66 



Investing in Partnerships 



by Amos S. Eno, Executive Director 



No MAN IS AN ISLAND. Nof is any 

 conservation organization. 

 Success or failure is mea- 

 sured by the organization's 

 ability to worlt with others, to forge 

 partnerships for achieving shared goals. 



The National Fish and Wildlife 

 Foundation embodies partnerships. In 

 fact, what we do specifically is develop 

 partnerships. Every grant we make for a 

 conservation project involves partners, 

 indeed requires them. The reasoa-' The 

 Foundation's core funding is appropri- 

 ated annually from the U.S. Congress, 

 and the law requires that these grant 

 funds miisth^ matched al least one for 

 one by nonfederal sources. The Founda- 

 tion and its grantees collectively must 

 raise the matching dollars. 



The Foundation manages its federal 

 appropriations as a venture capital fund 

 for conservation investments and 

 leverages this capital as much as 

 possible. Consequently, in the past six 

 years, we have achieved an average 

 match of $2.03 in nonfederal monies for 

 each federal dollar And we often 

 negotiate a $4 or greater match for each 

 federal $1. 



Realizing these matches means 

 securing partners for our conservation 

 investments, and we do this bener than 

 anyone else. In our brief six-year 

 existence, and despite few staiT mem- 

 bers, we have engaged in more conser- 

 vation partnerships than any other 

 organization in America To date, the 

 Foundation has awarded 660 grants that, 

 when leveraged with our partners, 

 produced more than $79 million for 255 

 different conservation organizations or 

 agencies. Our partners include some 20 

 federal agencies, all tfiree U.S. Armed 

 SeA'ices, 58 state and provincial govern- 

 ment agencies, more than 150 other 

 conservation organizations, and 330 

 corporations. 



What distinguishes the National Fish 

 and WUdlife Foundation from other 

 nonprofit conservation organizations? 



First, because of our ability to attract 

 parmers, bring the public and private 

 seaors together, and leverage resources, 

 we can invest in an exceptional number 

 and variety of conservation projects, 

 whether they focus on Siberian tiger 

 studies or restoration of native fisheries. 

 As a result, our con.servation programs 

 are far broader than those of most other 

 nonprofits. They encompass scientific 

 research, public outreach and education, 

 wildlife management, species recovery, 

 and habitat acquisition, protection, and 

 restoration. 



Second, the Foundation does not 

 base its invesmient strategy solely on 

 conservation issues that most appeal to 



Piping plofer. targeted for protection 

 through a Foundation-funded project. 



donors. We determine what the real 

 environmental problems are and how 

 existing agencies and programs — with 

 our help — can solve those problems 

 Then, we bring people together (again) 

 to champion recognizable, definable 

 solutions. For instance, our Fisheries 

 Colloquium, which was held twice in 

 1992, gathers together representatives 

 from environmentally concerned 

 philanthropic foundations and provides 

 them with an understanding of what is 

 needed in fisheries conservation. It also 

 helps them focus their efforts. In effect, 

 we're the conservation movement's 

 "think tank." 



Third, besides leveraging your private 

 conservation dollars, we don't use your 

 money to build a conservation bureau- 

 cracy; our fund-raising and administra- 

 tive overhead is never more than 5 

 percent — the lowest in the business. 

 Foundation project development, 

 management, and evaluation costs are 

 10 percent. As a result, no less tfian 85 

 cents of each dollar we receive goes into 

 real projects "on the ground " 



Fourth, unlike the majority of other 

 conservation groups in the country, the 

 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

 can turn its (and your) conservation 

 investments into public policy. All 

 projects we support are reviewed and 

 evaluated by federal, state, corporate, 

 and conservation-community peers 

 before and after their implementation. 

 Successful efforts are often adopted by 

 the agencies using or evaluating them, 

 thus causing the conservation initiatives 

 or projects we inve.st in to become 

 institutionalized. 



For example, in 1987, we funded a 

 pilot program in Idaho to test "gap 

 analysis" and a new mapping technol- 

 ogy called geographic information 

 .systems, or GIS. Essentially, gap analysis 

 amasses data on the locations of threat- 

 ened and endangered species and 

 compares it to information on the 

 locations of existing protected lands. GIS 

 turns the species data into computer- 

 crafted, color-coded maps of species 

 habitats. Then, by electronically overlay- 

 ing those maps witli the boundaries of 

 existing parks, preserves, and refuges, 

 gaps are revealed in the protective 

 network. The results in Idaho were so 

 striking (for instance, it was found that 

 most vegetative types are not protected) 

 that gap analysis is now a $2.4 million 

 item on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service's yearly budget. What's more, the 

 agency is planning to map every state. 



Over the last 20 years the environmen- 

 tal movement has been effective in 



4 



I 



