The PBA small-grants program

The PBA is an initiative that has been funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation since 2015. The overall goal of the PBA is to reduce the vulnerability of people and ecosystems to climate change by promoting mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development in AFLs. The PBA launched a small-grants program in 2016 to address the funding gap and to specifically link to the AFL-RA. The funding program comprised a key component of the PBA's theory of change, or impact pathway (Oberlack et al 2019), because it provided a mechanism to support the production of scientific knowledge to inform policies and actions supporting sustainable development, with an intended goal to support the development of research capacity in Andean countries. The program chose to offer numerous small awards instead of few large grants to allow for the exploration of a broader set of topics and geographic locations in the Andean region. The awards were primarily, though not exclusively, for research rather than for implementation or innovation.

The PBA fellowship program welcomed proposals from a diversity of disciplines, conceptual frameworks, methodological approaches, and project activities beyond research. The program targeted established researchers and practitioners to conduct synthesis studies and graduate students for basic research, each receiving different levels of funding (US$ 12,000 and US$ 4000, respectively). Two rounds of funding, in 2016 and 2017, were announced on the PBA website and disseminated broadly via email to relevant professional networks.

Applicants categorized their project in 1 or more of 4 thematic areas: biodiversity and ecology, forest restoration, sustainable management of forest landscapes, and environmental policy. The first call for proposals required applicants to identify only 1 theme, whereas the second required that proposals be interdisciplinary. Proposals in both rounds that applied to more than one area were prioritized. The award selection process, set by the program board, evaluated scientific relevance, interdisciplinary approaches, geographic scope, and international collaboration. Proposals presented by female researchers based in Andean countries received additional points. Two external peer reviewers evaluated each proposal, and the fellowship board members oversaw the results.

Evaluation method

Our evaluation of the PBA fellowship program was framed by a theory of change to assess the kinds of knowledge produced and promoted by the funding and by the effect of the funding. For the latter, we used the concept of additionality (Bloch et al 2014), which identifies the effects of the funding on different variables. We evaluated outcomes related to 2 aspects of the small-grants program: the solicitation process and the funded projects. On the first issue, the evaluation was guided by questions of whether the solicitation process generated interest from the target populations: graduate students and early-career scientists from the Andean region and women. We used descriptive measures to evaluate the variables of origin, identity, and career stage of applicants and the nature of the research questions and methods. The information was gleaned from the application database.

An online questionnaire (Supplemental material,  Appendix S1 (mred-40-02-03_s01.pdf):  https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-19-00066.1.S1) was sent to the 15 fellowship recipients (once they had all completed their projects), and elicited a response rate of 87% (13 grantees). We asked about aspects of the development and completion of the projects and their contribution to conservation and SDGs. We presented options in 3 types of outputs and outcomes: (1) generation of knowledge, (2) public engagement and awareness raising, and (3) kinds of actors engaged (Table 1). From their responses, we framed the analysis based on types of additionality. The first 2 effects we borrowed from Bloch et al (2014): input additionality, or the effects of funding on the research itself, that is, whether the grant facilitated research activities that otherwise might not have been undertaken; and output additionality, or the effects of the funding on scientific production, research capacity, and skills development. Because we were interested in how the funding might have facilitated actual change on the ground, we proposed a third type of effect of the funding program, application additionality. This we defined as the effect of the funding on advances toward broader goals. In this case, we focused our assessment on how the projects addressed the overall mission of the PBA program and specific related targets of the AFL, SDGs, and Aichi agendas. These effects were assessed by evaluating grantee responses to the questionnaire and follow-up interviews.

TABLE 1

Outputs and outcomes that resulted from 13 studies funded by the small-grants program of the Andean Forest Program.

Solicitation and award outcomes

Over the 2 solicitation cycles, the program evaluated 180 proposals: 151 for synthesis studies by career scientists and practitioners and 29 for graduate research (Figure 1). The application rate for synthesis projects was lower for females than for males, and slightly higher for graduate research. The funding rate was also lower for females than for males, with 5 and 11 funded projects for females and males, respectively (female-to-male ratio of 1:2.2). Seven grants were awarded to graduate students (4 masters, 3 doctoral), and 9 for synthesis studies by career researchers (Supplemental material,  Table S1 (mred-40-02-03_s01.pdf):  https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-19-00066.1.S1). In the end, the fellowship program awarded US$ 136,000 to 15 one-year grants over 2 calls (1 awardee declined).

