Why Small Grants
for Conservation?
by Beth
Armstrong
ZACC – Chair
Former Field
Conservation Coordinator for the Columbus & Brevard Zoos
Every
zoo comes to its conservation commitment in its own way. In 1990 the Columbus
Zoo began to build its support of in situ
conservation through a series of small grants. Our philosophy was based on
a commitment to action - of building relationships, on being proactive, of
being a true partner by being responsive to the ever changing needs of any
given field project.
Researching
for a project I am currently working on I came across a paper I had written
in 1998 or 1999 for presentation at an AZA conference - 20 years ago. When I took a moment to read it, I was struck that although much has changed over the last 28 years, i.e. many more zoos providing
start-up and long-term grants; more diverse zoo conservation models and
partnerships with field people; and field researchers on staff at zoos and
aquariums - the philosophy and formula that built the Columbus Zoo’s conservation
commitment was still relevant today – especially for those zoos that are just
initiating their own conservation commitment.
Our
Formula - 1990:
- be humble, recognize we are not field
researchers
- recognize that zoos have an
infrastructure to offer
- empower your staff and volunteers to be
actively involved
- approach the project from a holistic
standpoint
- contact a researcher
- offer some support, but don’t make promises
you may not be able to keep
- start with a small sum of money
- take your lead from the person in the
field, don’t presume to have the answers for what is best for that particular
project
- build the relationship over time,
remember your institution is proving itself as much as the field researcher.
Note:
1. We never limited ourselves to only supporting
species we housed at Columbus Zoo – the thinking was it was too narrow a scope.
We recognized that by supporting a project even if the focus was on a species
that we did not house we were also supporting all the species that fell within
the umbrella of that particular ecosystem.
2. Eventually we added a dedicated
“Emergency Funds” fund to our list of funding priorities. We also allocated a
certain amount of our annual conservation budget to support membership fees for
a variety of conservation organizations.
Our
small grant philosophy served several purposes especially in the early 1990’s
when few North American zoos were actively supporting fieldwork with the most notable
exception being WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society) who was way ahead of the
curve.
- many field projects had yet to become
established - they were looking for financial support to get their projects up
and running.
- small grants allowed for Columbus to take
the chance of what were then many unknown field researchers with little financial
risk if the project failed due to any number of factors. (*see below)
- most importantly small grants acted as
the building blocks for developing long-term relationships - resulting in larger grants over a multi-year
funding cycles.
- the solidifying of relationships over a
period of time gave Columbus the knowledge and ability to act as a facilitator for our field
partners. Our job was to connect our partners with other zoos and additional
sources of funding – we could speak for the field folks because we had built trusting
relationships with them.
*This
formula is not perfect but what it allowed us to do is take chances – to go
with unknowns and if a project folded because of personnel changes on the
ground, political or civil unrest, natural disasters, change in government,
security issues – we did not take a huge financial hit.
The types of grants that we allocated were as follows:
- small start-up grant opportunities for unknown projects & researchers
- Emergency Fund - enabling us to respond to emergencies on the ground immediately without making those projects jump through endless hoops
- a commitment to certain partners over the long-term
We
also strove to make the process easy for field researchers:
- we kept our application form simple – 3 pages.
- we kept our reporting simple as well, i.e.
just requested that they send us a copy of the report they provided to their other
funders - a year to the date of receiving their CZ grant.
- we requested that our logo appear in all
presentations and in publications when thanking or listing funders.
- and because we believed in the power of anecdotal stories we requested a couple of short updates via email accompanied by a few photos throughout the year - which we would share with
staff, board members, volunteers and our visiting public. This served two purposes, anecdotal stories can inspire and move us to action unlike pure data, and as the spokesperson for the field researcher this allowed me to continue to inform and get buy-in from our funding sources - the zoo's conservation committee, staff and board members.
Infrastructure
and initiatives:
Something
I think that was incredibly important was that we empowered our staff and
volunteers to be proactive. We solicited the artistic talents of both docents
and staff artists to create artwork for NGO logos, educational posters,
project t-shirts and football (soccer) uniforms, and coloring books.
We sent maintenance people into the field when requested. We brought veterinarians
over from other countries for further training, and sent our vets to a variety
of projects – again when requested by the field project. We
supported staff initiatives such as Partners in Conservation (PIC), started by
my fellow gorilla-keeper Charlene Jendry and three Columbus Zoo docents. PIC is
now in its 26th year and is heralded as the zoo’s signature
project.
