Anna Westbury and Kiev

We have been helping Anna Westbury at Kiev Zoo in the Ukraine consder using the European Commission’s TAIEX grant making programme to attend Hamburg Zoo’s Elephant training workshop.

TAIEX can be used for funding to take up to 3 people for ’study trip’ to an EU Member State, to get experts from one of these states to visit your site. It pays for travel, accomodation, expenses and per diem allowance (250€ per day, I think).

Email me for more information.

TAIEX applies to the following nations and territories:

Bulgaria

Romania

Candidate Countries

Croatia

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Turkey

 

Potential candidate countries and territories

Albania

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Kosovo(UNSCR1244)

Montenegro

Serbia

       

European Neighbourhood Policy

Algeria

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Belarus

Egypt

Georgia

Israel

Jordan

Lebanon

Libya

Moldova

Morocco

Palestinian Authority

Syria

Tunisia

Ukraine

 

Others

Turkish Cypriot community

Russia

Consultation with World Pheasant Association

We recently held a short consultation with Dr Phillip McGowan, the Director of the World Pheasant Association.

This was to to provide some outline ideas as to how WPA could work towards transformational, ’step change’ funding.

Turner Foundation:International Funding Interests

The Foundation supports environmental projects:

“to protect the atmosphere and other natural resourses by promoting energy efficency, renewable energy and improved transportation policies and practices

to protect rivers, lakes, wetlands, aquifers, oceans and other water systems from contamination, degradion and other abuses

to defend biodiversity by protecting natural habitats”.

The Foundation does not fund buildings, acquisition, endowments or start-up funds, films, books, magazines or media projects, indivduals.

To receive a copy of the Foundations guidelines contact:

Turner Foundation

One CNN Center Suite 1090 – South Tower

Attn: Program Department

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Telephone 404 681 9900

Email turnerfi@mindspring.com

website – www.turnerfoundation.org

EC’s ENRTP up to 80% of a €3 million project

This funding programme’s opening date has slipped to end of June 09.

Projects in all countries in the developing world are eligible, and there are sub-themes for biodiversity, forests, forestry law, climate change and desertification.

Contact us to discuss whether your ambition might be eligible: John@johnreganassociates.com

Desmond Tutu to visit Marwell Wildlife, UK

UPDATE: This has now been confirmed for the 15th of September.

JRA Ltd is delighted to report success in securing the involvement of Archbishop Desmond Tutu in an event celebrating our client Marwell Wildlife.

The Arcbishop will visit in September in the context of Marwell Wildlife’s reaffirmation of its charitable purpose and a strengthened commitment to climate change and food security in the developing world

Nordens Ark summit in Sweden

Update on Nordens Ark, I have done an interview with Director Lena Linden on her success in external funding, and hope to publish this here soon.

 

Nordens Ark begin a 3 day international workshop on the threat to biological diversity from 5 to 7 May 2009.

In connection with the seminars, a completely new breeding facility for the endangered lesser white-fronted goose will be opened by Nordens Ark’s Patron Her Royal Highness Crown Princess Victoria and the renowned primatologist Dame Jane Goodall.

Nordens Ark Director Lena Linden and other event organisers hope that some new strategic initiative to combat biodiversity loss to be managed by Nordens Ark will emerge from the event.

Please see attached press release and event programme.

press-release-nordens-ark-in-sweden-hosts-international-workshop-on-the-threat-to-biological-diversity2

workshop-programme-and-biographies-of-participants

Update on successful Bonobo fundraising event at House of Lords for Twycross Zoo

FURTHER UPDATE:  funding received to date from this event is now approaching £110,000 with 2 more significant gifts pledged.

JRA Ltd recently proposed and helped organise a reception at the House of Lords, London to assist the East Midland Zoological Society at Twycross Zoo, UK to raise funds for the conservation of the bonobo.

This has proven very successful resulting in serious donations and sponsorships.  The event also secured the support of four leading actresses: Julie Christie,  Stefanie Powers, Miranda Richardson, and Susannah York.

Elephant-size donation moves zoo to magic number

(From the Salt Lake Tribune courtesy of Peter Dixon)

When voters approved a $33 million infusion of public cash for the Hogle Zoo in January, they added one rather significant stipulation: Zoo leaders would have to raise $11 million on their own to unlock the cash.

Zoo fundraisers say they had collected the first $7.5 million before the issue went to voters. But then things slowed down. As of March, the zoo remained $2.5 million short, facing a dour economy and a looming deadline.

“Anything on your dresser, in the washing machine, we’ll take it all at this point,” Beth Wolfer, Hogle director of development, said as she handed out elephant-shaped banks to attendees at the March meeting of the Hogle board of directors.

Now, backed by a contribution from an as-of-yet unidentified donor, Hogle officials have alerted the Salt Lake County debt-review committee that they believe they’ve hit the mark. That will trigger an audit of contributions that, if they exceed $11 million, will permit the County Council to approve the issuance of a bond and cut the zoo a check.

Zoo officials declined to offer details, saying the final details of the donation were still being finalized. But several individuals familiar with the donation say it came from a private company with local ties.

“Obviously, it’s someone who feels that the zoo is very important and improvement at the zoo is very important,” said County Councilman Joe Hatch, who said he has a guess as to the donor’s identity but had not been told who. 

He called the news “exciting,” saying he was looking forward to the improvements that the zoo will be able to build with the money, including a Arctic habitat, which will be home to several polar bears,.

County Auditor Jeff Hatch said government and zoo officials were still setting a date to hold a debt-review hearing.

“The only real question on the table,” he said, “is whether the pledges, rather than cash already in hand, are secure enough that the county will then say, ‘yes, this is as good as gold.’”

Interview 2: Dr Jeffrey Bonner, President and CEO of the Saint Louis Zoo

Background: Jeffrey P. Bonner trained as an anthropologist and was formerly President of the Indianapolis Zoo. The Saint Louis Zoo was founded in 1904, is a free site attracting some three million visitors and is celebrated not only for its work in science and conservation, but also in fundraising.
The Saint Louis Zoo is generally recognised as a US and global leader in conservation, education and science. Dr Bonner is a hugely respected figure within the international zoo community. In addition to numerous scholarly and scientific publications, he is the author of “Sailing with Noah: Stories from the World of Zoos”
JOHN: Thanks for giving us this time. Can you tell me a little about the degree, type and source of recent/ forthcoming external investment into your site?
DR BONNER: Well, we are about to a launch a new $120 million capital campaign. This will support three aims:
• $35 million towards a permanent endowment for the zoo
• $5 million towards various conservation programmes
• $80 million for a number of capital improvements
This latter is all about new exhibits and much needed improvements to visitor services. We badly need to improve the experience for the three million visitors who come through our gates every year.
The ease, comfort and safety of their arrival is a particular priority.
JOHN: Is that an especially ambitious target? It might seem like a lot from a European perspective?

DR BONNER: The target is and should always be something of a stretch, but on the other hand it needs to be ambitious and not unrealistic.
I have been here seven years now. When I arrived a successful $70 million campaign was just ending. So we felt we have given our constituency a good enough rest in six years.
JOHN: How did you decide what the subject of your fundraising should be? Was there any tension between what you wanted most and those things easy to raise funds for?
DR BONNER: We asked ourselves certain basic questions. In the wake of our last campaign , what should be the next master plan? Where do we need to go next? And what was the best way to serve our audience?

Three major areas, three major needs came clearly out of this exercise.

First we needed to improve arrangements for visitors arriving at our site and crossing a major road in front of our entrance. There had been one terrible tragedy where a child lost his life due to a drunk driver, and there have been several other near misses. This was an unacceptable situation that we just had to do something about.

Secondly we wanted to improve conditions for the marine mammals we look after, sea lions and polar bears in particular. Marine mammals ideally need to be in salt, not fresh water. The US Federal authorities will mandate this soon, but we just didn’t want to wait.

And finally, there were various practical upgrades of visitor facilities. We needed new restrooms and better provisions for supplying wheelchairs and catering for wheelchair users. This reflects changing demographics. We just get more requests for wheelchairs these days, and are welcoming older people in greater numbers, which means more restrooms!

Your question refers to what we ‘wanted’, but really it was a matter of needs, not wants. None of the items above were really optional.