FIGURE 1

Proposals reviewed and awards granted by the small-grants program of the Andean Forest Program indicating applicants' career status and gender.

The proposals were from applicants based in 11 countries (Supplemental material,  Figure S1 (mred-40-02-03_s01.pdf):  https://doi.org/10.1659/MRDJOURNAL-D-19-00066.1.S1), with almost two thirds originating from Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.

Thematically, the proposals were overwhelmingly biased toward the natural sciences, with only 20% having a primary focus on a social theme or taking an interdisciplinary approach (Supplemental material,  Figure S2 (mred-40-02-03_s01.pdf):  https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-19-00066.1.S1).

The largest number of grants was awarded to leads from Argentina (6), followed by Colombia (3), Peru (2), and the United States (2) (Figure 2). Likewise, the southern Andes received the most attention in the studies, with 43% of the projects conducting research in Argentina and/or Chile. Four of the 15 studies were carried out in 2 Andean countries: 1 each in Argentina/Peru and Colombia/Peru, and 2 in Argentina/Chile.

FIGURE 2

Country of origin of the lead researcher and geographic focus of research for awarded grants of the small-grants program of the Andean Forest Program.

Recipients ranged across 6 career levels, from master's degree students to practitioners, with women represented mostly at the earliest levels (graduate students, early career) (Supplemental material,  Figure S3 (mred-40-02-03_s01.pdf):  https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-19-00066.1.S1). Ten of the 13 projects (responding to the questionnaire) were led by a team, and 3 were led by a single investigator. Collectively, the 13 projects engaged approximately 100 people on their research teams, 30% of whom were women.

Project outputs and outcomes: contributing to the program goals and agendas

As with the proposals, thematically, the projects focused mostly on natural sciences and had the goal of generating systems knowledge. Interdisciplinarity was indicated post hoc by the project leads, as more than half identified forest restoration and sustainable management as primary foci in addition to biodiversity and ecology, with almost half indicating a secondary or tertiary theme of environmental policy (Figure 3). Only 1 identified transformation, and 2 indicated that their project generated both systems and transformation knowledge. None indicated a contribution to target knowledge.

FIGURE 3

Primary and secondary themes of research addressed by the awarded projects.

The funded projects resulted in a diversity of outputs and outcomes. As we expected, because of the focus of the projects on systems knowledge, projects generated mainly outputs related to generation of knowledge, with an average of 3.8 outputs per project (Table 1) communicated through scholarly works. Fifteen academic theses were produced by project team members, including 9 by undergraduate students in Andean countries and 3 each for master's and doctoral degrees. This corresponds to an average of 2.8 scholarly products (academic theses, peer-reviewed publications, presentations, and workshops/trainings) per project (Table 1). Thus, the projects strongly supported development of regional research capacity in several ways.

In terms of input additionality, we do not have direct evidence that the research conducted would not otherwise have been undertaken without the grant support from PBA. That said, we do believe that because of the nature of the calls and the small size of the grants, these projects would not have been conducted in the particular manner in which they were approached, with a focus on interdisciplinary research, participatory methods, and outcomes-driven goals. Indeed, all of the fellowship recipients felt that their research contributed in some way to increase public awareness of the need for Andean forest biodiversity conservation through outputs and events oriented toward local people. We consider these to contribute to the application additionality of the funding.

Outcomes related to public engagement and awareness raising were also strong (averaging 2.8 per project; Table 1). Indeed, the projects engaged with different types of actors who were potentially involved with sustainable development, biodiversity conservation, or environmental policy (eg local and national government entities, officials, local field assistants; Table 1). Other examples of public engagement or local relevance included community workshops to share study results and solicit feedback, conduct demonstration activities, or train local people. For example, 2 projects produced a booklet or guide for local people. One project conducted a presentation at a local school and produced written material on lianas and epiphytes for local guides. A project about forest growth rate, determined by tree ring analysis, informed a community on the age of their forests and other information to apply in their ecotourism initiatives.

