A few weeks ago, I wrote about navigating conservation’s crisis. During Climate Week in New York, I joined discussions with grassroots leaders from the Global South that offered a sharper view of how philanthropy meets—and sometimes misses—the realities of frontline work. Their reflections highlighted dynamics that merit further exploration. Philanthropy is purportedly rooted in a ‘love of humanity’, yet its operating systems are often transactional. Of course, “philanthropy” encompasses an extraordinary range of actors, from small family foundations to major multilateral donors, and not all fall into the same patterns. Still, the prevailing norms that govern much of the sector—short grant cycles, risk aversion, and an emphasis on measurable outcomes—tend to shape behavior even among those trying to work differently. For many frontline conservation and climate justice groups, whose pressures are intensifying across ecological, political, and personal dimensions, traditional approaches to giving can feel misaligned with present needs. Too often, donors equate success with easily counted outcomes: hectares protected, tons of carbon sequestered, or numbers of beneficiaries reached. Yet much of the real progress happens off-ledger. An Indigenous woman leader breaking taboos to speak about gender-based violence, villagers reviving their language classes without outside funding, or waste pickers returning from international exchanges to form cooperatives are not “soft” outcomes; they are signs of social resilience. Impact today may not be impact tomorrow, and philanthropy that relies only on fixed indicators risks constraining the agency it hopes to build. That said, funders’ reliance on metrics often stems from legitimate accountability requirements—trustees,…This article was originally published on Mongabay

From Conservation news via this RSS feed