Sometimes the cost is too high – refusing a grant

Refusing money
Sometimes the cost is too high

I have just done something rather unusual for a charity. I have turned down the offer of a £23,766 grant.

Why would I do that? Firstly because the grant awarding body was not prepared to pay the cost of the work required. Secondly because they would not contribute to our corporate overheads (Full Cost Recovery). Thirdly because the contractual conditions were such as to expose a small charity to unacceptable risk.

For months now we have been working in partnership with Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and The Wild Trout Trust to develop a bid to the Water Environment Grant (I won’t link there because you really do not want to know about it!). We have spent days, probably weeks, working out the finest detail of the scheme in order to satisfy the somewhat onerous requirements of the submission. Anyone familiar with the Rural PaymentsAgency (who ultimately ‘own’ this fund), or who has heard tales from farmers of the inefficiency, nitpicking and intransigence of RPA, may know how difficult a process it has been. Anyway, we put together our partnership project valued at ca. £170,000 and sent it off. Detailed queries were responded to and we waited, then waited, then waited some more. Indeed, we waited over three months after the decisions were expected and were delighted when we got an offer. Until we opened the letter that is, when we found that we had been offered only £100,000 between us. One partner, us, were offered only 35% of our bid with a requirement to deliver 75% of the required outputs!

To say that I am outraged, annoyed and frustrated is being polite. VERY polite!

So why am I upset?

Part, £250, of our bid was rejected because we did not have competitive quotations for refreshments for volunteers.

Part, £8,500, was intended to provide for social media and other advertising, promotion to aid volunteer recruitment and recognise the contribution of the funder. ZIP. We don’t need to do this apparently ,even though volunteers were core to our bid and they WERE prepared to pay for brand development (but where would we then use the brand?)!

Some of the contractual terms were outrageous:

  1. You will accept unlimited liability in perpetuity for your work
  2. If we run out of money we do not have to pay you
  3. You must do exactly what you said you would and any variation, even in an emergency, needs approval in advance.

Would you accept such an offer? Do these people have any understanding of the impact of their decisions on small charities? Who hold them to account for the consequences of their action?

I would like to pay tribute to the several colleagues in YWT, WTT and the EA who helped us through a challenging time. I won’t name them because this is my rant not theirs, they know who they are and they know how much I value their help.

The only upside – we now have some well developed projects in respect of which we can apply for funding elsewhere.

Trees, trees and yet more trees…

No, this is not a picture of the River Aire in midsummer, but at last weeks meeting of our Trustees, I did make a very high level reference to the millions of trees likely to be planted in the Aire valley in coming years. This will happen as a consequence of the recent announcement of Northern Forest (of which White Rose Forest is part and which ART supports as a formal partner), YWS’ commitment to plant a million trees, Leeds City Region’s similar commitment to increase the tree cover in the region to 15%(?) which is several million trees, and the many NFM proposals including one for Leeds Flood Alleviation Scheme Part 2 which proposes to spend several £million on NFM. Some of the Angling Clubs in the valley have already been doing their bit and their contribution will continue to be very welcome and helpful. And of course the Upper Aire Project has been planting trees up there for several years now.

My basic point was that we (me, WRF, EA, LCC and others) are doing our best to get all this possible activity collated. It’s important not to control it all but to help some sense of co-ordination, collaboration and mutual learning.

The landscape implications of all this work may be significant and one of the stakeholder engagement issues currently identified, but yet to be tackled, is the impact on the wider community of this change. Watch this space – as well as the countryside.

Geoff Roberts – Chairman, Aire Rivers Trust

Citizen Science shown off to CaBA hosts

CaBA meetingGary Rushworth, our Project Officer for the Urban Diffuse Pollution project on Bradford Beck was very well received when he explained our work to the CaBA Citizen Science Workshop on Tuesday 20th October 2015. He highlighted the novel methodology (yes, the ‘Tampon Method”) and how our recently recruited and trained Citizen Scientists were progressing with this intractable challenge.

This is Gary’s report from the meeting:

Yesterday, I gave a 20 minute presentation at the Catchment Based Approach (CaBA) Citizen Science and Volunteer Monitoring workshop in Lancaster. The talk was ” Shining a light on Urban Pollution in the Bradford District” and it was about our ‘Reducing Urban Pollution’ project.

My talk generated a great deal of interest, and I spent the whole day, taking compliments, and answering questions about Bradford Beck. Most of the people there were from Rivers Trusts or similar (mainly from the North), the Environment Agency, and the Freshwater Biological Association, Biological Records Centre, and Keep Britain Tidy were also represented.

Two main opportunities for collaboration came up:
1) Ribble Rivers Trust – for Educational Resource development, they are very active in this area. And..
2) Healthy Waterways Trust – for Urban Monitoring, they gave a presentation on ‘Diffuse Urban Pollution’ Surveys.

I’ll keep you posted on developments.

There is still lots to be done be though, especially in the Keighley and Thornton areas, contact Gary for more details and how you can help..