Tyranny of the 2 per cent?

Edouard Morena

Two per cent. This is the estimated share of philanthropic dollars allocated to climate-related issues. In the run-
up to the Paris climate conference, the 2 per cent figure acted as a rallying cry to get more grant dollars flowing
towards climate-related actions. In an April 2015 opinion piece for The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Larry
Kramer of the Hewlett Foundation and Carol Larson of the Packard Foundation expressed their dismay at the
fact that currently less than 2 per cent of all philanthropic dollars are being spent in the fight against climate
change. As the June edition of Alliance demonstrates, in the post-Paris context, the 2 per cent figure continues
to feature in ongoing conversations about philanthropys role in the climate debate.

Yet, while funding levels deserve our attention, by repeatedly framing philanthropys challenge in such a
manner we also tend to overshadow philanthropys contribution past and present to the international climate
debate. Their limited resources notwithstanding, climate funders actively and according to some, decisively
contributed to the Paris success. According to the European Climate Foundation (ECF), although we should
be careful not to overstate our role, it is important to recognize that the climate philanthropy communitys
activities prior to and at the COP [Conference of the Parties] helped to lay the basis for the outcome (ECF,
2016: 2). Who are the organizations that are responsible for the 2 per cent?
How do they engage in the international climate debate? And what lessons can we learn for the future?

Looking back

Drawing on data from the Foundation Center, an analysis of the relative contributions of top foundations shows
that in 2012 six foundations the Hewlett, Packard, Sea Change, Oak, Energy and Rockefeller foundations (all
with a long history of collaboration and strategic alignment) accounted for more than 73 per cent of the total
grants in the area of climate change mitigation (Fern et al., 2015); the Hewlett and Packard foundations made
up 48 per cent of this total. Over the course of the 1990s and 2000s, these and a handful of other climate
funders pooled together resources, devised and launched joint strategies and initiatives, adjusting them along
the way so as to maximize impact. From a very early stage, these foundations recognized that, given the scale
of the climate problem, and contrary to other customary areas of philanthropic engagement education,
healthcare no amount of philanthropic funding could, by itself, solve the climate problem. The priority was
therefore not to work to change so much as to act upon the levers of change.

In the mid- to late 1980s and early 1990s, foundations helped to organize and convened international
meetings, funded climate research and fostered greater civil society participation in the budding international
climate regime. They firmly believed that, given adequate institutions, resources and information about climate
science, governments, global civil society and the wider public would rationally choose to work together to
solve the climate crisis.

Over the course of the late 1990s and early 2000s, various contextual factors led the most active climate funders
to reassess and adapt their strategies. These factors included the US federal governments reluctance to commit
to ambitious mitigation targets, climate denialists effective scaremongering tactics and attacks against the
science, and growing reservations about the ability of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) to deliver an ambitious and legally binding agreement in the post-Kyoto context. For
climate funders, it was a case of coming to terms and dealing with the irrationality of climate politics. For
some, this involved adopting a strategic or focused approach to climate philanthropy. In particular, this meant
focusing on the economic sectors (energy, transport) and regions (subnational, national and supranational) with
the highest mitigation potential, and targeting stakeholders (regulators, utility companies) with the authority and
economic power to exert meaningful change.

In addition to privileging an elitist and corporate-centred approach to climate action, a central and cross-cutting
feature of this new brand of philanthropy is its effort to apply business or entrepreneurial principles to all levels
of philanthropic activity. Instead of holding a backseat position, foundations actively contribute to the various
stages of a given project by supplying grantees with expertise, insights and strategic direction. So as to
maximize their impact, foundations regularly aligned their grantmaking strategies and, in certain instances,
jointly set up new specialized re-granting or pass-through foundations to effectively channel money to
carefully selected recipients and for the purposes of a pre-determined, and usually quantifiable, objective.
Noteworthy examples include the Energy Foundation (1991), the ClimateWorks Foundation (2008) and the
European Climate Foundation (2008), all backed by a relatively small group of well-endowed and well-
connected foundations.

Although initially hesitant to do so, the prospect of an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen (2009) encouraged
large climate funders to actively engage in and around the UNFCCC process. Although the ensuing collapse of
the international negotiations deterred many foundations from investing in the international climate policy field,
the main climate funders remained active at the international level. While supporting bottom-up action, they
also believed that only an overarching international framework could generate the required momentum for
decisive action at the national level. In the lead-up to Paris, through initiatives like the International Policies
and Politics Initiative, they supported a highly sophisticated, multi-level strategy that consisted in bridging
NorthSouth divides in the negotiation space, encouraging countries and the private sector to ramp up their
ambition, and orchestrating an effective communications campaign around both the dangers of climate change
and also the projected benefits of climate action.

Looking forward

As our rapid overview of climate philanthropy indicates, 2 per cent can take you a long way. The question,
then, is seeing whether this is the right way. The philanthropic community must pay closer attention to the
quality and not just the quantity of climate funding. What is the use, for instance, of actively supporting the
phasing-out of fossil fuels if we do not account for how this is likely to affect the local communities whose
livelihoods depend on them? What is the point of funding the renewable energy revolution if our financial
assets are invested in big polluters? Thankfully, initiatives such as Divest-Invest Philanthropy or the Just
Transition Fund are starting to address some of these contradictions. Yet the fact that an overwhelming portion
of the 2 per cent is controlled by a handful of close-knit foundations inhibits any genuine discussion of the
prevailing theory of change and its potential risks, contradictions and shortfalls.

In the post-Paris context, creating the conditions for a truly open and inclusive dialogue on climate philanthropy
becomes even more important, given the scale and scope of the climate challenge. As an everything problem,
climate change requires foundations to continuously develop cutting-edge and innovative modes of engagement
and, more importantly still, to adopt a holistic approach to social change. Yet, from the moment that the climate
philanthropy landscape is dominated by a handful of funders, there is a genuine risk, as Betsy Taylor rightly
pointed out, of sustaining an atmosphere of groupthink, where money is channelled toward one shared
strategy rather than distributed across a diverse number of possible options (Bartosiewicz and Miley, 2013:36).
As the euphoria of the Paris climate conference dissipates, the climate philanthropy community must face up to
this structural problem if it is to rise to the momentous challenges that still lie ahead.

Edouard Morena is lecturer in French and European Politics, University of London Institute in Paris (ULIP),
and author of The Price of Climate Action: Philanthropic foundations in the international climate debate
(Palgrave, 2016).
Email edouard.morena@ulip.lon.ac.uk

Bibliography:
Bartosiewicz, Petra, and Marissa Miley. "The Too Polite Revolution: Why the Recent Campaign to Pass
Comprehensive Climate Legislation in the United States Failed." 2013.
ECF. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: A Perspective on the Implications for the Role of Philanthropy. The Hague:
European Climate Foundation, 2016.
Fern, Nora, Marc Daudon, Imen Meliane, Amy Solomon, and Kendra White. Oak Foundation Environment Programme
Evaluation: Executive Summary. External Evaluation, Seattle: Cascadia Consulting Group, 2015.