Recommendations for Funders

These recommendations have been identified by practitioners as key components to meaningful community engagement, and ones that are often beyond their control (such as initial investment).

These recommendations are intended to support project delivery teams to highlight the importance of appropriate resourcing and support from funding partners to ensure community inclusion for community benefit is achievable.

Funding partners may include the project developer, grant makers, local or national government, private investors, etc.

Funding

• Allocate ring-fenced funding for communities to access to engage with projects, removing barriers to participation.
• Allow flexibility within budgets to enable projects to adapt / meet needs of evolving projects.
• Consider all associated costs of community engagement, including staffing, community payments, venues, support requirements, marketing materials, etc.
• Provide funding for initial planning and design stages as well as follow-up evaluation, not just delivery.
• Grants should accommodate forward planning time for staff (which could include planning, grant applications, networking, etc.) to ensure the longevity and sustainability of a project beyond a single funding lifespan.
• Work with projects to define clear expectations of outputs and levels of community engagement in-line with funding allocated.
• Set clear reporting guidance on how to feed back community engagement.
• Long-term funding should be available for sustainable/permanent community benefit, thinking about the lifespan of a nature-based project and the potential community benefit, beyond one-off delivery.
• Provide funding to enable projects to determine initial community baselines as part of the inception phase
• Long-term funding that supports continuous work (current stop-start working due to funding coming to an end).
• Provision of funding for nature change and process change rather than a stand-alone project.
• Government programmes need to live beyond political timeframes (nature outcomes are measured in decades/centuries not elections).
• Allow for flexibility to support meaningful engagement (e.g. extending deadlines over summer where communities are unlikely to engage due to holidays etc.).

Communications

• Have an easy reference place for some jargon/terms and minimise use of technical language where possible.
• When/if sharing a comms/media guidance pack it should include simple language summaries of the funds aims/objectives (e.g. what does rewilding mean to them, what is an asset, what is a community benefit).
• Use of wide range of media, including film, audio, visuals, etc. where appropriate.
• Bring partners together for shared learning opportunities.
• Have clear expectations for delivery of outputs which are realistic and feasible timescales in which to see change.
• Use inclusive communication, i.e. council uses easy read, easy speak, font through their marketing (connects to comms guidance).
• Provide central communication support, linking communities directly with investors to highlight aims and objectives and support ongoing communication.

Legitimacy and inclusion

• Incorporate community costs into budgets, ensuring delivery is not reliant on unpaid roles (e.g. volunteers/steering groups).
• Support funding of staff time beyond delivery, allowing time for innovation and creation.
• Focus on localised issues as much as possible.
• Remove any potential burdens engaging might put on an individual – pay a gift of thanks or monetary voucher or bank transfer, provide transport, host sessions over a range of time, etc.
• Understanding local capacity and capabilities (e.g. community groups unavailable during harvest).
• Support new and creative ways of engaging communities (may not always be tried and tested).

Resources and case studies:

• Interim Principles for Responsible Investment in Natural Capital