The abrupt suspension of USAID’s recent international funding sent shockwaves through the global conservation community. With more than $375 million disbursed in 2023, this freeze disrupted critical biodiversity programs across Kenya, Namibia, the Congo Basin, and Indonesia, halting ranger salaries, community conservation, and anti-trafficking operations. But beyond its immediate damage, the freeze has illuminated a long-standing structural flaw: the conservation sector’s deep dependence on external donors. It’s a wake-up call to reimagine how we finance environmental protection, not simply how to replace lost aid, but how to build resilient, locally anchored systems that endure. For too long, conservation finance has operated on a donor-centric model. External institutions determine priorities, metrics and timelines. Local organizations often implement strategies, but without the autonomy to shape them. This framework creates a culture of compliance, not innovation. Pleione praecox orchid. Image courtesy of Kumar Paudel. This imbalance reflects deeper power asymmetries. As Edgar Villanueva argues in Decolonizing Wealth, the structure of philanthropic aid often mirrors colonial dynamics, concentrating control in donor capitals while communities at the frontline remain dependent on short-term, project-based support. To move forward, conservation finance must be restructured to prioritize collaboration over control. Donors should invest in long-term capacity, offer flexible support, and enable local actors to co-design solutions. There are models that already demonstrate the power of such community-led conservation. Namibia’s Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) program enables more than 80 conservancies to manage communal lands. One of them, the ≠Khoadi-//Hôas Conservancy, has effectively reinvested revenue from wildlife tourism into…This article was originally published on Mongabay

From Conservation news via this RSS feed