JOHN: And so where did, or will all this funding come from?
DR BONNER: Okay, $5 million is coming from the Federal Government and there will be more modest contributions in due course. No funding will be coming from the State or Local Government
JOHN: Why is that exactly? Can you explain the situation for readers outside the United States?
DR BONNER: It is because St Louis Missouri Zoo is effectively unique in its organisational set up in USA, and indeed perhaps worldwide.
Our organisation is the equivalent of “a school district”, that is to say we benefit from a property tax on residents within a certain location on the basis that we provide a free amenity to the public. This tax then provides a substantial part of our revenue funding, about $20 million a year. So, in a sense, we are part of the State of Missouri and it would not be appropriate or expected to look to the State of Missouri for capital investment.
Our overall operating costs are around $55 million a year met by this tax, philanthropic donations and return on investments (the return on investments has not been so good recently..!)
The State has helped with the costs of video surveillance, but this is part of its overall anti-terrorism programme.
The $5 million I mentioned above from the Federal Government was due to an “earmark” in a wider transportation funding bill thanks to efforts on our behalf by a local senator who was Chair of Transportation committee at the right time.
JOHN: “A federal earmark”..?
DR BONNER: Yes, that’s a congressional provision that directs already approved funds to be spent on specific projects. An earmark has to fit something already in the Federal budget.
Another example was funding designated for the zoo from USAID for a programme in Niger.
Only the biggest institutions can really go after this kind of funding. We employ a Washington lobbyist for $70/80K a year to bring in this kind of funding.
JOHN: Do you think you get a good return on that spend?
DR BONNER: Well, over 4 or 5 years we spend, say, $350,000 and in return win $5 million! Compare that to any other kind of financial investment the zoo makes in cost/ benefit… I would call that a terrific rate of return!
JOHN: What case did you make to draw this funding down? Did your case reflect external political and social agenda? What were these, and how did you articulate the synergies between your promised delivery and these policies?
DR BONNER: We had a formal ’case statement’ put together by an international consulting firm. This called for a $20 million lead gift, which I am pleased to say we have already secured.
When we engage with each prospective supporter, we use a slightly different case statement for each supporter. Named gift opportunities are made available to donors at different levels.
JOHN: You are clearly very successful, but why do people support the zoo? Is because of the conservation mission, or because they value the zoo as an amenity? Or is it because the right person asks them and because it confers social status?
DR BONNER: I would say all the above, but also because our citizens literally ‘revere’ the zoo as an institution. It is our centennial next year and we actually welcome and provide free access to over three million visitors every year.
St Louis Zoo is a huge thing in the lives of so many. The free entrance status is a large part of that, and helps with corporate and foundation giving as well.
We intend to hang on to our free entrance status.
JOHN: So is there any ‘downside’ to being a free site?
DR BONNER: Well it would be nice to have 3,000,000 multiplied by so many dollars for every admission, but…
The bottom line is that our mission is to connect people with nature, and we connect with a lot more people on account of having no financial barrier to access our services.
As a matter of fact, in a recession, in this sense at least, we perform even better as people will seek free leisure activities even more.
JOHN: In setting out your stall for external funding, is there any conflict between internal and external agenda..?
DR BONNER: I am struggling to identify any internal problems as such. When I think of internal issues, my thoughts go to whether our IT systems are all they should be, rather than any human or political agenda. There is no conflict between what we can get and what we want. We decide precisely what we need, and again it is very much what the zoo needs, not wants.
Everything is drawn from the master plan exercise
JOHN: Does St Louis need to make a strong ‘regional economic development argument’ to secure funds?
DR BONNER: The case is there, but to be frank, it is so obvious, we don’t really need to be explicit about it.
People look at the baseball team here in St Louis which also draws 3 million visitors. They immediately understand its value in bringing in visitors, creating spend and jobs, developing a sense of place and confidence, etc. And they think the same of us.
After all the drive time for the zoo can be estimated as wide as 250 miles
JOHN: That would seem be very wide compared to most UK or European zoos… But then our human geography is very different
DR BONNER: I think so, but that calculation is based on our advertising policy, and we would not waste our money if we were not sure of our market.

In fact our publicity goes much wider and we had two recent articles recently in the New York Times.

JOHN: So what blockages are there, if any, to your current fundraising?
DR BONNER: Quite simply, it is a terrible economic climate in which to raise funds. Our annual fundraising success stood at $40 million last year. This year, I will be pleased if we make $10 million
I know of one particular giver who was about to make a $5 million gift, but has now deferred this.
So our campaign target is aggressive, but I believe still realistic and achievable.
JOHN: What resources do you think you need to successfully complete the exercise?
DR BONNER: Well first of all there is the time allowed. We calculated we needed five years to reach our $120 million target. Now it looks like it will be six.
In personnel terms we have twelve people in tour development department. That is out of some 300 staff overall.
And then there is me.  As CEO of St Louis Zoo, I see my job as primarily fundraising.
JOHN: That might surprise some zoo directors outside the USA…
DR BONNER: Well, of course, I am ultimately responsible for all the other functions of the zoo too, including the animal collection, visitor services, etc. but I have good people to look after all these things for me.

External funding is vital for the continued operation and growth of our institution so it demands my full attention. Major donors also deserve contact with the organisation’s most senior figure, so I make sure I am personally present for all the major ‘asks’.
JOHN: How important is any form of external partnership or championship to the process?
DR BONNER: I would reference our governing board here. Our trustees and friends have recently merged. We are very fortunate in having a network of affluent and well connected supporters, as ‘peer to peer’ solicitation of gifts is vital.

In all, we have some 80 people who volunteer to raise money for the zoo.
JOHN: What lessons have you learnt in terms of fundraising and external funding? Are there things you would avoid in the future, or element on which you would place more stress..?
DR BONNER: I know now more than ever that you cannot stay close enough to your donors. Even after the campaign is over, it is essential to keep thanking people and making sure they know how much you appreciate their generosity, even though you are not going to ask again for years.
So we are just as ‘nice’ to our supporters years after our last campaign, as we were before.
It is crucial to devote a proper budget to donor relations and donor cultivation. So anyone giving over $1,000, gets a full ‘behind the scenes’ tour.
JOHN: How does corporate fundraising figure in your programme, and what motivates business to support St Louis Zoo?
DR BONNER: Few corporations are still in as good shape as a couple of years ago, so we just have to roll with that.
Interestingly though we recently secured one $5 million from a corporate source on condition we don’t tell anyone! They felt it would look inappropriate in the current climate.
As for why they fund us, well, naming rights, high visibility, enhancing the corporate name.
JOHN: So it is pure commercial sponsorship..?
DR BONNER: I would say a mixture of sponsorship and a kind of philanthropy. You see large commercial presences need to attract and retain talent for city. They depend on a pool of high skilled, motivated labour. So supporting St Louis’ amenities, ensuring St Louis remains a good place to live, is in their own long term interest.
JOHN: From everything you have told me, obviously institutional civic pride underpins your fundraising? Where does the zoo rank in terms of prestige in comparison with institutions that might be more traditionally described as cultural?
DR BONNER: Together with the art museum, the zoo is right at the head of the pack. However note the difference in attendance numbers between the two organisations: some three million for the zoo compared with some hundreds of thousands of visitors at the Arts Museum.
Then, coming behind the front runners, we have, as you may know, a very famous botanical gardens here in S t Louis as well as the St Louis Symphony Orchestra, and the history museum
JOHN: Is there anything else you would like to add as to the subtleties of raising funds?
DR BONNER: Adding to my earlier comments as to what I would do different, I don’t think we started endowment building early enough. You should ask for your endowment gift (i.e. an annual gift) at the same time as your one–off, capital gift. It should not be a case of one or the other. In asking supporters to help build the permanent endowment, basically we are appealing to donors wish to see their zoo still be here and flourishing in 50 years time.
JOHN: Dr Bonner, thank you very much indeed.
DR BONNER: You are very welcome.
ENDS

EU and Europe’s Zoos

Download: the_eu_and_europes_zoos1

I thought it might be useful to bring this document back to the surface.

This is the first attempt to align all the aspirations and activities of the EU’s zoos and aquaria ( the logic would extend to botanical sites as well).

I should emphasize that the zoos referenced are not of course the only progressive zoos in Europe, but rather happen to be the those who supported this particular initiative.

John

Keep the NY Zoo Budget!

How many of us grew up visiting the zoo at least once a year? When you’re young, the zoo is a magical place through which you can experience wildlife that you would have otherwise not been able to witness in North America. The economy has impacted all of us around the country, and on a smaller scale, has even impacted vast wildlife reserves and societies. The state of New York is the most prevalent example of the funding crisis, with the Wildlife Conservation Society requiring budget cuts of $15 million, $10 million of that being from staff cuts. Most of these cuts will impact zoos and other types of wildlife organizations, which has become an issue plaguing most conservationists today.
The Bronx Zoo won a small battle, wherein it petitioned thousands of patrons to write letters and emails to the governor by April 1, begging him to reconsider the budget cuts that would adversely affect the zoo and its animals. The legislature and governor decided to overturn the motion for budget cuts for this specific organization, but the state of New York is still suffering from the proposed cuts. In the eyes of the state government, most zoos and other wildlife organizations rely largely on donations from wealthy patrons, which is why they decided that this sector of society would be the easiest to take a budget cut. What they failed to recognize is that due to the economy, most patrons no longer have the means to make sizable donations like they made in the past.
By ending this era of zoo funding, the zoos of New York will produce less traffic, which means less educational experiences for school age children, and less fond memories of wildlife. Through staff cuts, animals will get less of their needed attention, and specific zoos and aquariums might be forced to scale back on their wildlife, instead sending animals to different zoos across the country. The zoo has come a great way from the early menageries of the eighteenth century, and the days of Hagenbeck’s zoo, which transported the most exotic animals from Africa into Europe during the late nineteenth century. This was an incredible transition that was made in order to introduce the public to animals they would never otherwise see in the wild. With this type of viewing comes increased knowledge about animals, animal life, and history.
Zoos also provide a safe haven for many animals around the world that would otherwise be extinct due to animal poaching and overhunting. Red pandas as well as the endangered snow leopard are some of the species unique to Central Park, and in order to keep rescuing similar endangered creatures, the budget needs to remain the same to ensure the proper care for these animals. The state needs to recognize that so many early memories are formed based on encounters with animals, mostly through zoos, and taking away the means to support this would be detrimental to the early education of many citizens.

This post was contributed by Heidi Taylor, who writes about the online universities. She welcomes your feedback at HeidiLTaylor006 at gmail.com
http://www.bestuniversities.com/ at the end of the

A handful of funders for zoos: grants for conservation; funding for widlife; funds for biodiversity education; zoos and capital investment

We will constantly update this post with more potential sources of funding for zoos.  As potentially zoos and botanic gardens from all around the world may access ( and contribute to…?)this forum, we will try and reference funders with a relevance to different parts of the world. 

