Conservation philanthropy has grown significantly in the past decade. As the number of philanthropic-supported conservation initiatives increases, so too will the frequency of exits-the ending of funding relationships. A trend toward "strategic philanthropy," where foundations fund time-limited grants, is already contributing to near-constant exits. We draw attention to exits as a critical and ubiquitous-yet understudied-part of conservation grantmaking processes that can have tremendous impacts on the people and places foundations invest in. This paper begins to address this research gap with the first empirical study of exit processes in the context of ocean conservation philanthropy. We draw on an analysis of interviews and a knowledge co-production workshop with donors representing 36 foundations investing in ocean conservation globally to: (1) develop a conceptual framework that broadens and clarifies definitions of exits and provides a common language to characterize exits along varied dimensions, and (2) derive best practices for exiting responsibly. This paper provides timely guidance for environmental philanthropy broadly, including the need to think about exits early and often as an integral part of the grantmaking strategy. Responsible giving must include responsible exits.

Environmental governance scholars have overlooked philanthropic foundations as influential non-state actors. This omission, along with the continued growth in funding from private foundations for conservation issues, presents important questions about what foundations do in governance spaces. To address this gap, we examine The David and Lucile Packard Foundation's involvement in Fiji and Palau in the context of the Foundation's "Western Pacific Program"-a series of coastal and marine-related investments made from 1998 to 2020. We describe and analyze six governance roles that the Packard Foundation contributed to: funding, influencing agendas, capacity-building, convening and coordinating, facilitating knowledge, and rule-making and regulation. In documenting the Packard Foundation's governance roles, we provide scholars and practitioners a conceptual framework to more systematically and strategically think about foundations as more than funders. This research helps move the conversation around conservation philanthropy beyond binary conceptions of "good" versus "bad," and, instead, toward deeper considerations about what foundations currently do within governance systems, how they engage with diverse practitioners, as well as what they can and should do to advance conservation goals.

No abstract

We are in a period of unprecedented growth in conservation philanthropy. How will this influx of private funding affect conservation agendas? Inspired by a collaborative research co-design process, this paper addresses questions about how foundations influence conservation agendas in the places they work. We draw from a case study of the world's largest philanthropic funder of marine conservation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and their 20 years of investment in marine conservation in Palau and Fiji. Conservation practitioners in both countries universally agreed that the Packard Foundation had a significant and positive influence on the agenda, which they attribute to both how the foundation worked and what they chose to fund. Specifically, our study reveals how the Packard Foundation shaped conservation agendas in Palau and Fiji in partnership with its grantees through a grant-making process characterized by relationship building, collaborative decision making, convening and promoting of collective action, flexibility, and long-term funding. Packard's approach was often identified as unique, and contrasted with numerous other donors, including foundations and other types of donors, who use a more top-down approach. By describing a relative success story in how philanthropic foundations can work with conservation practitioners to co-design a shared conservation agenda, our work provides timely guidance for donors and practitioners.