design

The Design phase is a remarkably interdisciplinary period, and, therefore, specific stakeholder engagement requirements are detailed in the workstream sub-sections; however, as a general principle it is often appropriate to develop specific technical sub-committees to address areas such as Financial Sustainability, Governance, and Operations planning. Secondly, it is important to ensure whoever is charged with long-term leadership for WIP management is sufficiently capacitated – and ideally fully dedicated – to advancing the WIP through Design and the beginning of Execution.

Significant heavy lifting in the science workstream is completed in Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility phases. However, a key aspect of the Strategic Plan is the final set of SMART Objectives based on real budget availability, and a Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) framework, which should outline the proposed methodology, key performance indicators, and baseline data needs. The M&E program should also be costed so that funding needs for M&E are appropriately secured prior to Execution. Lastly, if implementing pilots, data should be collected to further inform the NbS portfolio and more extensive monitoring and evaluation during Execution.

• Specific outline in a clear statement precisely what is required
  
  Measurable include a measure to enable you to monitor progress 
  
  and to know when the objective has been achieved or progress has been made
  
  Agreed ensure there is agreement on the objectives by key partners and stakeholders
  
  Realistic objectives may be challenging but possible to be accomplished given resources, time, capacity, and local context
  
  Time-bound the date by which the outcome must be achieved
• M&E is critical to track implementation, reduce uncertainties, inform adaptive management, assess progress towards SMART objectives, and increase transparency and trust in the program.
  
  The M&E Framework in the Strategic Plan should address:
  
  Key performance indicators to track outputs, outcomes, and impacts
  
  Baseline data needed to set a foundation for tracking progress. It is also important to decide how to capture and store this data
  
  How M&E will inform adaptive management during Execution
  
  The resource and capacity needed to establish the M&E program

The sustainable funding strategy component of the overall strategic plan is meant to match up your WIP’s funding sources against the full-lifecycle cost to execute your NbS Investment Portfolio. As articulated in the Sustainable Funding Deep Dive, the associated steps include:

STEP 1: Engage existing core stakeholders to understand (1) their own planned commitments to the NbS Investment Portfolio, (2) guidance on what their priorities are in terms of the overall funding mix and what it needs to accomplish, and (3) their insights into additional parties that might be “crowded in”.

STEP 2: Determine your funding gap by comparing full-lifecycle costs and existing committed/in-hand resources to generate the funding gap that needs to be addressed. 

STEP 3: Circle back and revisit the core beneficiaries of your WIP. Review the portfolio of results generated during Feasibility and reflect on other potential catchment beneficiaries. Develop a list of specific prospects and prioritize outreach accordingly.

STEP 4: Validate stakeholder interest and clear roadblocks. Sometimes this may entail a change in regulation or legal clearance to allow the funding agent to make green infrastructure commitments or invest beyond existing jurisdictional boundaries.

STEP 5: Secure funding agreements. This may be through grant agreements, transfer contracts, performance contracts, etc., and may feature one-time or recurrent payments.

STEP 6: Develop an achievable plan to infill against remaining funding gaps. The overarching goal from this process is to determine the overall fiscal viability of the WIP, that is, to be confident before launch that the WIP will be able to successfully resource its medium- and long-term funding needs. Note that WIPs, especially collective action vehicles, often don’t have 100% of required funds in-hand before starting, but it is important to have sufficient cash-on-hand (e.g., at least two years) to make meaningful progress towards implementation goals.

STEP 7 (optional): Consider whether the tools of an endowment and/or repayable financing serve to advance WIP outcomes. In certain cases, these additional tools can advance your WIP by providing recurrent funding, accelerating conservation outcomes and managing risk among WIP funders. An essential pre-condition for both tools is raising the required capital and, in the case of repayable finance, identifying relevant creditworthy cashflows that can serve to pay back principal and interest expenses over time.

A series of in-depth stakeholder consultations will inform your WIP’s governance arrangement to execute the NbS portfolio over the short and medium-term; the governance arrangement may be adjusted over the long-term as the WIP matures. As articulated in the Governance Deep Dive, the associated steps include:

STEP 1: Identify your WIP’s value proposition. Define its vision, Theory of Change, geographic scope, proposed investment portfolio and how it currently operates. Based on these considerations, get stakeholder input on what functions they would like to see the WIP initiate, continue, or conclude (e.g., monitoring & evaluation, technical support, implementation coordination, fundraising, etc.).

STEP 2: Determine what features will best enable these functions. Defining which features matter most to stakeholders will inform which governance model the WIP should adopt to ensure sustainability into the future. Features may include agility, simplicity, transparency, etc.

STEP 3: Consider your current and potential funding flows. The governance structure of the WIP will be influenced by the types of funding it receives. Review your sustainable funding strategy and ensure that your WIP’s design will allow for the right funding to flow through the institution.

STEP 4: Assess potential governance models against the desired functions, features and funding flows identified. You should document the advantages and challenges each model would present, which may entail:

• Cost-effectiveness benefits, including low-overhead, or lead to economies of scale
• Access to an organization’s pool of expertise or capacity
• Quick procurement processes for implementation, which could speed impact
• Embedding within a particular institution might discourage collaboration, or the WIP might be vulnerable to
• Changes in leadership or priorities within the organization
• Perception as a foreign entity
• Competitiveness with other similar organizations
• Commented [BA6]: Link to Governance Deep Dive
  (Special Topics)
• Commented [ACC7]: Important to consider the possibility
  of mixing public and private funding
• Ability to transact with funding providers (e.g., government counterparties)

STEP 5. Detail how your governance arrangements will operate. Operational considerations will articulate responsibilities of each person or organizations, including raising funds, making investment decisions, implementing, hiring and onboarding new staff, etc. The questions to consider will depend on your context.

The majority of WIPs rely on in-house personnel to define workplans and develop relationships with external contractors that conduct implementation (e.g., the Greater Cape Town Water Fund relies on a broad set of contracting partners to clear alien invasive plants and follow up to avoid re-invasion). This means that the WIP places plays the Coordinator role, while implementation is done collectively by partners. However, some WIPs manage implementation in-house (e.g., the Quito Water Fund has a staff of cowboys to ensure that loose cattle do not trample sensitive paramo environments). Whichever approach is taken, strong coordination, commitment from partners, and M&E framework is required. During Design, it is important to reflect on the workforce required for the initial five-year implementation. This planning may require developing capacity-building programs to appropriately upskill labor to meet implementation needs.