Obviously “zoo projects” can mean lots of different things ( capital on site projects, educational programmes, in situ conservation projects, etc), and the following funders all fund different kinds of needs. So this is quite a rag-bag of opportunities, and it is up to you to sort through it.

For some of the large international funders, I really think it is also worth considering the virtues of inter-zoo collaborations for many of these sources of finance,  as well as looking for highly innovative  (even risky?) approaches amenable to eventual replication. The whole idea of changing the zoo paradigm through international co-operation could be very appealing to funders.

Naturally we are not responsible if our references to their funding remit is out of date …or just plain wrong.  It should also go without saying that any would be applicant needs to look very carefully at the funder’s own details before proceeding.

Here are the potential funders ( latest added at the top)

The Turner Foundation

The Foundation supports environmental projects:

“to protect the atmosphere and other natural resourses by promoting energy efficency, renewable energy and improved transportation policies and practices

to protect rivers, lakes, wetlands, aquifers, oceans and other water systems from contamination, degradion and other abuses

to defend biodiversity by protecting natural habitats”.

The Foundation does not fund buildings, acquisition, endowments or start-up funds, films, books, magazines or media projects, indivduals.

To receive a copy of the Foundations guidelines contact:

Turner Foundation

One CNN Center Suite 1090 – South Tower

Attn: Program Department

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Telephone 404 681 9900

Email turnerfi@mindspring.com

website – www.turnerfoundation.org

The Wallace Genetic Foundation

The Foundation has international funding interests around: sustainable agriculture, protection of farmland near cities, plant genetic research, biodiversity protection and environmental education.

To receive a copy of the Foundation’s guidelines contact:

The Wallace Genetic Foundation

4900 Massachusetts Avenue, MW, Suite 220

Washington, DC 20016

Telephone 202 9662932

Fax 202 362 1510

Email WGFDN@aol.com

The Weeden Foundation

The Foundation supports programmes that “address the adverse impact of growing human populations and overuse of natural resources on the biological fabric of the planet”.

Information is available on the website, www.weedenfdn.org

The Leverhulme Trust, UK can fund

http://www.leverhulme.ac.uk/grants_awards/grants/international_networks/

Organisations working in  developing countries and with projects where conservation elides with human economic development and agriculture might look at USAID.  Normally does not support unsolicited proposals, but worth making a link with their in country office. See: http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/

A nationally specific fund is the Namibian Nature Foundation, whose main objective is to contribute toward sustainable environmental development in Namibia. Make grants of up to 50,000 namibian dollars.  http://www.nnf.org.na/index.php

The Ford Foundation, under its overall theme of “Asset Building & Community Development” has an Environment and Development programme that “helps people and groups acquire, protect, improve and manage land, water, forests, wildlife and other natural assets in ways that help reduce poverty and injustice”.  The Ford Foundation has no connection these days to the Ford Motor Company by the way. See: http://www.fordfound.org/

Alcoa is one of the world’s biggest providers of aluminum and aluminum based products, and operates a large international grant maling foundation, supporting conservation.  If your zoo or botanical garden is near an Alcoa site ( …and the company has hundreds of sites in dozens of countries), you may be eligible for funding . See:  http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/community/info_page/Foundation.asp

The Australia France Foundation supports bilateral cooperations between the two nations in “the broadest possible range of activities”. Potentially this could apply to zoo interests ( and I bet no zoo has ever approached them)http://www.france.embassy.gov.au/pari/Affintro.html

The Aga Khan Foundation supports amongst other areas, rural development and income generation to alleviate poverty in Africa and Asia. A properly articulated in situ zoo project with human poverty alleviation might well qualify.  The allied Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan Fund for the Environment specifically supports biodiversity. http://www.akdn.org/agency/akf.html

The American Himalyan Foundation funds environmental projects in the Himalyan region  http://www.himalayan-foundation.org/live/home/home

The William Cadbury Trust has certainly made grants to zoo run projects in the past and lists environment as an aim (both in the UK and internationally) http://www.wa-cadbury.org.uk/page.asp?id=8

Rufford Small Grants for Nature Conservation (RSGs) are aimed at small conservation programmes and pilot projects: http://www.rufford.org/rsg/

The Nando Peretti Foundation, based in Italy makes grants to international conservation projects. Currently closed to new applications, but likely to open again soon: http://www.nandoperettifound.org/

Biffaward is a multi-million pound fund which awards grants to community and environmental projects across the UK. The fund’s money comes from landfill tax credits donated by Biffa Waste Services. Biffaward is managed by the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts on Biffa’s behalf. http://www.biffaward.org/index.php/contact  The Darwin Initiative is a small grants programme for biodiversity and conservation projects around the world. It tends to favour projects with a strong scientific rationale: http://www.darwin.gov.uk/The Lubee Foundation, based in Florida, is dedicated to the conservation of old world fruit bats. It provides small grants and partnership initiatives within this area: http://www.lubee.org/default.aspxThe International Herpetological Symposium makes (very) small grants to individuals working in relevant fields. No restriction to the USA is specified on theur website: http://www.kingsnake.com/ihs/grant.html

UK Secretary of State, Andy Burnham to open Butterfly Journey at Chester Zoo

As a ‘tail end’ of our work for the UK zoo consortium, we worked with Professor Drummond Bone to secure the presence of Andy Burnham MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at this event.

This is with a view to asking the UK Government to develop a deeper understanding of the many social and environmental outputs that good zoos and aquariums provide, and so consider the potential to financially partner with them in the future.

Chester Zoo’s own visionary Natural Vision project was also profiled during the Minister’s visit and drew his positive comment.

Working with celebrities to raise the profile of your zoo or similar organisation

This piece was first published in International Zoo News. You can get a free sample copy of this magazine, if  you  email  editor Nick  Gould: Ngouldizn@aol.com

Why try to involve a famous person in your zoo event? 

Celebrity figures and zoos have a long association. Many prominent actors (and especially actresses) seem to have a strong affinity with wildlife and animals. Such figures can immensely enjoy, not just visiting a well kept zoological collection, but also perhaps becoming actively involved in zoo projects.

Conversely zoo sites can (normally) only stand to benefit in sharing a little of the public profile and ‘glamour’ that a widely recognised and acclaimed figure can command.

John Regan Associates is of course focussed mainly on attaining major transformational funding for our various client zoos, rather than more general PR benefits as such. So we see the advantages of celebrity association primarily in the context of strategic funding plans.

Putting together a pleasant and inspirational event (…opening a new exhibit, presenting an award, launching a new conservation or fundraising initiative, etc.) and involving a suitable, well known figure creates a unique platform to invite major decision makers to come and celebrate your zoo’s success. Some of these will be in a position to assist with major external funding.

Indeed, even those whose diaries do not allow them to attend that particular day (and the ‘decision making class’ are some of the busiest people of all) will certainly notice and remember the institution whose invitation carried a name that ‘jumped off the page’.

There are of course other advantages:

• Press and media will normally provide much more elaborate coverage for your event and for your organisation in general, than they would without the patina endowed by the given VIP;
• Your board, civic contacts, management and staff will also usually enjoy a celebrity visit. Most of us (and especially, I am afraid, the author of this article) are, perhaps despite ourselves, rather shallow in this respect, and find it difficult to resist the opportunity to meet someone famous (… and talk about it afterwards). That is not to say there may not be a certain amount of grumbling and pretended dissent in certain quarters ( but see section 3 below).

On behalf of leading zoos as well as museums and other institutions in the UK we have worked with figures such as Elizabeth Hurley, Julie Christie, Miranda Richardson, Betty Boothroyd (formerly Speaker of the House of Commons), Richard Leakey (celebrated Kenyan conservationist), Douglas Adams (the late author of “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”), Harold Pinter, George Melly, Susannah Yorke, former Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, Brian Blessed and many others.

This activity should not be underestimated as a very useful part of the mix in winning transformational funding.

So what are some of the secrets to successfully securing the services of a celebrity figure and working with them thereafter?

a. First of all, think beyond the obvious. Do not try and do what everyone else is doing.

If I had a pound for every time, someone had said “Let’s ask David Attenborough…” I would be doing very well indeed!

A celebrity does not have to be already associated with wildlife to be appropriate, and the definition of a celebrity goes far beyond show business. A figure unused to approaches from zoos or the conservation world has two advantages:

• they are actually more likely to say yes in the first place, given the very novelty of the gesture;
• an unusual association is by its very nature newsworthy and will generate more publicity and more attention (a royal visit, whilst certainly prestigious, is hardly breaking news; presiding at such events is after all one of the functions of the royal family).

b. Spend some time considering whose name will seem truly ‘stellar’ to your target audience. Who might your clientele really want to meet (and, having met, talk about)..? Whose name will leap out of the invitation? Since, despite the allegedly egalitarian times in which we live, the majority of decision makers stubbornly remain middle aged men, female film stars of a certain calibre are one obvious option, but not the only one

c. Allow your target celebrities as much latitude as possible in terms of timing. Narrowing the invitation to one particular day is unlikely to be successful, but equally a vague, open invitation to nominate a date ‘sometime’ may not trigger any decision at all. There is little point in issuing an invitation 6 months in advance, and 1 month is probably too late. 2 months or so is a nice timescale

d. Although some can be very helpful indeed, as a policy, where possible, circumnavigate agents and assistants. It will at least slow down the response time, and you may come up against a standing rule to refuse all such requests. Thus your beautifully crafted letter never actually gets the chance to impact on, and persuade your would-be guest.

