The Luc Hoffmann Institute is glad to present its 2021-2022 annual report, which celebrates 10 years of working with innovators, investors, the wider conservation community and other sectors to address some of the greatest challenges facing nature and people.
“A diverse, equitable and flourishing world is never going to be a static target – it will always require careful nurturing. We must take our inspiration from nature, which always evolves and never remains stagnant, and push ourselves even further.”
Melanie Ryan, Director, Luc Hoffmann Institute
Since its founding in 2012, the Luc Hoffmann Institute has helped to mobilise world-class thinking in science, policy and practice by elevating diverse perspectives and rethinking the systems underpinning biodiversity conservation. In this edition of our annual report, we reflect on the institute’s journey and achievements over the last decade and gratefully acknowledge the thought and action leaders who have supported us financially, intellectually, in kind and with access to their networks.
The last year has certainly been an eventful one. The institute held seven participatory events that hosted 354 attendees from 54 countries across 132 organisations, and interviewed 96 people from around the world.
Milestones include the launch of two new businesses initiated through the Beyond Tourism Innovation Challenge – The Shaba Market and Home of the Gorillas; the Exploring Responses to Corruption in Natural Resource Management and Conservation Practice virtual symposium; and the research report Using gamification for nature conservation, which examined how storytelling and gamification can derive value from, and for, wildlife.
The last year has also been a time for reflection and for looking towards the future. Our current programme is guided by the overarching exploration of the Future of Conservation NGOs, our umbrella initiative, which collectively reimagines integrated, innovative and impactful future pathways for conservation NGOs in a rapidly changing world. Springing from this overarching project are two related, deep-dive projects: The Future of Philanthropy for Biodiversity, and Digital Disruption and the Future of Conservation.
As we move forward in an uncertain world, we will continue to strive for a future where diverse, equitable societies value and regenerate all life on Earth. We will continue seeking ideas that push the nature conservation sector to be impactful, equitable and meaningful. We invite you to join us on this exciting journey.
Saba Sean Thackurdeen is a conservationist and anthropologist who has spent close to a decade working to uplift nature, people, and their wellbeing, with experience that includes working in the space of interdisciplinary research, community advocacy, and social enterprise. As part of the Future of Conservation NGOs project, they explore how the conservation sector can confront its uncomfortable colonial past and address it in its modern-day legacy.
The perceptions of radical change
Too often, in passing conversations on social change, does the word “radical” conjure a future that seems a fundamental break from reality. Anything radical seems beyond moderation. It is often associated with extreme views, especially from a political standpoint.
But the etymology of the term refers to the word ‘root’. Radicals aim to dive deep into the ‘root’ of the challenges, unearth the complexities, and interconnectedness of the problems, fixing their gaze on the systemic and structural issues plaguing the space. Therefore, the general resistance to the word “radical” can be read as either a resistance to reinvestigate root systems or moreover a resistance to uproot them.
Many people prefer to avoid conversations around radical futures that could imply a net loss for them in terms of money, power, and influence. Even many in favour of changing the status quo seem to be wary of the word “radical” and prefer the more reassuring “progressive”.
The use of “radical” seems to suggest a future disjointed by anything good in the present or the past, but it should be remembered that futures can be perceived as radical just because they are rooted in the past.
Analysing the past to plan the future of conservation NGOs
In the conservation domain, where the persistence of deep-rooted legacy issues like neo-colonial mindsets and practices invite us to approach history critically, to talk about futures rooted in the past can be challenging.
Exploiting natural resources for industrial development, with little consideration for the long-term impacts on the local communities, has been the blueprint since the dawn of the industrial era, and is rooted in a colonial approach to the world. The very foundation of the nature conservation sector rests on this colonial concept of land acquisition and alienation of indigenous peoples from their natural environments, structured to favour the political and social elites but framed as a “social good”.1
Moreover, the majority of conservation practices and projects follow the ideas rooted in the global North and in Western science, which tends to posit that academic knowledge and understanding are superior to the experiences, practices and beliefs of local communities.1
The persistence of these deep-rooted legacy issues, mindsets, and practices invites us to approach history critically.
In the Future of Conservation NGO report published by the Luc Hoffmann Institute, four key themes of change are highlighted, which suggest possible conservation futures. Among the priorities is a call to decolonise international conservation organisations and empower local community actors, as pathways for transformative change.
In suggesting such approaches, a fundamental question is posed: what happens to large conservation NGOs as they are decolonised? Indeed, what role will large transnational NGOs play in this future? What actions can they take in the present to decolonise conservation?
