- The USAID funding freeze revealed a systemic vulnerability in global conservation finance: over-dependence on external donors and top-down funding models; yet community-led initiatives show that local stewardship, when resourced and trusted, leads to more resilient and inclusive conservation outcomes.
- A new op-ed calls for a shift toward trust-based philanthropy, participatory grant-making, and diversified funding models centered on local leadership and long-term ecological impact.
- “Conservation must not exist on the periphery of philanthropy or politics. It must be integrated into the core of how we structure societies, economies, and futures. Only then can it thrive, and not just because it is funded, but because it is fundamental,” the author argues.
- This article is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily Mongabay.
The abrupt suspension of USAID’s recent international funding sent shockwaves through the global conservation community. With more than $375 million disbursed in 2023, this freeze disrupted critical biodiversity programs across Kenya, Namibia, the Congo Basin, and Indonesia, halting ranger salaries, community conservation, and anti-trafficking operations.
But beyond its immediate damage, the freeze has illuminated a long-standing structural flaw: the conservation sector’s deep dependence on external donors. It’s a wake-up call to reimagine how we finance environmental protection, not simply how to replace lost aid, but how to build resilient, locally anchored systems that endure.
For too long, conservation finance has operated on a donor-centric model. External institutions determine priorities, metrics and timelines. Local organizations often implement strategies, but without the autonomy to shape them. This framework creates a culture of compliance, not innovation.
This imbalance reflects deeper power asymmetries. As Edgar Villanueva argues in Decolonizing Wealth, the structure of philanthropic aid often mirrors colonial dynamics, concentrating control in donor capitals while communities at the frontline remain dependent on short-term, project-based support.
To move forward, conservation finance must be restructured to prioritize collaboration over control. Donors should invest in long-term capacity, offer flexible support, and enable local actors to co-design solutions.
There are models that already demonstrate the power of such community-led conservation. Namibia’s Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) program enables more than 80 conservancies to manage communal lands. One of them, the ≠Khoadi-//Hôas Conservancy, has effectively reinvested revenue from wildlife tourism into education, health care and water systems. The success of this model lies not just in its economic returns, but in its locally embedded governance.
In Nepal, more than 22,000 community forest user groups — representing more than 2.9 million households — manage nearly 34% of the country’s forests. These groups determine harvest rules, monitor ecological indicators, and reinvest profits into community development. Their stewardship has reversed deforestation trends and improved biodiversity outcomes, while strengthening local institutions.
Such examples affirm that when communities are the architects of conservation, and not just its implementers, the results are more sustainable and inclusive.
Rethinking finance models
This is not a call to eliminate donor funding — public goods like climate regulation and biodiversity conservation will always require external support — but we must complement that support with more diverse, grounded models of funding like the following:
- Flexible philanthropy
Donors like Amazon co-founder MacKenzie Scott have championed trust-based giving, offering unrestricted grants that allow organizations to allocate funds based on real-time needs. A 2022 Center for Effective Philanthropy report found that nonprofits receiving such funding improved equity outcomes (90%), expanded programs (79%) and enhanced staff capacity (88%). The CLIMA Fund similarly provides long-term, grassroots-led support for Indigenous and frontline climate organizations, proving that flexible capital enables adaptive and durable solutions. - Participatory grant-making
Equity also demands inclusive decision-making. The Global Greengrants Fund, for instance, uses regional advisory boards composed of local activists to guide funding. This ensures that grants reflect lived experience and local priorities, not just external metrics. - Blended finance models
Costa Rica’s Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) program compensates landowners for maintaining forest cover, creating revenue tied to conservation outcomes. Carbon financing projects, such as Kenya’s Chyulu Hills REDD+ and Vanuatu’s Loru Forest initiative channel income into community development while preserving ecosystems. - Locally relevant evaluation
Often, donor-imposed evaluation tools are ill-suited to local realities. In Namibia, the Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservancy enables communities to track wildlife trends using community-developed methods. In Nepal, forest user groups regularly assess forest health through participatory tools that have been scaled nationally. When monitoring is locally driven and culturally attuned, it becomes not just a reporting mechanism, but a tool of empowerment and learning.
A call to reimagine conservation finance
The USAID freeze is not merely a crisis, it is an invitation to rethink. It urges us to reexamine who holds power in conservation finance, how funding flows are structured, and whose knowledge shapes the path forward.
We must shift from donor dominance to shared leadership, from rigid templates to trust-based frameworks, and from short-term grants to long-term investment in communities and ecosystems.
Conservation must not exist on the periphery of philanthropy or politics. It must be integrated into the core of how we structure societies, economies and futures. Only then can it thrive, and not just because it is funded, but because it is fundamental.
Leona M. Bhuyan is an interdisciplinary conservationist working at the intersection of ecology and sociology to design inclusive, community-led conservation strategies. This commentary was shaped in part from experiences and insights shared by her University of Cambridge/MPhil in Conservation Leadership cohort (2023-2024) colleagues.
Banner image: Flowering tree in the Amazon rainforest canopy. Image by Rhett A. Butler for Mongabay.
Related audio from Mongabay’s podcast: Three experts debate a new forest finance fund known as the Tropical Forest Forever Facility that would reward 70 tropical nations financially for keeping their forests standing, listen here:
See related commentaries:
Paying to prevent deforestation is positive, not ‘nothing’ (commentary)
Will a billionaire bankroll biodiversity? CBD Decision 15/9 as potential ‘goldmine’ (commentary)
Citation:
Sawadogo-Lewis, T., Bryant, R., & Roberton, T. (2022). NGO perspectives on the challenges and opportunities for real-world evaluation: A qualitative study. Global Health Action, 15(1). doi:10.1080/16549716.2022.2088083
Credits
This story first appeared on Mongabay
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.