FACILITATOR’S SYNOPSIS
To the
ATLANTIC SALMON
CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
On the
PLANNING SESSION, MARCH 25, 2011
Held at
HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA
Prepared by
Terry MacIntyre, BSc.PT
102 Pomquet River
RR#7 Antigonish, Nova Scotia
B2G 2L4
Executive Summary
This planning session of the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Salmon Conservation
Foundation was hosted on March 25, 2011 at the Courtyard Marriott in Halifax, Nova
Scotia.
As the Facilitator for this session, I was directed to address the ASCF 2011 Business
Plan, and specifically Strategic Objective #4 in terms of the following four components:
communication, education, fund raising and community partners. Furthermore, the
information gleaned through the Foundations internal SWOT Analysis was to be utilized
in the planning session.
Respecting the Board of Directors’ desire to expand the Foundation’s role in Atlantic
salmon conservation initiatives beyond its current scope, planning session findings are
presented in a manner to support that directive.
Essentially this exercise constitutes a needs assessment to enable the Foundation to move
forward in expanding its Atlantic salmon conservation activities, beyond the original
scope of the Atlantic Salmon Endowment Fund.
Terry MacIntyre
Planning Session Facilitator
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Mr. Stephen Chase, Executive Director and Rosalyn Smedley,
Program Coordinator of the ASCF for providing print and electronic materials most
helpful to this exercise.
As well thanks are extended to Board members Katharine Mott, Joan Marie Aylward and
Dr. Larry Felt in providing background information and in helping shape this planning
session.
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements
Group Discussions
4
a) Communications Exercise
b) Education Exercise
c) Fund Raising Exercise
d) Partnerships Exercise
Essential Needs Identified
5
Tying it All Together
7
Key Next Steps
8
Cautionary Note
9
Appendix A
10
Table 1.ASCF Needs
Table 2.Communications
Table 3.Education
Table 4.Fund Raising
Table 5.Partnerships
Appendix B
14
Table 6.2011 Foundation SWOT Analysis – Key Strengths
Table 7.2011 Foundation SWOT Analysis – Key Weaknesses
Table 8.2011 Foundation SWOT Analysis – Key Opportunities
Table 9.2011 Foundation SWOT Analysis – Key Threats
Appendix C
15
Summary Atlantic salmon Population Health Exercise
3
Group Discussions
2011 Strategic Business Plan
Strategic Objective #4: “To strengthen Foundation relationships with current and
potential stakeholders / beneficiaries, the public and potential new supporters”
In addressing Strategic Objective #4, four components were identified: communications,
education, fund raising and community partners. Identifying the needs to achieve success
as the primary focus, the participants were challenged to address each topic in the
following manner:
Communications
 Identify what the ASCF wished / needed to communicate
 Identify who it would communicate with
 How it would communicate
 In order to be successful, identify what “needs” the ASCF would have to acquire
in order to be an effective communicator
Education
 Identify groups the ASCF wished to educate
 Identify how the ASCF would provide this education
 In order to be successful, identify what “needs” the ASCF would have to acquire
in order to deliver the education programs
Fund Raising
 Identify what the ASCF needs new money for
 In order to be successful, identify what “needs” the ASCF would have to acquire
in order to effectively fund raise
Partnerships
 Identify existing program partners
 Identify new program ASCF partners
 Identify how the ASCF would approach these partners
 In order to be successful, identify what “needs” the ASCF would have to acquire
in order to approach these new partners
At the completion of each of the four tasks, a review of the Foundation’s SWOT analysis
was conducted to determine if the direction suggested utilized Foundation’s strengths,
addressed its weaknesses, exploited any opportunities and defended against any identified
threats.
4
Essential Needs Identified
Following group discussions on each of the four core topics, key needs were identified.
See Appendix A. Table 1.ASCF Key Needs.
Communications
The Directors felt the core of its communication program had to come from establishing a
professional strategy that could be driven by volunteers that would result in exploiting
networking / lobbying opportunities. It was felt that members of the Board of Directors,
through their vast life experiences, could support this initiative by identifying and
opening doors to potential funding partners and the general public, expounding on the
good work of the Foundation.
Existing staff would continue to educate the public through print, electronic media and
word of mouth communication on the work done to date and to invite projects for
funding consideration. Efforts need to be addressed at forging relationships between staff
and media / journalists, to further educate the public on the activities of the Foundation.
See Appendix A. Table 2. Communications Exercise
Education
Much discussion focused on the pros and cons of expanding the funding criteria of the
Foundation to include more university research projects. Feedback from some
community groups voiced concern that universities can secure funding from other
sources and that they do not recruit community partnerships. ASCF Staff indicated
university partnerships can not provide data for the Foundations measurement and
evaluation program, i.e. meters of restored habitat, numbers of community partners.
