Environmental Finance and Learning Fund: Evaluation - full report
Environmental Finance and Learning Fund
Evaluating the Learning Programme: Final Report to Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
June 2025
Jenny Sansom, on behalf of Environmental Funders Network
This report is primarily for funders and individuals that are interested in environmental investing. It may also be of interest to organisations working to improve environmental outcomes that are considering taking on investment.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks go to Alice Thornton for providing guidance on how to shape and scope the programme evaluation.
My understanding of the green investment world has grown immensely through the Environmental Finance and Learning Fund. My confidence at analysing investments has grown and this has enabled me to make several investments during the time.
I’m now an active philanthropic investor with a focused understanding of where I want to invest. Through the scheme I’ve been privileged to have met inspiring businesses, organisations and individuals. I hope we can continue the network in the same way. Thank you to all who have been involved.
Participant
Background
Background
The Environmental Finance and Learning Fund (EFLF) was a collaborative programme launched in April 2022 by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and Environmental Funders Network (EFN).
The EFLF aimed to unlock significant new funding for nature recovery and to build the environmental investment market by increasing the number and volume of investors offering ‘environmental pathfinder’ funding to highly impactful environmental initiatives. It also aimed to help participant funders to build their skills and confidence for environmental investing and create a co-investment network of funders and individuals for environmental investing into the future.
Environmental pathfinder funding is defined for this programme as social investing with an environmental focus. At Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, their approach is impact first, and financial returns second.
Esmée developed the programme in recognition of a need for more impact-first environmental investment and that its track record in environmental grant making and investment provided an opportunity to address some of the barriers to others entering the market, namely access to pipeline, skills and confidence.
Aims for Esmée
Increase the value of pathfinder funding and number of investors offering pathfinder funding
Create a long-term co-investment network
Influence how new investors approach nature-based investment
Consolidate Esmée’s practice and further our learning
Câr-y-Môr
Background
For EFN, the programme furthered its aim to increase the levels of funding for environmental causes and to improve the overall effectiveness of that funding. One of the ways EFN achieves this aim is by convening – by creating, building and strengthening relationships between funders and environmental groups, and within each of those groups respectively.
The EFLF learning programme represented an opportunity for EFN to work with individual and foundation funders who are interested in exploring other forms of finance – such as the patient, risk tolerant investment needed to support organisations achieving strong positive environmental benefits.
For some foundations and individual funders, the possibility of achieving a return on their invested money, alongside philanthropic giving, could increase the level of funding they dedicate to environmental causes overall.
Aims for EFN
The goal of this work was to help increase the levels of capital available for early-stage environmental initiatives by:
Supporting foundations and individuals interested in environmental investing to build their skills and confidence
Creating a cohort of funders and individuals who know and trust each other, and have the potential to continue to co-invest in environmental initiatives after the scheme is over
Intended outcomes of the programme
1.
To increase the skills, knowledge and confidence of participants to make environmental investments
2.
To increase the value of environmental pathfinder funding and numbers of investors offering it
3.
To create a long-term network of active environmental investors for collaboration and co-investment
The fund was designed to help participant funders ‘learn by doing’ about environmental investing, and to support them to invest directly in initiatives with positive environmental impact. The fund consisted of two elements:
Funding pot for environmental impact held by Esmée and deployed across six environmental investments. 15 participant funders contributed £679,000, and Esmée matched this sum 3:1, giving a total pot of £2.7m to deploy in environmental investments over three years.
£2.7m
A three-year learning programme
co-designed with funderparticipants, and led by EFN. The learning programme ran alongside the funding pot, enabling participants to learn in real time about Esmée’s social investment process, as well as from experts and each other.
Funding committed
Project description
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Real Farming Trust/Loans for Enlightened Agriculture Programme (LEAP)
Kindling Farm
An opportunity to purchase Ughill Farm, a 130 hectare site of important environmental significance. Ughill Farm will provide a demonstration and learning site for the area as part of a cluster of farms looking at nature friendly farming practices.
A blended finance fund offering loan, grant and business mentoring for small-scale agroecological farming enterprises community-led businesses.
An unsecured bridging loan to support the Kindling Trust, a community of sustainable food innovators in the North West, to buy the 77 acre Kindling Farm and develop a farming blueprint for the future.
Commitment
Funding committed
Project description
An equity investment into a new venture aiming to support local communities across the UK to buy and manage woodland, restoring their ecological health and protecting them for current and future generations.
Bridging finance to a tech platform that enables small-scale agro-ecological farmers and food producers to sell directly to local customers.
Working capital to support a community-owned regenerative ocean farm in the Ramsey Sound to build a new seaweed refinery.
Common Nature Recovery (CNR) formerly Woodland Savers
Ooooby
Câr-y-Môr
Learning programme
EFN employed Jenny Sansom, a consultant learning partner and facilitator to run the learning programme. Esmée’s Social Investment Managers, Tom Colborne and Sarah Hedley, led on showcasing the Fund’s investments and specialist sessions around the practicalities of managing such an investment portfolio.
All the learning sessions emphasised peer learning where participants compared their own perspectives and approaches as well as hearing content from presenters.
Action Learning
• Action Learning is a process of learning and reflection that happens with the support of a small ‘set’ of participants working with real-life issues. Each participant takes a turn to bring a real situation as a question to others, and group members then pose questions. This ‘many to one coaching’ helps the presenter to expand ideas and solutions and evaluate options. The presenter then creates an action plan for their next steps and shares progress at the following session.
