Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A MARSHALL PLAN FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE <br /> <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! n 1997, Americans-at <br />! least those of us over age forty- <br />celebrated the fiftieth anniver- <br />sary of the Marshall Plan, the <br />United States' successful strategy <br />for rebuilding Europe from the <br />rubble of world War II. As we <br />look back over the accomplish- <br />ments of the National Fish and <br />Wildlife Foundation in 1997, we <br />can quite accurately say that we <br />have evolved into an embodi- <br />ment of the Marshall plan for <br />North America's fish, wildlife, <br />and natural resources. <br />This year, the Foundation <br />celebrated its greatest accom- <br />plishments by any measure imag- <br />inable. We awarded 460 grants, <br />total,ling over $53 million, fol- <br />lov.;ing the same strategy that <br />made the Marshall Plan so suc- <br />: cessful. According to Lance Morrow, <br />! the Marshall Plan "was no giveaway <br />I <br />! program. . .countries that wanted finan- <br />cial support had to come up with feasible <br />plans for economic recovery. The aid had <br />a fixed time limit and a fixed cost ceiling, <br />it would be administered by an American <br />businessman, not a bureaucrat, and there <br />was plenty of accountability:' <br /> <br />Amos S. Eno, <br />Executive Director <br /> <br /> <br />The Foundation uses the very same formula and outlook: our <br />grants are not giveaways. We go a step further by requiring a <br />match of at least one dollar for each federal dollar allocated; in fact, <br />~ ~\. .",,:~ we usually achieve a match of better than two to one. Our grants <br />~. have a fixed time limit, usually a year for performance; we have <br />strict match requirements, cost ceilings, and restrictions on <br />overhead; and we administer our grant program more like a business managing a <br />venture capital investment portfolio than traditional government grant programs. <br />We provide full accountability of all funds expended and projects invested annually; <br />and finally, we cover our operating costs with privately raised funds. <br />Most government grant programs are centrally driven by Washington bureau- <br />cracies. Marshall was quick to recognize the inefficacy of that <br />approach. When he first announced the plan that would later <br />bear his name at the Harvard commencement in June 1947, <br />Marshall stated: "It would be neither fitting nor efficacious <br />for this government to undertake to draw up unilaterally a <br />program designed to place Europe on its feet economically:' <br />Invoking an uncommon degree of foresight and intuition, <br />Marshall recognized the imperative for local incubation of pro- I <br />jects. "That is the business of Europeans. The initiative, I think, <br />must come from Europe. The program should be a joint one, <br />agreed to by a number of, if not alL European nations:' <br />Similarly, the Foundation puts a premium on local initiative <br />for project incubation, and we reach out to communities across <br />the country. <br />We have found that for conservation to be successful in <br />California, Texas, or Maine, the projects have to be designed <br />respectively in California, Texas, and Maine. Investments dri- <br />ven by managers from afar invariably invite local indifference <br />and failure of objectives. The Foundation has always placed a <br />premium on local design and on obtaining a demonstrable <br />return for our invested dollars. NFWF's grants continue to <br />emphasize the same basic themes that were established in our <br />first three-year plan: forming partnerships, being innovative, leveraging fund- <br />ing, and acting as a catalyst for local initiatives and on-the-ground conser- <br />vation activities. As a result, no other conservation institution in <br />the country today has a higher percentage of contributed <br />dollars going directly to conservation programs. <br />None of the Foundation's grant <br />streams better <br /> <br />, . . we can quite <br /> <br />accurately say that <br /> <br />we have evolved <br /> <br />into an <br /> <br />embodiment of <br /> <br />the Marshall Plan <br /> <br />for North America's <br /> <br />fish, wildlife, and <br /> <br /> <br />natural resources. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 3 I <br />