Conservation International

Founding and 1980s

Conservation International was founded in 1987 by Peter Seligmann and Spencer Beebe.^[7][19] Seligmann had worked at The Nature Conservancy and left that organization with a small staff and three board members to co-found CI with Beebe.^[7] Although The Nature Conservancy had developed from a U.S. land trust model, CI's first major project was not a domestic land purchase but an international conservation-finance transaction linked to tropical protected areas.^[20][9] The organization's early niche combined international field projects, priority-setting for high-biodiversity regions, and financial mechanisms intended to direct conservation funding to tropical countries.^[7][9][11]

In July 1987, Conservation International and the Government of Bolivia signed a debt-for-nature swap agreement that has been described as the first of its kind.^[9][10] Conservation International acquired US$650,000 of Bolivian external debt for US$100,000. Bolivia provided the Beni Biological Station Biosphere Reserve with maximum legal protection, created three adjacent protected areas, and agreed to provide US$250,000 in local currency for management activities in the reserve.^[9] The transaction helped establish conservation finance as an important part of CI's institutional identity, linking biodiversity protection with financial tools, government commitments, and local-currency funding for protected-area management.^[9]

In 1989, Conservation International adopted biodiversity hotspots as a framework for setting conservation priorities.^[11] The hotspot approach emphasized regions with high concentrations of endemic species and substantial habitat loss, providing a global screening tool for directing limited conservation resources.^[11][21] Together, the Bolivia debt swap and the adoption of hotspots reflected an early model built around international partnerships, biodiversity science, and finance rather than a single-country land-acquisition programme.^[7][9][11]

1990s

In the early 1990s, Conservation International halted direct-mail fundraising and expanded its programs using support from board members and foundation grants, including from the MacArthur Foundation.^[7] In 1990, it entered its first corporate partnership, with McDonald's Corporation.^[22]

In 1990, Conservation International created the Rapid Assessment Program, a rapid biodiversity survey initiative intended to support conservation decision-making by generating biological information from field assessments.^[12] In the mid-1990s, the organization expanded its fundraising strategies, with increased emphasis on foundations and wealthy individual donors.^[7] In 1998, Conservation International scientists published an approach to setting conservation priorities that combined biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas.^[23]

2000s

In 2000, Conservation International participated in the launch of the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), a partnership between the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility, and Conservation International that supports civil society conservation work in biodiversity hotspots.^[13] The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation joined CEPF as a partner in 2001, and the Government of Japan joined in 2002.^[13]

In 2001, Conservation International launched the Global Conservation Fund, which focuses on establishing the financial sustainability of specific protected areas.^[14] In 2004, Starbucks launched Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices, a verification program developed by Starbucks, Conservation International, and SCS Global Services.^[24]

In 2008, Conservation International updated its mission to focus on the connections between human well-being and natural ecosystems, and expanded its work with a stronger focus on marine conservation, scientific research, conservation finance, and partnerships with governments, corporations, and Indigenous and local communities.^[25]

2010s

In 2014, Conservation International launched the public-awareness campaign Nature Is Speaking at SXSW Eco in Austin, Texas.^[15]

In 2017, M. Sanjayan was named chief executive officer, succeeding Peter Seligmann, who remained chair of the board.^[26][27]

2020s

In August 2025, Sanjayan stepped down as CEO, and Daniela Raik was appointed interim chief executive officer while the board conducted a search for a permanent CEO.^[5] In February 2026, Conservation International announced Sebastian Troëng as chief executive officer and named Lisa P. Jackson interim chair of the board, succeeding Robert J. Fisher.^[3] Conservation International epidemiologist Dr. Neil Vora was named to the 2025 Time 100 Next list.^[28] In fiscal year 2024, CI reported expenditures of more than US$297 million.^[29][30]

Conservation priority-setting

Conservationists use biodiversity hotspots as a screening tool for prioritizing conservation investment in regions that combine high concentrations of endemic species with extensive habitat loss.^[21] CI adopted the hotspots framework and has used it alongside other priority geographies such as major tropical wilderness areas and marine regions in its conservation work.^[7] Researchers have debated hotspot-based prioritization, with critiques that concentrating resources on hotspots can overlook areas outside hotspot boundaries that still have high conservation value.^[21][31]