Further discussion revolved around developing a classroom curriculum to make children
more aware of the Atlantic salmon and possibly increase their interest towards the sports
fishery. Two issues were identified; developing curricula would be expensive and would
require accreditation by provincial Departments of Education and; the success / failure of
the Atlantic Salmon Federations Fish Friends program, along with programs such as the
River Ranger program would need to be reviewed before moving forward on developing
curricula.
New partners such as those in the music and arts industry could provide increased
exposure of the Foundation within the non-angling community. As well, educating
5
Members of Parliament on funded projects within their ridings would help to heighten
public awareness of the funded programs and possibly create new partnerships with the
assistance of the Member. See Appendix A. Table 3. Education Exercise
Fund Raising
Because of its success, efforts to raise funds in support of Foundation activities could be
directed at a higher level of networking / lobbying, i.e. industry Board level. The
Foundation has established excellent creditability through its internal controls such as its
Annual Report and Business Plan. These measures make the Foundation a safe and
worthwhile investment for potential funding partners.
It was felt that with a professionally developed fund raising pitch, along with Board
members identifying contacts within industry, volunteers should be able to make a pitch
to potential funding partners.
The success is there; the key is to develop a professional pitch and identify potential
funding partners. See Appendix A. Table 4. Fund Raising Exercise
Community Partnerships
Once again the central theme on developing partners was to secure professional expertise
in developing a public relations strategy tailor made in regards to illustrating the
successes of the Foundation and its community partners and welcoming new partners.
Similar scheme of creating a user friendly presentation that can be delivered by
volunteers and with Board assistance in opening doors to enable the volunteers to make
those presentations.
As well, discussion focused around identifying new partners to the Atlantic salmon
community such as Suncor, Husky Oil and CN Rail. See Appendix A: Table 5.
Community Partners.
6
Tying it All Together
Many of the directives moving forward revolve around acknowledging and exploiting the
Foundation as being a creditable, transparent agency and thereby an excellent investment
opportunity. Because of its profile, it was felt success could be gained with high level
networking at the CEO and Board levels of industry.
Existing partnerships between the Foundation and community groups, First Nations,
industry and all levels of education and government, as reflected in the Foundation’s
Annual Report and Business Plan, along with its web site and internal auditing systems
constitutes a fund raisers dream project, i.e. you should be any easy sell.
Each of the discussion groups identified three needs essential to its success: money,
professional expertise and active volunteers.
The initial step would require the Board to decide whether to hire/contract both fund
raising and public relations expertise, or focus on a fund raising professional to package
what you have created in a manner that would achieve yet to be determined fund raising
goals.
In complimenting the hiring of a professional(s), your volunteers, at all levels, could be
recruited to get active in identifying and hosting private and public sector speaking
opportunities. This would, as well, compliment staffs efforts to date in creating and
meeting speaking obligations.
The Foundation has many of the resources required for success. See Key Strengths 2, 3,
6, 7 and Key Opportunities 1, 2, 4, 5 in Appendix B: 2011 Foundation SWOT Analysis.
The key next steps that were identified during the planning session are summarized on
the Flow Chart: Key Next Steps, presented on page 8. This flow chart identifies what
actions have to be entertained and in the event a green light is realized, acted upon. The
Flow chart also indicates that where a green light to proceed has not been given, the
status quo would remain. The flow chart also indicates where responsibility lies in
moving forward.
7
Key Next Steps
Review Foundation governance to determine if the Foundation can expand its role in
Atlantic salmon conservation through fund raising.- Policy & Programming Committee
↓
↓
↓
IF NOT PERMITTED
↓
↓
IF YES
STATUS QUO
↓
Through a survey, determine Foundation’s volunteer support in participating in a fund
raising program supported by expert fund raising and/or public relations advice in
providing:
 User friendly, specific presentations requesting financial support
 Identified targets with invitations for presentations – Development Committee
↓
↓
↓
IF NO INTEREST
↓
↓
IF YES
↓
↓
STATUS QUO
↓
Develop proposal to hire fund raiser only, or both fund raiser and a public relations expert
to include:
 Job description
 Salary
 Cost to administer (travel, office costs, etc,)
 Development of a sponsor package to fund the new position
Board identifies potential targets and secures invitations for presentations requesting
support
- Development Committee
↓
↓
IF SUCCESSFUL
IF NOT
↓
↓
↓
STATUS QUO
↓
Advertise for the position(s) – Development Committee
In brief, the next steps include: a) ensuring the Foundation’s governance allows it to
proceed to fund raise; b) determining the level of volunteer support from its existing
organizational chart; c) determining the cost of creating 1 or 2 new staff positions; d)
creating a fund raising strategy to do so and; e) hiring an individual(s) who meets the job
description.