• Nine participants took part between September 2022 and March 2023. Each participant completed two full action learning sets, meaning that they each had a chance to present their own challenge to their Action Learning set twice, receive feedback, and contribute feedback for others. One set took place in person in London, and a further set took place entirely online according to participants preferences.
Optional group learning sessions
• Optional group learning sessions took place online between the main quarterly learning sessions and had a flexible focus. Some were led by participants on investments they had made or were considering making. Three workshops were led by the Social Investment Managers at Esmée and the EFN learning partner to present topics such as due diligence, investment types and legal forms, and approaches to developing an investment strategy. Full details of all learning programme sessions are given in the appendix.
Learning programme
Regular learning sessions took place quarterly over the three years alternating between online and in-person. They featured:
An open-book approach to learning from Esmée’s investment portfolio, where they showcased portfolio case studies detailing how the investment was identified, the characteristics of the organisation, the investment opportunity and the financial model, the fit to Esmée’s strategy, the impacts and outcomes and key risks.
Esmée Fairbairn
Foundation team on topics
such as Investment Funds and why are they interesting for impact investors; Peat as a climate change superpower, its habitat conservation value and mitigation of damage; Freshwater environments –funding models and potential stakeholders; and Esmée’s Social Investment Strategy for ‘Our Natural World’.
Speakers from all of the portfolio investees presented alongside the relevant funding or investment manager from Esmée giving participants a view from both sides of the deal.
Environmental experts such as Nature Finance on a natural flood management project for the River Wyre and how it was structured financially; a peat expert discussing the issues around a peat ban in horticultural products, the legislation and alternative financial models, and National Trust’s leading expert on biodiversity net gain (BNG) on how this new legislation has evolved and the questions that funders should ask when considering projects involving BNG.
Q&A and workshop time enabling participants to contribute their perspectives and learn from both the speakers and from one another.
Co-design opportunities, particularly at the start and in the middle of the three-year programme, where participants could share with each other their priorities and learning needs, and facilitators could plan and adapt the programme accordingly. This included open discussion by participants on the outcomes of the baseline and mid-term surveys and a facilitated session at the start of year three. The individual in-depth interviews at the outset asked about participants’ learning needs.
Characteristics of participant funders
The EFLF deliberately sought to involve funders from a wide range of types and experience levels. Characteristics of participant funders at the outset are summarised here.
• Foundations vs individuals: our cohort at the start comprised eight participants from trusts and foundations (including two from the same foundation), and eight individual participants. However, these categories overlap as some of the participants operate as individual investors as well as having established/run a charitable foundation either currently or in the past. One individual participant established a foundation during the programme. Therefore, the cohort had a range of overlapping experience and perspectives rather than being divisible into these two distinct groups.
• Low or no employees: the majority of participant funders don’t employ staff (11 out of 15). Three participants employ two or less FTE.
• All respondents were actively giving to environmental causes at the outset of the programme: levels of annual giving are represented in the chart below.
funders’ levels of annual giving (baseline survey)
Number of participants
• Active investors or not: at baseline, seven participants had been active investors in the last financial year. Eight participants had done no investing in the last financial year.
• Participants’ giving priorities at the start of the programme included: ecological restoration, rivers and estuaries, oceans, regenerative farming and community engagement on sustainability. Social priorities listed included: healthcare, heritage and disaster relief.
• Geographical focus for giving/investing: eight participants focus their giving and investments in the UK, six stated that they work internationally, including UK, and one respondent didn’t specify.
Reasons for joining other than the learning programme
Although the focus of this report is the learning programme, it’s noteworthy that there were also other reasons participants gave for joining the EFLF. In the initial in-depth interviews and the qualitative feedback from the baseline survey, the match funding aspect emerged as important, as well as the fact that the EFLF was being delivered by trusted organisations.
I love the match funding aspect –that was the main attraction.
Esmée …were willing to put up three times what we’re willing to put in and that seemed like a good idea to me.
I’m aware of Esmée Fairbairn and I know they do so much good work …. I’ve always been impressed by what Environmental Funders Network have done so two good organisations that I was aware of come together, I thought well that’s got to be good.
Evaluation questions and methodology
The evaluation questions correspond with the programme aims.
Understanding the impact of the learning programme on participant funders’ skills, knowledge and confidence for making environmental investments
• What were the learning needs of funder participants at the start of the programme?
• To what extent have participants’ initial learning needs been met at the end of the programme?
• How do participants’ levels of skills and confidence in the area of environmental investing change during the course of the programme?
• What do participants particularly value about the programme?
• What have they found most helpful?
• Which aspects are least helpful?5
Understanding the giving and investing practices of the participant funders, and how this changes through the course of the programme
• Do funders’ giving and investing practices change through the course of the programme? If so how? In what way?
Understanding to what extent the learning programme results in creation of active environmental investors for collaboration and co-investment
• To what extent does the learning programme create relationships/ a peer network?
• What function do these peer relationships serve for participants?
• What are the impacts of such a network?
Evaluation questions and methodology
Methodology
The evaluation methodology was a mixed methods exercise combining in-depth interviews with participants and stakeholders at the start of the programme and three surveys at baseline, mid-term and end of programme stages. This was supported by some qualitative analysis of notes, recordings and feedback from learning sessions, as well as informal correspondence which was gathered throughout the programme. At the end of the programme participants submitted a paragraph, on the ‘most significant change’ they had experienced because of their involvement with EFLF.
As the nature of the learning programme was designed to respond to the developing needs of both participant funders and lead partners, the evaluation process was also designed to be flexible around the learning programme. This enabled it to provide timely insights to inform the EFLF’s ongoing development and adapt according to how the programme was delivered.
