Rethinking Scale in Climate Solutions

Rice produced by members of the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra/Landless Workers Movement (MST) in Maranhao, a rice-producing region in the North of Brazil. (Photo courtesy of Grassroots International)

The ecological crisis requires urgent, coordinated, and impactful solutions on a level unprecedented in human history. Yet, philanthropy has often taken too narrow of a view of “scale” when it comes to climate change, focusing on scaling particular strategies, with the goal of creating quantity quickly. In particular, tech donors often prefer fast distribution to the highest number of beneficiaries while overlooking methods that capture complexity and dismantle homogeneity.

However, scale needs to be about more than how fast something can grow or how many people a solution reaches, more than mere numbers. And grassroots movements have sophisticated approaches for scaling impact, which ensure that a multiplicity of strategies will be relevant, resilient, adaptive, and equitable. Because grassroots movements are interconnected groups, led by those most impacted by a problem, they shift power and change culture: Instead of tethering scale only to a result or fidelity to the original template, grassroots movements use methods of scaling that ensure the depth and durability of impact, multi-solving across social, political, and economic challenges.

As billions of new funding flow into climate work, it is critical to expand funders’ understanding of scale so they can better understand and resource strategies that are likely to succeed in the long run. The CLIMA Fund, a collaboration across four public foundations supporting tens of thousands of grassroots groups advancing climate justice solutions, has learned a lot about the diverse and powerful ways grassroots movements create scaled impact. Impact from the popular bases they grow to the alliances and coalitions that allow them to build power to win change globally.

To value depth of impact, the process of building sustained community power, and the transformation of entrenched and extractive systems, we can conceive of scale as depth, relationship, decentralization, and power.

Depth. Instead of focusing solely on a single strategy that emphasizes quantity or speed of diffusion, grassroots movements value a solution by its reach and influence. In this way, grassroots strategies multi-solve: not only drawing down emissions, but also building equity, resilience, and planetary health in the process. Their work is not only to shift the underlying narrative assumptions of society but also to change the material reality of millions through policy change or mutual aid.

Take, for example, the Peasant Movement of Papaye (MPP) in Haiti, which for 45 years has brought together communities around a vision and practice of Haitian self-determination. They have 61,000 members which engage in community-based efforts to build climate resilience, while connecting across communities to exchange Creole seeds, knowledge, and labor. There is common infrastructure, such as a savings and credit union, multi-sectoral cooperatives for storage of agricultural products and a farmer’s bank, and a network of agroecology schools.

Agroecology has the potential to mitigate 390 to 490 gigatons of CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent) by 2050, the same as the emissions from China over that time period. But MPP’s work goes beyond the numbers: by focusing on a holistic vision of what communities need to face increasing climate disasters—instead of merely one output like the 50 million trees they have planted across the island—MPP is working to transform the economy, governance, and social contracts across Haiti.

Relationships. Relationships and connectivity are the lifeblood of movement building. As opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach, many locally-tailored solutions scale to generate global shifts through strong relationships, robust coordination, and mutual amplification.

For example, the IPCC report is clear that fossil fuel development and production must end if we are to have a liveable planet. Any one grassroots effort to resist the fossil fuel industry may fail, but together they are making a dent, in no small part because of the relationships built within and across resistance movements. Relationship building is the substrate of base building, and movement alliances, coalitions, and networks support those relationships across scale. For example, regional networks like the Indigenous Environmental Network or global ones like Oilwatch International support distinct yet coordinated campaigning leading to the critical exchange of knowledge, technical expertise, and shared vision.

A recent assessment of Indigenous resistance to fossil fuels in North America showed that victories in infrastructure fights alone have prevented the carbon equivalent of 12 percent of annual US and Canadian pollution (779 million metric tons CO2e). Another analysis showed that if direct resistance efforts were funded, they have the potential of mitigating 1,300 gigatons of CO2e by 2050, or the equivalent of carbon in the standing stock of all global forests.

Decentralization. Grassroots movements accelerate scaling through distributed impact and leadership. Decentralized organization is more effective and resilient because it can be more responsive to community needs and more flexible in trying a greater diversity of strategies (“too diverse to fail”). Heterogenous, autonomous yet interconnected leadership leads to greater stability in the face of uncertain and rapidly evolving political and ecological conditions. Moreover, when communities have sovereign power to advance locally relevant solutions, those solutions are often more nimble and durable because they are spread through local networks of trust.

