There’s been a flood of new money and big moves in environmental philanthropy over the last few years. Billionaires in particular have made a splash. Climate mitigation has benefited most, but it’s far from the only issue area that is seeing funding surge and terrain shift.
Conservation, pollution and agriculture are among the segments of the environmental grantmaking field whose fortunes are in flux. Apex donors like Jeff Bezos are shaking up the scene with mega pledges and starting to displace legacy institutions as leading funders. And broader trends — attention to racial equity, focus on climate, and more donor-advised funds — are further remaking the landscape.
With change in the air, I recently did a deep dive into these three interconnected funding areas to put together a State American Philanthropy report on the recent history of this corner of green grantmaking. Published late last year, it offers a get-to-know-you guide to the top donors, grantees and issues in these areas between 2015 to 2019, the most recent full year for which Candid data was available. Based on a dive into the data, and interviews with more than a dozen experts across those fields, the brief offers a picture of where this fast-changing segment of philanthropy has been — and initial indications about where it is headed next.
It’s worth noting that conservation, pollution and agriculture are, well, neither separate islands nor a contiguous land mass. Grouping these terms together provides a useful bucket for three important philanthropic categories that share many complementary and often overlapping funders and grantees. Having said that, it’s tough to find a perfect label for any one environmental grantmaker, grantee or grant. Each category possesses its own dynamics, along with cross-cutting themes and trends. Similarly, there is a lot of overlap between these categories and others like ocean protection, and, as we’ll see, climate change.
Who’s giving and getting, and how much is involved?
There’s one clear dynamic across this trio of issues: funding is rising. According to IP’s analysis of Candid data, grants for conservation, pollution and agriculture groups doubled between 2015 and 2019 (the most recent year for which full accounting of IRS data is available), rising from $409 million to nearly $805 million.
The shift appears to reflect an enormous diversification in the field when it comes to grant recipients. Grantmakers issued only 14% more grants by the end of that five-year period, yet the number of grantees more than doubled, reaching nearly 7,700. While more recent field-wide data is not yet available, it’s clear the last few years have seen a large increase in funding within these spheres, which seems to be largely the result of hundreds of millions of dollars in new climate spending. In other words, while silos remain an issue, the influx of green philanthropy triggered by the climate crisis has led to greater funding for the entire field.
Funding in this sector is dominated by private foundations, ranging from multibillion-dollar national foundations to regional and small family foundations. Community foundations are not usually large donors in this area, but they play vital roles in local conservation efforts, and to a lesser extent, agricultural projects. Individual donors have long played a notable role, with examples ranging from Paul G. Allen to Howard Buffett. Others are expanding their portfolios, such as Home Depot cofounder Arthur Blank. But if more billionaires increasingly give to green causes, such donors may soon become the field’s top power brokers.
There’s no similarly dominant grantee type in this sector. Nonprofits funded for conservation, pollution and agriculture work are a diverse bunch, with some focusing on one area, while others work on multiple issues. That said, the bulk of dollars go to grantees of four main types: major environmental groups, intermediaries and regrantors, hunting and fishing organizations, and research organizations. Front-line organizations and Indigenous-led efforts are receiving rising attention, but still receive only a minor share of support.
The big-picture issues on funders’ minds
Like any sector, trends from the philanthrosphere and society are playing out in this corner of grantmaking, along with micro-currents specific to each issue. But the overriding element is climate change. Conservation, pollution and agricultural philanthropy cannot be considered outside of the climate emergency. For most of the major players in the field, it is a key, if not central, consideration in how they approach their work. It has also attracted massive new entrants who are reshaping the sphere, including Bezos, the Ballmers and Laurene Powell Jobs.
(For a deeper dive into climate grantmaking, see the State of American Philanthropy brief Giving for Climate Change and Clean Energy.)
Outside of climate, there were two macro philanthropic trends that came up repeatedly in conversations: the rising influence of the billionaire donor class, and equity, both in terms of who’s giving and who’s getting funding in this sector.
Equity discussions vary across these segments, with particularly active topics in each. For instance, there’s a growing recognition of the role of Indigenous communities in conservation. One focus in agricultural philanthropy is on expanding the diversity of farmers, ranchers and others making their living on the land, as well as the pipelines that bring people into the fold. Those in the field say equity concerns in these three spheres are mostly focused on race and ethnicity, but there are exceptions. For instance, corporate foundations like REI have played a role in opening access to the outdoors for people with disabilities. As in other segments of philanthropy, concerns persist that attention to equity will fade or fall short of needs.
There are also shifts in funding practices. Collaboration appears to be growing within the field, with an increasing number of coordinating intermediaries and regrantors, such as New Venture Fund or Resources Legacy Fund. Donor-advised funds are providing new channels of flexible support, while complicating the fundraising picture. Expanded recognition of the power of movements and grassroots groups has shifted some funding, but evidence suggests the flow of money headed to such groups remains modest, despite concerns about an overcorrection.
Dynamics distinct to each sector
For all their overlap, each of the areas covered here is shaped differently by historical funding trends and current forces. To start, conservation philanthropy has, in recent decades, started to transition from a largely preservationist or “fortress mentality” to a people-focused model. Now, it is undergoing a similarly momentous shift to both adapt practices to the demands of climate change while also maximizing conservation’s contributions to carbon-capture efforts.
Pollution grantmaking was, for many years, the speciality of certain state or regional foundations, as well as a few national funders. Although everyone suffers from the effects of pollution, most funders treated it as an overly complex or remote challenge that was not a good match for their limited resources. But the imperatives of climate change seem to be changing many funders’ calculations. With new interest in reducing emissions, organizations with long histories of fighting polluting industries are starting to see new support. And with new attention being paid to equity, there’s also an uptick in funder interest in anti-pollution groups with an environmental justice focus.
Agricultural philanthropy remains a small segment of giving with a lot of smaller players and just a few large ones, including agribusiness funding that includes grantmaking. A recent surge in interest in regenerative and sustainable agriculture from funders with a wide variety of priorities, particularly climate change, is one of the most significant developments. With money already flowing from major players like Eric and Wendy Schmidt and the Waltons (several foundations derived from the Walmart family fortune make grants related to the environment), and new donors like Jeff Bezos more recently joining the cause, there’s a lot of change underway.
What the future may hold
The experts I interviewed identified both promise and peril ahead for conservation, pollution and agricultural philanthropy. One topic that came up repeatedly was the growing public awareness of climate change and the increased attention it will likely bring to related conservation, pollution and agriculture challenges. Despite that shared opportunity, experts said the environmental field remains too siloed and territorial in competing for funding.
Recent political shifts promise a more verdant — and well-funded — future. The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, along with the earlier infrastructure bill and other federal spending related to conservation, pollution and agriculture, will unleash a flood of government support. Philanthropy can play a key role in uplifting promising practices and models.
In sum, these three areas are in a period of growth, driven by a fresh generation of billionaire donors and a new wave of climate giving. Philanthropy’s racial equity awakening has also sparked a shift, though the jury is still out on the long-term impact. Amid this change, both funders and grantees are considering their places within the ecosystem and how their work can address those issues or carve out a niche amid those new currents.