Participation and response rates
16 participants (including two from the same foundation) joined the learning programme to begin with. This included all who had contributed to the match fund.
12 out of 16 participants remained active and engaged throughout the three-year programme. Of the four who did not, one participant formally dropped out, two attended sporadically, and one fund contributor never participated in an EFLF learning session. All funding was retained in the pot regardless of those who dropped out.
The following response rates therefore include 100% of all those who were engaged in the programme at the time of data collection
• Baseline Survey –
March/April 2022
15 respondents (including one from the foundation with two participants)
• Initial in-depth interviews –April/May 2022
15 respondents (including one from the foundation with two participants)
• Mid-term survey –October 2023
12 respondents
• Most Significant Change statements –March 2025
12 respondents
• Final Survey –March/April 2025
12 respondents
Research findings
Progress against intended outcomes
Outcome
1.
To increase the skills, knowledge and confidence of participants to make environmental investments
Funders’ learning needs at baseline and mid-term stages
• Understanding the wider market for environmental investing
• Finding investment opportunities
• Understanding investment types and structures
• Understanding the business models of investee organisations
• Understanding investment processes, including: building a pipeline, risk assessment, due diligence, monitoring and evaluation, impact measurement etc
• Finding opportunities for collaboration
• Sector specific topics as follows: endangered species and seagrass, biodiversity credits, land-based habitats, catchments, wetlands, peatlands, marine environment, climate change
It’s knowing what the opportunities are, because I’m not really connected with this naturebased kind of sector at the moment.
In three years time, I would like to be more confident in how I would assess the viability of a nature restoration project for investment of a repayable loan or clean energy related project investment with a return.
I didn’t really understand the environmental models. I certainly didn’t understand the income generating opportunities that environmentally focused social enterprises have….some of the tariffs, I don’t even know the rebates or the incentives or all of that language.
Outcome 1:
Increase the skills, knowledge and confidence of participants to make environmental investments
10 of 12 respondents (83%) told us that they are more confident in their knowledge and skills for environmental investing as a result of the EFLF.
Most participants reported that their overall confidence for environmental investing had grown either ‘somewhat’ or ‘by a large amount’. Of those who stated that their confidence had remained about the same, we should bear in mind that some participants were already considerably experienced as investors.
Reported changes in knowledge and confidence for environmental investing
Much more confident
Somewhat more confident
Confidence is about the same
Somewhat less confident
Much less confident
At the start of the project, I knew very little about the investment mechanisms aimed at land and water environmental improvement projects…I have valued active participation … and the ability to learn from experience. Understanding the possible deal structures has been particularly useful.
I found that my existing knowledge and experience of finance, accounting, and investing in SMEs translated quite well to environmental impact investing. If anything, I underestimated how valuable this experience would be. That said, learning never ends and I have a broad understanding now, particularly of the scientific rationale for investments across the spectrum of environmental impact opportunities, which complements my financial knowledge.
Outcome 1: Increase the skills, knowledge and confidence of participants to make environmental investments
Participants’ confidence for environmental investing grew across multiple measures, most notably in understanding business and financial models, understanding the range of investment types within the market, and risk assessment.
Several different knowledge areas were tested at baseline, mid-term, and final survey stages using Likert scale questions in the following format: ‘On a scale of 1 – 10, how confident are you about your knowledge and skills overall in the area of environmental investing? 1 indicates that you are not confident at all and 10 indicates that you are highly confident’.
The charts below show median values on a scale of 1 – 10 for all respondents at baseline, mid-term and final survey stages (15, 12 and 12 respondents respectively).
• The greatest uplift in confidence levels for environmental investing occurred in the areas of: understanding business and financial models, the range of investment types within the market and assessing risk. All of these increased by 4 points. Their overall confidence for environmental investing also increased by 4 points.
• The smallest uplift in participants’ confidence levels occurred around providing support to potential investees to help them become investment ready (2 points), and interacting with investees and staying informed of their progress and impacts (1.5 points), with the latter having a higher starting point. These two areas were covered superficially by the learning programme.
Outcome 1: Increase the skills, knowledge and confidence of participants to make environmental investments
Understanding and managing environmental impact Interacting with investees and staying informed of their progress/impacts
Median score given on scale of 1–10
Business and financial models for environmental investments The range of environmental investment types within the market
At the start of the project, I knew very little about the investment mechanisms aimed at land and water environmental improvement projects. Through membership of EFLF, I have valued active participation in and monitoring of investments into a variety of projects and the ability to learn from experience. Understanding the possible deal structures has been particularly useful.
Demystified social/impact investing in ventures that have environmental benefit. Highlighted the myriad of legal models and investment types to engage in an impactful way – giving a full view on how an impact investor can be supportive in the achievement of a specific objective or development of a model or idea.
Mid Term Baseline Final Survey
Outcome 1: Increase the skills, knowledge and confidence of participants to make environmental investments
11 of 12 participants (92%) reported that their learning goals had been fully or partially met by the EFLF.
In the baseline and mid-term surveys, participants shared their personal learning goals for the programme, which were sent to them in the covering email that they received inviting them to respond to the final survey.
This chart illustrates the extent to which they reported that their original goals had been met.
Your learning goals
My original goals have been fully met
My original goals have been partially met
My original goals have not been met
Progress against intended outcomes
Outcome
2.
To increase the value of environmental pathfinder funding and numbers of investors offering it
Participants made specific positive changes to their practice in environmental investing which are attributable, in part, to the EFLF
Positive changes in participants’ investing practice which they themselves attributed to the EFLF are listed below.
