♣ Fondos paritarios o contrapartidas

"♣": Estrategias específicas empleadas por los estudios de caso para incrementar su nivel de auto-sustentabilidad.Pueden estar en inglés o español. Por favor usa el traductor del menú lateral 

"♣": Specific strategies used by the case studies to increase their degree of self-sustainability.They might be in English or in Spanish. Please use the side menu translator
  • Parity Funds Schemes with foundations like Sosense that duplicate each amount donated to the Foundation by the public with a top fund of 10,000 Swiss francs ($10, 843 USD) or, for example, with Global Giving, that increases 30% of each donation that[This/the initiative] gets.

 

  • The Parity/Matching Funds Scheme:

Funding comes from a variety of sources in exchange for an active commitment by the communities who own the forests, to take the necessary actions to ensure that the forests are always kept strictly intact – which means not exploiting them and not allowing anyone else to do so. The funds are used to compensate the communities for revenue lost, resulting from their abstention to economically exploit their forests.

Some of these funding mechanisms are obtained through parity or matching fund schemes where, in exchange for the communities’ contribution consisting on their commitment to keep the forests intact, entities such as the National Forestry Commission (Mexico) provides 1 Mexican peso for each peso that[This/the initiative] obtains from other financial sources to help the community to achieve the same objective – which is basically to preserve the environmental services that forests provide. Other mechanisms consist of financial contributions on the condition that the said commitment is verifiably met, and that the community engages in undertaking active forest conservation activities.

Like the National Forestry Commission in Mexico, many institutions are concerned about the lack of direct involvement (ownership) that most development projects have on the part of the beneficiaries. Frequently, beneficiaries’ involvement and ownership of the project demonstrates that the donors’ investment has greater possibilities of surviving and leaving a lasting effect.

 

  • [This/the initiative] doesn’t get involved with the school’s financial sustainability because they don’t implement[This/the initiative] s model, but only provide technical assistance to already existing schools, regardless of their own financial scheme. In any case, to pay for the adaptation and implementation of the model and ensure its success, they promote co-financing schemes of public-private partnerships between[This/the initiative] , private business, and local governments, or with appropriate NGOs, etc.

 

  • Identify institutions like Sosense or Global Giving to establish parity funds in terms that are similar with those[This/the initiative] has settled with these foundations. That is, besides searching for parity funds established on the basis of the Community Contributions Inventory mentioned within the Recommendations of the[This/the initiative] section (see R1),[This/the initiative] can search for parity schemes that double or increase donations received by outsiders and let people know their support is going to have a scaled effect thanks to the parity funds agreement with the donors.

 

  • The setting of this partnership, to consolidate, could incorporate some of the funding management and acquisition schemes mentioned in the recommendations of other case studies, such as the Trust Fund, the Parity Funds, etc.

 

  • Finding enterprises whose employees match the donations collected for community sponsorship. Differently from the matching/parity schemes used by[This/the initiative] and[This/the initiative] ,[This/the initiative] usually uses this scheme with enterprises that work permanently with one particular region/population (e.g. a coffee enterprise that buys most of its coffee from one region). The scheme[This/the initiative] uses is to link the enterprises employees with the communities they work with is implementing a dynamic where each employee donates a certain percentage of his salary to the NGO’s initiative/program in the community, and the enterprise doubles that amount. This strengthens the wellbeing both of the community and the company’s employees. The employees are invited to inquire in their enterprises’ Human Research Department if their company already has a “matching gift program” and join it. The sponsorships are intended to a specific target: ensure the community’s self-sustainability in an agreed period of time. The money to find the partner enterprise comes from the[This/the initiative] ’s main branch, and it is recovered from the money the enterprise provides in the sponsorship budget. This budget is allocated into capacity building programs for the community.[This/the initiative] is a Civil Association and each of its local offices are Civil Associations as well, and not a part of[This/the initiative] ’s main office. So the budget goes to increasing the community Civil Association’s self-sustainability (training them on getting funds, managing programs, establishing cooperatives, increasing social participation, etc.). The Enterprise and[This/the initiative] make an agreement where the local Civil Association (the community organized) ensures results over a certain period of time (10, 20 years), and if there are not results (periodical evaluations) the funding is stopped. In short: the partnership contemplates an Exit Plan of both the enterprise and[This/the initiative] ’s main branch with the intention of ensuring a decentralized development program.

 

  • The Participation in the Carbon Bond Market Scheme:

Donations are possible to a large extent as a result of the project’s intention to participate in the carbon bond market through an intermediary. The carbon bond market is an international instrument to account the emission of greenhouse gasses which are not produced or are reduced as a result of compensatory measures such as the generation of renewable energy, improvement of energy efficiency process, afforestation, avoided deforestation, lakes and rivers cleaning, etc., to voluntarily mitigate the environmental damage caused. These bonds are translated into carbon emission certificates (CERs), each one equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) reduced or avoided, which can be redeemed for a price set by the international market rules. The carbon bond market is one of the internationally recognized mechanisms that allow particulars and public and private organizations become conscious of their responsibility towards climate change, and participate actively by selling or buying CERs to comply with the objectives of mitigating the environmental damage caused.

To participate in this market,[This/the initiative] hired an intermediary entity – Terra Global Capital (from San Francisco) – for the design and promotion of the project within the international carbon bond market and the payment for the services to the beneficiaries. Therefore, all red tape procedures for this scheme are done by intermediary companies like this one that budget their payment themselves.

 

  • There are numerous ways in which the program’s local community is already contributing in non-monetary ways to the sustainability of the Night Schools. The degree to which the local community has appropriated the program (as evidenced in their participation in providing management, supervision, infrastructure, funding for activities and materials, etc.) is a crucial point to note, for at least two reasons:

-It means that almost the only expenses that are not being covered by the community are the teachers’ salaries and some costs for activities that they cannot bear.

-It means that this initiative already bears the hallmarks of sustainability, given that it is well-known that development interventions are generally successful to the extent that they are appropriated by and integrated into the communities where they are targeted (development interventions are generally seen to fail when project funding ceases or when external project advisers are withdrawn, probably because community ‘take-up’ or ‘buy-in’ has been limited, making the project unsustainable without such community investment and ownership).

 

  • Recommendations made in the[This/the initiative] Study:

R1: Make a Community Contributions Inventory enumerating and detailing all contributions provided by families, communities, children, mentioning their monetary value in US dollars (e.g. If the place offered by the community for the school were to be rented instead of simply facilitated, how much should they be receiving for that rent; if the children were charging for their supervisory role how much would they be receiving). Additionally, based on that Inventory, find out the percentages of those contributions to be able to show the donors what percentage of each kind of participation is done by whom.

R2: Find a Donor that works with the Matching Funds Scheme, or establish it with one of the current donors using the Community Contributions Inventory (referred in R1) to promote an understanding in which for every X amount of dollars that the[This/the initiative] contributes, the Foundation commits to contribute, in return, with 2x or 3x (depending on the established parity). This scheme will give the Foundation the security that if[This/the initiative] stops contributing with x, the Foundation will stop as well. If the College manages to get a matching fund with a 1 for 1 parity it would be already doubling its budget.