Human well-being emphasis and communications

In 2008, Conservation International updated its mission and programme framing to emphasize the relationship between natural ecosystems and human well-being.^[25] The shift placed the organization within a broader movement in conservation science that treated biodiversity protection, ecosystem services, development, climate resilience and human livelihoods as linked objectives rather than separate policy areas.^[32] This approach was reflected in CI's growing emphasis on ecosystem services, nature-based solutions, conservation finance, climate adaptation, marine conservation and partnerships with governments, corporations, Indigenous peoples and local communities.^[25][27]

The public message most closely associated with this change was that "people need nature to thrive".^[15][33][27] In practice, this framing moved CI's public communications away from appeals based mainly on protecting nature for its own sake and toward arguments that functioning ecosystems support food, freshwater, climate stability, health, livelihoods and economic security.^[27][32] The shift also helped connect the organization's older biodiversity-priority-setting work to newer programme areas such as blue carbon, freshwater assessment, climate adaptation and sustainable production landscapes.

CI's best-known expression of this communications strategy was the 2014 campaign Nature Is Speaking, launched at SXSW Eco in Austin, Texas.^[15] The campaign used short films narrated by celebrity voices to personify elements of nature and to argue that nature would persist in some form, but that human societies depend on functioning natural systems.^[34][35][15] Academic analysis of the campaign described it as a form of celebrity-mediated environmental communication that constructed nature as a speaking subject and linked concern for nature to concern for human futures.^[36]

The people-centred framing also placed CI within debates over the so-called "new conservation" movement. Supporters of human-well-being approaches argued that conservation strategies needed to integrate biodiversity protection with poverty, development, corporate behaviour, ecosystem services and the realities of human-dominated landscapes.^[32] Critics argued that framing nature mainly through human benefits, economic value or corporate partnerships could weaken commitments to biodiversity protection and the intrinsic value of non-human life.^[37][38] In CI's case, these debates overlapped with criticism of its corporate partnerships and of carbon-credit projects, which are discussed in the article's reception and criticism section.^[18][39]

Indigenous peoples and local communities

Work with Indigenous peoples and local communities has been a recurring feature of Conservation International's programme model, especially where conservation depends on community governance, customary tenure, or long-term agreements over land and marine resources. Examples have included a proposed communal-reserve co-management model in the Peruvian Amazon, support for the Wai Wai-managed Kanashen Amerindian Protected Area in Guyana, the South Suriname Conservation Corridor advanced with Trio and Wayana communities, Māori-led ocean initiatives associated with Hinemoana Halo in Aotearoa New Zealand, conservation-lease arrangements with iTaukei landowners in Fiji's Sovi Basin, and ecological restoration work with Siona communities in Putumayo, Colombia.^{[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]}

Questions about community consent, land tenure and benefit-sharing in some CI-linked projects are discussed further in the article's reception and criticism section.^[47][48]

Conservation finance

Conservation International has been associated with the use of conservation finance--financial mechanisms intended to mobilize and direct capital toward conservation, often by pairing conservation outcomes with durable funding streams and, in some cases, financial returns.^[61]

CI's early history is linked to debt-for-nature swaps: in 1987 it helped negotiate a debt conversion with Bolivia that has been described as the first swap of its kind, directing local-currency resources toward protected-area creation and management funding.^[9][10]

In later decades, CI helped launch or participate in conservation-finance platforms designed to support biodiversity priorities at scale, including the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund and the Global Conservation Fund, which supports the long-term financial sustainability of specific protected areas.^[13][14] CI-linked programmes have also used performance-based approaches such as voluntary-market REDD+ finance linked to conservation agreements, and have participated in project-finance-for-permanence initiatives designed to secure long-term funding for protected-area systems.^{[62][14][63][64]}

Climate and carbon

Conservation International's climate-related work includes forest and rangeland carbon projects, coastal blue carbon initiatives, public climate-finance projects, and corporate climate-finance partnerships. Forest and rangeland projects have used mechanisms such as REDD+, restoration finance and carbon credits to support protected-area management, conservation agreements and landscape restoration. Examples include the Alto Mayo Protection Forest REDD+ project in Peru, the Chyulu Hills Carbon Project in Kenya, and a Prey Lang Wildlife Sanctuary REDD+ project in Cambodia under Japan's Joint Crediting Mechanism.^[62][65][66]

Blue-carbon work concerns carbon stored in coastal and marine ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrass meadows and salt marshes. Conservation International-linked blue-carbon activities have included research, policy support, restoration planning and project finance in coastal regions. The Singapore-based International Blue Carbon Institute functions as a hub for blue-carbon research, implementation and capacity-building, while country-level projects have included mangrove and coastal-wetland work in Costa Rica, Ecuador and Fiji.^{[67][68][69][70][71]}

