a Q&A with Annika:

Can you share a bit about funding / fundraising strategies?

Yes! We actually had a dedicated ECCP workshop on this in September 2025. The PPT is linked here and a recording of that training is linked here (password: vw*x%&1W).

How can adaptive management can be built into peacebuilding projects so that interventions remain responsive to shifting conflict dynamics and environmental pressures?

We had a few conversations about this in our ECCP group on complexity. I encourage you to check out:

• this recording;

• this PPT; and

• these notes. 

How can participatory project design be strengthened to ensure that displaced communities are not only beneficiaries but also decision-makers in environmental peacebuilding programs?

The image that always come to my mind is Arnstein’s ladder of participation. At the beginning of your project, decide which rung of the ladder you're going to aim for. Is it consultation? Is it partnership? Is it control? Getting clear on what participation means to you can help act as a guide post throughout the entire project. 

Once you’re clear on what you’re aiming for, talk with anyone who has structural power in or over the project and get them on board. This could be the donor, your boss, an elder in the community. If they understand and agree to the participation approach, you have created more productive enabling conditions!

Then, map out what you think your own project management process might look like from start to finish, and write down each way you think participants might own the process. Maybe they make decisions, maybe they design the program, maybe they own the implementation…getting that all down on paper before you start can help you adjust your own mindset to becoming a participation enabler, not a project manager. 😊

Of course, the beauty of participation should then mean that you share your thinking / assumptions on participation with the participants themselves and ask them to weigh in!

Finally, the trick or tool I rely on the most is 1:1 conversations. This could be a 30 minute 1:1 conversation in which you share your story & motivation for doing the project; hear the other person's story & motivation for doing the project; and ask their opinion on what their participation could look like and what they think the project should do. Have them often! This is the secret to understanding what people want: asking them. 😊 (Directly!)

How do you maintain community ownership and trust throughout implementation, especially when external funders or partner organizations start pushing timelines, indicators, or priorities that don't match what the community actually agreed to at the start?

I’d definitely lean on the 1:1 format I described above, as well as the initial conversations you had with the donor or partners about participation. If, for example, you had a pre-project conversation with the donor and decided that you are aiming for full partnership, you can have a check in conversation to align on timeline. It might be sharing something like, "Here are the steps we have taken to ensure full partnership. Here are the unexpected things that popped up. And here's how the project participants themselves propose to move forward. We are committed to a full partnership approach and acknowledge that we are off of the timeline originally laid out. How can we make adjustments to make sure we're centering the decisions & needs of the participants?" 

I personally think that setting good, clear expectations before the project that we're aiming for a full participatory approach, and therefore expect the unexpected, can be a good tool to lean on when things go sideways. 

Personal relationships, face to face (even online) discussion, kindness, and good humor can go a long way. 

For larger projects, involving many communities, stakeholders, audiences, what is the best way to encourage cross-collaboration and conversation, while also tailoring communication to each specific group/ knowledge level on the subject?

Diversity is an essential ingredient to creative solution-making. And it’s also really difficult to manage. I’m certainly not an expert, but one approach I try to take is to get to know different groups quite well. 

Some of things I work to understand about a certain group are:

1. their motivations vis-a-vis the project or idea;

2. their passions, inspiration, joy, or where their energy naturally is;

3. their strengths and ways of working; and

4. their incentive structures.

So, for example, if I have a university group, a series of 1-1 conversations and group discussion might help me understand that their motivations are making professional connections and networking; their passion is climate justice; their strengths are research capacity and public speaking; and their incentive structure is that they can earn university credit for certain kinds of activities. My goal, then, would be to create a participation on-ramp that fits all of those categories. 

With that information in mind, I see myself as an ambassador between many different kinds of groups! So, when I’m in conversation with government officials, I’m sharing a bit of what I’ve learned about the motivations & strengths of university students, then asking the government officials their opinions on how they can work together. (And vice versa, when speaking with the university students.) I tend to default to directly asking people how they want to do something or work together - transparency goes a long way, and people will generally reciprocate openness!

People have different experience levels, so I like to play with spaces where they are with other participants on their same level…and then other times when groups are mixed. I personally find it important to have both: If you’re constantly out of your league, it’s frustrating. But if you’re always in your comfort zone, you’re not getting exposed to the range of ideas, experiences, and perspectives that drive creative thinking. The trick is to design processes and spaces that intentionally mix & match.