Dear all, I think I shared Emilie’s message about Sweden’s latest situation, that they would like to wait for the completion of their next 5 year plan before committing funding for Phase II but are willing
to consider some bridge funding this year for the transition – offering to extend the existing agreement for “a few months”. Clearly this is not the ideal situation we were hoping for and I am trying to decide how to approach this with her tomorrow. I would
appreciate your collective wisdom and advice on strategy.
I will get a clearer idea from her today or tomorrow. However I wanted to have a strategy in place. I was thinking of seeing whether they could provide an additional year of funding – either by extending
the current agreement (as she suggested but for more than a few months) or by already putting a “down payment” into the Phase II agreement at a level that would allow us to maintain the core team (including IIED and IUCN and the relationship with AgriCord)
in place – and also continue our fund raising. I am worried that funding for three months will not give us the security needed to extend the contracts for the team. We will be able to draw on the EU FLEGT funds for work in Africa and might have some funds
unexpended from the current year – as we only just received Finland’s last instalment and have an agreement in hand for the US funds (total over USD 900,000).
However I don’t want to ask for too much for next year and then discourage them from committing multi-year funds for FFF Phase II and I don’t want to discourage Finland from committing to Phase II because
Phase I has been extended by another year.
Pros for 3-4 month extension: life support system still functioning – more time to complete and report on Phase I.
Cons for 3-4 month extension: no job security – FAO contracting system requires funding in hand for one year, continued uncertainty linked to unsure Phase II funding.
Pros for one year extension: If we get enough (minimum $ 1.5 million?) to all remain on the job we could allow some more time for existing work to be properly completed (say by end of Feb/March) – have extra
time to really put together a very thorough report and even hold a global meeting (April/May), do proper homework for preparing the new Phase II –and continue fund raising and hopefully a launch of Phase II mid-year (June?)
even launch activities in Africa under the EU FLEGT funding stream .
Cons for one year extension: the impression could be “more of the same”, more difficult to create a sense of Phase II already moving forward – would have to carefully plan the year to truly be a transition
year. Not sure how it would play with core funders Sida and Finland – would they be willing to invest in Phase II agreement before Phase I was completed?
Pros for one year “transitional advance” into Phase II – allows us to close out Phase I and formally begin Phase II and show that there is some funding support – even if provisional and if it already launched
might incentivize other funders??.
Cons for one year “transitional advance “for Phase II – may jeopardize additional (and hopefully multiyear funds) from Sida – if amount is low – it will be tough to make much of a splash.
Any thoughts on the best way to proceed???
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey Y Campbell
Manager, Forest and Farm Facility (FFF)
FAO -Forestry Department, Room D-424
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla - 00153 Rome, Italy
Tel.: +39 -06 57054530 office, +39 3351977349 mobile
www.fao.org/partnerships/forest-farm-facility