Re-rooting the future of conservation NGOs
Going back to the roots and honestly and critically examining them is challenging but can also be rewarding work for big international NGOs. Our grieving and healing (from individual, to organisational to societal and eco-systemic) can be helped by acknowledging and reconnecting with these very roots and putting them in right relations.
It begins with understanding and acknowledging how privileges and the associated power dynamics impact conservation work.
A great starting point is a deep interrogation into the organisations’ underlying philosophies; combing through the original manifestos, reviewing vision and mission statements, analysing the staffing and recruitment policies, the makeup of the board and the approaches, and structures not only from a social and environmental justice viewpoint but also with the intention to dismantle any internalised colonial legacies and racism.
At the forefront of the nature conservation sector, and even in big international NGOs, people are beginning to reconsider what they mean by “wilderness” (challenging the idea that pristine nature must be free of human intervention)2 and what is considered as “legitimate knowledge” (learning from indigenous communities about coexistence). Throughout the sector, there is a call for deep introspection, profound sense-making, and a fundamental shift in focus and efforts engaging with plural voices, perspectives, cultures and knowledge to co-create effective conservation solutions.
Some institutions are beginning to swim against the flow, presenting intriguing alternatives to prevailing models. One such example, albeit not in the conservation sector, is The Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam. It is part of an increasing number of European museums that are challenging and questioning their colonial past and institutional legacies. In 2013 the museum put together an exhibit (integrated within the main gallery, in 2022) that thoughtfully interrogated the lives and experiences of peoples living in the Dutch East Indies and enabled critical reflection about the Dutch colonial past and the museums own institutional complicity in it.
Or perhaps uproot and begin anew
As we turn to our collective future it is fascinating to note that for some big international NGOs imagining a new future would perhaps require contemplating their own demise and embracing the idea of being replaced by smaller and community-led institutions or entities.
Perhaps the most pressing, radical question conservation NGOs now need to ask themselves is, is it possible to continue to reform and modify the current approaches and practices with the intention to improve them, or is it necessary to begin anew?
The content of this thought piece represents the author's own views and does not necessarily represent the views of the Luc Hoffmann Institute, the Future of Conservation NGOs project, nor of any of their collaborating institutions.
References/Additional reading:
Domínguez, L. & Luoma, C. (2020) Decolonising Conservation Policy: How Colonial Land and Conservation Ideologies Persist and Perpetuate Indigenous Injustices at the Expense of the Environment. Land. 9 (3), 65. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land9030065.
Fletcher, M., Hamilton, R., Dressler, W., & Palmer, L. (2021). Indigenous knowledge and the shackles of wilderness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118.Available from: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022218118.
Philanthropy: an African-led approach
From agriculture to nutrition, youth development to social innovation, Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli’s breadth of expertise and experience escapes easy categorisation. As a result her list of achievements and accolades is equally long and disparate, having been named one of “20 Youngest Power Women in Africa” by Forbes, authored several instructive books on food entrepreneurship and scaling impact, and co-founded many start-ups along the way, including one that challenges long-held narratives of African people, innovation, and products. A passionate advocate for African-led and -born initiatives, Ndidi spoke to the Luc Hoffmann Institute about why philanthropic resources in Africa need to start empowering local models and partners and ultimately generate its own capital.
What changes do you see in global philanthropy trends that will support net positive outcomes for nature and people?
Well, the first thing is that I've seen philanthropy shift from being the purview of old white men and more traditional funder-grantee relationships to being more accessible, especially to those who are more forward thinking or more exposed. It’s more activist philanthropy and that's exciting. So you look at the MacKenzie Scott model, where the funds given to organisations are not restrictive, and can be used for more catalytic interventions, which give room for risk taking and learning. That's what you really need for nature-positive solutions. If you're looking for proven models to support, then with climate change we're still navigating, learning, growing, experimenting. And that's why you need catalytic unrestricted funding. That's the shift that I see that's exciting.
The other thing that I am excited about is the more active collaboration between different stakeholders. For example, the Rockefeller Foundation partnered with the IKEA Foundation and Bezos to launch the Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet (GEAPP). Each contributing $500 million to seed this important work, knowing that no one group, one philanthropist, one foundation can address this problem, and that we need large amounts of money at scale. These types of collaborations are welcome developments in our landscape and are critical to getting us to the point where we can collectively address some of the challenges in our ecosystem. I always talk about leaving our egos and logos at the door, and collaborating to solve critical challenges of our time.
Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli
The third is one I've been pushing - the critical need to focus on local actors as the implementers. One of the challenges we have faced historically is that implementers come from outside communities, they have the trust of the large funders, they come in, they parachute in ideas. These are short-lived, unsustainable, expensive interventions. So we've been pushing for a more local approach to philanthropy, where you partner with local organisations. There's local ownership; you partner with local philanthropists, and you deliver sustainable solutions at scale. The African Philanthropy Forum has recently created a portal called StartPoint Africa which helps philanthropists find local organisations because what we always hear from philanthropists, especially in the Global North, is that they can't find trusted organisations in Africa to work with and so they don't work with them. So we're trying to bridge the information asymmetry gap and connect philanthropists to credible and dynamic local organisations that they can support.
If you've been in the room with some of the representatives of those old hegemonic groups, do you think they are aware of this intentional shift? From being kind of the hero in the journey to more of a community-led or more equity-based model of philanthropic practice?
Well, I haven't spoken to them directly about their views, but I think most people recognize there is a shift and that equity is critical. From where I'm sitting I think it's a gradual shift but it's a shift nonetheless. When I am in more traditional rooms, I often raise my voice and challenge the status quo. We don't want tokenism anymore, we want shared ownership of the problem and shared ownership of the solutions.
Why have I written a book on social innovation and scaling in Africa, a book on food entrepreneurs and agri businesses? Because oftentimes I go to forums and people who spend two weeks in my country are experts on the country and define the future. And because they have philanthropic capital, they dictate what happens with the money. I strongly believe that it is important for us to tell positive and practical stories from the local levels and actively enable scaling of home-grown initiatives. So it's important to me that we start generating our own capital, investing in local interventions and local ownership so that we can actively drive change on the ground and shape our own future.
You’re sitting on so many different boards, and are also a serial entrepreneur yourself. Are you seeing any alternative to traditional philanthropic models emerging today?
Yes, so I think what we're starting to see – and it's not new – is patient, catalytic, impact-driven, and collaborative investing. I actually say that anybody who invests in agriculture and food in Africa is a philanthropist in some way because you're not going to make your returns back in seven to nine years if you're really focused on nutritious food and nature-based solutions that impact people. So it's really, really important that we recognise that impact investors are in some way also philanthropists, in the sense that they are using a business lens to make dramatic changes in society. I know that's not new but oftentimes we don't recognize these pools of capital that come in from that perspective.
I wrote a book called Social Innovation in Africa: A Practical Guide for Scaling Impact. And I recognize that there are innovators in governments, there are innovators in non-profits and there are innovators in the private sector who are solving social problems at scale and oftentimes when they are working in those spaces, we don't recognize them as social change agents and the capital that they utilise, especially in government.
Imagine yourself in a perfect world 10 years from now. What does philanthropy look like?
So philanthropy 10 years from now would really be driven by local funders and I'm specifically talking about Africa. Local funders rooted in local issues, where there's almost a democratisation of needs and the flow of resources to those who need it most, where solutions at scale are led by local organisations, funded by local philanthropists and there's been a total realignment of the flows of wealth and flows of philanthropic funding.
So a situation where more professionals and emerging high networth individuals have structured their giving to address root causes of problems. And where international philanthropists realise they cannot enter countries without partnering with local philanthropists and pooling resources together to impact change, and where they share values and share ownership of these problems at local levels and global levels. I just joined the board of the Bridgespan Group. They did a really pioneering project in partnership with the African Philanthropy Forum on giving in Africa.
It has lots of great insights. One of the things we surfaced was that, of maybe $9 billion given over a span of five years in Africa, only 6% went to local organisations. And of the $1 billion for malaria research only 1% went to local research institutions. I would like to see a complete reversal of those flows where 90% of the funding is going to local organisations in partnership with local philanthropists, where the beneficiaries and the actors on the ground are as respected as international NGOs and international beneficiaries of donor funding. What else would I like to see? Just efficiency, effectiveness, humility, and collaboration in the sector.
Based on that future vision, does philanthropy need to change and, if so, why and how?
We are already thinking about this and have articulated views about what needs to change. A big part of it is obviously connecting with the right partners on the ground, supporting capacity building of local organisations. Actually holding funders accountable. I would push for quotas around what percentage local organisations should have versus international organisations, representation on boards and senior management of organisations that you fund.
How do you then see everybody playing a role in shifting wealth to better address the climate and biodiversity crisis?
There's an African proverb that says, “If you want to go fast go alone, if you want to go far go with others” but I have tweaked it a little to say, “If you want to go fast and far, which is what we need to do to address the climate crisis and the food security crisis, we need to work with integrity, excellence, and humility and leave our egos and logos at the door”. So I say that, because attribution is such an interesting thing and so many foundations want to say I did it. You can't do that in the climate fight.