For example, ZIMSOFF in Zimbabwe has engaged 12,000 people via decentralized Small Farmers Organizations (SFOs). Through SFOs, farmers are able to localize seed and knowledge exchange and, led by local leaders, coordinate their efforts to influence national government. Since 2017, when farmers in Murowa and Sashe began to establish seed banks, the practice has grown across all of Zimbabwe. In decentralized structures, local innovations are more likely to be durable, and thus, are more likely to spread. And because ZIMSOFF’s leadership is decentralized, by mid-2021 traditional leaders were supporting farmers’ proposals for conservation and for reinvigoration of use of Indigenous seeds. Traditional leaders were hosting ZIMSOFF’s “farmer field days” as well as seed and food fairs, for learning and sharing seeds among farmers. Due to strong local buy-in and relationships, ZIMSOFF has had the political power to influence policy makers across geographies, including the Ministries of Agriculture and of Health and the Parliamentary Commission on Climate Change.

Power. To build broad political will that can enact political change, organize against entrenched corporate interests, or ensure a community group can sustain a new way of sharing energy, there must be strong organization to build power. Power building includes building knowledge, relationships, ideas, visibility, influence, and leadership. Collective power is central to scale, especially in an era where oligarchical and authoritarian political systems are stacked against the majority.

For example, in 2018, Save Rivers Sarawak engaged the Kayan people of Long Liam village, Malaysia around the idea of installing a micro-hydro renewable energy system. Save Rivers brought together government officials, international and local energy experts, industry representatives, and local communities to clarify pathways toward energy sovereignty. This included halting government-sponsored mega-dams and building community-governed, micro-hydro energy systems. Through this process, the village built their capacity and leadership to organize and self-govern. Since 2019, 50 families—all Indigenous Kayan people—now have a renewable energy source that is sustainable, affordable, and more environmentally safe. They are no longer relying on polluting diesel generators, are protecting the water catchment zone, and are committed to keeping out larger energy developments. The village, among many supported by Save Rivers, have the organization and collective power to identify and mobilize on their commitments to protect their ecosystems and way of life.

Moving Beyond Narrow Notions of Scale

As philanthropy is increasingly influenced by tech-inspired notions of scale, it is worth highlighting how prioritizing numbers and speed can cause us to often overlook more systemic solutions. Not all of the tendencies below are inherently wrong, but funders must keep an eye out to highlight where the approaches above can broaden the frame.

Speed over impact. Hastily made plans often run into trouble, and this is especially true for decisions that impact the complex ecologies of our planet. “Externalities” accumulate the faster decisions are made, and long-term impact is eclipsed at the expense of superficial short-term gains. International development is notorious for rushing in with “solutions” that rarely consider the local context, as when the World Health Organization sprayed DDT in parts of Borneo to address malaria in the 1950s. This set off a chain of reactions that ended up greatly exacerbating public health problems in the region, including the sylvatic plague and typhus.

Quantity over quality. Strategy or diffusion plans that don’t account for heterogeneity and complexity are unlikely to be durable. Large-scale renewable energy projects can create more harm than good, and even replicate their fossil fuel predecessors, and large solar arrays that aren’t community owned and operated may only reinforce the same inequities as coal mines. The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has documented more than 200 human rights allegations connected to renewable energy projects in the last 11 years.

Breadth over depth. International development projects often prefer a wide footprint and short-term improvements, rather than a change in outcomes, which may be at the expense of long-term impact. For example, REDD+ is a mechanism by which countries, primarily in the Global North, fund programs to prevent forest loss in tropical countries and receive a credit for emissions saved in return. Proponents of REDD+, in their quest to secure the numbers for hectares saved and secure profits, have largely ignored the destructive impact of REDD+ on Indigenous Peoples and peasant farming, among others.