Some climate-related work has been financed through public environmental and climate funds. Conservation International Foundation has served as an accredited entity for Green Climate Fund projects in Madagascar, Botswana and Ecuador, and has participated in Global Environment Facility projects with climate, land-use or deforestation components in countries including Brazil, Kenya and Liberia.^{[72][73][70][74][75][76]} Corporate climate finance has included carbon-credit purchases, restoration funds and blue-carbon research support, including Disney's retirement of credits from Alto Mayo, Apple's Restore Fund work with Conservation International, and Amazon's support for the International Blue Carbon Institute. Criticism of offset-linked projects is discussed in the article's reception and criticism section.^{[77][78][79][39]}

Multilateral project roles

Conservation International has acted as a project agency, accredited entity, implementing agency or executing partner in some projects financed by multilateral environmental funds. Conservation International Foundation has served as an accredited entity for Green Climate Fund projects in Madagascar, Botswana and Ecuador, including sustainable-landscape, rangeland and mangrove-climate initiatives.^[72][73][70] In Global Environment Facility programming, CI or its country programmes have also held project-agency, implementing or executing roles in projects in countries including Ecuador, Kenya, Liberia and Timor-Leste.^{[80][75][76][81]} These roles differ from CI's grantmaking and advocacy work because they involve formal responsibilities within public environmental-finance project structures.

Capacity building and training

Capacity building is a recurring part of Conservation International's work, alongside field conservation and finance. Programmes have included internships, scholarships, practitioner support, environmental education and community training. In Singapore, Conservation International's internship programme gives tertiary students experience in Asia-Pacific conservation work, and the MAC3 Conservation Scholarship supports postgraduate research on topics such as blue carbon and riparian ecosystems.^[82][83] At a broader institutional level, CI has also supported Indigenous leaders conservation fellowships and an Indigenous Peoples Negotiations Program intended to strengthen the ability of Indigenous peoples and local communities to participate in conservation and development negotiations.^[84]

Country and regional programmes have used capacity-building approaches in more localized forms. In Timor-Leste, participatory learning tools and community nurseries have been used to support reforestation and natural-resource management, while Samoa's Guardians programme used the traditional voyaging canoe Gaualofa as a platform for hands-on environmental education in coastal districts.^[85][86] In China, Freshwater Health Index work and wetland projects have combined assessment tools with stakeholder engagement, nature education and community engagement, while in New Caledonia, co-management around Mont Panié has involved the community-run Dayu Biik association and activities linked to conservation, environmental education and ecotourism.^[87][88]

Corporate partnerships

Corporate partnerships have been part of Conservation International's operating model since the organization's early years, including work on supply-chain standards, conservation finance, climate initiatives, marketing partnerships and corporate sustainability advice. In 1990, CI entered its first corporate partnership, with McDonald's, in work later described as focused on sustainable supply-chain issues and biodiversity conservation.^[22] In 2004, Starbucks launched Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices, a verification programme developed with Conservation International and SCS Global Services to assess coffee production against economic, social and environmental criteria.^[24][89] Conservation International Japan has also maintained corporate relationships with companies including Daikin and Mitsubishi Corporation, connected to corporate strategy, carbon and nature commitments, and cause-related communications.^[90]

In the 2020s, corporate and philanthropic partnerships have been linked to climate finance and marine-conservation initiatives. Apple and Conservation International have worked through the Restore Fund and related restoration efforts; Amazon and other funders have supported the Singapore-based International Blue Carbon Institute; Disney has retired carbon credits from the Alto Mayo project in Peru; and the Walmart Foundation has supported jurisdictional initiatives intended to improve environmental, social and economic performance in Pacific albacore tuna fisheries.^{[78][79][77][91][92]} Criticism of CI's corporate partnerships and offset-linked projects is discussed in the article's reception and criticism section.^[18][39]

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund

The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is a multi-donor grantmaking initiative that supports civil-society conservation projects in biodiversity hotspots. Conservation International participated in CEPF’s launch in 2000 as a partnership with the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility.^[13] The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation joined CEPF as a partner in 2001, and the Government of Japan joined in 2002.^[13]

Global Conservation Fund

In 2001, Conservation International launched the Global Conservation Fund, which focuses on establishing the financial sustainability of specific protected areas.^[14]