A priori consideration of the AFL-RA, the SDGs, or the Aichi targets by grant recipients was low. Only 7 project teams reported that they had considered the AFL-RA in the design of their project, and none reported considering either Aichi or SDG targets. Post hoc consideration was higher when project leads were presented with a subset of items and targets for each of the agendas, which allowed us to assess application additionality of the funding.

From the AFL-RA, 20 out of 34 items presented to teams were indicated by respondents as relevant to their work. The most commonly cited priorities fell under generating systems knowledge associated with the AFL theme of understanding and measuring impacts of global socioenvironmental change (Table 2). The top selected item under target knowledge was 4.1, on the perceptions, values, and identities of actor categories. Only 5 of the 14 items listed under transformation knowledge in the AFL-RA were cited by researchers, which may reflect a gap between research and action, and even the consideration by researchers of the broader relevance and application of their research.

TABLE 2

The key targets from the Andean Forests Landscapes (AFL) Research Agenda (Mathez-Stiefel et al 2017), the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN 2015), and the Aichi biodiversity targets (CBD 2011), and the number of times they are referred to by the surveyed fellowship recipients (n = 13).

The researchers related their projects to international agendas mainly in the areas of biodiversity and sustainable development. Of the 17 SDGs and 169 targets, 9 goals and 28 targets were presented to the researchers. Fourteen of these targets were selected by the research groups, with SDG 15, on Life on Land, receiving the most focus. Target 15.4, on conservation in mountain ecosystems, was most cited, by 6 of the projects, followed by 4 mentions each of 15.2, on sustainable forest management, and 13.2, on relating climate change measures to policy (Table 2). Although they were presented to researchers in the subset, targets on hunger (SDG 2), gender equality (SDG 5), and work and economic growth (SDG 8) were not selected. Similarly, the top Aichi targets indicated by respondents were targets 1 and 19, related to awareness raising on the values and conservation of biodiversity, and knowledge, science, and technology, respectively (Table 2).

Lessons learned

This case study demonstrates that a small funding program can help produce scientific knowledge, enhance research capacity, and advance regional and international goals on biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Our assessment suggests that the PBA program has contributed significantly to the generation of systems knowledge about the AFL, but has contributed less to target and transformation knowledge, as defined in the AFL-RA. While the projects funded by the program were primarily focused on natural systems of the landscape, and on early-career scientists and graduate students, who tend to focus on early results, all had some application, either directly or indirectly, to understanding and addressing elements of the social components. While we acknowledge the critical need for systems knowledge, future funding programs should explicitly encourage even basic researchers to include activities in their work that apply the knowledge they generate, thus providing target and transformation knowledge. At the very least, future programs should encourage them (perhaps through supplementary funds) to translate their research results to a format that will serve decision makers at all levels of governance.

Links between knowledge production and action are not always directly apparent in research, but our assessment of the application additionality of this funding program suggests that these small research projects did contribute to advancing regional and global agendas for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Even researchers focusing on ecological and biodiversity topics in a stricter sense engaged in activities that enhanced local research capacity, knowledge, and local training.

While the program helped to meet some of the funding needs of researchers and practitioners in Andean countries, efforts to support female and male researchers equally fell short. This imbalance may stem from a general gender disparity in sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields in Andean countries (with the exception of Argentina, Bolivia, and Venezuela) (UIS 2018). The gender disparity among project leads may also have contributed to low representation of women involved in the research projects overall, as cultural barriers still make it difficult for women to hold positions of authority beside men in Latin America (eg Franco-Orozco and Franco-Orozco 2018). Thus, we strongly suggest that small-research-grant programs place a stronger emphasis on promoting gender equality to help bridge the gender gap in Andean countries (López-Aguirre 2019).

Our findings support the idea that small-grant programs contribute to building local research capacity and enhancing researchers' future career prospects and collaboration networks inside and outside academia, thus promoting stronger research communities (El-Sawi et al 2009; Horta et al 2018; Kulage and Larson 2018). Indeed, the PBA small-grants program has generated a community of researchers and practitioners who can contribute to the iterative process of defining and working toward achieving regional conservation and development goals.