• Direct investments into specific named investees
• Further investments made into funds and investees where specific details were not given
• A clearer strategy for giving and investing
• A less risk averse approach to investing
• Active networking and research to build a pipeline of investment opportunities.
It … [EFLF] … stimulated me to invest in Nattergal and Woodland Savers, though it may be that the latter is philanthropy and the other is an investment.
My confidence at analysing investments has grown and this has enabled me to make several investments during the time. I’m now an active philanthropic investor with a focused understanding of where I want to invest.
Outcome 2: To increase the value of environmental pathfinder funding and numbers of investors offering it
Changes in participants’ investing practice, which can be partly attributed to EFLF include:
• A clearer focus on their strategic priorities for giving and investing
• The ability to be more assertive with financial advisors and investment managers
• The ability to be more assertive with trustees
• The establishment of a new charitable foundation
• Successful influencing of trustees to feel positive about environmental investing
• Support for achieving positive environmental impact through funds invested in the foundation’s endowment as well as funds allocated to grant-making.
These changes were mentioned by participants in more general contexts within EFLF, and are likely to have resulted from a range of factors, one of which is the influence of the programme.
I am grateful to have joined this committed group of individuals, trusts and foundations, and appreciative of the support I received while setting up this [name of new charitable foundation] Fund.
Outcome
2: To increase the value of environmental pathfinder funding and numbers of investors offering it
The number of active environmental investors increased from five to eight during the programme8 . The number of participants reporting that they had been active environmental investors in the last year increased from five at baseline stage, to eight in the final survey (and increase of 25%). These figures do not include participants who dropped out.
We know that the shift from grant-making to investing is often slow, for example, from the experience of ACF’s Social Impact Investment Group, and the Environmental Impact Investing Group recently piloted by EFN. Therefore the change seen here over three years can be seen as positive early steps on a longer term trajectory of change.
The type of investment funding was described in all surveys as ‘social investing which has an environmental focus (as opposed to giving)’.
At baseline stage:
• All 15 respondents had done some environmental giving in the previous financial year.
• Eight participants had not done any investing in the previous financial year
Baseline: Participants’ environmental giving and investing in the last financial year
•Seven participants had actively invested in the previous year.
• Amongst the active investors there was a very large range of amounts that they had invested.
8 excluding those who dropped out
Outcome 2: To increase the value of environmental pathfinder funding and numbers of investors offering it
At the mid-term and final surveys, participants were asked:
‘Thinking specifically about your social investing which has an environmental focus (as opposed to giving), have the funds you have invested in environmental causes in the last year increased compared to previous years, as a result of your participation in the EFLF?’
Responses indicate that the majority of participants increased their investing around the middle of the programme, and that they maintained this through to the end of the programme.
At mid-term, seven respondents (58%) reported that their environmental investing over the last year had increased – either ‘somewhat’ or ‘by a large amount’.
In the final survey, three respondents (25%) reported that over the last year their investing had increased – either ‘somewhat’ or ‘by a large amount’, with eight (67%) stating that their investing had stayed the same.
This indicates that their levels of environmental investing stayed the same as the previous year, when seven of them reported that their investing had increased as a result of EFLF.
One participant stated that their investing had decreased both in the mid-term and final surveys, and we know anecdotally that this participant had already spent down their charitable and personal funds available for investment.
Reported changes in levels of environmental investing at mid term and endline
Investing has increased by a large amount
Investing has increased somewhat
Investing has stayed the same
Investing has decreased somewhat
Investing has decreased somewhat
Outcome 2: To increase the value of environmental pathfinder funding and numbers of investors offering it
Six participants (50%) gave higher priority to environmental benefit in their funding decisions at the end of the programme, compared to the beginning.
In the mid-term and final surveys participants were asked the following question: ‘Your priorities. Thinking about you or your organisation’s priorities for giving and investing, have they changed since the start of the programme?’
This chart shows that in the final survey, six respondents (half the cohort) reported that they give higher priority to environmental benefit now than they did before the EFLF.
Analysis of the qualitative data suggests that increased awareness of issues around the natural environment, the fact that participants had time to consider their strategic approaches, and the fact that participants were gathering environmental information from other networks related to EFLF, were all factors that contributed to this.
Changes in the level of funding priority given to the environment
Much higher priority is now given to supporting environmental benefit
Somewhat higher priority is now given to supporting environmental benefit
Equal priority is given to supporting environmental benefit
Somewhat less priority is now given to supporting environmental benefit
Much less priority is now given to supporting environmental benefit
Outcome
2: To increase the value of environmental pathfinder funding and numbers of investors offering it
My approach has also been aided by a clearer strategy, in which the investment should assist a just climate transition for those impacted by rising energy …costs.
The EFLF has been a valuable element of my increased involvement in environmental philanthropy over the last three to four years, alongside the EFN, the [foundation name] grantees, and other contacts in the sector.
We are focusing our grant-making in our current five-year grant programme which started in January of this year. We’re focusing it on three key areas under an environmental heading [Wilderness and important habitats worldwide, Sustainable Agriculture, principally in the UK, Addressing pollution of UK rivers] … So they’re our three environmental aims or goals which we’re trying to tackle from a grant making perspective, so it would be most useful if we could incorporate that into an investment strategy which looks at the deployment of capital.
[Foundation name] continues to explore how to invest and support environmentally sensitive projects and there is now action to demand more from the whole investment portfolio, as opposed to just the grant making funds.