Rapid Assessment Program

In 1990, Conservation International created the Rapid Assessment Program, a rapid biodiversity survey initiative intended to support conservation decision-making by generating biological information from field assessments.^[12]

Marine conservation

Conservation International's marine work has generally combined support for marine protected areas and protected-area networks with marine spatial planning, fisheries initiatives, blue carbon projects and long-term conservation finance. Rather than focusing only on individual protected areas, several programmes have operated at seascape or national-waters scales, where conservation planning is linked to fisheries management, tourism, coastal livelihoods and durable funding. Examples include the Phoenix Islands Protected Area in Kiribati, the Raja Ampat marine protected-area network in Indonesia, the Verde Island Passage network in the Philippines, and Samoa's national marine spatial-planning framework.^{[93][94][95][96][97]}

In several cases, governments or local institutions have designated or managed protected waters while CI and other partners have provided scientific surveys, planning support, financing, monitoring, or capacity-building. In Raja Ampat, peer-reviewed research described Conservation International and other non-governmental organisations as bridging actors in the planning, adoption and management of the marine protected-area network, including support for a tourism entrance-fee system, patrol arrangements and the Blue Abadi Fund.^[94] Similar network-oriented approaches appear in the Verde Island Passage, where local-government alliances coordinated dozens of marine protected areas, and in Samoa, where the marine spatial plan incorporates new offshore protected areas and existing nearshore managed areas.^[95][97]

Fisheries and coastal-livelihood work forms another strand of CI's marine programme. In Hawaiʻi, its programme has worked with partners including NOAA Fisheries on sustainable seafood and the utilisation of invasive reef fish, while in Palau it has supported planning and capacity-building linked to the Palau National Marine Sanctuary and the country's domestic fishing zone.^{[98][99][100]} Coastal and blue-carbon initiatives link marine conservation to climate adaptation and mitigation by focusing on carbon-rich ecosystems such as mangroves and seagrass meadows. CI-linked projects have included mangrove and blue-carbon work in Costa Rica's Gulf of Nicoya and in Ecuador's coastal mangrove regions, as well as coastal-resilience work at Weg naar Zee in Suriname.^{[101][69][70][102]}

Pacific ocean initiatives

In Kiribati, the Phoenix Islands Protected Area was created in 2008 through a partnership between the Government of Kiribati, Conservation International and the New England Aquarium.^[93] In Hawaiʻi, Conservation International’s programme has worked with partners including NOAA Fisheries on sustainable seafood and fisheries initiatives, including efforts to increase utilisation of invasive reef fish such as ta‘ape (bluestripe snapper).^[98]

In Palau, Conservation International has worked with Palauan partners to support management and sustainability planning for the Palau National Marine Sanctuary and the country's domestic fishing zone, including marine-spatial-planning and fisheries-capacity initiatives aimed at developing a sustainable, Palauan-owned domestic fishery.^[99][100]

In Samoa, Conservation International's country programme has supported ocean governance and marine spatial planning through the Samoa Ocean Strategy and the Samoa Marine Spatial Plan. The Samoa Marine Spatial Plan 2025–2035 establishes an ocean-management system for Samoan waters, includes nine new fully protected marine protected areas, and incorporates existing nearshore managed areas.^[96][97]

Mountains to Mangroves

Mountains to Mangroves is a regional ecosystem protection and restoration initiative in the Eastern Himalayas (including Bhutan, Bangladesh, India, and Nepal) that is catalyzed by Conservation International and aims to support large-scale restoration and tree planting across the landscape.^[103] In Bhutan, the initiative has included a partnership intended to restore 50,000 hectares of degraded land over the next decade.^[103] In 2025, the United Kingdom partnered with Conservation International on the Mountains to Mangroves Atlas, a digital map intended to help guide nature-based solutions across the Eastern Himalayas.^[104]

Americas

Ecuador

Main article: Conservation International Ecuador

Conservation International established its Ecuador country programme in 2001, focusing on biodiversity conservation and protected-area management in the Galápagos Islands and mainland Ecuador, including marine and coastal conservation and climate resilience.^[126] It has served as the Global Environment Facility agency for the Galápagos biosecurity and ecosystem restoration project Safeguarding biodiversity in the Galapagos Islands by enhancing biosecurity and creating the enabling environment for the restoration of Galapagos Island ecosystems.^[80] Conservation International Foundation is the accredited entity for the Green Climate Fund project Mangroves for climate: Public, Private and Community Partnerships for Mitigation and Adaptation in Ecuador, approved in July 2024.^[70]

