up bringing representatives from each site we subsequently visited along to the next site, forming a caravan. It was a great opportunity for them to learn from and network with each other, especially when the members of the young NGO got to talk to those in a more experienced NGO about all sorts of topics—outreach, report writing, relationship building with local communities, and securing funding." |
Mentoring
BSP's applied grant programs also assisted grantees by facilitating mentoring relationships with qualified individuals. By the third CIG grant cycle, CIG managers Symington and Locker found it impossible to review and provide adequate feedback on every grantee's interim and final report, and many research topics exceeded the managers' own professional expertise. They therefore initiated a volunteer mentoring program, drawing on staff from BSP's regional programs and consortium institutions and other professionals, usually ones familiar with conditions in the grantee's locale. Mentors reviewed grantee technical reports and provided written comments, sometimes anonymously. Often the mentor relationship only went this far, but sometimes mentors also advised grantees by telephone or visited research sites when traveling nearby.
Assigning mentors lessened the CIG staff's administrative burden and provided grantees with appropriately specialized feedback, though, unfortunately, this feedback was not always timely or sufficiently detailed. Still, given its constraints, the system actually did function fairly well, particularly after BSP gently prodded mentors. CIG staff also learned it was best to have mentors send their comments first to BSP so that they could tone down or sharpen up commentary that was either especially severe or too ambiguous.
In Ukraine, the advisory panel was conceived as a source of in-country mentors for BSP grantees and was regularly encouraged to fulfill this role, just as BSP encouraged grantees to call on the panelists for guidance. The two-way encouragement was necessary because developing this kind of ready access for young researchers, particularly to panel members who held high government positions, was an innovation in Ukraine. The encouragement worked. In program evaluations, many grantees specifically expressed their appreciation for the significant help individual advisors had given them, particularly during on-site visits. Most often cited were the energetic input of "caravanning" by Professor Vasily I. Komendar, Dr. Tetyana L. Andrienko, biologist and chairwoman of the government-academic Interagency Laboratory of Scientific Bases of Nature Conservation, and Vira P. Davydok, from the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety. As BSP had intended, this capacity building definitely went both ways, with advisory panel members learning to view themselves as in-country contacts, mentors, and problem solvers for grantees.
Mentoring's Multiple PayoffsThe mentoring process associated with BSP's CIG program has repeatedly produced gratifying rewards for grantees, mentors, science, and conservation policy, even in the face of adverse circumstances. Mentor Dr. Richard B. Aronson, of Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama, reflects these multiple payoffs in his review of the final technical report of Sri Lankan grantee Dr. Suki Ekaratne, a professor at the University of Colombo. Dr. Aronson wrote, "At a time when many of us in coral reef science are paralyzed by the cynical belief that all is lost and our opinions count for nothing, this [grantee] report is the most uplifting thing I have read in a long time. The study has produced information of scientific value, and, perhaps more important, has raised awareness of marine conservation issues to the point of influencing policy. A small investment on the part of BSP has already had an enormous payoff, and the impact of this project has reached far beyond the mere generating of ecological data. Dr. Ekaratne is influencing public opinion and government policy." Dr. Ekaratne's project was to test a hypothesis that removal of predatory fishes for the aquarium trade leads to greater coral predation by invertebrates, particularly the crown-of-thorns starfish, Acanthaster planci, and increased cover of undesirable reef components such as seaweeds. Even though civil unrest and intense military activity in Sri Lanka prevented Dr. Ekaratne from testing the hypothesis on a large ecological scale, his research data did document 1998 coral bleaching, part of an unprecedented worldwide bleaching event associated with human-induced climate change. He also showed that the calcaerous green seaweed Halimeda is not a blight, but a vital refuge for juvenile reef organisms. Dr. Aronson concluded his review by urging that Dr. Ekaratne prepare his results for publication in the mainstream literature on coral reefs and offering his assistance with statistical analysis and other matters as needed. About Dr. Aronson's mentoring, Dr. Ekaratne said, "his input and his positive encouraging attitude have provided a great impetus to my work, and his comments helped me to focus on specific objectives." The two scientists have stayed in touch by e-mail and in October 2000 conferred about work matters during the International Coral Reef Symposium in Bali. |
Long Distance Contacts
BSP's applied grant managers also maintained frequent and timely communications with grantees via fax, e-mails, and phone calls. While the CIG program always held back some small percentage of a grantee's payment until final reports were filed, as CIG manager Locker has reflected, it was the ongoing long-distance interaction that really helped increase grantee commitment to their projects. "If I could not answer technical questions, I tried to get the information from someone else, sometimes the mentors. I think grantees knew I would help them to the extent possible to obtain publications, journals, and supplies they might not have access to in their countries." Grantee Negreros-Castillo remembers the long-distance tutorial on technical report writing BSP gave her after she filed her first report. After that, she recalls, "I actually enjoyed preparing other ones. The first financial report was not as difficult for me. Still, when I sent it to BSP, they reviewed it carefully and contacted me for clarification on some points. This helped me become clearer in my subsequent financial reports."
