Our Philosophy (The philosophy of Ned and Diana Twining as expressed by Ned Twining.) To Give or To Make I have solicited funding for environmental and conservation initiatives for over a decade; yet I have never been sanguine about the traditional exchange between the donor and the nonprofit. My personal experience as a donor would turn hollow immediately after my gift had been given. Founder Ned Twining with Steve Hines (image courtesy ESAfrica). There were generally expressions of gratitude, as one would expect. There were also pledges of a continuing partnership to further benefit the cause, but essentially the exchange ended the donor's involvement in the nonprofit's execution of the gift's purpose. In a sense, the donor was no longer needed; unless and until additional money was required. Then the courting process and the solicitation would commence once again. There are, perhaps, sound reasons for this. Certainly many donors do not care to be further involved as a simple matter of time. Further, many donors give generously simply for the recognition that follows. And recognition, once expressed, ends the exchange satisfactorily for both parties. Then there is the matter of language. The phrases "to give a gift" and "to make a gift" are generally used casually and interchangeably. No particular differentiation is acknowledged. William Safire would pass immediately on to more challenging syntax. Yet one verb appeared to me to connote passivity, while the other seemed to be active. One might give a donation (passive) and be done with it; yet one who chose to make a donation (active) wished to remain attached in some way to the potential outcome that the donation might inspire. Whether there was some elusive truth to this observation was less important than my determination that all my charitable gifts/grants/contributions/offerings would henceforth be of the active type, meaning that I would MAKE them. And that would require that I would continue to be attached, though perhaps not always welcome in that attachment. EcoAnything The Twinings enjoy a meal under an African sky. Although "eco" is of noble Greek birth, it has become so misused as to render it useless. The case in point is "eco-tourism." In many instances, eco-tourism is descriptive of endless and mindless activities which can include outdoor dining. I surprised myself when I found the simple phrase "conservation tourism" to be hugely descriptive and quite elegant. The phrase became even more compelling when I used it to close an economic synapse that had perplexed me. When I joined the expression "conservation tourism" to the term "conservation science," I found a sensible description of the economic model that I had long wished to further develop. Both conservation genres already existed; but a synergy now was possible if the terms were expressed as a unity of concept. Sounds pretty simple, but it was an epiphany for me. An Investment Inventory If I am trained as anything in particular, it is as an investment banker. Further, my penchant is towards venture capital and southern Africa appealed in this regard. Tourism is a dynamic of the region and politically it is sacrosanct for the hard currency it produces. Investments are tempting but treacherous here, yet the lack of sophisticated tourism marketing kept me focused on opportunity. When the concept of conservation science imposed itself upon conservation tourism, the dots on the screen began to connect themselves. In one of my few moments of true brilliance, I knew exactly which organizations could be joined to form a new and unassailable marketing model. I say marketing model because the entities had to provide for each other an element that was then lacking within the business plans of the respective partners. African elephants at a river in Marakele Park, SA. Thus, I merged a nonprofit in conservation science with a for-profit in tourism and defined a market niche that would sustain them both. None of the elements were new in and of themselves, but the juxtaposition was novel and untested. This new synergy would be born of a union of South African National Parks (SANParks) and Wilderness Safaris (WS), both preeminent in their separate fields. Of equal importance to me was the opportunity to make a gift rather than give one. Since this union of SANParks with WS was a stretch of the imagination for the investment banker in me, I selected the shortcut route of donating the infrastructure required to learn if the economic model that I had invented could sustain itself. Here was the last element, the last dot on the screen, the gift to which I would remain attached. Rather a nifty structure to my mind. A Business Model The opportunity thus created was expressed as a business model and subjected to the marketing analysis of product, place, price and promotion. The rules of this analysis had to be adapted to the fact that SANParks is a nonprofit. Yet when the product that SANParks is offering was integrated into the Wilderness Safaris distribution network and added to WS's promotional message, the idea was compelling. SANParks is committed to building capacity within the native populations in southern Africa through teaching, education and research. WS is committed to sustaining biodiversity and wealth creation at all of its forty camps and lodges in seven countries. Both organizations share a common conservation ethic based upon self-determination through empowerment -- the latter defined as education and employment. A Marakele sunset. A determination that each organization was supported (sales revenue in one case, contributions in the other) by the same market segment provided economic underpinnings for the concept of joining conservation science to conservation tourism. The question of viability was now reduced to whether ACSC high donors could become safari clients of WS and vice versa. This is the risk and potential reward that the business model produced. The entrepreneur in me led me to conclude that the risk was manageable, especially if the market segment identified could be induced to share my concept of making a gift rather than giving a donation. Thus, I would provide an avenue by which supporters of ACSC or WS could actually participate in the conservation science while enjoying the luxury of the conservation tourism. What was required was the Marakele Conservation Science Centre adjacent to a luxury safari Lodge within a wilderness area. Or better still, three such Centres in three separate countries: Namibia, South Africa and Botswana. A Durable Legacy? While an enterprise in a free market can be expected to perpetuate itself, a nonprofit is subject to entirely different forces for its continuance. For the business model to be durable, it had to become part of the nonprofit's statement of vision. This vision would then translate into a mission statement that included a Conservation Science Centre and made it a form of legacy by which scientists and teachers could express themselves to the future. The reaction on the part of SANParks was very positive, for capacity building through education, training and research is a gift that can sustain itself by motivating people to self-determination. At the very heart of the mission was an opportunity to affect social welfare by empowering black communities to conserve incredibly valuable wildlife resources. Now the model had legs: durability and a source of sustainable cash flow. Multiple Locations The idea of multiple locations for the Conservation Science Centre was developed together with Colin Bell, Managing Director of Wilderness Safaris. First, it appeared that my budget was sufficient to develop centres in Namibia, Botswana and South Africa concurrently. In each case, the centre would be affiliated with a WS camp or lodge. These specific locations were determined to be Ongava (Namibia), Okavango (Botswana) and Marakele National Park (RSA). The steps for putting this Philosophy into action are to be found within this web site. We hope you will want to become involved. Go on to
Design by  Electronic Village Systems