Posted on 26th November 2009
Philanthropy is failing to make a significant contribution to combating climate change, finds the latest report in an annual series, published this week by the Environmental Funders Network (EFN).
Where The Green Grants Went 4 (WTGGW4), says that the top 300 grant-making foundations in the UK directed less than 3% of their grants to the environment as a whole, and less than 0.3% directly towards reducing carbon emissions in 2006/07.
The 97 UK-based trusts that make environmental grants, 50 of which are in the top 300 foundations, awarded 9.3% of their grants to climate change in 2005/06 and 8.3% in 2006/07.
However, the report shows that funders increased their total environmental giving by 68% between 2004/5 and 2006/7.
Jon Cracknell, co-ordinator of EFN, says, “Climate change is the great issue of our time, an enormous threat to wildlife, landscapes and humanity, and we cannot escape responsibility for it. The time to step up to the challenge is now.
“There is a particular need for philanthropists to take some risks and support innovative projects that encourage both government and business to increase their level of ambition.”
Cracknell explains, “There has been rapid growth in environmental grants from leading environmental funders but this is from a low base and doesn’t have a significant impact on the percentage of total grant-making that goes to environmental causes.”
The report identifies three types of environmental problem and argues that donors are failing to fund the hardest and most intractable issues, identified as ‘Type Three’ or ’climate change and over-consumption of natural resources. They are often chronic in nature, with remote or difficult to perceive impact.'
’Type One’ is defined as ‘the realisation that the world’s wilderness and wildlife stocks are not inexhaustible has led to efforts in conservation in many industrialised countries’.
While ‘Type Two’ is 'the impact of human activity that was felt acutely in the late 1960s through manifestations such as choking smogs, filthy rivers and habitat destruction. This crystallised environmental concern around a newer set of challenges relating to identifiable causes (such as factories).'
The report says ‘Type One’ and ‘Type Two’ represent the ‘comfort zone’ for environmental grant-making but ‘Type Three’ problems require interventions in sectors and geographies far removed from the immediate symptoms of the issue.
Cracknell says, “Such initiatives can be very challenging when it comes to measuring impact, and can be political with a small ‘p’, requiring a change of attitude for many trusts and foundations who are used to tangible outputs.
“Although the scale of the problem can be a challenge for funders, we have examples of successful interventions to show philanthropists how they can achieve results. Success is possible," he continued.
These include case studies from The Big Ask campaign masterminded by Friends of the Earth, and the Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy.
Bevis Gillett, a trustee of the Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation, which funds environmental and peace initiatives, says, “To quote George Monbiot, ‘If you say nothing can be done, one thing that’s for sure is that nothing will be done.’ The little we can do as funders is very important - our job should be to support initiatives that point upstream.”
The report is available on the EFN website.