I once invited Rolling Stone, Ronnie Woods in very clear terms to a prestigious event at the House of Lords, only to receive an agent’s letter to the effect that regrettably I could not have an autograph!

e. Craft the letter very carefully indeed: come to the point straight away; reference other prestigious figures ( members of the royal family?) who have visited your site; make it clear this not a ‘supermarket opening ‘ but rather, in terms of guests at least, a private event; stress the ethical and environmental benefits of the project they will be endorsing; etc.

f.  Never offer to pay. The figure involved should understand that it is an honour to be asked to officiate at such an important, prestigious event. Whether your organisation has official charitable status or not, your project will have essential environmental and social benefits, and the time invested by the public figure involved should be seen by all as ‘a donation’

 

g. Once you have a contact or a relationship, look after it; “feed and water it”

h. Gradually build up a database of appropriate figures. JRA now have quite a considerable resource as to contacts and other relevant details for such figures

i. Work to maximise the day’s benefit to your zoo and its programmes. Be sure your most important contacts get a special invitation, and to ‘rub shoulders’ as appropriate. Who will sit next to the celebrity? Remember it is not a public event as such. Although media and special guests will be alerted in advance to the VIP presence, the general public (your visitors) should not be.

What are some things that can go wrong and how can these be avoided..?

a. Staff or other stakeholders can get hold of the wrong end of the stick and spread canteen rumours as to “wasting resources on a celebrity” or “pandering to a VIP’s demands”. Make sure everyone knows that the VIP’s otherwise very costly time has generously been donated and that there are very good, practical reasons for involving them in keeping with both your organisation’s mission and the prosperity of all who work there

 b. Some last minute hiccup with a VIP prevents their involvement. Ensure you have a backup plan, and another person to step in. There is no reason, by the way, not to have an officiating personality and a ‘guest of honour’ for an event

c. The celebrity goes off message and makes some remark that is inappropriate. In identifying the given celebrity, carry out careful research to ensure their values are in keeping with yours. In advance of the event, make sure he or she receives and has absorbed a full briefing on your organisation and its programmes

 

In conclusion, it is by no means straightforward to attract the involvement of a sufficiently high profile personality and to then derive true value for your conservation or other programme. Success is certainly not guaranteed.

In general media exposure alone, however, the cost/ benefit ratio is very attractive. It is worth weighing the time and expense involved against the column inches achieved. What would the equivalent costs be in ‘above the line’ advertising to achieve the same impact?

Much more importantly however, all too often we have found that when beginning to work with organisations, whilst a given zoo may be warmly regarded by elements of the business and political community, it can recede into the back of the mind as little more than a pleasant, but essentially trivial leisure proposition.

The huge splash made by a celebrity invitation can be a kind of wake-up call for an entire pantheon of influencers and deciders. By drawing attention to your site in this unusual way, you can begin the process of positioning it as an obvious vehicle for development and the funding required for this.

Mr Dillinger, why do you rob banks…?

This is an unedited and unproofed excerpt from a forthcoming book: Transformational External funding for Zoos, Botanic Gardens, Aquariums and similar site based organisations By John Regan and J.J.W Edwards to be published in 2010.

 

Shortly before he died under a hail of FBI bullets emerging from the Biograph Cinema, Chicago, the USA’s public enemy No I gave his last radio interview.  “Mr Dillinger”, asked the very brave radio journalist “Why do you rob banks..?” “Because”, Dillinger replied “that is where the money is.”

It may seem obvious and not worth the stating,  but a good fundraising strategy  should focus on those opportunities where the largest opportunities and the best return on investment is to be found.  However,  the authors have found this truism is often ignored. The Pareto principle (business management guru Joe Juran named the idea after Italian economist Wilfredo Pareto, otherwise known as the 80/20 rule,  that in any given economic system 80% of productivity will come from 20% of producers) holds as good in fundraising as in any other context.

It takes much more effort and expense to raise £1,000 from 1,000 sources,  than it does to raise £1,000,000 from one source.  One can only surmise why do organisations persist in pursuing many small pots of funding, rather than carefully targeting large opportunities. It may be because:

• Operatives are scared of ambitious fundraising
• A profusion of frequent small wins seems more successful and more stimulating than a very occasional large one
• Small scale fundraising is the kind of activity most of us are exposed to and so assumed to be the norm

 

Free newsletter on funding opportunities

If you would like to receive a free regular newsletter on funding opportunites for zoos, botanic gardens, aquariums and similar organisations, please email John Edwards (Johnedwards@johnreganassociates.com) and let him know. 

There are two versions, UK zoo funding and Eurozoo funding.  All subscribers to the former will automatically get the latter as well.  So let John know which list is most appropriate

Interview1: How Adelaide Zoo won its funding

Public capital investment for large audience nature venues

Interview 1: Professor Chris West, Royal Zoological Society of South Australia

Background: The RZSA or Zoos South Australia is a non profit operating two sites, Adelaide Zoo and Monarto Open Range Zoo, as well as the Conservation Ark programme.

In 2006 Professor Chris West, formerly of the Zoological Society of London, was appointed Executive Director, since which time very significant capital grants have been secured, mainly from governmental sources. Professor West kindly agreed to share some of the thinking that had led to this success in this interview with John Regan, who assists site based organisations across Europe with major funding potential.

Chris and John were formerly colleagues at Chester Zoo, UK.

 

 

Professor Chris West

JOHN: Can you tell me a little about the degree, type and source of recent/ forthcoming external investment into your site?

CHRIS: Well, we have been successful with the Federal Government of Australia, the State Government of South Australia and the City of Adelaide. We have secured $25 million AUD over 2 years from the State, the Federal Government has contributed $1 million and the Adelaide City Council $50,000. We have also secured corporate funding of $2.3 million, but there is a lot more on the way.

This kind of funding is huge and quite unprecedented for our kind of organisation in South Australia. The situation in the other states is rather different, as many of the big, ‘mission driven’ zoos there are actually operated by some level of Government, so receive ongoing subsidy. Arguably however, as they report to city or state officials, this ironically may make it more difficult to make a freehanded case for imaginative investment.

JOHN: Why did you seek this funding? Why did you feel you needed it? What benefits has/ will it bring? How does it fit with mission or business development?

CHRIS: In the case of Adelaide Zoo, we badly needed to redevelop a site that was in its origins essentially a Victorian zoo.

Monarto, as an open range zoo, is very different, but also need substantial investment to develop its potential.

Underpinning this of course ZooSA is mission driven. So ultimately all resource is there to support conservation activities, but it is essential to constantly develop the ‘WOW factor’ so the public keep coming in.

JOHN: What case did you make to draw this funding down? Did your case reflect external political and social agenda? What were these, and how did you articulate the synergies between your promised delivery and these policies?

CHRIS: We made a strong economic and political argument for the funding to the State. Adelaide Zoo’s infrastructure was in bad need of a thorough going modernisation, and by a further 15 years time would have seen total dilapidation.

So we made the point that, by intervening at just this critical point, the State would actually save itself from a much greater investment at some future stage by when the zoo site might have become a complete ‘basket case’. We were saving the State money, not costing money!

Thanks to the work of my predecessors and my current team, our site has built up a huge fund of public affection, so politically ‘letting the zoo go hang’ simply was not an option.

I would have to say the State Premier was also very forward looking and not at all resistant to these ideas once they were carefully presented to him.

The funding is in part to help bring Giant Pandas to Australia, as well as to build a new entrance and other infrastructure. The Pandas were really key in the potential to promote national and international tourism, bed nights, attendance, etc. All the usual economic development benefits were there, a general ‘halo effect’, media profile for South Australia on the international stage as well as branding the state in terms of environmental education and sustainability.

The ‘case statement’ for the Pandas was very business orientated, whereas the case statement to fund our education programme was all about numbers of students.

JOHN: Can you tell us a little about the specific process involved? Were there any particular politics, personalities or subtleties of process that you might point to?

CHRIS: Although results at this level had never before been attained, I would say it was a pretty straightforward process. A smaller population, a perhaps more egalitarian society compared to Europe, and greater acceptance of zoos generally makes networking relatively easy.

My own status and experience as former zoological director at the Zoological Society of London helped a good deal as well. It was easy to meet local politicians, who all wanted to be part of the Zoo’s success. However I had a special stroke of luck in that the Federal Finance Minister came from the same family that produced the first three Directors here at Adelaide back in the nineteenth century.

He called me up to Canberra to meet the Cabinet , or part of it at least, Education, Science , Environment, etc. I did a quick translation of the “John Regan Manifesto for Zoos” for them. “…Did you know that zoos welcome more people than sports musters, are very socially inclusive, are about science, education, community, international links, etc., etc…”

But you know this stuff!

There was perhaps a residual view of zoos at Federal Government level as quasi-agricultural sites associated with negative issue of diseases, quarantine, bio-security concerns. So I did have to colour in Ministers’ understanding of zoos as conservation vehicles. But as a result of the Canberra trip, we were invited to bid for various grants amounting to $2/3 million, all on the basis of regional development.

Another stroke of luck was to make friends with a couple who just happened to be close friends with Alexander Downer the Foreign Minister. We met over dinner and then a lunch and a few glasses of local wine and it turned out that he was an elephant enthusiast and offered to help us obtain some. I gently explained that Elephants were not appropriate, but now, Pandas…..? And matters moved forward quickly again.

Once the Federal Government were in for a given amount, it was time to go back to the State for infrastructure support. At the end we were only left with a very small funding gap.

It is important to appreciate the role of China as a huge trading partner with Australia in all this and the geo-political issues in the background. The Pandas will be the only such in the entire southern hemisphere, and constitute a powerful symbol of friendship between the two countries.

At one point someone at State level did actually raise the issue of dropping the Pandas, the suggestion that, in that case, “they will just go to ‘your rivals’ in Melbourne” was enough to close down that debate. And then… the Howard Government got voted out, and we had to start all over again!