Applied research grants usually do not have a formal monitoring and evaluation component, but post-grant CIG contact with grantees has provided updates on significant conservation impacts. For example, a 1992 CIG grant allowed botanist Hector Hernandez of Mexico's National Autonomous University to map the distribution of endangered cactus in the Chihuahuan Desert. Two years later, CIG learned, a local NGO used his research results in lobbying against a toxic waste dump. Although the dump project was not cancelled, numerous environmental mitigations were secured, and the Mexican government subsequently supported several cactus conservation initiatives.
Networking
The CIG and Ukrainian grants managers also encouraged communication and networking among their grantees and facilitated dissemination of their work. CIG sometimes circulated grantee technical reports or journal articles among grantees working on similar issues. To facilitate networking, it sponsored grantee symposia at international conferences and occasionally provided follow-on funding for grantees to present at relevant in-country conferences. About all these efforts Locker recalls, "The report exchange among grantees fostered a network of people working on similar issues, as part of a larger whole. The Society for Conservation Biology symposia we organized also fostered this feeling." During the last round of CIG grants, the staff sent all actual and former grantees a list of publications that might accept submitted articles about their research results and forwarded a list of alternative funding sources to any grantees who inquired about ongoing project funding.
One grantee described the networking role of the Ukrainian grants program this way: "Thanks to regular BSP encouragement of cross-sectoral contacts and collaboration, we had an opportunity to develop a network of contacts and new working relations among different participating NGOs and government officials." The key, this grantee felt, was the striking difference BSP's grant management style made: "BSP's role was truly neutral, with an unusual emphasis on equal representation of the interests of different sectors of society." Along with the ongoing networking efforts, the Ukrainian grants program held a closing symposium, or round table discussion for grantees and advisors. The symposium provided an unprecedented open forum for these researchers and conservation practitioners to share their project experiences and outcomes, and for advisors to provide evaluations and feedback. The participants, familiar only with the others' names, actually met and shared their experiences.. This unique occurrence enabled grantees and advisors to share lessons learned and discuss future plans for the projects.
The lasting impact of the interaction among advisors and grantees developed through this program is reflected in the production in summer 2000 of a special issue of the Ukrainian scientific journal, Conservation in Ukraine (Zatovidma Strava Yukraini), a periodical publication of the Kyiv University and the Kaniv Nature Reserve, a severely underfunded government entity. At the closing symposium, grantees and advisory board members together presented BSP with the idea of a special issue featuring articles on the grants projects. BSP recognized the merits of this concept and managed to find the money to provide for the issue's production, which is being solely managed by these former grantees and advisors.
Be more explicit about what is expected in the methodology section of a proposal. Include with the RFP "advice" on how to write a methodology section—or whatever section is deemed most important for your program's reviewers. We found that applicants (even well-respected researchers) did not necessarily know how to write a proposal in a format that our U.S.-based reviewers found acceptable. When we were more explicit about what was expected (both within the actual RFP and with an attached "How to" page), the proposals we received were more likely to make those links more clearly.
Link professional researchers and project managers. Although results of research conducted by conservation NGOs are not always scientifically rigorous, pure university-based research does not always result in action. We observed in our grant program that university professors or students who were also active in an NGO were able to apply their findings to current or future projects. This type of relationship allowed for the more academic research to be translated into conservation action.
Review proposals in a transparent manner. Both applicants whose proposals are accepted and those whose are rejected generally appreciate transparency in proposal selection. We always sent back at least minimal comments with all the decision letters we sent out. If a proposal was rejected for non-compatibility with our program, this was stated in our letters (e.g., the proposal was solely agricultural in focus). If the proposal went through the peer-review process, then comments by the reviewers were sent back to the applicants.
Keep communicating with grantees after their funding expires. It pays to keep in touch with grantees after their funding has ended. In terms of monitoring and evaluation, you may not know what the conservation impact of a grant will be until years later. Try to maintain one contact person at the donor organization throughout the life of the grants program so that grantees can communicate delayed results.
Allow for more time than you think will be necessary for all phases of the RFP/project implementation process. Do not underestimate the amount of time that it takes for the RFP to get to researchers in the field, for proposals to be mailed in, for adequate review time, for contracts to be drawn up, and for money to be disbursed. In addition, projects often take much longer to complete than researchers initially envision. It is important, therefore, for grants programs to remain flexible throughout the program's duration.
Provide mentoring where appropriate and possible. A good mentoring system can be a very effective method of reviewing technical reports and, at its best, of building capacity in grantees. Volunteer "mentors" (members of the conservation and/or academic community) who agree to review technical reports and provide timely feedback encourage interaction that benefits both grantees and mentors.
Establish mechanisms to see the grants through to completion. Establishing a payment schedule that allows for donor requirements but does not hamper the PI encourages grantees to fulfill their reporting requirements. It is a good idea to withhold a final payment of some percentage of the grant, to be paid only upon receipt of the final deliverables. Withholding too much money as a final payment, however, may mean that the researcher cannot do his/her work. The withheld amount should be enough to make a difference to the grantee, so that s/he will send in the reports. Grant managers need to find a balance.
Find creative ways to visit grantees. Limited program funds do not have to impede visits to grantee projects. Use trips for other purposes to a grantee's region as a way to visit grantees. We encouraged other BSP staff members to visit grantees if they were traveling in the same area as our grantees were working.