Everybody has a role to play. Individuals, families, communities, companies, everybody has a role to play, so that’s why leaving our egos and logos at the door is critical. Humility is critical, because we don’t know everything. Every day we’re learning and unlearning, experimenting and adopting new innovations. We're finding out we don't really know everything. And so that humility to say what I don't know, what I know, etc, is so important. And then we need excellence and integrity. I say integrity, especially, because I see a lot of large corporations just nutrition-washing and greenwashing.
That's when integrity comes in. We really have to put our money where our mouth is, we need to change behaviour from within. Corporations have a critical role to play, so do governments but for me it's the values that underpin that shift that will enable and catalyse the action we need.
The content of this thought piece represents the author’s own views and does not necessarily represent the views of the Luc Hoffmann Institute, the The Future of Philanthropy for Biodiversity initiative, nor of any of their collaborating institutions.
Cyriaque Sendashonga steps in as Ad-interim Director of the Luc Hoffmann Institute
The Luc Hoffmann Institute is pleased to announce that Ms Cyriaque “Cyrie” Sendashonga has been appointed as Ad-interim Director of the Luc Hoffmann Institute, effective 1 June 2022. She is stepping in for Melanie Ryan, Director of the Luc Hoffmann Institute, who is currently on maternity leave until the end of February 2023.
Cyrie will be based in Montreal, Canada, working 50%. A seasoned conservation leader, Cyrie was formerly the Global Director of IUCN’s Policy and Programme Group. She is a biologist by training, with a master’s (M.Sc.) degree and a PhD in Zoology from the Free University of Brussels (Belgium). Her career has focused on natural resources management, encompassing both research and development perspectives. She previously worked at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi and headed the Biosafety Programme at the CBD Secretariat. She also spent time at CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research) as Regional Coordinator for the Central Africa Regional Office, based in Yaoundé, Cameroon, before IUCN for eleven years.
Cyrie was born and grew up in Rwanda, is the author and co-author of many publications on environmental issues and is a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science.
Since 2018, Cyrie has been a member of the Luc Hoffmann Institute Advisory Council, from which she will be stepping down while filling the role of Ad-interim Director. The Luc Hoffmann Institute is very grateful to Cyrie for her dedication and contribution to the Luc Hoffmann Institute as part of our Advisory Council these past years.
How conservation can learn from digital communities
A thought piece by Sasha Sebright, an external innovator collaborating with the Luc Hoffmann Institute to investigate the role digital innovation can play in shaping conservation efforts. This research feeds into The Future of Conservation NGOs project.
New global communities are rapidly emerging around a decentralised, digital planet. These digital communities present a desire to embed philanthropy, transparency, empowerment, and democratisation within their interactions both on-and-offline. If the conservation sector wishes to remain effective and relevant in an increasingly digital world, it is critical to better understand these communities and unleash their skills for environmental good.
The philanthropic nature of digital communities
Conservation organisations recognise the importance of social media for their engagement and fundraising strategies, but only two of the fifteen biggest conservation NGOs are interacting with two of the most dynamic global communities. These communities can be found on Discord, the fastest growing website in 2020;¹ and Twitch, the 20th most visited website in 2021 which raised US$83 million for charity in 2020 alone.²
Twitch launched in 2011 with a focus on live-streaming gaming content. Each year its users unite in ‘Games Done Quick’, a series of video game marathons completed to raise money for a selected charity. This year they achieved a personal best, raising US$3.4 million for the Prevent Cancer Foundation in just 8 days.³ All from the ground up, led by the community, and without being orchestrated by a traditional NGO.
In 2018, Twitch branched out from the gaming sector and dedicated a space to ‘Animals, Aquariums, and Zoos’, which allows users to celebrate the world of non-humans and learn about the conservation of species and habitats. Even with Twitch featuring tools such as Tiltify (a digital fundraising platform) and their ‘joystick philanthropists’ ² showing an appetite to engage with environmental efforts, the conservation sector remains notably absent.
Engagement within these communities involves an inbuilt system of cooperation, co-creation and information exchange. From this, the conservation sector has much to learn. Strikingly relevant for considerations around the future conservation NGO is how these communities display a clear drive towards a decentralised and democratic future and are forging the way with a continuum of purpose-built digital innovations.