Fortunately, and yet again through personal contacts, I was able to establish a dialogue with the new Rudd administration. The new Foreign Minister happened to be a friend of a friend and so ongoing support for the Panda project was relatively easy to establish. Kevin Rudd is a great Sinophile…

JOHN: Did you finesse initial and internal ideas to reflect external agenda? If so, how do you feel about the result? Do you feel your project has been compromised? Or, on the contrary, do you feel, as a result of such adaptations, your project ideas and their delivery to have become richer, more sophisticated or of multiple socio-environmental benefit?

CHRIS: There was no compromise in terms of our needs. We simply looked at what we wanted and who might be the provider. Whose interests coincided with ours? We would perhaps have liked more initially for science and field conservation, but external funding is the art of the possible, and 10% of our revenue goes into native species conservation anyway.

JOHN: What blockages, if any, did you encounter, and how did you deal with these? Were there any internal issues to address?

CHRIS: When I arrived, I did bring with me something of a new model, the Jersey Zoo template of being all about conservation, and although there was loads of goodwill all around, inevitably there was a certain degree of culture change required.

 Also, in respect of going out there and making political contacts so as to pitch for large sums of money, there was some degree of incomprehension and discomfort at board level at first, but time and people move on, and our current Chair is herself a lead giver at $0.5 million. Certainly if a supportive culture at board level had not developed, this could have been a serious impediment to our funding ambitions.

Once the funding was secured though, at an order of magnitude bigger than any achieved before, everyone fell into line.

JOHN: What resources and kind of time frame did you need?

CHRIS: Well, in human terms initially it was just me, and I have been here 3 years. We now have 3 people in development which is probably still not enough.

I am also keenly aware that our database needs to be radically improved. To date the focus has been on public funding, but we want to widen it out to corporate and philanthropic funding.

JOHN: How important was networking, raising your organisation’s profile essential or other marketing activity to your success?

CHRIS: As above, it was really all about networking. Also I remembered what you used to say, when we worked together at Chester, about people wanting to be associated with success. So we did lots of media work to let decision makers know what was happening at the zoo.

I myself gradually became a fairly well known name and face in the relatively small community of Adelaide and South Australia, and often get asked to speak at events or offer a media opinion on various topics.

Some time back a bloke came up to me in the street to ask “Are you something to do with the zoo?” As a result of our chat he became quite an important corporate sponsor.

JOHN: How important was external partnership in the project?

CHRIS: We applied for most of our funding just by ourselves, but we did set up a new identity, “Conservation Ark” to get away from both the ‘zoo word’ and any restrictive geography, and so we could make grant applications to the Federal Government.

There are three Universities in Adelaide. I hold professorships at two of these, and we work closely with the other. The Universities want student placements, joint research, training/ teaching opportunities and the heightened public and media profile association with us allows.

JOHN: Other than the above, what lessons have you learnt from this? Will you repeat the process, and what other relevant activities lie in your organisation’s future? What would you do differently next time?

CHRIS: I might take a bit less on if I was doing it all again. When I arrived I did an initial concept paper with 10 major aims. 8 out of these are already achieved!

Adelaide Zoo came with a lot of tradition and clearly came under a certain pressure in re-gearing. So I would pace matters more and move slightly more slowly.

On the other hand, I think you do need to act pretty vigorously get the zoo into the in minds of local corporates and political decision makers as a place where exciting things happen.

The zoo was especially well placed for this in one way, as the other cultural organisations, our museums and galleries in Adelaide are run by government agencies, and so despite the best efforts of their management, find it difficult to innovate, whereas we are independent and can turn on a penny.

JOHN: How do you think the current economic climate will impact on further potential to access public funds?

CHRIS: Right now, the recessionary effect in Australia is still lagging. We are a little more cushioned than others and our bank sector not in as bad a state. But of course it will have its effect. We are trying to make the best of it.

Rather than ask for more money recently we asked the State to hand over title of the territory adjoining Monarto. This is effectively a $5 million gift, and at 30,000 acres will make Monarto, the largest open range zoo in world (… depending of course on your definition of course).

But it looks unlikely that the Government is going to being dole out big lumps of cash any time soon…

JOHN: Unless the Australian authorities see further zoo investment in terms of the Keynsian philosophy of stimulating major infrastructure projects..?

CHRIS: Yes, hmm… well, perhaps we should be asking for a piece of the $42 billion available for that purpose?

JOHN: Is there anything else you would like to tell us in connection with securing public funding for the capital development of your site?

CHRIS: I think we have covered most of it. We will certainly be continuing to see what are the right buttons to press, without in any sense compromising our mission.

For instance I recently pointed out to the State that we are actually the largest site for disability in South Australia.

As you know only too well, it is all about stitching people together. Zoos are all things to all people. We need to capitalise on this externally, and believe it internally. We need to constantly point out all the astonishing array of things that we do.

One last point I might offer is the difference between corporate funders and those who hold the public purse. If convinced of the benefit, business leaders will give you the sum agreed. Political figures are a little more complex as they need to keep so many people happy. They are always coming back to the table to ask “you don’t really need all this money, do you?” I think we need to be polite but forthright in saying: Well – yes – actually we do!

JOHN: Thank you very much

The State Aid blockage to public funding within the EU and how to address it

This is  an EU Directive designed to prevent one Member State giving an unfair advantage to a particular commercial organisation or sector. For instance if the UK Government were to give subsides to its steel industry, this would distort  competitivity across the EU.

I have noticed however that the State Aid principle is being quoted (sometime out of simple lack awareness) by Government officials to block large grants to zoo and botanic sites.  There is actually case law and precedent to establish the eligiblity of zoos and similar sites to receive substantial amounts of public money.

If any sites across the EU are having difficulty with this issue, please get in touch, and we can probably help

What makes a good external funding officer, development or fundraiser?

This is an unedited and unproofed excerpt from a forthcoming book: Transformational External funding for Zoos, Botanic Gardens, Aquariums and similar site based organisations By John Regan and J.J.W Edwards to be published in 2010.

 

The professionalization and professional acceptance of development as a career remains at unequal stages in different countries and different sectors.  Recognised routes into a career structure in external funding are only just emerging. It is arguable that in the botanic and zoo community at least ( and especially beyond the USA)  insufficient status is accorded to practitioners, compared to,  for example, accountancy, human resources or other professionals.

Given the size of resources to be won and given that, when properly pursued, the cost/ benefit ratio in external funding can be quite staggering, this is some ways perplexing.

 

Standards in management expectation and management support are often too low resulting in poor morale and a ‘revolving door’ , and it is to be wondered at that site decision makers are willing to ‘play fast and loose’ in recruitment. Conversely it is undoubtedly true that fundraisers themselves often do not have the highest standards, are loath to constantly upgrade their skills and can sometimes easily ‘hide’ within large organizations or  charitable brands whose very profile attracts funding without any great proactive activity. The global recession that looms at time of writing will certainly change this!

So in recruiting staff, look for these attributes:

1. Enthusiasm:  if they do not care about and are not interested in your site and its outputs, they will make poor advocates.  Beware however of candidates who are too immersed in the zoological or botanical fields.  An accomplished practitioner should be able to see your organization as an outsider sees it, and the skills required are a matter of technical advocacy, not scientific detail.
2. A good balance between strategic and opportunistic attitudes: a fundraiser needs to plan carefully, whilst not becoming obsessed with strategy (“the paralysis of analysis”) and being able to adapt quickly to emergent opportunities and challenges.
3. Writing, speaking and presentation skills: this requirement may seem pretty straightforward, but it is surprising how many young people, otherwise of the highest educational and intellectual attainment, are incapable of writing a simple letter.  Whilst we accept that differences in generational attitude may be at play here, at the point of this work’s publication, the majority of funding decision makers will themselves be middle aged, and it is their ‘prejudices’ can must count.  An additional point is that no matter how conversationally eloquent a candidate may be, the funding process will nearly always culminate in writing of some form, so this technical ability must be tested
4. Persistence, patience and politeness:  a refusal to become demoralized by inevitable occasional rejections must be balanced by a subtlety in renewed approach, and a willingness to put in time and effort keeping close to funders and donors even when not actually about to make an approach
5. Creativity and flexibility:  a good fundraiser should be looking beyond practices of the past towards fresh sources of funds and fresh ways of accessing funds. They should be able to respond imaginatively to an ever changing environment

Being rejected: what kind of ‘no’ is it?

You will need to handle a number of rejections before you succeed.  When you get a ‘no, respect this, but try to establish’ what kind of no’ it is:

• No, not ever..?
• No, not now..?
• No, not this particular project…?
• No, not at this price..?

On the basis of the response, you can begin to formulate a  new approach.

Elicit from the decision maker what it would actually take to do the deal.   If they admit to quite liking the project, ask: “What would it take to make you love the project?  Is there perhaps another property that would suit them better?

In every  external meeting you secure, adopt a philoshopy of bringing back something of value. Perhaps you were refused in your central aim of funding, but can your correspondent open other doors, give advice,  act as an advocate, spread the word, etc…?

New green philanthropy list published in London Times

This should be useful to sites pursuing philanthropic funding.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/article5816774.ece

Of course, the lazy, unproductive way to address this: the inevitable that will just dull the philanthropic edge of these individuals’ generosity and goodwill would be to simply bombard them with begging letters.

There are many subtler ways of approaching such people!

Confusing a project description required by the external funding process with description required to actually deliver the project

It may sound confusing but… consider the sequence of aims required in securing external funding for a given project.  First you will be tightly focussed on just winning the funds. This will of course in turn involve developing, describing and articulating your concept to the given funder, but only  in those practical areas necessary and sufficient to win the funding.  At this stage you do not need to elaborate the project description beyond this and must clearly represent it in the “fundabilty context” of the funder.

