Reimagining Conservation

Facilitated and summarized by Rebecca Goodman

Our recent in-person Reimagining Global Conservation Commons discussion at Georgetown University and follow-on virtual webinar brought together conservation practitioners, former government officials, and philanthropy leaders to explore one of the central questions facing the future of U.S. international conservation funding: How should funding portfolios balance large and small awards?

Across both conversations, participants converged around a strong consensus that the question is not whether conservation funding should rely on large or small awards, but how to intentionally design a balanced portfolio that aligns award size with specific objectives and political realities. Discussions consistently emphasized that future U.S. government conservation funding is likely to begin with larger, more centralized awards due to limited administrative capacity, but should evolve toward models that expand access, strengthen local organizations, and promote learning. Participants also stressed that the Coalition’s emerging playbook should prioritize functions over institutional structures while providing practical guidance for the first 100 days of a future administration. Across both sessions, broader themes emerged around building durable bipartisan political support, grounding recommendations in evidence and practical experience, and creating a more resilient, effective, and locally grounded international conservation system.

Key Takeaways

• A balanced portfolio. Participants agreed that the most effective funding architecture will combine large and small awards, with the mix determined by program objectives, implementation context, and desired outcomes.
• Design for function first. The discussion reinforced that the Coalition’s playbook should begin by defining the functions a future U.S. international conservation architecture must perform, then identify the funding mechanisms and institutional arrangements best suited to achieve them.
• Hybrid models deserve greater attention. Intermediaries, collective funding models, and locally led networks were identified as promising approaches for combining the efficiency of larger awards with the accessibility, flexibility, and innovation enabled by smaller grants.
• Think beyond the first funding cycle. While larger awards may be necessary to move resources quickly in the early stages of rebuilding, participants emphasized the importance of creating pathways that gradually broaden participation, strengthen local institutions, and foster learning over time.
• Conservation requires patient capital and adaptive management. Long-term ecological outcomes depend on sustained investment, but funding models should also incorporate opportunities to evaluate progress, learn from failures, and adapt over time.
• Political durability matters. Participants highlighted the importance of building bipartisan support, framing conservation as an issue of American leadership and national interest, and designing institutions capable of withstanding future political transitions.
• Evidence should inform future funding decisions. The Coalition has an opportunity to contribute to a stronger evidence base on how different funding models perform, drawing on both research and the collective experience of practitioners.

Looking Ahead

Many of the themes raised during these discussions naturally lead to our next Commons conversation on Intermediaries, taking place September 15. This session will explore the organizations, partnerships, and institutional models that can most effectively channel conservation investments, support locally led implementation, and strengthen the broader conservation ecosystem. We hope you’ll join us as we continue building the Coalition’s playbook for the future of U.S. international conservation.