More than funders: The roles of philanthropic foundations in marine conservation governance

Abstract

Environmental governance scholars have overlooked philanthropic foundations as influential non-state actors. This omission, along with the continued growth in funding from private foundations for conservation issues, presents important questions about what foundations do in governance spaces. To address this gap, we examine The David and Lucile Packard Foundation's involvement in Fiji and Palau in the context of the Foundation's "Western Pacific Program"-a series of coastal and marine-related investments made from 1998 to 2020. We describe and analyze six governance roles that the Packard Foundation contributed to: funding, influencing agendas, capacity-building, convening and coordinating, facilitating knowledge, and rule-making and regulation. In documenting the Packard Foundation's governance roles, we provide scholars and practitioners a conceptual framework to more systematically and strategically think about foundations as more than funders. This research helps move the conversation around conservation philanthropy beyond binary conceptions of "good" versus "bad," and, instead, toward deeper considerations about what foundations currently do within governance systems, how they engage with diverse practitioners, as well as what they can and should do to advance conservation goals.

Conceptualizing responsible exits in conservation philanthropy

“…First, participants underscored the value of including capacity‐building strategies as part of the grantmaking process as they are intended to contribute to outcomes that endure beyond the exit. Foundations that invest in capacity‐building may provide grantees with organizational, human, and infrastructure support to foster leadership and develop the skills and confidence to continue their work and/or pursue new priorities after an exit (Enrici et al, In review; Blackwatters et al, 2022). In addition, participants discussed the importance of avoiding resource dependency by investing in sustainable financing mechanisms and supporting grantees in diversifying their sources of funding to ensure they are financially stable once the exit comes, if it is something grantees see as beneficial.…”

Who’s setting the agenda? Philanthropic donor influence in marine conservation

“…The implication, they argue, was that "[in] both subtle and obvious ways this shifts the ownership of current conservation initiatives away from Fiji, from local people, and from local institutions that have the long-term responsibility for both the problem and solutions" (Lees and Siwatibau 2009:22). Packard's significant focus and investment in efforts to strengthen customary and Indigenous management of traditional fishing grounds through the Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area network may be an exception to this broader trend in Fiji, and could be one reason this concern did not arise with respect to Packard specifically in our interviews (Blackwatters et al 2022).…”

Conservation philanthropy: Growing the field of research and practice

“…Two articles focus on the roles philanthropic foundations play in marine conservation and governance, underscoring the need to think more systematically and strategically about the varied roles of philanthropic actors beyond providing funding. Blackwatters et al (2023) conduct an in‐depth case study of The David and Lucile Packard Foundation's two decades of support for marine conservation in Fiji and Palau. They describe and analyze six governance roles that the foundation contributed to: funding, influencing agendas, capacity building, convening and coordinating, facilitating knowledge, and rule‐making and regulation.…”

“…But this autonomy is a double‐edged sword: lack of transparency, obligation, and accountability can lead to funding practices that create more problems than they solve (Villanueva 2021). Ultimately, philanthropic donors must be recognized as diverse and influential governance actors that require rigorous analysis by scholars and better links between research and practice (Betsill et al, 2022; Blackwatters et al, 2023; Breeze, 2021).…”