Once funding is secured, now you can throw yourself into the detail and a more internal mindset

Why should zoos seek external funding at all?

This is an unedited and unproofed excerpt from a forthcoming book: Transformational External funding for Zoos, Botanic Gardens, Aquariums and similar site based organisations By John Regan and J.J.W Edwards to be published in 2010.

Why seek external funding at all?

The majority of people who have opened this book represent institutions which either charge for admission to their site; receive substantial revenue subsidies from their city, county, state, region or nation; or perhaps both. All these organisations will trade, maximizing margins on sales of ice creams, sandwiches, cuddly toys, etc., and engage in all manner of legitimate and very valuable commercial activities. Some of you may be NGOs (non-governmental organizations) or, in the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and other nations, charities or close equivalents; others will be wholly private organizations; others again will be operated by some level of government; all will in most senses see themselves as very far from a traditional conception of ‘a fundraising organization’ and will instinctively look to their gate as the main source of reliable income.

So the question is easily begged, why seek other forms of investment at all? Surely if the pressing issue is financial, all available resources need to be firmly and solely targeted on commercial activities?

So why bother with this extra agenda?

• Because further streams of external income will reducing a vulnerable dependency on the gate
• Because, dependent on your business model and its success, your current annual profit or charitable surplus may be insufficient for major new development. A desire to refresh your offer, or to maximize delivery of charitable purpose will thus be compromised.
• Because you have vision of a future dream site that simply cannot be delivered without external transformational funding
• Because – quite simply – you can! Site based organisations are especially well suited to raise external, non-commercial funding as they are high profile, exciting colourful subjects, already in contact with vast swathes of the public and can visibly showcase their social, cultural and environmental work.
• Because, when done well, the cost/ benefit ratio of a development programme is actually through the roof (recently estimated at a 60 to 1 ROI) compared with all other financial activities.
• Because a casual perusal of those elements that have really changed the permanent landscape for zoos and botanic gardens show these not to be commercial as such, but government funding, fiscal changes due to lobbying, major philanthropy and major commercial sponsorship

Finding and keeping fundraisers for site based organisations: new study

dissertation-on-fundraising-professionals The attached new US study investigates elements around retention and sucess rates for development professionals and fundraisers

When too much planning for your site’s future can damage opportunities for future external funding

A contrarian’s view I know, but often when we are asked to help find major transformational funding for zoos, botanic sites, museums and similar sites, we find that an existing master plan that is too prescriptive and inflexible can be a major hindrance.

Of course planning is essential; not least for the purposes for external funding itself. However funding is very much the ‘art of the possible’.  The funding potential is unlikely to always arrive tailor made to just happen to perfectly fit your beautifully detailed internal blueprint.

Funding success is to be found in an intelligent, imaginative dialogue with external agenda. This does not have to mean betraying your organisation’s values, but rather a willingness to deliver these in new and ever more creative ways.

Do zoo decision makers sometime become obsessed with the planning process and the elaborate documents that it produces?  Do physical plans, drawings, statements, models actually become fetishized?  Are we in danger of confusing ends and means?   After all, if we take towns and cities as an analogy for zoos, do you want your future site to resemble the disastrously systematized Bucharest of Ceauşescu, or the blandly regimented Milton Keynes, or the organically developed Rome or Paris…?

Of course, a framework for future development is absolutely essential, but too much imposed neatness blocks serendipity, creativity and organic growth.  Read “A Perfect Mess: the Hidden Benefits of Disorder”  by Professor Eric Abrahamson, Professor of Management at Columbia University, New York.  Or for another kind of authority, consult Von Clausewitz’ classic “On War”,  on which a later Prussian general, Moltke based his famous saying:  “No campaign plan survives first contact with the enemy”

Zoos, botanics and the new age of philanthropy

We are – despite the recession – living through a new age of personal giving at a very senior level.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are now the biggest donors the world has ever seen, and they are followed by a host of others all around the world.

But these new “philanthopcapitalists” are subtly different from their predecessors.   In some cases they look for a more direct involvement in the project supported by their gift.  In others they look at their support as “venture philanthropy” facilitating otherwise hard to fund and innately risky experimental approaches.

Large audience nature venues around the world are, I know, engaged in mould breaking ideas of all sorts.

To consider better how to engage with the new philanthropy, try ‘Philanthocapitalists’ by Bishop and Green

Sites engaged in asking the public for funds should not mention the recession

Some interesting recent research shows that donor prospects will give less to a charity if it references the current down turn.

A leading UK charity took the view that mentioning the recession and its effect on the charity would make individuals actually give more.  However a controlled experiment seems to show that this only made them more cautious in their giving.

Most successful words to use in funding approaches

Research over many decades shows that certain key words can increase success in funding approaches. These include:

• Free
• New
• You
• Yes
• Discover
• Benefit
• Money
• Guarantee
• Now
• Secret
• Proven

So, yes, that is the secret.  Now discover the power of this proven and free technique guaranteed to bring new benefits and new money

 

Opportunities for nature venues to prosper in the recession

 

 

Many leading experts in different fields point to pickings to be found for the exotic worlds of zoos, botanic gardens and conservation in an economic downturn, and, in certain respects, this is the time to invest, rather than cutback:

High calibre staff are leaving the financial sector and other (previously!) well remunerated areas of business, deciding this is the time for a life style change. This is a good time to snap up people from the corporate sector at bargain rates, rather than indulge in a recruitment freeze.

Conversely on a less cheerful note, one director of a large UK charity suggested this was the time to get rid of problem and poorly performing staff.

In respect of capital projects which are important to so many nature sites. This is the time to go out and haggle over prices!

 

UK Government land tax Proposals

I hope all UK zoos, botanic gardens, aquariums etc. are tracking the Government’s “Community Infrastucture”. As I understand it, this threatens to seriously increase the capital costs of new building by UK charities – which of course will especially effect zoo and similar projects

Fundable themes for zoos, botanic gardens, etc.

In working across Europe to help sites achieve ‘transformational’ funding from one or other level of government, the same ideas often emerge. In which ways can you finesse your project in such a way that it ‘adds value’ to your society. These are some of the agenda that will help you get the attention of public sector funders:

 

• Job creation
• Tourism development
• Own business growth
• Support for other small business/ enterprise stimulation
• Contribution to a sense of unique and positive place
• Cultural development
• Support for regional heritage
• Community development/ community cohesion
• Primary and secondary education
• Training links with higher education institutions
• Research links with universities and research institutes
• Skills development
• Vocational advocacy work
• Partnerships within EU 
• International partnerships, especially with emergent super-economies such as China and India
• Support for regional biodiversity
• Development and demonstration of environmental technology
• Dissemination of environmental message/ climate change
• Development of the built environment/ iconic architecture

Questions and discussion welcome!

 

John

Here is link for jobs in zoos

http://zoowork.blogspot.com/

£5 million target for Marwell Zoological Park: 2 invitations to bid

Our work with Marwell Zoological Park has made satisfyingly rapid progress over the last 12 months, and has now coalesced around an exciting £5 million project build (notional budget only).

With our assistance Marwell Zoological Park has now been actively invited to bid for two separate grants (one public and one private funder) each separately amounting to seven figure sums. Three other sources of major funds have also issued extremely encouraging signals.

Marwell Chief Executive James Cretney said: “Marwell is currently working with JRA to develop a multi-layered funding application to a diverse group of stakeholders. In a very short space of time, we are progressing in our work, and I am confidence that under the guidance of JRA we will achieve our goal. I am very satisfied at the work done by JRA and enjoy working with them”

Further £100,000 grant achieved for Twycross Zoo

Working closely with the Zoo Director’s office, JRA Ltd has recently achieved £100,000 grant from East Midlands Tourism. 

The grant comes on the back of  the £3 million grant secured from emda in 2007

This funding is to be used for work around planning  the overall development of the zoo site.

JRA advised on and coordinated as to developing the necessary relationships, alerted Twycross to this specific grant potential, advised on the best project  as the basis for the bid, and worked with zoo management to compose the bid itself.

New document available on links between EU policy and the deliver of zoos and aquaria

eu-and-europes-zoos

On behalf of a grouping of 19 leading zoos and aquaria throughout the EU, we recently completed this study which draws out the close alignment between the EU’s principles and policues and what good zoos and allied sites are all about.

It comes complete with an introduction from the former Deputy Prime Minister of the UK, John Prescott, and we would welcome the help of any one reading this site in winning some future wording from other senior EU politicians for a future edition.

This document is not a signpost to where zoos can find funding ( contact me on this) but rather an advocacy and lobbying document to be used in advance and alongside any applications you may care to make.

 

John Regan  (00 44 161 434 1681)

 

Save The Rhino International’s application to the EU’s ENTRP programme

Renaud Fulconis.

 

 

 

We recently assisted Save The Rhino International to complete an initial Concept Note to the European Union’s  “enviromental and sustainable management of natural resources, including energy” This is for the protection of the Great One Horned Rhino in Nepal’s Terai grasslands.  The overall project looks to cost  2.5 million €, and we hope to win 1.87 milion € from the EU. We will know at the end of April whether we are invited to proceed to full bid.

Cathy Head, CEO of Save The Rhino International said: “We immensely enjoyed working with John Regan on the Concept Note stage – and hopefully round 2 in due course – for a major bid to the EU. John’s experience of working on EU proposals, his insight into the kind of things they look for in grant applications, and his focus and direction on getting a good job done on time were both welcome and necessary”.

EU LIFE+ Information and Communication funds undersubcribed!

