Key Theme 1: Collaborative design of capacity development initiatives

Well-meaning organizations and donors may design capacity development interventions without sufficient input from their grantees. This top-down approach leads to ad-hoc, isolated efforts that do not necessarily serve long-term needs. Reciprocal learning between donors and grantees was emphasized as an improved approach. The analysis found terms such as ‘co-design’ and ‘adaptive management’ increasingly used to recognize the importance of shared ownership over initiatives and to contextualize evolving donor and grantee relationships. In one example, a donor indicated that the co-design process included identifying strategic and geographical priorities in partnership with grantees to ensure the approach to funding is responsive to individual and organizational capacity needs. Another donor noted that learning from grantees early in the capacity development process creates awareness around cultural sensitivities and opportunities for including marginalized voices (Dobson & Lawrence, Reference Dobson and Lawrence2018). Engaging in mutual learning between donors and grantees throughout a project was found to enhance iterative reflection on project goals and modalities, thereby increasing the likelihood of behavioural change and overall programme success.

Key Theme 2: Monitoring and evaluation

A lack of shared learning on the effectiveness of capacity development approaches within the conservation sector limits the sustainability of efforts. The importance of collaborating and co-creating suitable metrics and indicators of success was identified as a way forward. In doing so, donors and grantees can work together to develop adequate timelines to measure short-, medium- and long-term impacts and allow sufficient time to convene and learn from what worked and what did not. One donor highlighted the benefits of implementing a uniform approach to monitoring and evaluation across grantees, thereby embedding a continuous learning cycle of planning–monitoring–evaluation (Simister, Reference Simister2015). Donors also reported engaging grantees in a reflective process around what went well and less well, and what the donor could have done differently to support them. One donor applied what they learnt to reflect on their own performance and consider their internal management processes. To close the learning cycle, the donor shared their findings with relevant stakeholders and included their learnings in an online insight report. Notably, donors uniformly expressed interest in using knowledge management to close the gap between project learning outcomes and improved sectoral knowledge on capacity development findings.

Key Theme 3: Longer-term and flexible investments

Long-term investments (5–10 years), along with core or flexible funding, were identified as pathways to help achieve co-design approaches, and lead to support for monitoring and evaluation and the sharing of learning outcomes. This appreciation aligns with findings in the international development sector (Aring, Reference Aring2011). Of the eight donors, some indicated they provide core funding to allow grantees to invest in their institutional development and adapt to changing conditions. Even with core funding, a recent learning report from a donor found that 1-year grants created organizational risk for grantees and led to challenges in recruiting and maintaining staff. This short-term funding hindered the ability to initiate and maintain learning cultures within organizations. It also resulted in shorter-term relationships that impeded the building of confidence and understanding on an intra-organizational level (e.g. within and between teams; Nielsen, Reference Nielsen2012) and on an inter-organizational level (e.g. donor–grantee and grantee–stakeholders; Sanders et al., Reference Sanders, Miller, Bhagwat and Rogers2019). Several donors suggested that investments over multiple years allow time for building true partnerships and opens the opportunity for honesty and sharing successes and failures in organizational and individual capacity development. Clarity in a grantee's mission and vision, leadership team and strategic plan were cited as key elements for increasing the likelihood a donor will commit to long-term funding.

Key Theme 4: Building strong relationships between donors and grant recipients

All donors viewed open and honest exchanges as fundamental to achieving key themes 1–3. Dialogues demonstrated both a willingness for and understanding of the importance of developing strong relationships and the need for free and frank exchanges. The competitive nature of funding can result in a desire to impress donors, and may potentially create barriers to more honest relationships, and inhibit discussions around challenges. Time spent forging relationships between donors and practitioners builds donor confidence, supports dialogue around realistic expectations, and provides valuable space for sharing failures as well as lessons learnt. This investment in relationships may also help ensure that, as donor priorities evolve, practitioners are able to understand, explore and inform options for capacity development consistent with those priorities. An important lesson learnt was that building stronger relationships is reciprocal in nature, and not only the responsibility of grantees. In line with previous research (Catalano et al., Reference Catalano, Lyons-White, Mills and Knight2019), donors reported a need to create spaces that encourage learning and sharing, and can foster stronger relationships between grantees and donors.

In conclusion, these four key themes provide insights for capacity development professionals and donors. They highlight the importance of open dialogue and reciprocal learning between donors and grantees in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of capacity development projects. A central tenet throughout the thematic analysis was the value of cultivating the donor–grantee relationship to secure future funding, and to improve the overall capacity of an organization, thereby enhancing the quality of work and potential for a positive conservation outcome. To achieve this, our analysis revealed that relationships must be based on collaboration, honesty and a desire to seek reciprocal improvement and impact. Shared understanding by all funders of the complex nature of capacity building work and the lengthy timelines needed for effective impact evaluation (i.e. longer than the duration of a typical 3-year grant cycle) might therefore justify requests for longer-term funding.

To encourage the continued exploration of these issues, we make four recommendations:

1. (1) Donors and practitioners would benefit from including each other during the development of strategies, programmes and strategy development processes. Communication that takes place early and often may facilitate improved understanding, co-design of projects and programmes, and sharing of goal setting and impact metrics between donors and practitioners.

2. (2) Greater investment is needed for evaluations of capacity development that provide evidence of contribution versus attribution, such as research that uses control groups for a quasi-experimental design. A greater understanding of the evidence would facilitate more informed decision-making around the need for short-, medium- and long-term funding for capacity development.

3. (3) Conservation capacity development would benefit from standardized metrics and indicators of success. Porzecanski et al. (Reference Porzecanski, Sterling, Copsey, Appleton, Barorak and Bruyere2022) have developed a conceptual framework to guide capacity development planning and evaluation that provides important recommendations for the way forward.

4. (4) A regular meeting, conference, or online convening space for the capacity development community and stakeholders (including beneficiaries, fellows, practitioners, donors and academics) is needed to foster stronger relationships and encourage shared learning around conservation capacity development. The Capacity Building for Conservation Conference series (in 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2019) has been an important first step in this process. This conference series has resulted in numerous outcomes, such as new collaborations, new funding relationships, improved communication, as well as the articles comprising this special theme in Oryx focused on conservation capacity development (Appleton et al., Reference Appleton, Barborak, Daltry, Long, O'Connell and Owen2021; Sandbrook et al., Reference Sandbrook, Nelson, Bolderson and Leader-Williams2021; Sterling et al., Reference Sterling, Sigouin, Betley, Zavaleta Cheek and Solomon2021; Abu-Bakarr et al., Reference Abu-Bakarr, Bakarr, Gelman, Johnny, Kamanda and Killian2022; Bruyere et al., Reference Bruyere, Copsey and Walker2022; Campagnaro et al., Reference Campagnaro, McIntosh, Trentanovi and Sitzia2022; Chao et al., Reference Chao, Loffeld, Mastro, Willcox, Guthrie and Rao2022; Gerrie et al., Reference Gerrie, Concannon, Copsey, Wright and Young2022; Loffeld et al., Reference Loffeld, Humle, Cheyne and Black2022a,Reference Loffeld, Black, Carter, Sterling and Humleb; O'Connell et al., Reference O'Connell, Donnison, Lynch and Bennett2022; Porzecanski et al., Reference Porzecanski, Sterling, Copsey, Appleton, Barorak and Bruyere2022).

Donors are often not included in practitioners' conversations, especially in relation to investing in and creating sustainable capacity for conservation. By sharing our findings, we hope to encourage increased engagement between donors and practitioners, highlight the importance of capacity development within the conservation sector, and contribute to the limited literature on this topic.