As I dive deeper into EM (Electronic Monitoring), an area that I have been working with for a while now, I’m not surprised anymore about the dozens of EM trials over the last decades that have taken place in the Pacific and Asia, funded by NGOs that have provided good information but totally collapsed after the funding ended.
You always know when they “start” because they are announced with self-congratulatory fanfare, yet they tend to “exit” without a strategy; they just fade away into nothingness.
So, when this paper, titled "Conceptualising Responsible Exits in Conservation Philanthropy", came to my attention, it was good reading, as it examines the critical yet neglected issue of exits in conservation philanthropy, especially in ocean conservation.
As donations to environmental causes rapidly increase, the frequency of exits—defined as the termination of funding relationships—has also risen, often due to the rise of time-limited grants in strategic philanthropy. Exits can have a significant impact on grantees, conservation objectives, and local communities, making responsible exit planning an ethical obligation.
Authored by Elodie Le Cornu and colleagues, it is the first empirical research on exit processes in ocean conservation philanthropy. It draws on interviews with 47 individuals from 36 foundations and a knowledge co-production workshop with 41 participants. The study develops a conceptual framework to define and categorise exits into three types: embedded (planned and determined early in the grant-making process), organic (arising from internal or external drivers), and forced (unexpected and abrupt). Exits are further analysed along three dimensions: what is ending or shifting (e.g., geography, issue, funding relationship), scale (temporal, geographic, financial), and degree (full or partial).
The paper also highlights 52 best practices for responsible exits, organised into three categories: principles, administration and management, and sustainability. Key principles include respecting local contexts, promoting inclusivity, encouraging reflectivity, maintaining transparency, and allowing for flexibility.
Administrative best practices emphasise planning for exits from the outset, conducting thorough evaluations, fostering long-term relationships, and offering both financial and non-financial support.
Sustainability practices centre on capacity-building, fostering autonomy, and establishing strong funder networks to ensure the long-term viability of conservation initiatives.
It also highlights several challenges related to executing exit strategies in conservation philanthropy:
Internal Constraints: Foundations often face limitations such as a lack of resources, knowledge, or experience to execute exits effectively. Staff turnover and hierarchical decision-making within foundations can also hinder the process, as programme officers may lack control over when and why exits occur, with decisions often made at the board level.
Managing Relationships with Grantees: Tensions can arise between grantees' expectations for continued funding and the funders' decision to exit. Grantees may struggle to accept the reality of an exit and fail to plan for it proactively. This can lead to challenges in navigating relationships and ensuring a smooth transition.
Coordination with Other Funders: Exits can shift the funding burden to other funders working in the same space, potentially creating disagreements and tensions. Poor coordination among funders can lead to significant funding gaps for grantees.
Power Dynamics: Exits often reinforce power imbalances, as funders typically make unilateral decisions about ending funding relationships, leaving grantees with limited input or control over the process.
Timing and Context: Exits may occur at unfavourable times or in challenging contexts, which can exacerbate their negative impacts on grantees and conservation initiatives. Some participants even questioned the necessity of exits altogether, advocating for long-term investments instead.
Lack of Planning: Exits are often regarded as an afterthought, with inadequate time and effort allocated to planning and managing the tensions and issues that emerge during the process.
These challenges highlight the need for more systematic research, better planning, and inclusive practices to ensure responsible exits that minimise harm and support the sustainability of conservation efforts.
The authors highlight challenges in adopting these practices, such as internal limitations within foundations, hierarchical decision-making processes, and conflicts in grantee relationships. They advocate for further research to incorporate grantee and community perspectives, understand long-term impacts, and refine best practices tailored to specific exit types.
Ultimately, the paper emphasises that responsible exits are a crucial part of ethical and effective conservation philanthropy. By providing a shared language and practical guidance, the study aims to assist funders, grantees, and conservation practitioners in managing exits in a way that minimises risks and maximises positive outcomes for people, organisations, and conservation goals.