Three debates about international philanthropy

Reimagining Philanthropy is a new philanthropy digest bringing you the latest insights, ideas, and discussions about innovative ways we can reimagine our sector; supporting and platforming the communities who can drive real change for a fairer, more sustainable, and stronger future.

If you enjoy reading this brief philanthropy-themed digest by Synchronicity Earth, please consider signing up for our emails to receive our newsletter Synchronicity Stories and our full digest Synchronicity Recommends, which are alternated on a monthly basis.

Are the international aid giants actually funding locally-led initiatives? How can we hold them to their promises?

“Development isn’t something you do to people, it’s something people do to themselves,” said Gayle Smith, a former USAID Administrator.

Funders who want to address the power imbalances in international philanthropy need to let projects be designed by, rather than for, the local communities who can drive the work. USAID, the world’s largest development funder, has promised 25% of its spending to local partners by 2025, but it is failing against this target even when it broadened its definition of ‘local partners’. This author proposes three key criteria to evaluate whether a project is genuinely locally-led: community decision-making, leveraging local investments, and fostering systemic change through local leadership.

Alliance magazine opinion

Are foundations ‘spending down’ to redistribute and decolonise wealth or will this perpetuate short-lived impact cycles?

Philanthropy seems to be stuck between two worlds: old, hierarchical ways of charity and new, progressive approaches. Given the recent discussions about wealth redistribution, many foundations talk about change but struggle to move beyond surface-level adjustments and short funding cycles dependent on fast, provable results can miss the point.

This piece reflects that true transformation requires deeper reflection, transparency, and listening to those directly affected by the issues being funded.

Alliance magazine debate

What is 'fungibility' and is the CBD’s Decision 15/9 funding mechanism going to weaken biodiversity funding?

‘Fungibility’ refers to the risk that funds may be misused to finance projects that would have been funded anyway, rather than addressing new or overlooked issues.

Fungibility could be a particular problem for Decision 15/9, a mechanism under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) that aims to allocate financial resources derived from biodiversity-related technologies to support conservation efforts. However, this mechanism could divert funding that could be spent on urgent, specialist conservation needs towards issues or even disproportionately benefit certain groups (such as people living in cities, as opposed to rural communities) without contributing to biodiversity protection.

Mongabay commentary

Join the conversation

Reimagining philanthropy to create a fairer system is a complex process and there will be many challenges to overcome as?different approaches are tried and tested. Let us know what you think by commenting, and let us know if there are other important questions you or your organisation are asking about how we can change philanthropy for the better.

If you enjoyed this newsletter, please consider sharing to your network, and if you would like the full digest from Synchronicity Earth, please sign up to our emails.