This source of funds, introduced for the first time ever in September 07, seems to have been badly undersubscribed. In the UK only 3 applications were made.

Whilst this financing cannot support major infrastructure, it can fund signage, information points and possibly walkways. Restricted to EU environmental issues, it seems especially well suited to collaborative projects involving more than one zoo or botanic garden or similar organisation.

This programme could double the finance available to a given grouping or single organisation on a theme such as endangered amphibian species native to Europe. or European carnivores.   A collaborative, project seen to be funded by the EU would also have the benefit of elevating the zoo community’s identity in the public arena. 

The remit  of the Inf & Com component (unlike the rather tight other LIFE+ components) is wide to the point of complete vagueness.  Furthermore, various lobbying missions on my part to DG Environment before LIFE+ was finally formulated stressed the huge public awareness raising potential inherent in zoos, and seems to have met with some results. So a funding programme in part specifically designed to address zoo potential  risk now being ignored by them.

Partnerships to access EU funding.

Currently membership for the EU Interreg zoo and botanic garden funding partnership lead by Bristol Zoo Gardens is closed. 

We are likely to bid together for a sum in the region of  5 million €.  The ‘in principle’ membership for this project is: Emmen Zoo, Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp, Munster Zoo and the Eden Project, UK.
However if any  zoo, botanic garden or similar organisation is interested in drawing funds down through a partnership bid with other such institutions, please contact us without delay.

The Interreg Fund has not been hugely used for the benefit of zoos, aquaria and botanic gardens to date, but as bids are made, the novely aspect will decline.  As it takes a lot of time to discuss , form partnerships and prepare matters, it is important to start discussions early.

John@johnreganassociates.com

Former post (January 08)

The EU’s Interreg programme can, in the right circumstances, release fairly substantial funds for projects on zoo,  similar sites or institutions allied to zoos, such as universities.  

 

In each case,  a number of partners needs to come together to bid collectively for the funding. There are a number of different Interreg programmes that apply to different kinds of partnerships in different parts of Europe (  – and some non EU states as well,  such as Switzerland).

This particular post however is a specific invitation to European zoos, nature sites, botanic gardens,  public sector organisations that take an interest in such sites, or other organisations who might want to be involved, to join an existing ‘in principle’ partnership within North West Europe to bid for funding.   The current ‘in principle’ partners are: Bristol Zoo Gardens,  the Eden Project, Fota Wildlife Park, Ireland, Emmen Zoo, Netherlands, and Nordens Ark, Sweden.  Only organisations in certain parts of Europe are eligible in this specific instance.  This map shows the eligible areas: northwesteurope.pdf.  This Q & A  document explains what is involved in the project:  q-a-for-partners.docq-a-for-partners.docq-a-for-partners.doc

There is probably only room for a further organisations so please contact us very quickly if you are interested. The overall project budget might be in the region of €10 million

If you are not within the eligible area, but are still curious as to how the overall Interreg programme might benefit you, please also contact us, and we will inform you on the potential available to you.

Question from Martin Rule re funding for Varna Zoo, Bulgaria

Thanks for your website.

I have just visited a Zoo in Bulgaria, Varna. This Zoo suffers from stereotypical underfunding and is in dire need of all the support, advice and change that the EU accession treaty intended.
I am working with a young activist who is currently designing the Zoo’s website. He has recently appeared in negotiations with the Zoo Director on Bulgaria’s national news television and and a discussion programme for local Varna TV and radio. Some of the conditions are dire there for the stressed animals, particularly the wild cats and bears. Bulgaria has shown some positive intent on animal wefare, so we are working with this intention on spawning the connection between civic democracy ,animal welfare and developing succesful post communist economic models based on progressive policy and strategy. There is virtually zero debate at this level, and even less responsibility.
The potential for developing these issues into successful outcomes is a large as the curent paucity of attention given to them.We want to reverse the situation by starting with whats necessary, attending to the possible and then letting beneficial chaos theory take over!

WE and I would appreciate any and all advice you can offer on EU funding streams for Zoos to develop our ideas and civic outreach intentions.

Thank you
Martyn Rule

johnregan
March 22, 2008 at 11:16 am

Dear Martyn,

Thanks for your email. I have visited Bulgaria myself with EAZA and know only too well of the distressing condition of some animals in certain zoos there. I believe matters are even worse in some Romanian collections. I admire your work in trying to better the situation.

Whilst EU legislation exists (the EU Directive on Zoos) exists to mandate higher welfare standards within the enlarged EU, I am afraid that sadly, amongst the very many EU financial instruments, there exists none that directly and specifically supports improved accommodation for zoo animals as such.

However there are plural opportunities to secure major funding for
1. economic development involving zoos
2. wildlife conservation and public awareness of environmental matters

These all require political will on the part the authorities that operate the zoo (in this case, I would guess, the municipal authorities of Varna??) I can imagine that these will not be putting animal welfare at the top of their list, but the great trick is to get them to see that tens of millions of euros are potentially available to transform their site ( in keeping with the EU Zoo Directive) from an embarrassing old fashioned menagerie with dwindling audiences, disseminating a negative, retrograde image internationally for Varna and Bulgaria as whole, into a 21st Century environmental and natural heritage awareness centre, generating jobs, tourism, small businesses, positive image for Varna and perhaps promoting Bulgaria’s native wildlife heritage. This would be especially appropriate in Varna as a major tourism city. Such a metamorphosis will naturally also embrace dramatically improved welfare conditions. Varna zoo is almost certainly sitting on a high and growing value land bank, and EU legislation (and popular international opinion such as your own) will eventually force closure of the site or change anyway. So the zoo authorities look to lose everything unless they embark early on an imaginative and inspirational paradigm shift.

JRA Ltd occasionally visits zoo sites across Europe to run a short workshop matching the realities and aspirations of an organisation with a strategy to secure transformational EU funding (I don’t claim it is straightforward to bid successfully for these large funds). This is how I pay my bills of course (!), so the fee is realistic, but as the exercise only takes a few days, not exorbitant.

Anyway the animals in Varna Zoo could potentially benefit in different ways from:

• Bulgaria’s EU Structural Funds in the zoo’s identity as means for regional economic development and positive identity
• EU Cohesion fund – as above but with extra emphasis on the environment
• LIFE+ could part fund a public campaign around Bulgarian biodiversity with knock on effects for the individual treatment of animals in captivity, as well as wild based conservation
• Interreg could establish a pan-EU partnership to upgrade Varna zoo
• TAIEX could pay for exchange of expertise between a high welfare standard zoo elsewhere in EU and Varna

Further details are available scattered around the Zoo Funding blog, and upon further investigation there may be other funding possibilities (EU and otherwise)

Good luck, keep in touch and let me know if the Varna authorities would wish to work with JRA on a professional basis.

Updated LIFE+: LIFE+ when to start thinking about your project

The EU’s LIFE+ application process finally opened on the 28 September 2007. A total amount of €187 million  was available for this first call for proposals, and it will be slightly more this year., 2008  The ‘closing date’ ( by when proposals have to be submitted to the national authorities) for 2008 is likely to be the 21/11/08,  and applications open 15 July( but you can and should prepare your project well in advance).    

The Commission will then spend much of 2009 assessing the projects submitted in this round. Successful applicants will not be able to actually begin their projects until  1/1/2010 at the earliest.

It is also worth pointing out that conceiving, testing and then fully articulating your project according to the application requirements of LIFE+ takes a good deal of time. 

So zoos and allied organisations wishing to consider a LIFE+ project – to begin in 2010 – would be wise to start the process soon.

I would remind you that there are 3 components to LIFE+ as follows, all of which are potentially of interest to our community

• LIFE+ Nature & Biodiversity
• LIFE+ Environment Policy & Governance
• LIFE+ Information & Communication

In the case of the latter, co-operative, multi-site projects ( national or trans-national) would seem to be the most likely to be successful

If you want further information, please post a comment below, rather than email me direct

Thanks

 John

ENRTP Funding from EU for conservation throughout the developing world

We have just completed and submitted two ‘concept notes’ for this EU funding programme ( “environment and sustainable management of natural resources, including energy” ENRTP:

One on behalf of EAZA and Bird Life International for a project in Madagascar, and another on behalf of Save the Rhino and ZSL for work in Nepal.

This opportunity is now closed, but will likely open again towards the end of 2008.  It offers up to 80% funding and projects can range from EU contributions of €800,000 to €3,500,000.

Although the initial  4 page Concept Form looks relatively straightforward (if these are successul, the applicant is invited to proceed to a full bid), a strong and appropriate concept is needed, as well as the partnership to go with this. All of which takes a lot of time to develop. So organisations thinking of bidding at the end of this year would absolutely have to start developing their project from now on.

ENRTP is one programme belonging to AIDCO. Occasionally other calls for bids may be of interest to conservation or zoological interests.

Here is the link:http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/cgi/frame12.pl

‘Fundraising’ versus ‘Development’…?

So what’s the difference? What route should a given organisation choose when first resourcing some kind of external funding programme and philosophy..?

To my mind, ‘fundraising’ is a function logically tucked inside a larger marketing or communications department, and probably not reporting directly to the CEO.  It concerns tactical activities to secure extra resource to fund those iniatives that the organisation would carry out as a matter of course. It is likely to embrace fundraising events (uggh!), legacy promotions ( hurray!), modest corporate partnerships, community or ‘grassroots’ fundraising. Properly resourced and managed,  it is an extremely valuable addition to a zoo or other organisation’s  other revenue streams ( …and in the case of legacies of course huge sums can be involved)

But ‘development’ is a fundamentally strategic activity. It is about engagement with the external decision making landscape so as to find resource opportunities that can profoundly transform one’s organisation (RDA funding, capital campaigns, VAT recoup, elective pound programmes, major sponsorship, high level major gifts, etc). It is about the patient, high level marketing of the zoo, its work and its ethical mission to the most senior decision makers possible. It is about the entire growth future of the organisation,  in so far as this is dependent on the external world (  -  which it probably is).