8
Cautionary Note
Two points became clear during the discussions.
First, entering the fund raising field is likely going to raise the hackles of existing
conservation agencies. Strategies aimed at growing fund raising opportunities may need
to be focused on never-been-touched opportunities and reflect a non-competitive spirit
with existing conservation groups.
The second is the relationship between the Atlantic Salmon Conservation Foundation and
the Atlantic Salmon Federation. The Foundation enjoys the enviable position of having
monies to invest and proceeds to disperse. The Federation has experience, expertise and
an active affiliate community.
It would be worth the Foundation’s efforts to identify where it might either partner with
the Federation or at the least establish a professional relationship whereby the Foundation
can benefit from the Federation’s experiences. Establishing this relationship would most
likely be successful if entertained at the Board level. An example of a joint effort could
include a formidable lobby effort to challenge the Government of Canada to increase the
base amount of the endowment fund.
In brief, the Foundation and the Federation hold our greatest chances of saving this
magnificent animal. Working off of each others strengths will be the most favorable and
successful approach.
9
APPENDIX A
Table 1: ASCF Key Needs
Category
Identified Needs
Communications
- Projects
- Money
- Strategy
- Volunteers
- Staff
- Networking / Lobbying
- Board initiative
- Media contacts – Journalists / Reporters
Education
- New partners – industry / music / arts
- Amend funded project priorities to increase education
initiatives
- Expertise to develop school program
- Local MP’s
Fund Raising
- Expertise to develop fund raising pitches
- Increased visibility / creditability
- Higher level networking
- Partner locally
- Identify non-program funding opportunities
Partnerships
- Expert public relations / fund raising advice
- Tailor made, user friendly presentations
- Targets identified and “doors opened”
- Eg. CN rail , Suncor, Husky Oil
Table 2. Communications Exercise
Communications
 Identify what needs to be communicated
- money available for projects
- mission of the ACF
- ASCF needs
 Identify who to communicate with
- Community Groups
- Aboriginal Community
- Governments
- Industry
- Non-salmon Public
 How to communicate
- Electronic and print media – success stories and articles
- Word of mouth
- Advertising
- Awarding of grants – press releases
- Format reporting
10
 In order to be successful, identify what your “needs” the ASCF would have to
acquire in order to be an effective communicator
- Projects
- Money
- Strategy
- Volunteers
- Staff
- Networking / Lobbying
- Board initiative
- Media contacts – Journalists / Reporters
SWOT DATA (See Appendix B for SWOT numbering)
Strengths
1
2
3
4
5
6
Weaknesses
2
Opportunity
1
2
3
4
5
Threats
2
3
Note: Need to communicate to the non-angling community as well
Table 3. Education Exercise
Education
 Identify targets to educate
- Kids – Girl Guides, Scouts, Survival Groups, Dept. of Education
- Government
- Industry
- First Nations
- Community Groups
 Identify how to educate
- Web page
- Grant process
- Social media
- Press releases / article / print / electronic media
- Fund research
 In order to be successful, identify what “needs” the ASCF would have to acquire
in order to be an effective educator
- New partners – industry / music / arts
- Amend funded project priorities to increase education initiatives
- Expertise to develop school program
- Local MP’s
SWOT DATA (See Appendix B for SWOT numbering)
Strengths
2
3
4
5
6
10
Weaknesses
2
Opportunity
1
2
3
4
5
Threats
3
Notes: Need to include non-angling community as potential partners
11
Table 4. Fund Raising Exercise
Fund Raising
 Identify what the ASCF needs new money for
- New projects
- Administrative staff with specific skill sets
- Communications
- Contract expertise in strategic area – fund raising / education / public
relations
 In order to be successful, identify what “needs” the ASCF would have to acquire
in order to effectively fund raise
- Expertise to develop fund raising pitches
- Increased visibility / creditability
- Higher level networking
- Partner locally
- Identify non-program funding opportunities
SWOT DATA (See Appendix B for SWOT numbering)
Strengths
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
11
Weaknesses
2
3
4
5
Opportunity
1
2
3
4
5
Threats
nil
Notes:
To develop and initiate a fund raising plan may:
1) alienate existing conservation partners
2) require amendment to endowment guidelines
3) secure “buy-in” from all Directors to participate
Table 5. Community Partnership Exercise
Partnerships
 Identify existing program partners
- Community groups
- First Nations
- Government – all levels
 Identify potential ASCF partners
- Industry
- ASF
- CBC
- Liquor Commissions
- Universities
 Identify how the ASCF will approach these partners
- Research and identify partners
- “Door opening” by Directors and Gov’t, i.e. MP’s
- Staff presentations to key targets
12
 In order to be successful, identify what “needs” the ASCF would have to acquire
in order to efficiently recruit new partners
- Expert public relations / fund raising advice
- Tailor made, user friendly presentations
- Targets identified and “doors opened”
- Eg. CN rail , Suncor, Husky Oil
SWOT DATA (See Appendix B for SWOT numbering)
Strengths
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
Weaknesses
2
4
5
Opportunity
1
2
3
4
5
Threats
1
2
3
Notes:
1) Funds raised – restricted revenue to be used only in the area donor requests, or to be
employed at the Foundations discretion, or both? Getting into other groups territory may
be an issue – therefore, explore new areas
13
APPENDIX B
Table 6: 2011 Foundation SWOT Analysis: Key Strengths
Item
1
The support of the Government of Canada through the Atlantic Salmon
Endowment Fund.
