OPINION. Decolonising conservation finance means confronting the unequal relationship between the Global North and the Global South. International solidarity should not be measured only by the money it provides, but also by the power it is willing to share, writes Ratna Dewi from WWF Indonesia.
The opinions expressed in the article are those by the author.
Global conservation faces an urgent financing challenge. Beyond asking how much money is needed to protect nature, we must ask: how much effort must local organisations expend to access it, and who sets the terms?
International conservation finance is essential, yet its rules and procedures shape who can participate, whose knowledge is valued and who has the authority to define conservation.
Decolonising conservation finance means confronting the unequal relationship between the Global North and the Global South. Financial power can determine priorities, set standards and decide which organisations are considered capable of receiving support. Local actors may implement conservation while remaining dependent on decisions made elsewhere. They are often expected to meet standards they had little role in designing, without the resources to fulfil them.
In Indonesia, environmental civil society organisations (CSOs) working with Indigenous Peoples and local communities face demanding requirements for proposals, financial management, audits, reporting and compliance. Donors must ensure responsible use of funds, but when does accountability become a barrier rather than an enabler of conservation?
A 2025 study by Menjadi and Planet Indonesia, From Transactional to Relational: Guidelines for Equitable Intermediaries in Indonesia, illustrates this tension. Based on a survey of 24 CSOs and interviews, the study found that 75% of surveyed CSOs reported insufficient overhead and core funding. Among respondents identifying challenges in working with intermediaries, 57% cited inadequate overhead allocations, while 29% pointed to difficult and time-consuming administrative and reporting requirements.
These findings do not prove that administrative costs exceed conservation expenditure. They reveal a structural problem: organisations are expected to deliver conservation outcomes without necessarily receiving the resources needed to sustain the systems, staff and operations required.
Local organisations are too often judged for lacking administrative capacity without being adequately funded to build and maintain it. Some emerge from communities organising themselves to defend their rights, govern their territories and protect nature, rather than from established institutions with dedicated administrative teams. Yet accessing conservation funding requires them to meet formal standards they may lack the resources to fulfil.
This creates a paradox. Larger, established organisations are often better equipped with dedicated finance teams, sophisticated systems and reserves to bridge funding gaps. Smaller, locally rooted CSOs may have deep community trust and contextual knowledge yet struggle to meet the same requirements. A system intended to manage risk can therefore favour organisations already equipped to navigate it, not necessarily those best placed to support locally led conservation.
Colonial patterns persist
Transaction costs thus become a question of power. Who determines acceptable financial management and reporting standards? Whose understanding of risk takes precedence: funders’ or that of organisations working closest to the ecosystems and communities at stake?
Colonial patterns of authority persist not only through unequal distributions of money, but also through systems in which priorities are set elsewhere and standards imposed from above. Local actors may be trusted to implement activities without having equal power to shape the agenda.
Intermediaries can connect donors with local organisations, provide technical support and strengthen institutional capacity. The answer is not to eliminate them or abandon scrutiny, but to ensure every layer adds value. Due diligence should be proportionate to grant size, organisational context and actual risk. Overhead allocations should reflect real delivery costs, while flexible core support and longer-term funding enable organisations to build institutional resilience.
Accountability must also be mutual. Donors and intermediaries should justify their requirements, assess whether they are proportionate and listen when partners identify barriers. Success should be judged by meaningful outcomes and responsible use of resources, not paperwork alone.
Conservation finance must be assessed not only by how much money is mobilised, but by whether it strengthens the rights, agency and decision-making power of those who live with and protect nature.
Decolonising conservation finance does not mean abandoning accountability. It means ensuring accountability serves conservation and justice rather than becoming an end in itself. If local organisations must spend disproportionate time proving they can protect nature while struggling to finance the work, the funding system must change.
The question is not simply how much money reaches the ground, but whether those closest to nature have the resources, trust and authority to lead.
International solidarity should not be measured only by the money it provides, but also by the power it is willing to share.
Ratna Dewi
Rights-Based and Social Inclusion Lead, WWF Indonesia
Read also
|
Uppläsning av artikel
|
