Building and Managing Relationships with Funders

[Audio] Welcome everyone, and thank you for joining this session. Today we are going to talk about building and managing relationships with funders, specifically in the context of agricultural research. Now, agriculture is a very specific field. It is not only about research, it is about real systems, real farms, real risks, and real people. Unlike some other disciplines, where outcomes can be controlled in laboratory conditions, agricultural research is exposed to uncertainty every day. Weather conditions, soil variability, market pressures, all of these influence outcomes. Because of that, funders in this field are not only evaluating ideas, they are evaluating reliability. They are asking themselves: Can this team deliver results even when conditions are not ideal? Let me give you a simple example. Imagine a project focused on drought-resistant crops. On paper, everything looks strong, methodology, data, projections. But then, during implementation, weather patterns shift in unexpected ways. At that moment, the quality of the relationship becomes more important than the quality of the proposal. Because funders need to trust that the team will adapt, communicate, and manage the situation professionally. So today, we will not focus on how to write proposals. We will focus on something more strategic, how to build relationships that lead to long-term funding, repeated collaboration, and institutional credibility. And I would encourage you to listen to this not only as project participants, but as long-term partners in a funding ecosystem..

[Audio] To understand why this topic is critical, we need to look at the broader funding landscape. First, competition is increasing. There are more universities, more research institutes, and more interdisciplinary teams entering the funding space. What used to be a relatively specialized field is now highly competitive. Second, expectations are changing. Funders are no longer satisfied with outputs like reports or publications alone. They are looking for impact, measurable, visible, and applicable. In agriculture, this means: Are farmers actually using the results? Are practices changing? Is sustainability improving? And third, and this is perhaps the most important shift, funding is becoming relationship-based. Funders prefer to work with partners they already know. Why? Because it reduces risk. If you have already demonstrated that you can deliver, communicate, and manage complexity, you become a safer investment. So what does this mean for you? It means that success is no longer only about technical excellence. It is about strategic positioning. It is about being recognized, remembered, and trusted..

[Audio] This brings us to the core idea of this session. Funding follows relationships, not just applications. Now, of course, a strong proposal is necessary. But it is not always sufficient. Funders are human decision-makers. They operate within systems, but they also rely on experience, trust, and familiarity. Let's think about a real situation. A funding body receives two proposals of equal quality. Both meet the criteria. Both have strong methodologies. But one comes from a team they have worked with before, a team that delivered on time, communicated clearly, and handled challenges professionally. Which one has an advantage? The answer is obvious. This does not mean the system is unfair, it means it is realistic. Trust reduces uncertainty. And in complex fields like agriculture, reducing uncertainty is extremely valuable. So instead of focusing only on the question: 'How do we write a better proposal?' We should also be asking: 'How do we become a partner that funders trust over time?'".

[Audio] To build effective relationships with funders, we first need to understand that not all funders are the same. In agriculture, we typically work with three main categories, and each one operates with a different logic. Let's start with public funding bodies, such as EU programs or national ministries. These funders are strongly driven by policy. Their priorities are defined at a strategic level, for example, sustainability, climate adaptation, biodiversity, or rural development. This means that when you communicate with them, you are not only presenting your project, you are positioning your work within a broader policy framework. Now, the second group, international organizations. These institutions often focus on development challenges. Their perspective is slightly different. They are asking questions like: How does this project improve livelihoods? How does it support smallholder farmers? What is the social impact? So here, the narrative shifts from technology and research to people and communities. And finally, we have industry and innovation funding. This is where the focus becomes much more practical. These funders are interested in application, speed, and scalability. They want to know: Can this solution be implemented next season? Can it be commercialized? So the key takeaway here is this: You are not only managing one relationship, you are managing different types of relationships, each with its own expectations. And the ability to adapt your communication to these different logics is what makes you effective.".

[Audio] Now let's go one level deeper and look at how funders actually think. Because if we understand their mindset, we can communicate much more effectively. Funders are not primarily evaluating how interesting your research is. They are evaluating how relevant and reliable it is. There are four key questions they usually ask, even if not explicitly. First: does this solve a real problem? In agriculture, problems are very concrete, water scarcity, soil degradation, productivity, resilience. If your project is not clearly connected to one of these, it immediately becomes less compelling. Second: can this solution scale? It is one thing to demonstrate success in a controlled environment or a single pilot farm. It is another thing to show that this can be applied across regions, climates, or farming systems. Third: can this team deliver? This is where your track record matters. Have you worked on similar projects before? Have you managed complexity? Have you delivered results? And fourth: is the impact clear and measurable? Funders want to understand not only what you will do, but what will change as a result. So the key skill here is translation. You need to translate your research into impact language. From 'we study soil composition' to 'we improve yield stability and reduce environmental impact.' That shift is essential..

[Audio] One of the biggest barriers to building strong relationships is not lack of quality, it is the way communication is structured. Many institutions operate in what we can call a transactional model. Let's walk through this slowly. When a funding call is announced, there is intense activity. Teams prepare proposals, communicate with funders, ask questions, attend info sessions. Then, during the project, communication continues, because it is required. Reports, updates, meetings. But the moment the project ends, communication stops. Now, from the institution's perspective, this feels normal. The project is finished. But from the funder's perspective, something else happens. You disappear. And when you disappear, the relationship weakens. Let's take a concrete example. A research team completes a successful project on precision agriculture. They deliver everything on time. But after that, no updates, no follow-up, no engagement. Two years later, they apply again. Now, compare this with another team that sends occasional updates, shares continued results, and stays visible. Even if both teams are equally strong, one of them is remembered. So the issue here is not competence, it is continuity. And that is where most opportunities are lost..

[Audio] To avoid this problem, we need a structured way of thinking about relationships. And one useful model is to see funding as a lifecycle, not a single event. Let's go through each phase more carefully. Discovery is where you understand the funder. Not just the call, but their broader strategy. What are they trying to achieve over the next 5–10 years? Contact is about visibility. This is where you start building familiarity, through conferences, networks, or direct communication. Proposal is where alignment happens. You are not just submitting an idea, you are aligning with their priorities. Delivery is execution. This is where you prove reliability. But then comes the most important phase, stewardship. This is where the relationship either grows or disappears. If you stop here, the cycle ends. If you continue, the cycle becomes a loop, and each new project builds on the previous one. That is how long-term partnerships are created..