This June, I had the privilege to participate in the Conservation Finance Network’s (CFN) annual bootcamp, which has been running since 2007 and is designed to increase the ability of conservation professionals to apply innovative and effective funding and financing strategies to their work. Over the course of the week, I was introduced to a wide variety of funding opportunities and tools, many of which can be blended (or “mushed,” as our friend Peter Stein often says) to ultimately activate lots of different dollars for land and natural resource conservation.
I was blown away by the wealth of options, from federal grant programs to forest carbon markets to payments for ecosystem services. I was also a little overwhelmed by the complexity of many of the opportunities—especially those with the highest returns. As I listened to different experts and heard about case studies from across the U.S., the possibilities both excited and discouraged me. Many of these financing mechanisms, and the processes for accessing and mobilizing them, felt like they’d be out of reach for the community- and Tribal-led groups with whom my own work so often intersects.
Sometimes that inaccessibility is driven by how funds are allocated (or not). For example, the Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program awarded a total of $5.5 million in its latest round of grants, but less than $500,000 of those funds when to Tribes. Sometimes, inaccessibility is a function of how much capacity a group needs to apply for funds. With something like the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Regional Conservation Partnership program, the application often takes up to a year to complete and may require ongoing consultation with overextended federal employees or expensive consultants—with no guarantee of funding at the finish line. Other times, grants require a match to be eligible, or impact investors want to see a group demonstrate existing assets to offset liability. With all these funding options, a would-be recipient needs significant time, expertise, and relationships to be competitive, and even when those stars align, you’re up against dozens of other fund-seekers for a limited pool of resources.
Despite these barriers, I did come away from the bootcamp feeling hopeful for the future of funding conservation in new, different, and better ways. Leigh Whelpton, with Connecticut Green Bank, reflected on how innovative policy approaches can animate dollars for conservation. One example that stood out to me was the state of Connecticut’s ongoing efforts to create “resiliency improvement districts” via a ballot measure, which would deploy tax revenues toward assessments, data collection, and project implementation to address community-level climate change vulnerabilities. The measure did not pass in the most recent election, but its advocates have not given up. In the meantime, decision-makers must continue to consider how the inherently tax-base-dependent benefits of these districts can also be realized in less affluent communities (e.g., wealthy communities pay more in taxes, so a new tax will generate more dollars for those communities and less dollars for lower-income communities), who are typically more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
A trend toward “community navigator” programs was also highlighted: groups with a combination of capacity, expertise, and strong frontline relationships are stepping in to ensure Tribes, Indigenous groups, and other community-led entities have an equitable opportunity to access funding resources.
The First National Development Institute, for example, is partnering with the Forest Service to increase Tribes’ access to Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and related Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) programs and opportunities. Outside of the bootcamp, I’ve also recently encountered others stepping into this navigator role. Native Americans in Philanthropy is supporting Tribal-led applicants to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is creating a position to support groups seeking funding for conservation work in the Rio Grande.
It also gave me hope to see that I wasn’t the only person in attendance with the goal of creating a multiplier effect for the resources and expertise showcased at the bootcamp, and that CFN is recruiting and supporting participants with that intention. The Walton Family Foundation and Global Conservation Solutions were just a few of the other organizations represented at the bootcamp with the same purpose of learning more to better support their grantees and clients.
My own goal in participating was to deepen my knowledge about conservation finance so that I can ultimately re-deploy that expertise for the benefit of the Salazar Center’s Peregrine Accelerator participants. By introducing them to new funding opportunities via our curriculum and connecting them with some of the other experts I met through the bootcamp, they will be better prepared to pursue, diversify, and maximize dollars for their on-the-ground conservation solutions. It’s a privilege to serve as this kind of conveyance for the incredible groups whose work we support through the Peregrine Accelerator. As I look to the field more broadly, I’m excited that we’re now part a growing network of like-minded organizations that are navigating—and empowering others to navigate—a complex and changing funding landscape, no matter what it looks like.
Throughout the dialogue, speakers highlighted the importance of recognizing the expertise and human capital that already exist within frontline communities. Frontline communities know what they need and have ideas for solutions to meet their communities’ challenges, but these communities often lack investment. One barrier to investment is the spatial mismatch between community-led projects and environmental markets. Investors typically require larger spatial scales for investment, while most community-led projects operate at much smaller scales. For example, the Blue Carbon projects highlighted at the Symposium struggle to access carbon markets because they are small and not aggregated. 