I’m now an active philanthropic investor with a focused understanding of where I want to invest.
My focus on areas I want to support has sharpened.
Outcome 2: To increase the value of environmental pathfinder funding and numbers of investors offering it
The number of participants who plan to increase their environmental investing in the future increased from 50% (six) at mid-term to 75% (nine)9 at the end of the programme.
Summary of participant responses to the following question: ‘Do you plan to increase the funds you commit to environmental investments as a result of your participation in the EFLF? Please answer with regards to investing rather than giving’.
Of the three participants who responded no:
• One is an experienced and active environmental impact investor, who has reported in qualitative feedback that they plan to continue with their investing and giving as it is, so although there may be no increase, investing will continue.
• Another has already actively invested in a number of impact first environmental initiatives as a result of EFLF – and therefore their ‘ no ’ response may be because they don’t expect their investing to increase.
• The third ‘no’ respondent has spent down their personal and charitable funds available for giving / investing and therefore doesn’t intend to increase their investing.
9
Outcome 2: To increase the value of environmental pathfinder funding and numbers of investors offering it
Participants also reported that their environmental giving increased during the programme.
Reported changes in levels of giving at mid term and endline
Number of participants
Giving has increased by a large amount
Giving has increased somewhat
Giving has stayed the same
Giving has decreased somewhat
Giving has decreased by a large amount
Mid Term Final Survey
The number of participants reporting that their environmental giving in the last year had increased either ‘somewhat’ or ‘by a large amount’ as a result of the programme increased from four respondents (33%) in the mid term survey to seven respondents (58%) in the final survey.
It is possible that the perspective offered by the learning programme on achieving positive impact for the environment were a factor for this increase.
It’s also possible that the increase was related to the stronger strategic focus reported by participants (see next section).
However, the finding is interesting in itself, and could potentially be worth looking into in more detail in the future.
Progress against intended outcomes
Outcome
3.
To create a longterm network of active environmental investors for collaboration and co-investment
All participants are interested in co-investing with Esmée in the future, and some would like to co-invest with their EFLF peers and other funders.
In the final survey, all participants said they would be interested in co-investing with Esmée again (see chart on the next page). In the qualitative feedback, some participants also indicated that they would be interested in co-investing with each other, and within the wider networks they had built (often with help from EFLF) such as EFN’s Environmental Impact Investing Group and Green Angel Syndicate.
Four participants mentioned in the final survey that they wished to connect with other EFLF investors after the programme end, but the actual number may in fact be more because this was phrased as an open question.
Outcome 3: To create a long-term network of active environmental investors for collaboration and co-investment
Participants’ preferred impact areas for co-investment in the future with Esmée
Esmée’s Our Natural World strategy
Ensuring our natural world is restored and protected and that people benefit from that recovery is one of Esmée’s strategic aims. They do this by contributing through the five impact areas reflected in the chart.
Outcome
3: To create a long-term network of active environmental investors for collaboration and co-investment
We also know from the final survey that two of the participant foundations are actively collaborating with one another on a fund as a result of EFLF. Some participants were more ambitious with one expressing interest in pioneering high risk investment opportunities, with the aim of influencing larger and more established funders to become co-investors in the future.
The following qualitative feedback provides some helpful context.
I have also benefitted from the expansion of my network of possible future co-funders and investors.
…looking for pilot opportunities where we can use our fairly small funds, relatively to invest in some higher risk nature based investment opportunities, and then use those as case studies to try then to drag along the bigger foundations and the institutional investors.
EFLF has increased my awareness of and investment in nature-based solutions to climate change. I am interested to collaborate with the network I have established via EFLF and invest in such projects in the future.
My main interest now is in collaboration, especially in the provision of philanthropic loans.
Now working with the [name of a foundation], funding (gifting) to small community environmental projects …. Learning from the experience of other, professional, investors in the group.
Outcome 3: To create a long-term network of active environmental investors for collaboration and co-investment
Participants’ feelings of connectedness to other people and organisations involved in environmental investing increased through the programme.
The survey outcomes show that the programme had a useful role in developing participants’ networks. Surveys asked participants to rate on a scale of 1- 10 how connected they felt to others who are involved in environmental investing. They also asked about the degree to which EFLF had helped them create such connections.
The degree to which participants felt connected to others who are involved in environmental investing rose from 3 out of 10 at the start of the programme to 6 out of 10 at the end (median score). The degree to which the programme helped them to create these connections was given as 6 out of 10 (median score).
Connecting with others involved with environmental investing
How connected participants feel with others who are involved in environmental investing?
Median score given by participants on a scale of 1- 10
However, there is a big range within the responses and within the median values, some gave low scores of 2 or 3 and some gave high scores of 8 or 9 for these two questions. Possible reasons for this are discussed later in this section.
The degree to which EFLF helped participants to create useful relationships with others involved in environmental investing?
Mid Term Baseline
Survey
Outcome 3: To create a long-term network of active environmental investors for collaboration and co-investment
The creation of a peer network was valuable to some participants in multiple ways, although not all participants found it valuable.
Participants described the ways in which they valued the network created by the programme with the following themes being most prominent.
• Learning from each other’s experiences, questions and perspectives
• General sense of community, connectedness and enjoyment in learning as a group
• Co-funding possibilities for the future
• Easier to speak about investing in EFLF and other forums
• Introductions to investee and presenter organisations via the programme
• A network of networks, EFLF acted as part of a network of networks with other networks including Green Angel Syndicate, Environmental Impact Investing Group, Ethex, Environmental Funders Network and others.
