By Ana Paula Borges Pinho
Philanthropy represented by large international foundations has been an important source of financing for Brazilian civil society for decades. However, much of what is known about how these foundations operate is based on anecdotal evidence and knowledge passed on by leaders and circulated among civil society actors. Despite the efforts of organizations such as GIFE, there is still a long way to go to form a robust and systematic body of knowledge on the topic, which monitors the activities of international foundations in Brazil over time.
With the aim of filling part of this knowledge gap, I am analyzing during my doctorate in the joint International Relations program at King's College London and the University of São Paulo the donations of three of the largest funders for the environment in Brazil: the Charles Stewart Foundation Mott, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. To analyze foundations' giving patterns, I systematized information available on the organizations' websites and compared them to their annual reports and tax returns.
In the two decades between 2000 and 2020, the three foundations donated more than $172 million dollars to Brazilian civil society organizations working on environmental issues. These donations can be divided into three main areas. The first area is environmental conservation, which is probably the biggest issue that comes to mind in the Brazilian context considering the perpetual need to protect the Amazon and other biomes at risk. The second area is energy and climate, with financing of projects in pollution and clean energy, including its use in public transport systems. The third area, and possibly the least obvious, involves promoting the use of environmental, transparency and accountability standards in financing large energy and infrastructure projects.
International philanthropic organizations play an important role in strengthening civil society and financing causes that do not receive due attention from internal actors, whether public or private. Furthermore, substantial amounts are directed to research institutions, expanding scientific knowledge. Such contributions cannot be underestimated and should be encouraged, especially in a context of spending cuts and weakening institutions.
There is, however, room for foundations' practices to be improved and more focused on the needs of recipients. These can be separated into two groups: those who receive a donation or a few small donations and those who form a long-term relationship with the donor. But even when an organization manages to establish the second type of relationship, it is still marked by uncertainty. The average donation lasts two years, too little time to achieve long-term social changes and for organizations to have enough stability to carry out their work. Furthermore, most donations are for specific projects. More donations to the general operations of civil society organizations would go a long way toward developing their organizational capabilities and fostering full freedom of choice for local organizations about where to invest.
Finally, since the early 2000s there has been an exit of international foundations from Brazil, leaving a funding vacuum in areas such as the environment and human rights. The current political situation in the country shows that this vacuum needs to be filled. The establishment of local foundations can become an exit strategy that leaves behind alternative sources of funding, as long as it is ensured that these foundations have the freedom to choose who and what to fund. The North American international development agency, USAID, for example, used the community foundation model as an exit strategy in Eastern European countries. In Brazil, organizations such as Fundo CASA and Instituto Clima e Sociedade make donations to local groups and communities and conduct their work in Portuguese, an important step towards the inclusion and financing of historically excluded groups.
