Whos guarding the stream?

[clarionreef]

Amen Bookfish!
Guarding the revenue stream in NPO's has often been more important then guarding the real stream. After a few years here, its nice to see others with relevant experience speaking in a forthright manner.

Guarding the revenue stream against competitors...This must be why we find a lowering of standards when it comes to the choice of grabbing for money or doing the right thing.
Imagine NPOs behaving like...like....well like ordinary business people....
So if the prime directive is in fact the revenue stream, whats the difference between them and the private sector? Whos left to protect the actual stream. ??
I'm searching for something here that makes an ethical, environmental imperative a bit higher then the cash flow.
Steve




Location: South Pacific
Posted: 20 Jun 2005 23:36 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim,
The subject this thread has brought forward is very important Please split the thread and start it as another.

Mike

 

[Mike King]

Should start a new thread with Jim's

In the past many NPO's and NGO's have only had to produce results sufficient to secure the next round of funding. As has been pointed out, this level of success would never be acceptable in private business.
In the past businesses have been allowed to operate with only the profit margin in mind. This would never be acceptable to any progressive NPO.
I believe a joint venture between public/private entities offers a realistic alternative.-Jim

 

[Anonymous]

Peg pay to performance Don't perform, go broke. We'd see far less inaction that way.

 

[bookfish]

As requested I started a new thread to discuss the shortcomings of previous models and one possible solution.
I know it's not a very sexy title but what do you want from an accountant?-Jim
http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=69900

 

[devils advocate]

Peg pay to performance Don't perform, go broke. We'd see far less inaction that way.

Here lies the problem. Isn't this the model that MAC has been running? How do you measure "performance"? Who measures the "performance"? As long as the NPO/NGO can show "performance" wouldn't the money just keep rolling in?

 

[clarionreef]

as long as it doesn't perform the money just keeps rolling in.

Funders also cover up their failures with more funding.
They are equally complicit...in the failure just as a bank is complicit in funding too many bad loans.
Packard for example is acutely aware of MACs non connection with the trade at ALL levels. So....more funding to subsidize them until the trade kicks into gear with them.
When the years of failure finally tally to no acclaim...the trade will then be blamed for not co-operating with MAC.....when it was in fact MACs gross incompetence and absurd stategies that insured that they would not be taken seriously.
Funding failure has kept them on life support despite the years of Nothing Going On. [ ie. Greshams NGO ]
ALAS, if they didn't reject John Tullock as the head of MAC years ago, there would have been a chance.
But, he wouldn't follow a faulty pre-conceived game plan of the funders, so he was nixed in favor of someone who would...!
The funders put this together like New Kids on the Block. It was not created by home grown, passionate visionaries....nor by aquarium savy people... It was fashioned by a funder clique to test Eco-labeling schemes.
It was created by them, for them, to run their notions....which have failed.
Steve

 

[bookfish]

I know that there would have to be emissions/effluent/pollution testing for the facility.
There would have to be documented growout data.
You'd have to document the new corals (if that's what you're doing) being put out on the reef and there would have to be follow ups to ensure the frags "took".
On the financal side there would have to be full and open financials that would have to meet production targets for the business to be rewarded. This could be done by incentivizing the business (through a higher % of produced coral which may be sold) to operate more efficiently.
I think you'd also want a basic survey of the area by species and location.
I don't see that any of this is too complicated, just time consuming.
So you have to add in 1 or 2 peoples salary, some office equipment etc.
What else do you see that would be involved in a realistic field audit of this kind of project?

 

[Mike King]

FWIW Here's Two more projects

1"SMART Project "Sustainable Management of Aquarium Reef Trade".

2 "Coral Gardens provides support and expertise to help communities conserve, manage and restore their coral reef resources. Program activities include assisting community-based conservation through marine protected ("tabu") areas, introducing active coral planting methods for habitat enhancement and coral restoration, and providing sustainable income-generating incentives such as coral aquaculture and eco-tourism. The SMART Project will focus on economically disadvantaged coastal fishing communities in Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Kiribati, Fiji, Tonga, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Palau and the Cook Islands."

SMART is a MAC project BTW (A former MAC employee gave me the proposal years ago.)

Haven't heard anything about the SMART project yet so I have no idea what's been done so far.

Mike