Through the scheme I’ve been privileged to have met inspiring businesses, organisations and individuals. I hope we can continue the network in the same way.
The knowledge gained was valuable and more to the point, enjoyable, because of the human engagement with other people, experts and entrepreneurs who are basically aligned with my own cares and intentions.
Participation in EFLF has encouraged me to carry out my own research into pipeline opportunities... As such, I have increased my network of organisations and individuals who are working in this field.
Outcome
3: To create a long-term network of active environmental investors for collaboration and co-investment
Some found the peer network less valuable.
This could be because of varying levels of experience and interests within the cohort, where participants’ starting points and levels of knowledge were quite different. Added to this is the small cohort size of 12 may have provided limited opportunities to find common ground with others. Another factor could be participants’ different learning styles with some learning very much through conversation, and others learning more through other methods such as reading programme slides and reports. Relevant qualitative feedback is as follows.
These connections have not yielded value yet, but over time I am hopeful that opportunities would arise.
These have been limited – perhaps due to time pressures I feel and having an agenda and workload that is much broader than environmental issues.
Remaining barriers to environmental investing
Analysis of qualitative feedback at the end of the programme highlights a number of key areas which participants felt were holding them back from being able to do more of this type of environmental investing.
Lack of investment opportunities
The barrier to environmental investing which came across most strongly was lack of investment opportunities and pipeline. Often participants mentioned this in general terms and some highlighted specific issues such as a gap in the market around philanthropic loans, and lack of investment opportunities where biodiversity net gain is part of the financial model.
High resource requirements in terms of knowledge, skills, and time
Another aspect which came across strongly was around lack of resource in the inter-related areas of detailed sector knowledge, the skills required for assessment/due diligence and the large amount of resource needed to carry out the practical tasks involved in investing.
High level of capital required
The high minimum investment or ticket size on some investment opportunities was mentioned a few times.
Remaining barriers to environmental impact investing
Opportunities are risky, long term and illiquid with low returns
Some participants saw it as a barrier that investments are necessarily long term e.g. 10 years, and not tradeable with no secondary market in place. Investment opportunities come with high risks, low financial returns and profits only sufficient to recycle. There was acknowledgement that investors have to accept this, recognising that the value of the environmental impact, rather than just a narrow financial return.
Investing vs philanthropy for positive environmental impact
Another point from the analysis was lack of clarity about whether philanthropy or investing was likely to achieve the strongest positive impacts for the environment. This acted as a barrier to going ahead confidently with investing.
With regard to investments, I see continuing barriers for smaller trusts and foundations, due to lack of access to opportunities, not only not necessarily knowing about them, but also not having the knowledge or resources to be able to participate in what are often high risk, complex projects that require participation of big-ticket players.
I feel it will be difficult to benchmark projects against competitors/peers without undertaking a full-blown investigation of that particular sector/ geographical area etc. I would not undertake an investment on a sole basis without collective due diligence on the project. Esmée has the advantage of seeing a large volume of deals so are better placed to take this helicopter view.
Esmée’s organisational learning
At Esmée, we’re pleased with what the EFLF has achieved: a high quality learning programme alongside a diverse portfolio of six high-impact organisations that reflect our overall Environmental Investment strategy. The social investment and grants teams at Esmée worked closely together on the EFLF and this helped strengthen collaboration between the two. The social investment team learned a lot about complex areas of environmental impact and the grants team
increased its understanding of social investment. Questions and reflections posed in the sessions also helped challenge our thinking on emerging areas such as carbon credits, while the process of preparing for quarterly structured sessions helped prioritise making regular space for learning.
New internal processes for administering blended finance and monitoring a distinct pipeline and portfolio may be useful in the future.
Overall, the EFLF helped us reflect on our role as a potential leader as well as how and to what degree we might influence other funders to increase social investment activity in aligned impact areas - recognising that the team has limited capacity and others such as EFN are already working on this goal. Alternative models we’re exploring include co-investing with smaller numbers of peers on specific topics or opportunities.
Recommendations
Continue to build pipeline in this sector, aiming to offer at least two co-funding opportunities per year to EFLF alumni and other small funders. This would address barriers identified such as the lack of pipeline and the high levels of resource and capital needed as Esmée would be resourcing both the pipeline building and assessment. Co-funding would spread the financial commitment and de-risk investments for all partners. Co-funding opportunities could be promoted to both EFLF alumni and other funders within Esmée’s wider network, including the membership of EFN.
Continue to provide forums for learning and networking about environmental investing such as the Environmental Impact Investing Group, aiming to engage at least 35 new funders per year.
The EFLF has successfully encouraged philanthropists to take part in environmental investing alongside their giving. This is important because increased environmental investing has potential to increase the level of impact-funding dedicated to environmental causes overall. However, the cohort size for EFLF was small, and impactfirst environmental investing is a relatively new area of finance which is not widely
understood. EFN could continue to provide forums for learning and networking about environmental investing for larger numbers of funders. The Environmental Impact Investing Group (EIIG) was piloted by EFN in 2024 and engaged 98 funder participants in its learning events, including a number of EFLF participants, which shows there is a clear demand for this work.
For Esmée For EFN
Recommendations
For Esmée and EFN
Promote ‘open-book’ learning and co-investment approach to other large funders as an example of good practice over the coming 12 to 18 months.
The EFLF has achieved success, and this approach to increasing levels of early-stage, impact-first investment is transferable to other large environmental funders, as well as funders of other impact sectors. Esmée and EFN could share their learning from this approach both directly with their peers and through sector events such as the annual conferences led by Association of Charitable Foundations, New Philanthropy Capital and other sector learning and networking events.