We
gave staff and volunteers the creative room to come up with alternative and
additional fundraisers. We had their buy-in because they were true partners,
they had a stake in sharing their talents because we guaranteed that the money
raised went directly to the field. I often hear from staff at other zoos a
frustration that they cannot initiate fundraisers or that they have done
fundraisers and their zoo once realizing this was money-maker take over and the
money mysteriously disappears into the general fund. I would urge zoos to let
your staff have creative license, let them be empowered, let them be inventive.
And I would argue not only is it good for the field projects but it is good for
staff morale. Because if your staff does not have a sense of ownership, or a belief that
affirms that they can truly make a difference, then you will lose them. I have
seen volunteers and staff drop all interest when all control has been taken
from them. Their goodwill and commitment are some of your very best assets –
let them be a partner in this.
Our
criteria for providing funding focused on a common-sense approach to
conservation – less about data collection and more about action. We gave priority to and selected
projects that engendered a holistic philosophy and approach to their field conservation project - that included the following:
- a solid research component coupled with
an on-the ground conservation programs
- involvement and employment of indigenous /local people
- partnerships with indigenous/local people
- an education component
- projects that included heath benefits to local communities - fresh water, community clinics, schools, libraries
Where did we get our conservation dollars?
- A percentage of our annual operating
budget – i.e. a portion of gate receipts, food vendors, gift shop sales, etc.
In 1990 the Columbus Zoo’s in situ
conservation budget was $25,000, by 1999 it was $280,000
- Panda dollars - we had access to a large
fund generated from the Giant Panda loan agreement (we housed 2 pandas for a
number of months in 1992). The deal was as the host zoo we were required to set aside
a percentage from gate receipts and place in a restricted fund to be used for Panda
conservation and research with approval from USFWS. Although we found that the
USFWS to be quite open, allowing us to fund other projects as well - such as the northern
white rhino project in Garamba National Park in DRC in the mid to late1990’s.
- Coin drop walls built in the 1990’s – for
every new exhibit we installed a coin-drop wall. All dollars raised from each of these walls were
restricted to species within the ecosystem/region represented - i.e. African Forest wall/
field projects in Africa; Manatee wall/ manatees or species in manatee
ecosystems.
- In 1998 the Columbus Zoo was approached
by a donor who when on a trip to Uganda was inspired by our support for
several projects at the time. These included the Kibale Chimpanzee
Project and the Uganda Wildlife Education Centre (UWEC), as well as training of
Ugandan veterinarians. This donor committed to donating $50,000 per year for
the next five years, a total of $250,000.
My only concern/stipulation was that this money would not in any way
replace what the zoo was already committed to (annual percentage of operating
budget, coin drop walls, etc.) but would instead always be in addition to our
commitment.
The
benefits to our organization were numerous, by committing our resources to in situ conservation we were recognized
as a credible conservation organization, we developed lasting relationships
with our colleagues in the field that allowed for the exchange of information
concerning various species and habitats – i.e. we had compelling stories to share with our visitors on zoo signage, in our newsletters and on our website. And we honestly could say
to ourselves and to the visiting public we were “walking the walk.” We had
credibility both in the zoo world and the field conservation world.
The
donor I mentioned earlier in this essay, stated upon their return from Uganda: “I was impressed, very much impressed with
the presence of the Columbus Zoo wherever I went. With very few dollars the zoo
was impacting the lives of local people and wildlife. I saw posters and
t-shirts produced and distributed by the zoo, appreciation plagues and met
guides, rangers and veterinarians who know and had worked with Zoo staff both
in Africa and at home. I returned to Columbus believing I wanted to assist the
Zoo in expanding its work in field conservation.”
National
Geographic photographer Michael “Nick” Nichols sent me an email on June
15, 2000 when he heard I was leaving Columbus to start a new job at Brevard
Zoo, “Columbus Zoo has always been a
leader in giving support to conservation projects in Central Africa. I have
seen hard working field people stay alive with funds that Columbus Zoo
provides. Always carefully and thoughtfully directed, the Columbus Zoo grants
make a difference. The researchers at Mbeli Bai and the chimpanzee pilot study
at Ndoki National Park (Republic of Congo) just might not exist without the
support of the Columbus Zoo. Both are very important to science and
conservation. Columbus Zoo is doing what all zoological parks should be doing –
making a difference before it is too late.”
These accolades came from modest beginnings - awarding small grants.