Shaking up the status quo
The Gamifying Nature Conservation project revealed that modern digital communities require a level of transparency in their transactions that the current conservation business model struggles to accommodate. There has been a barrier between the desire to help environmental causes, and action. Until now. These communities are taking matters into their own hands and creating new ways of engaging with the conservation sector by designing and mobilising digital technologies such as blockchain, which is inherently suited for this decentralised vision of impact.
In the search for transparency, blockchain provides a way for financial transactions to be clearly and immutably traced from start to finish. It also opens the door to novel methods of fundraising and engagement including the trading of digital assets called non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Wielding NFTs for environmental fundraising is not free from controversy, with concerns about the energy requirements needed to fuel the blockchain process. Despite criticism, projects utilising these technologies for good, such as impact NFTs, continue to thrive.
These endeavours tend to be built from the ground up by the community itself, with countless examples of digital communities uniting to promote social good. One such venture is Fishy Fam, which raises funds for ocean conservation and galvanises a community of over 70,000 followers to clean beaches and waterways around the world. Another is Belugies, a collection of 8,000 NFTs created by a 14-year-old female artist. With the support of the Belugies community, Abigail has fundraised over US$242,000 and, more recently, created a not-for-profit NFT campaign, ‘One Planet For Ukraine’, that donates 100% of funds towards humanitarian efforts in Ukraine.⁴⁻⁵
Online interactions, offline impacts
While offering an insight into a future of decentralised decision-making, these online interactions may have offline impacts which do not reflect such equality. If the communities disproportionately comprise technology and time-rich individuals from certain demographics, then the physical and intellectual benefits gained will exacerbate global imbalances in power and digital literacy. When engaging with these new communities, the conservation sector must identify and mitigate against inequality by incorporating opinions across a range of diverse digital spaces.
During these interactions, it would be detrimental for the sector to undervalue these progressive audiences when reconsidering the current model of one-way charitable giving. Integrating digital communities’ motivations and skills within the sector could accelerate environmental innovation and ignite the transformation of funding streams focused not on donations, but on the considered purchase of conservation services. In co-creatively exploring the ever-developing potential of blockchain technology, conservationists can play a role in ensuring future applications are designed with environmental and social good at their core.
Instead of focusing on these new communities as conventional engagement tools, the sector should aim to learn from the transformative changes that these communities actively pursue. If successful, conservationists could not only benefit from the skills and digital innovations of these communities but secure the ongoing relevance of conservation organisations in an increasingly digital future.
The content of this thought piece represents the author’s own views and does not necessarily represent the views of the Luc Hoffmann Institute, The Future of Conservation NGOs project, or any of their collaborating institutions.
References
1. Grothaus, M. (2021) These were the top 10 fastest growing websites in 2020. Fast Company.
2. Strub, C. (2020) $83M+ Raised And Counting In 2020: Are Twitch Streamers The New Philanthropists? Forbes.
3. Michael, C. (2022) Awesome Games Done Quick 2022 raises record $3.4 million for the Prevent Cancer Foundation. Dot Esports.
The conservation NGOs are in the midst of rapid change, facing a complex, and progressively demanding environment in which they operate. The pace of change is driven both by external and internal pressures. Structural and systemic issues are at play within the sector, which are impacting conservation effectiveness. To remain relevant, legitimate and effectively deal with the present global ecological crisis, conservation NGOs need to change radically and faster.
The institute is inviting ideas to explore possible futures of conservation NGOs and their new roles in effectively approaching and managing nature conservation.
The challenge is seeking solutions that proactively address the deep-rooted issues facing conservation NGOs. This might be by addressing legacies of discrimination, equalising voices and resources, dismantling existing power structures, reframing narratives or challenging the approaches that perpetuate existing social and economic inequalities.
Anyone, from any sector, experience or background, with a vision for the future of conservation can apply. These ideas might include new business model innovations, partnerships, networks, structures and/or tools and tactics.
Concepts at all stages of development, from ideation through to prototyping or beginning to scale, are welcome.
Participants will have the chance to win €5,000, a place in a tailored incubation and co-learning programme and access to a community of conservation practitioners, fellow change-makers and potential investors.
Thank you for your interest in The Future of Conservation NGOs Innovation Challenge. Applications are no longer being accepted, and the challenge is now closed. The application period ran from 21st April – 22nd May 2022.
The review panel is currently evaluating all the applications. We will be in touch with all applicants by the end of June 2022 to let them know whether or not their ideas were successful. Successful applicants will win €5,000, a place in a tailored incubation and co-learning programme with either the Luc Hoffmann Institute, IUCN CEESP or Impact Hub, and access to a community of conservation practitioners, fellow change-makers, and potential investors.
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