•Break out groups to meet each other (describe brief y a project you’ve given to/invested in)
•Our shared priorities for the EFLF Learning Programme: outcomes of initial survey and interviews – SLIDES and discussion
•PRESENTATIONS: The story of Tarras Valley Nature Reserve, a project of the Langholm Initiative in South Scotland, and their second phase buyout campaign (Esmée underwrote their crowdfunding campaign)
• Discussion in groups, then Q&A in plenary with Tarras Valley and Esmée teams
•Future meetings and keeping in touch
•Quickfire feedback in chatbox
Speakers
Jenny Sansom, EFN Learning partner
Jenny Dadd, Funding Manager, Lead Our Natural World, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Jenny Barlow, Estate Manager & Angela Williams, Development Manager, Tarras Valley
Gillian Dickson, Social Investment Manager Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Learning programme sessions
6 Sept 2022 In person
•Lunch and slow bingo to meet one another in person
• Esmée’s Social Investment Strategy for ‘Our Natural World’
•Small groups to discuss: What are the guiding principles you use to inform your giving/investments? How does Esmée’s approach relate to your own practice?
•Q&A to Esmée team
•Freshwater and Rivers
•PRESENTATION: The Wyre Natural Flood Management project: An investment by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
•PRESENTATION: ‘Upstream Thinking’ West Country Rivers Trust: An investment by EFLF participant Martin Stanley
•Q&A
•Action Learning: a proposal for learning together between meetings
• Fund Progress – Q&A
• Feedback and close
Speakers
Liam McAleese, Director –Our Natural World, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Simon Wightman, Funding Manager, Lead, Our Natural World
Dan Hird, Director, Nature Finance
Martin Stanley, EFLF Funder Participant
Jenny Sansom, Learning Partner, EFN
•Welcome and introduction
• Biodiversity Net Gain: What it is, how it works, and how it can generate finance for conservation and habitat improvement.
• Guided Q&A
• CASE STUDY: Cheshire Wildlife Trust proposal for Saltersford Farm
• Work in Small Groups:
– What questions would you need to have answered before investing? What are the risks?
– In what ways does the work achieve positive impact? Would you have invested?
• Portfolio and Pipeline Summary, and Q&A
•Feedback and close
Speakers
Dr Daniela Russi, Senior Policy Manager, British Ecological Society
Martin Varley, Director of Nature Recovery, Cheshire Wildlife Trust
Gillian Dickson, Social Investment Manager Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Tom Colborne, Social Investment Portfolio Manager Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
1 Dec 2022 Online
•Welcome and Introductions
• PRESENTATION: Loans for Enlightened Agriculture Programme, Real Farming Trust (portfolio investee) outlining their proposal to Esmée
• A perspective on this investment from Esmée and the principles of their decision making
• Discussion in groups – What inspires you about Agroecology? What would you ask as an investor?
Networks for Collaboration
•EFN’s plans for an impact investing network
•Green Angel Syndicate
•Portfolio and pipeline report, Q&A
•Forward Plan for EFLF learning programme – consider draft forward plan in groups and feedback
Speakers
Robert Fraser, CEO, Real Farming Trust
Gillian Dickson, Social Investment Manager Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Tom Colborne, Social Investment
Portfolio Manager, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Catherine Bryan, Funder participant and chair of EFN
Caroline Halliday, Funder participant and member of Green Angel Syndicate
9 Mar 2023 In Person
•Welcome and introduction
• PRESENTATION: Woodland Savers (at the time under review, became a portfolio investee)
• Discuss in groups – What inspires you about this project? How does it differ to others we’ve heard from in EFLF? What are the main risks and positive impacts? What questions would you ask before investing?
• Q&A around Woodland savers including Esmée perspective
• Portfolio and pipeline report, including recently approved Kindling Farm investment
• Q&A
•Feedback and close
Speakers
Christoph Warrack , CEO, Woodland Savers
Ann Rooney-Evans, Head of Grants and Trusts, Woodland Trust
Tom Colborne, Social Investment Portfolio Manager, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
•Welcome and introduction, Icebreaker
•PRESENTATION: Decarbonising investments and emerging private environmental markets Patrick Begg shared National Trust’s approach to emerging environmental markets looking at: the carbon market, biodiversity net gain, water quality and flood risk.
•Group discussion: Has your perspective changed as a result of this discussion? Is there a practical action you might take as a result? If so what? Feedback to plenary
• Fund portfolio and pipeline report and investment summaries for individual investees.
• PRESENTATION: Ooooby ‘Out of our own backyard’ is a recent addition to the EFLF portfolio. Ooooby is a digital platform enabling regenerative food producers to sell direct to customers.
•Q&A
• Notices, feedback and close
Speakers
Patrick Begg, Outdoors and Natural Resources Director, National Trust
Tom Colborne, Social Investment Portfolio Manager, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Pete Russell, Founder, Ooooby
3 Oct 2023 In Person
•Welcome and Introduction
• PRESENTATION: Healthy freshwater environments for people and wildlife. Why FW is important, common funding models for freshwater, risks to consider when investing, potential stakeholders and their roles
• Esmée’s work on freshwater in the green finance space
• PRESENTATION: Freshwater Case studies – Dan Hird
• Q&A
• Portfolio and pipeline report
• Mid Term survey outcomes and key messages for the programme into 2024/2025
• Questions and discussion
•Notices, feedback and close
Speakers
Jenny Wheeldon, Freshwater Partnerships Development Manager, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Simon Wightman, Funding Manager –
Lead Our Natural World, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Dan Hird, Director, Nature Finance
Tom Colborne, Social Investment Portfolio Manager, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Jenny Sansom, Learning Partner EFN
Learning programme sessions
•Welcome and introduction
• PRESENTATION: Healthy Marine environments for people and wildlifeHow Esmée are creating positive change for marine environments, supporting projects which restore marine biodiversity at scale, and working with existing traditional coastal and fishing communities.
