A group of nine foundations meeting at a global climate-change summit today in San Francisco said they would steer nearly a half-billion dollars to promote global land conservation and sustainable agricultural practices designed to stem global warming.
The commitment comes 14 months after President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change.
Philanthropy cannot fill the gap left by the federal government, according to Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation, who said grant makers should not be “destabilized or paralyzed” by the Trump administration’s policies.
“Philanthropy has to double down, given the unfortunate position taken by our government,” Walker said. “Our own government’s inaction should serve as a clarion call for philanthropy to do even more.”
Gearing Up
Global warming has not attracted a lot of attention from grant makers, prompting some critics to say philanthropy has largely failed to act on one of the world’s most pressing challenges. In 2015, the most recent year for which Foundation Center data is available, less than one percent of the grants from the largest 1,000 foundations addressed climate change.
A large share of the $459 million commitment announced today comes from members of the Climate and Land Use Alliance. In addition to Ford, members of the group include the ClimateWorks, David and Lucile Packard, Gordon and Betty Moore foundations and the Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies. Collectively, the group said it intended to commit $211 million over the next five years, pending board approval of each of its members.
In addition to the alliance, other donors include the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, which pledged $20 million in new grants on top of the $40 million it had already committed, primarily to U.S.-based projects. The Rockefeller Foundation said it would set aside at least $3 million in financing to provide incentives for large private investments in forest-restoration projects and the promotion of rights-based land use. And a group of grant makers including the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur and Mulago foundations announced they would devote $185 million to support indigenous land rights.
Natural Solutions
Proponents of so-called natural solutions to climate change say up to one-third of the emissions reductions necessary to limit global warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius over the long term — one of the key goals of the multinational Paris climate accords agreed to in 2015 — can be achieved by preventing deforestation, restoring and managing croplands and rainforests, and recognizing the land rights of local and indigenous people worldwide. Currently only about 3 percent of the money governments and philanthropy dedicate to climate change goes toward land-use issues, according to members of the alliance.
Ford, which three years ago pinned its entire grant-making budget on efforts designed to reduce inequities, will work to ensure that local communities are part of the decision-making process of any conservation plans, putting the climate commitment in the “bull’s-eye” of Ford’s agenda, Walker said.
Carol Larson, president of the Packard Foundation, said the conservation approach to climate change has the potential to attract donors that have previously not gotten involved in climate change because it affects a broad range of issues.
“If you care about kids, if you care about health, and if you care about economic development, you have to care about climate change,” she said. “Our goal is to show how many entry points there are for philanthropies.”
In Indonesia, for instance, Packard awarded a $1 million prize for research into how to restore peatlands and has worked with businesses, investors, growers, and local governments to reduce emissions from palm-oil cultivation.
At the same time, through its involvement in the Climate and Land Use Alliance, it has coordinated its work there with the Ford Foundation. Ford’s efforts in Indonesia have focused on land-use governance to ensure local populations have a stake and a say in any changes to agricultural practices.
Turning Point
The Trump administration’s decision to pull out of the international climate pact was a call to action for some grant makers.
Shortly after that decision was announced, Michael Bloomberg pledged $15 million to help states and cities meet the goals of the agreement, and in December the Hewlett Foundation increased its climate-change grant budget by 20 percent, earmarking a total of $600 million over the next decade.
Some critics see flaws in the reliance on reduced deforestation and other “natural solutions.” It would be wiser to reduce carbon emissions by overhauling energy production and use, argues Chris Lang, who chronicles land-use debates for REDD-Monitor.
Lang says the focus on deforestation is “a distraction from the urgently needed task of stopping burning fossil fuels.”
But Aileen Lee, chief program officer at the Moore Foundation, insists that land conservation is a “relatively cost-effective path to climate mitigation.” The California grant maker will build on a $100 million conservation program in the Amazon region that it announced two years ago.
She said the foundation’s work was instrumental in getting more than 60 farming and ranching companies, food businesses, and investors to sign the Cerrado Manifesto, an agreement to develop sustainable practices.
“We’ve seen a real outpouring of business and others saying they are still in, that they are still committed to climate action,” she said. “There’s more urgency to make sure that philanthropy supports those countries that are ready to lead.”
In addition to the nearly half-billion-dollar commitment, a larger group of 18 foundations issued a joint statement at the San Francisco event declaring their support for a range of land-use approaches to climate-change mitigation.
It was necessary to unite behind the issue, said Ed Henry, president of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, which pledged $20 million in new climate-related grants, because the Trump administration has undermined the science behind climate change.
“We can’t rely on some bigger system” to take the lead, he said.
The Packard Foundation’s Larson agreed.
“We’re disappointed that the U.S., under this administration, pulled out of the Paris climate agreement,” she said. “But we’re in this for the long haul. We’re not going away.”
