Introduction to a Sustainability Challenge in Grantmaking
Official development and philanthropic grants have long driven poverty reduction and nature-positive interventions. Yet the traditional model—episodic, short-term awards that end with unclear paths to impact—often fails to deliver lasting change. SPENM’s G-L-E model reframes grant sustainability by focusing on governance, learning, and enduring funding structures that can survive the typical lifecycle of a grant. This article explains why the G-L-E approach matters, what it looks like in practice, and how funders and grantees can collaborate to achieve durable outcomes.
Understanding SPENM’s G-L-E Model
The G-L-E model rests on three interconnected pillars that address the core weaknesses of traditional grants:
- G – Governance and institutional resilience: Build local leadership, clear decision rights, and robust risk management so programs can continue even when external support shifts. Strong governance reduces project collapse after the grant ends and ensures accountability to communities.
- L – Learning and capacity building: Embed continuous learning loops, adaptation mechanisms, and capacity development for local partners. This enables programs to evolve with context, increasing relevance and effectiveness over time.
- E – Enduring funding structures: Move beyond one-off awards toward multi-year commitments, blended finance, or catalytic funding that unlocks additional resources. The aim is to create a sustainable financing ladder that supports scale and maintenance of outcomes.
By aligning these pillars, SPENM argues that grants can catalyze durable systems rather than create dependency on ongoing donor support.
Why Sustainability Matters for Nature-Positive Interventions
Nature-positive initiatives—such as watershed restoration, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable livelihoods—require stable systems, long-term governance, and persistent investment. Short-lived funding can spark pilot successes but often falls short of embedding practices, market shifts, or policy changes that sustain benefits. The G-L-E framework explicitly targets these gaps by designing grants that embed local ownership, readiness for scale, and flexible financing to weather shocks and opportunities alike.
Practical Elements of Implementing the G-L-E Model
Adopting G-L-E involves concrete steps across grant design, delivery, and oversight:
- Grant design for governance: Establish local steering groups, transparent fiduciary arrangements, and exit plans that preserve essential functions. Ensure community voices guide priorities and metrics from the start.
- Capacity and learning: Build partner organizations’ management, data collection, and monitoring capacities. Create embedded evaluations that inform course corrections rather than retrospective reporting only.
- Funding pathways and continuity: Use multi-year agreements, tranche-based disbursements tied to milestones, and blended finance to reduce the risk of abrupt program cessation. Leverage catalytic funds to attract additional investors and diversify revenue streams.
Crucially, the G-L-E model encourages joint planning between funders and grantees, with shared risk and rewards. This co-creation mindset is essential to move from project-based grants to programmatic support that endures beyond a single grant cycle.
Measuring Success Without Sacrificing Durability
Traditional metrics—outputs and short-term outcomes—must be complemented by indicators of sustainability, such as governance strength, community ownership, and the ability to attract secondary funding. Continuous learning loops should inform adjustments, ensuring that interventions remain aligned with local constraints, market dynamics, and climate-related risks. In essence, the success of the G-L-E model is judged not only by immediate gains but by the resilience and scalability of the system it helps nurture.
From Theory to Practice: Aligning Stakeholders
For funders, the G-L-E model offers a blueprint for reducing grant leakage and maximizing social returns. For grantees, it provides a clearer path to independence and impact at scale. The SPENM approach suggests that the most transformative grants are those that fund governance reform, invest in people and organizations, and secure diverse funding streams—creating a virtuous circle of sustainability.
Conclusion
Rethinking grant sustainability through SPENM’s G-L-E model invites a shift from episodic funding to enduring partnerships. By strengthening governance, embedding continuous learning, and cultivating durable financing, funders can help ensure that nature-positive and poverty-reducing outcomes persist long after the grant ends. The result is a more resilient, equitable pathway to sustainable development.
