New report reveals that a majority of the board members of big conservation NGOs are linked to the finance industry
New report reveals that a majority of the board members of big conservation NGOs are linked to the finance industry
"The finance industry’s mission is profit – including from the financialisation of conservation"
Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund-US, and the Wildlife Conservation Society are four of the biggest international conservation NGOs in the world.
They employ thousands of people and work in more than 100 countries. Their multi-million-dollar projects cover hundreds of millions of hectares.
The four NGOs have a total annual revenue of US$2 billion. Their combined assets are worth more than US$11.6 billion. That’s higher than the annual GDP of 20 African countries.
These NGOs set the global conservation agenda by influencing national and global policy, and through influencing debate at UN meetings on biodiversity and climate change.
But who governs these organisations?
New analysis by African Arguments reveals that of the 111 people sitting on the boards of these four NGOs, more than half are associated with finance.
James Wan, the editor of African Arguments writes that,
They range from the CEOs of investment banks, to the directors of venture capital firms, to – in three instances – the wives of millionaire or billionaire private equity execs. Many of these figures are affiliated with global behemoths such as JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and the Blackstone Group. Dozens more are from lesser-known finance companies that nonetheless manage up to hundreds of billions of dollars.
This matters. The board members are legally responsible for setting the organisation’s strategic direction, their vision, and their goals.
The vision and goals of financiers are often dramatically different from those of Indigenous Peoples and local communities whose livelihoods depend on the biodiversity and carbon that the big conservation NGOs want to conserve.
Wan writes that,
The revelation [that so many financiers are on the four NGO boards] also highlights the stark power imbalance between a small group of billionaires and millionaires who oversee the strategic direction of these huge agenda-setting organisations in the Global North and the marginalised communities that are most affected by their activities in the Global South.
BINGO “science”
On its website, Conservation International states that,
Our science sets conservation priorities, develops solutions that work and mobilizes long-term investments in proven, cost-effective approaches.
Conservation International has published more than 1,300 peer-reviewed articles in journals like Science, Nature, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. These are cited more than papers written by academics at the Universities of Harvard, Yale, Duke, and Stanford.
Eric Dinerstein is the lead author of the 2019 paper “A Global Deal for Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets” which is widely referred to in support of 30x30 - the idea of putting 30% of the planet in protected areas by 2030. Dinerstein was WWF Chief Scientist for almost 25 years.
Simon Counsell, an adviser to Survival International, took a close look at the science behind 30x30 in a guest post for REDD-Monitor. He concludes that,
The reality is that 30×30 is, at best, just a slogan…. It would justify the continued expansion of ‘fortress conservation’ for the coming ten years. It would enhance the power, wealth and reach of rich world, international conservation NGOs, and militarised protected areas’ agencies in the poorer world.
Wan spoke to Aby Sène, assistant professor in parks and conservation area management at Clemson University. Sène notes that these four NGOs’ political and financial weight makes them “extremely powerful”.
“They even define what’s a crisis and design the measurements that are then used in policy discussions. They effectively control the global discourse around conservation….
“When the conservation NGOs work with luxury tourism or extractives, people can see it and see that there’s an injustice there. But when it comes to venture capitalism and carbon offset markets and so on and so forth, it becomes much more elusive.”
“They are the big shots, and they know it,” the leader of a marine conservation organisation in South Africa says. “If I wanted to get funding from WWF-South Africa, I would need to align with their vision and mission. It’s very cut and dry.”
A Massai leader who runs a rights and justice-based organisation in Kenya tells African Arguments that,
“They are used to working with weak organisations who they can walk over. Very few can resist because of funding. Even government agencies that are meant to regulate those NGOs are dependent on them.”
Both of these people asked to remain anonymous out of concern that public criticism could endanger their future activities.
Fortress Conservation
All four of the big international conservation NGOs have been accused of human rights violations. Here’s a selection of the accusations:
The Northern Rangelands Trust soil carbon project in Kenya is funded by The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, and WWF. The project failed to respect Indigenous Peoples’ rights and traditional grazing systems. Wan writes that the project “has excluded pastoralist communities from their ancestral homes through alleged corruption, co-optation, and violence”.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, Wildlife Conservation Society has been working in the Kahuzi-Biega National Park for more than two decades. A 2022 report by Minority Rights International documents a three-year campaign of forced evictions from the park as well as gang rape, torture, and murder by park guards and soldiers.
Conservation International’s Alto Mayo REDD project in Peru has seen increased conflict between the government and the communities that live inside the project area. Violent conflicts took place, with protesters dispersed by riot police firing tear gas.
The Nature Conservancy tells African Arguments that is takes a “rights-based approach” to working with Indigenous Peoples and local communities. But in addition to its involvement in the Northern Rangelands Trust, The Nature Conservancy has also been involved in fortress conservation. For example, Indigenous Samburu communities were violently evicted to make way for the Laikipia National Park in Kenya, and communities lost their livelihoods and were forced to move away from forest as a result of the in the Guaraqueçaba project in Brazil.
WWF has faced perhaps the most criticism for its involvement in human rights abuses. A year-long investigation by Buzzfeed News in six countries found that that WWF funds eco-guards who have tortured and killed people.
There are serious concerns that 30x30 will lead to an increase in Fortress Conservation and an increase in human rights abuses in the name of conservation.
Market-based false solutions
African Arguments points out that the increasing number of financiers on the boards of these four conservation NGOs has coincided with increasing focus on market-based solutions to the climate crisis. All four of these NGOs are heavily involved in carbon markets.
African Arguments spoke to Lauren Gifford, a human-environment geographer at Colorado State University. “The question with carbon offsetting schemes is not whether they work but who they work for,” she says.
Gifford has carried out research in Conservation International’s Alto Mayo REDD project in Peru. She calls it “carbon colonialism”.
The voluntary carbon market doesn’t reduce emissions but it does benefit corporations who can give the impression of taking action on the climate crisis while continuing business as usual. And it benefits the NGOs who develop carbon offset projects.
Gifford tells African Arguments that,
“These NGOs are closely involved in some of the largest financial mechanisms around nature. Just because you’re a non-profit doesn’t mean you’re not about capital accumulation….
“Carbon is now an asset class. And, of course, financial organisations want to get in on the ground floor of how to financialise and monetise conservation.”
As James Wan writes, “The finance industry’s mission is profit – including from the financialisation of conservation.”
Thank you very much for this necessary background to unterstand carbon markets. It is not only a wrong thinking or superficial. It is backed by huge financial interest, not at least covered by World Economic Forum (WCF). Instead of limiting the increasing growth for every unnecessary bullshit they call it "Green Growth", but it is Greenwashing!
Good reporting on an under publicized issue, Chris. Thanks.