Development is a quasi-CEO activity. You may have of course to hire someone with the specific skills and an exclusive focus on the external world, but the Head of Development must report directlyto the CEO. The CEO will always have be personally very involved as well.

Which approach do I think is the more exciting..?  Guess..!

 Happy to hear dissenting views or experience

 John

http://www.johnreganassociates.com/

John@johnreganassociates.com

Zoos and regional/local identity

Are zoos and aquaria perceived by the outside world as sufficiently different to one another? 

If not, do we lose ‘out of area’ visitors and funding potential, because we are seen as having little to offer that is part of the particular authentic ‘flavour’ of that part of the world?

The fact is,  from within the zoo world, it is obvious that no two zoos are alike. However, the public and the media tend to speak of  ‘the city zoo’, as if the content  (”lions, tigers, elephants, etc…”) is interchangeable wherever you go in the the world.

I am sure that most organisations could do mucg more to project some kind of unique story or special ambiance ( around star animals, around human characters, some special piece of organisational heritage, distinctive architecture, some tie  in with charismatic native fauna…?) that would help drive traffic and allow the zoo to be seen as somehow essential to the distinctive  regional or local identity.  Jersey certainly did this in through the iconic personality of Gerald Durrell, and Bristol ( in a very different sense) through the semi-fictional Johnny Morris.  I confess I have never been to either the Biblical Zoo in Israel and the Nahavo Zoo in Arizona. but both of these must punch above their weight because of the ‘must see whilst in area’ packaging they have cleverly enveloped themselves in.

How many different ways could a given zoo, aquarium or similar organisation add to their mystique,  mythos, glamour?  How many different ways can they shine a searchlight into sky and say  ‘I am here, and in this sense I am unique in all the world’..?

Best

John

Core funding for associations of conservation NGOs in the EU

This budget line will provide in theory up to 70%  ( in reality more like 50%) of the operating budget of a network of conservation organisations operating in at least 3 different EU States.

To qualify a network organisation would need to show that constitutionally its members are primarily active in the environmental field. It also needs to present 2 years of externally audited accounts.

Contact me for further information

Money from USA Foundations for zoo projects around the world

 A doubtless challenging but nonetheless huge source of finance for the right projects lies within grant making foundations based in the USA.  I attach below an article composed with the help of David Wickert of Chapel & York. Please contact David ( see blogroll) if you want further info, and tell him  you came through the blog.

 

 

 

 

A further musing is that an especially appealing project for USA Foundations ( and perhaps European ones) might just be an approach that somehow transformed or re-articulated the nature of the modern progressive zoo, or indeed evidenced a large number of zoos working together on some very worthwhile project ( an EAZA campaign ..?)

money-for-european-zoos-from-the-united-states.doc

Here are some other useful links: 

foundationcenter.org/

www.ccp.ca/ 

  John

john@johnreganassociates.com

What is the best way to recruit a Development or Fundraising person..?

Recruitment in this area seems to be very much a revolving door.  What is going wrong?

Well, first decide which of these two very distinct philosophies you wish to adopt ( see former post http://zoofunding.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/fundraising-versus-development/).  The instinctive response of a zoo decision maker when first wishing to explore external funding is simply to dip their toe in the water, and hire experimentally at a modest level.

I don’t think this works.

I think you have to put some long term commitment and serious resource into the matter. If not,  you simply won’t attract anyone serious. There is considerable churn within the fundraising world: you hear about the few successful individuals; but not about the majority who fail.

 Some other considerations:

·        there are a lot of very poor ‘fundraisers’ hiding out there ( especially inside big mainstream charities). It is easy to take credit for the general fundraising income of the charity. So if this is a first level post,  you may wish to look to new graduates or professionals from another field looking to swop careers and then offer some training, rather than someone with alledgely two years fundraising or external funding experience.  

·        although the salary you offer is perhaps not at the highest level, the combination  of working for a good cause and the fascinating world of zoos really can attract really high calibre people. In previous recruitment exercises, I have been able to short list people with Phds and Oxbridge first for pretty modest money

·        make sure the prospect for advancement and personal development is there

·        flag up the perks as well, …potentially some international travel, …work in pleasant surroundings with committed people, …perhaps in a very interesting or beautiful part of the country..?

·        but avoid anyone who really just wants to work in a zoo or with animals at any cost ·        anyone with funding experience in an ‘easy’ charity ( children, certain animal causes, high profile health or hunger charity brands) need to be tested very carefully to prove their individual delivery. Someone on the other hand who can prove having raised funds for a ‘difficult’ charity ( ex-offenders, drug rehabilitation, etc )  may be worth a second look·        arguably institution based charities  ( museums, arts,  etc) may offer more directly relevant experience 

Hope these few thoughts are helpful.  I will blog on this again if anyone requests this, or just pick up the phone {00 44 (0)161 434 1681}  if you want to chat

Funding for sustainability: presentation at EAZA Conference, Warsaw September 2007

This attachment is the presentation given at 2007 EAZA Conference.  Elements are similar to that put together for BIAZA in May, but there is more information on LIFE+, AIDCO, etc.  I shall also put more on this site gradually as to these individual funding opportunties.

EAZA Presentation

Capital funding for your site: the EU’s LIFE+ Environmental

I attach here with his kind permission an interview with Karl Hansen, Director of the Living Rainforest, Berkshire.

Under the former LIFE programme Karl drew down some €2 million to support development of a new form of tropical glass house exhibit.See: life-environment-eu-interest-group-interview-with-karl-hansen-final-jan07-2.doc

The new LIFE+ programme will open in September and close again by the end of November. In addition to the above, funding can be provided for appropriate native species and eco-systems and for environmental communication. Please get in contact for further information on these.

John Regan

Zoo finance and legacies

Those of us who are not very rich can only make one really substantial gift to a given organisation or cause. That is through our will.

But that’ s okay because we are all going to die!

To be serious, this is of course a sober, sensitive and sometimes difficult subject, but most zoos and aquaria across Europe really do not seem to place enough emphasis on pro-active legacy promotion.   Other mission led organisations ( note not only registered charities) however do so  and derive an enormous proportion of their income thereby.

In fact, let me let you into a secret. You know all those direct mail approaches from causes trying to get you to sign up to small regular giving through direct debit or similar systems? Well, they are not really most interested in  such immediate modest donations. They are actually after your house through an eventual ’residuary legacy’ and by starting a relationship with you now!  Most people don’t know the actual value of their house.

Here are some reasons why this a particularly appropriate funding technique for zoos:

• Lots of zoo sites were originally founded through the vision of specific individuals, who at some stage gifted the organisational assets to some form of ongoing body. Zoo history books often also reveal that major leaps forward were underpinned by the bequests of specific individuals. So we can legitimately say that the zoo that everyone enjoys today is intimately intertwined with legacy giving.
• Zoos, aquaria and natural history sites can often mean something quite profound to our millions of visitors, not only in terms of wildlife conservation or the zoo per se, but also the role it has played within their family history, perhaps over some decades. Many of our most devoted supporters are women, perhaps in their senior years, and perhaps without family, to whom the zoo and its animals has become an important part of their life.
• Our physical sites lend themselves to the (very carefully planned and controlled) memorialisation of those who have contributed to the zoo’s development
• We are already in communication on a daily basis with our hundreds of thousands of visitors

Okay, so what are some ways in which we might stimulate the thought to make a will and mention the zoo within it?

• We can constantly reference the opportunity in all our communications, not  as a separate matter, but in the context of the zoo’s growth and heritage.  The CEO or Chairman of the organisation should consider making or revising their will, adding a bequest  (this needn’t be very large – it is the example that matters) and talking about this quite openly and honestly in all the media available. We can research and present past instances of legacies that have given us today’s zoo.
• Together with a local solicitor, we can offer a free will clinic to take the mystery and emotion out of this perhaps off putting process ( this can at the same time be a free benefit to staff as well)
• Many supporters out there will have already made a bequest,  or have been thinking about it. But we don’t know who they are. We can create a modest ‘Legacy Pledge Club’ which ask people to just let us know they have referenced the zoo in a will, so we can thank them, and perhaps invite them to special events at the zoo once in while.

So, on surface of it , will making is not most the pleasent of areas to think about. But, actually,  once you get down to it, making your own will  ( as I finally did some 7 years ago) is quite liberating. Dying intestate of course means that more money will go to the Government than otherwise.

The money potentially available for the zoo’s projects can be very considerable indeed as new stories over the last few years have shown, even though clearly the process is hardly an exact science.

More emphasis ought to be placed on the opportunity. After all, none of us can take it with us.

How do you find a ‘chairman’ for your zoo fundraising campaign…?

This is definitely one of the critical success factors of this kind of exercise.

 The campaign chairman needs to be someone who:

• commands respect within the community from which you expect to raise the money
• understands and endorses the zoo’s mission and the rationale of this particular exercise
• can get things done in a no nononsense manner
• is willing to actually ask for big gifts
• is willing to make a gift himself that is seen to be generous within his or her ability to give
• is willing to stay the course

The right person is likely to be a very senior business figure. Ideally they will be remaining in their core business role for the campaign’s duration. If they are to ‘retire’, you must be sure that as an individual, as well as a business leader, they continue to have the relevant relationships.

I will blog on this again in more detail, if anyone asks me to

John