A Clearer Picture of the Funding Environment…for the Environment

One of the aims of DSC’s Great Giving campaign is to achieve ‘a clear picture of the funding environment’.  What we mean is that there needs to be better information and analysis about where funding is coming from and what organisations and causes it is supporting.

Why?  We think it’s crucial that funders have good quality strategic information and analysis which can inform them about what other funders are doing and the level and type of support that certain causes receive.  This should help them make better decisions about how they develop their funding programmes and prioritise particular areas or causes.  Such information is also needed for sound policy-making by government, and can be useful for fundraisers as well.

The fourth edition of 'Where the Green Grants Went', published by the Environmental Funders’ Network, is therefore very welcome.  The report analyses funding from a core group of 97 UK trusts and foundations that give for a whole range of environmental causes, and makes a number of interesting observations and conclusions.

It argues that environmental philanthropy is a dynamic and growing area, but is developing from a relatively low base – it still represents less than 3% of total trust funding.  Further, it is concentrated among a small number of trusts and a relatively small number of recipient organisations.

The report takes a fairly wide view of environmental funding, ranging from cycling campaigns to rhino protection.  More ‘traditional’ environmental areas such as wildlife conservation seem to attract the most money, as opposed to projects or organisations that advocate for more radical, system-wide environmental change. 

A key observation in this edition is that ‘climate change remains a “blind spot” for UK grantmakers’ and that UK trusts ‘remain largely unengaged in efforts to de-carbonise economies and lifestyles’.  It suggests a number of reasons, such as the constraints of grantmakers’ mandates, the difficulties of encapsulating global or ‘system changing’ outcomes within single projects, and the familiar caution about supporting campaigning or what may be perceived as ‘political’ activities.

The authors also make interesting comparisons with the US, arguing that ‘on a per capita basis, US foundation giving on the environment is nearly four times that of UK trusts’ and that this gap is growing. 

Further, climate change-related funding also appears to be greater in the US and is growing at a faster rate – the report cites evidence that US grantmakers gave $325m (£175m) for climate change work in 2008, compared with an estimated £5.9m in the UK.

This finding surprised me initially, given the lack of social and political consensus about climate change in the US.  But on reflection I wondered if that could actually be part of the reason that US grantmakers appear more engaged.  Are they filling the gap because the established political institutions are not addressing the issue?

The years of George Bush also witnessed Al Gore’s film about climate change, 'An Inconvenient Truth'.  Are US funders responding to a new activism on climate change, which the political world has been slow to acknowledge?  Investigating such questions is probably beyond the scope of this report, and would likely require further research and analysis.

More important for a UK audience is the question of why only £5.9m is going to climate change-related work from UK trusts, considering that collectively they give billions each year.  As the authors state, ‘climate change threatens to undo, or at the very least complicate, much of the good work of charitable trusts’.  Regardless of the reasons for growing support from US philanthropy, surely it’s time for UK funders to start to take the issue more seriously.

'Where the Green Grants Went' is published by the Environmental Funders Network and can be downloaded at:  www.greenfunders.org  

By Jay Kennedy, Policy Officer, Directory of Social Change