A partner list with logos and no explanation tells you nothing. This one says what each relationship actually is.
Working relationships
| Partner type | What the relationship involves | Status |
|---|---|---|
| District environment offices | Site approval, technical input, joint monitoring in Mbarara, Rwampara and Isingiro | Active |
| Sub-county authorities | Community mobilisation and land access | Active |
| Community nursery groups | Three groups raising seedlings under guaranteed purchase | Active |
| Partner schools | Teacher-led education programme | Active |
| Institutional funders | Programme grants | To be named with consent |
| Researchers | Data sharing and independent analysis | Open to new relationships |
What we ask of a funder
That the grant covers monitoring, not just delivery. A grant that funds planting but not the twelve-month follow-up produces a number for a report and very little for the river.
That reporting requirements are proportionate to the amount. A small grant with the reporting burden of a large one consumes the staff time it was meant to buy.
That we can publish what we find, including if it is unflattering to the intervention the grant paid for.
What a partnership has to survive
A district environment office signs off a site. A sub-county mobilises the households. A nursery group raises the seedlings. A school runs the education programme on the stretch nearest to it. Remove any one of those and the planting still happens, and then quietly fails, which is the usual shape of a restoration project that looked well partnered on paper.
So the test we apply to a relationship is not whether it produces a logo on a page. It is whether the partner is still involved at the twelve-month count, when there is nothing to launch and nothing worth photographing.
What we check before accepting money
Due diligence runs in both directions. A funder is entitled to ask these questions of us, and we ask them of a funder.
- Where the money comes from, and whether accepting it would compromise anything we publish.
- Whether the grant covers monitoring as well as delivery. Planting without follow-up produces a number rather than a result.
- Whether the reporting burden is proportionate to the amount, so that a small grant does not consume the staff time it was meant to buy.
- Whether we remain free to publish findings that are unflattering to the intervention the grant paid for.
- Whether the timetable follows the rains rather than a financial year. Seedlings go into the ground when the season breaks, not when a quarter closes.
What we will not take money for
We will not accept funding conditional on a stated result, on withholding monitoring data, or on planting a species mix the site does not suit. We will not take sponsorship from an organisation discharging into the catchment while it is still doing so. And we will not accept a gift that names a household or a site in a way that identifies people who did not agree to be identified.
Questions partners ask
Why are your funders not named?
Each is named once it has confirmed that it is happy to be. Some funders have their own disclosure timetables, and announcing them ahead of that is not ours to do.
Can we fund one specific site?
Yes. Restricted funds are tracked and reported separately, and a restricted gift is never spent on something else without asking you first.
Do you work with companies?
Yes, where the relationship amounts to more than a cheque and a photograph. Land near the water is often the most useful thing a company has to offer, and the corporate page sets out the rest.
We are researchers rather than funders.
Then the research page is the right route. We share monitoring data, including the readings that got worse, and we would rather somebody independent analysed it than that we were the only ones who ever had.
Partnering with us
For districts, institutions, companies with land near the water, and funders willing to pay for the boring part.