• Q&A
• PRESENTATION: Case Study: Câr-y-Môr – Wales’ first regenerative shellfish and seaweed farm.
• PRESENTATION: Case study: Sea Ranger Service – Restoring 1 million hectares of ocean biodiversity by 2040 whilst training 20,000 young people towards a maritime career
• PRESENTATION: Ma’at Environment Fund
• Q&A
• Portfolio and pipeline report
• Facilitated Session: 'What will you need after EFLF finishes, to help you feel more confident in environmental investing and to help you make more environmental investments?'
• Coming soon – Learning opportunities on environmental investing/ EFLF forward plan/Environmental Impact Investing Group (EIIG)
• Feedback and informal networking
Speakers
Morven Robertson, Funding Manager and Marine Biologist, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
David Holberton, individual, EFLF participant and trustee of Ma’at Environment Fund.
Tom Colborne, Social Investment Portfolio Manager, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Jenny Sansom, Learning Partner EFN
16 Apr 2024 In person, full day session
•Welcome and Introduction
• PRESENTATION: Peat and Peatland environments for people and wildlife. Peat as a climate change superpower, its habitat conservation value, issues with horticulture. Strategies for conservation, and mitigation of damage including funding/ finance models. Potential stakeholders.
• PRESENTATION: Sizzle/Enrich the Earth: Why a peat ban for horticultural products hasn’t been introduced despite extensive lobbying. Overcoming the obstacles, including creating an effective alternative to peat, shifting legislation, educating growers and changing the financial model.
• Q&A
• PRESENTATION: Community engagement/ownership for environmental projects. Why CE is important, how CE demonstrated in the projects and organisations from our fund portfolio?
• Group work: How important is community engagement for you? Discuss.
• Portfolio and Pipeline report – Q&A
•Feedback and close
Speakers
Jenny Dadd, Funding Manager Lead – Our Natural World, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Tom Colborne, Social Investment Portfolio Manager, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
9 Jul 2024 Online
•PRESENTATION: Investment Funds, what are they and how do they work? how do they differ from public market funds, and why are they interesting for impact investors? How to assess?
•PRESENTATION: Impact investment deep dive into sustainable food and agriculture. Consultants Hayley Mole and Thomas Slattery developed a practical resource for investors wishing to invest in funds to make our food system more sustainable.
• Q&A
• PRESENTATION: Participant perspective. Bill Carman talks about Carman Family Foundation’s recent environmental impact investments as well as sharing his thinking for the future.
•Discussion with whole group – what investments have you made? What are you considering?
• Continuation plans for after EFLF
• Notices
• Feedback and close
Speakers
Tom Colborne, Social Investment Portfolio Manager, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Jonny Page, Head of Social and Impact Investment, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Hayley Mole, Consultant Researcher, Independent (working with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation)
Thomas Slattery, Consultant Researcher, Independent (working with Esmée Fairbairn Foundation)
Bill Carman, Trustee, Carman Family Foundation
15 Oct 2024
Learning programme sessions
•Welcome and introduction
• Esmée Fairbairn Foundation – Three years of the EFLF
• Update on Biodiversity Net Gain – policy and practice
• EFLF – your story: 'Looking back over the last three years, what is the most significant change you have experienced as a result of your involvement in the EFLF?' Participants discuss, then handwrite a simple paragraph aout their experience
•Notices
•Close and lunch
Speakers
Liam McAleese, Director –Our Natural World, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Keith Tomkins, Nature Recovery Development Manager, Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Patrick Begg, Outdoors and Natural Resources Director, National Trust
19 Mar 2025 In Person
Optional Group Sessions
• Action Learning: Nine EFLF participants took part in Action Learning between September 2022 and March 2023. Each participant completed two full action learning sets, meaning that they each had a chance to present their own challenge to their action learning set twice, receive feedback, and contribute feedback for others. One set took place in person in London, and a further set took place entirely online according to participants preferences.
• Highlands Rewilding case study investment, May 2023, participant led
• Technologies to tackle plastic pollution, case study investment, June 2023, participant led
• Due diligence and risk, September 2023, led by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
• Establishing Ma’at Foundation, March 2024, participant led
• Developing your visionary environmental strategy, November 2024, led by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
• Investment types and legal forms within the EFLF portfolio, January 2025, led by Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
An independent UK funder, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation aims to improve our natural world, secure a fairer future and strengthen the bonds in communities in the UK. We unlock change by contributing everything we can alongside people and organisations with brilliant ideas who share our goals.
Registered charity 200051
020 7812 3700
info@Esmeefairbairn.org.uk
Esmee Fairbairn Foundation
@esmeefairbairn.bsky.social
@EsmeeFairbairn
@esmeefairbairn
www.esmeefairbairn.org.uk
Environmental Funders Network
Environmental Funders Network works to transform environmental philanthropy in the UK: increasing funding levels, improving effectiveness and supporting people and organisations helping to create a thriving planet.
Environmental Funders Network is a charity registered in England and Wales (no. 1181318) and Scotland (no. SC050579).