2
The expertise and commitment of our volunteer Board of Directors, our Members,
and our advisory committee members.
3
Our non-profit, charitable status.
4
Our mandate to improve salmon conservation.
5
Our model of partnership and our inclusiveness.
6
Our structure and associated network of volunteers throughout our five provincial
jurisdictions.
7
Our goals-based approach to strategic planning
8
Our performance management approach to project implementation
9
Our core ASCF Program and well-defined procedures for project eligibility,
solicitation, application, assessment, selection, reporting and evaluation.
10 Our transparency and accountability.
11 Our low administrative overhead.
Table 7:2011 Foundation SWOT Analysis: Key Weaknesses
Item
1 The need to work with funding recipients to ensure robust results-based
management and reporting of Foundation funded projects.
2 The need to strengthen our communications with current and potential
stakeholders/beneficiaries and the general public to enhance their engagement in
activities that will contribute to the health and sustainability of wild Atlantic
salmon.
3 The need to be able to implement a ASCF Program funding model that reflects and
is more responsive to geographical areas and priorities within Atlantic Canada and
Quebec.
4 A maximum amount on administration costs that limits the ability to exercise
reasonable due diligence in monitoring project performance.
5 Limited funds available to address the broad range of threats to salmon
conservation, especially during periods of economic downturn.
14
Table 8: 2011 Foundation SWOT Analysis: Key Opportunities
Item
1 To build Foundation brand awareness in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
2 To strengthen the Foundation’s relationship and communication with the
Government of Canada as represented by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
3 To encourage greater cooperation amongst federal and provincial governments, First
Nations, community volunteers and other conservation organizations.
4 To identify new partnerships and potential sources of funding that can help advance
the Foundations mission to improve salmon conservation.
5 To continually seek public and private speaking opportunities
Table 9: 2011 Foundation SWOT Analysis: Key Threats
Item
1 The impact of 2008-09 economic decline and continued slow recovery in world
financial market conditions on the Atlantic Salmon Endowment Fund and
subsequent Foundation financial capacity to support ASEF Program projects.
2 External environmental influences and human activity that adversely impact wild
Atlantic salmon populations and freshwater and marine salmon habitat.
3 Loss of volunteers at the community level due to “graying” of interested people, ie.
fewer people being involved will limit potential for conservation action.
15
APPENDIX C
Atlantic salmon Population Health Exercise
Respecting that the ASCF is charged with investing a $30 million endowment fund to
generate revenue to drive its contribution towards the conservation of the Atlantic
salmon, knowledge of the health status of populations of Atlantic salmon throughout
Quebec and Atlantic Canada would appear to be critical in affecting future decision
making, especially pertaining to the allocation of funds.
Based on data provided by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada, COSEWIC, the Board members were challenged to identify which of 13
populations of Atlantic salmon throughout Quebec and Atlantic Canada are either
endangered, threatened, of special concern or not at risk .Only the populations of
Atlantic salmon along the northeastern and southwestern shores of Newfoundland and
Labrador rivers were deemed by COSEWIC to “not be at risk”. No other river system is
meeting spawning conservation requirements.
The outcome of this exercise would suggest the Board of Directors takes it upon itself to
stay abreast of the most recent indicators as to the health status of populations of Atlantic
salmon throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec. It is recommended the ASCF Board of
Directors consider adopting a creditable source of expert information on the health of
Atlantic salmon populations throughout Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Such information
should be reviewed as a component of the Board of Directors Annual General Meeting.
16