Novelty over the tried-and-true. Entrepreneurism and the chase of novelty are coveted over tradition and ancient, diverse ways of knowing. There is plenty of evidence we have the food, energy, and governance solutions for a livable planet; what we lack is valuing the worldviews that can enact them. For example, climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is being promoted as the next “green revolution” by the likes of Bill Gates (who has been responsible for policies and initiatives that have profoundly impoverished the African continent). But while the new trend of CSA is designed to feed corporate profits and will ultimately harm soil health and local communities, agroecology—agricultural practices and principles that have been developed over millennia—already feeds 70 percent of the planet while only using 25 percent of agricultural land.

Immediacy over systems change. Movements are often undervalued because the shifts in culture and power happen through diverse mediums, over variable timescales, and with systematically marginalized communities. And yet changing policy, narratives, culture, and structures is likely to be more impactful than the immediacy or “quick fix” of a new service or tool. For example, carbon capture schemes have received over $5.5B in new investment in the last year, yet these technologies are unproven, not yet working at a scale, and most importantly would enable the continuation of the fossil fuel industry. The science is clear: We must stop all use of fossil fuels to meet our carbon budget. Yet, the immediacy of the technologies is too alluring for tech billionaires. How can we refocus on funding the strategies that will draw down carbon while addressing systemic inequities?

Serving the global elite rather than the global majority. Often a focus on “scale” will reinforce strategies that are dependent on global markets that heighten inequality and from which the global elite profit most. Designing for relatively few people when global, extractive systems are causing such havoc to planetary systems is unsustainable. For example, the industrialized food system uses 70 percent of agricultural land and 70 percent of freshwater inputs; causes 70 percent of the biodiversity loss on land and 73 percent of the deforestation in the tropics; but only feeds 30 percent of the world, mostly in the Global North. The wealthiest globally have no incentive to change a system that generally works for their lifestyles.

Expanding Our Notions of Scale

How can we as funders and donors serve grassroots groups as they continue to scale their critical work?

1. Offer unrestricted, long-term partnerships. Flexible funding allows grassroots groups to be nimble, responsive, and self-determined. Silicon Valley investment rarely has restrictive strings attached, to enable “innovation.” Why don’t funders provide that to the groups furthering the work most critical for a liveable world? Grassroots movements know best what to prioritize, how to convene, or how to track their success.
2. Shift Learning & Evaluation frameworks. Often philanthropy’s evaluation frameworks reinforce colonialist tendencies of top-down control of resources and supremacist assumptions. And while Silicon Valley investment often embraces failure as a key part of learning, philanthropy does not fund grassroots groups in their own learning cycles. The real risk lies in the lack of investment in frontline leadership.
3. Support grassroots-driven connectivity. Spaces for grassroots movements to convene, exchange, and collectively articulate are necessary for scale. Too often funders bring together grantees inspired by their own whims; funders can support joint learning spaces and emergent collaboration by following the lead of grantees.
4. Look beyond novelty. Funding to grassroots efforts multi-solving across key drivers of the climate crisis will go much further than a short burst of funding to a new set of unproven technologies (that often don’t yield their touted benefits). Grassroots movements are nimble and innovative in how they are responding to global drivers and local impacts, but funders aren’t listening.
5. Ensure community control. Often funders support the replication of solutions through transplanting, but without much support for adapting that solution to a place. Scalable strategies are those that are owned by local communities, so they may support the application of those strategies in changing conditions amidst complexity.
6. Be ready to change the problem frame. Expanding scale to mean depth, power, and transformation requires flexibility in how funders frame the problem. No challenge exists in a silo and often ecological challenges are underpinned by complex social drivers. Learning from and resourcing grassroots movements will likely mean growing and complexifying our funding strategies, and developing our capacity to respect worldviews different from our own.
7. Invest in generational scale. Grassroots movements work to shift power and change culture over time. Systemic change is nonlinear and often requires time (think civil rights movement). Humans can create significantly more value by investing in the future we covet 100 years from now as much as our future tomorrow. Funders tend to have tunnel vision around near-term impact metrics, as opposed to supporting those with multi-generational visions of change.

Scale is about so much more than how fast something can grow or how many people a solution reaches. Learning from and resourcing grassroots movements will likely mean growing and complexifying our funding strategies, and developing our capacity to respect worldviews different from our own. But by expanding our view of scale, funders can better understand and resource strategies that are likely to succeed, in the long run, at cooling the planet while advancing equity.

Read more stories by Lindley Mease.