Peru

Main article: Conservation International Peru

Conservation International has worked in Peru since 1989, focusing on Amazon forest conservation and protected-area management alongside community livelihoods and conservation finance.^[62] In the Alto Mayo Protection Forest, it has used conservation agreements linked to voluntary-market REDD+ finance to support forest protection while providing participating households with technical assistance intended to improve livelihoods.^[62] In 2023, Peru and the United States finalised a Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation Act (TFCCA) debt-for-nature swap with Conservation International and other NGOs, redirecting more than US$20 million in debt-service payments to a grantmaking fund for forest conservation and sustainable livelihoods in the Peruvian Amazon.^[133]

Africa

Kenya

Main article: Conservation International Kenya

Conservation International established its Kenya programme in 2014.^[139] The programme works on forest and rangeland conservation and restoration and supports climate-mitigation initiatives including REDD+.^[139] In the Chyulu Hills landscape, it has supported community-based rangeland restoration for climate resilience and pastoral livelihoods.^[140] Conservation International is the lead agency for the Global Environment Facility project Advancing human-wildlife conflict management effectiveness in Kenya through an integrated approach.^[141]

South Africa

Main article: Conservation South Africa

Conservation South Africa (CSA) is an independent affiliate of Conservation International established in 2010 and registered in South Africa as a Section 18A public benefit organisation.^[150][151] CSA supports rural economic development linked to biodiversity conservation, including sustainable veld management and grazing practices, and works with partners in landscapes such as Namakwa, the Eastern Grasslands and the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Region.^[150][151] Under the Mega Living Landscapes programme, CSA participates in collaborative platforms and implements landscape-planning, community, and durable-finance components, including work in the Namakwa and Eastern Grasslands landscapes and sustainable grazing initiatives in the Eastern Cape.^[151][152]

Asia–Pacific

Indonesia

Main article: Konservasi Indonesia

In Indonesia, Conservation International has worked since 2004, when it led a coalition that launched the Bird's Head Seascape Initiative in the Bird's Head Peninsula region of West Papua.^[163] In the Raja Ampat marine protected area network, conservation work has included a tourism entrance fee system and a community-based patrol system, alongside long-term financing planning through the Blue Abadi Fund administered by the Indonesian Biodiversity Foundation (Yayasan Keanekaragaman Hayati Indonesia; KEHATI).^[94] In 2024, a U.S.–Indonesia debt-for-nature swap targeted funding for conservation work in the Bird's Head Seascape and the Lesser Sunda–Banda seascape, including a contribution from Conservation International.^[164]

Philippines

Main article: Conservation International Philippines

Conservation International began working in the Philippines in 1995.^[174] Its programme combines terrestrial conservation in Palawan (including work associated with the Mount Mantalingahan protected landscape) with marine conservation and fisheries-management initiatives in priority seascapes such as the Verde Island Passage.^[175][95] From 2008 to 2011, it supported local-government alliances coordinating a network of 69 marine protected areas protecting about 17,000 hectares (170 km²) in the Verde Island Passage, and it was a local partner for the United Nations Development Programme project Strengthening the Marine Protected Area System to Conserve Marine Key Biodiversity Areas (Smart Seas Philippines) (2014–2020).^[95][176]

Papua New Guinea project spending allegations

In 2008, Conservation International faced criticism over its role in the Milne Bay Community Based Coastal and Marine Conservation Project in Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea.^[17] In a report for The Nation, journalist Mark Dowie wrote that within four years the project's US$6,443,022 budget had been spent largely on staff costs, vehicles and boats, travel, and overhead rather than on conservation activities, and that a UNDP project evaluation reported that between US$800,000 and US$1.2 million was unaccounted for.^[17] Conservation International disputed the UNDP figure, said it had contributed US$2.3 million to the project, and denied financial impropriety while inviting a forensic audit.^[17] A later UNDP project document described the Milne Bay project as having been wound up early amid "fiscal and political controversy".^[185]

Undercover investigation and corporate partnerships

In May 2011, the magazine Don't Panic published an undercover video of a meeting in which its reporters, posing as executives from defense contractor Lockheed Martin, discussed potential collaboration with Conservation International on corporate engagement and communications, including participation in a business forum and the use of an "endangered species mascot" in branding.^[18][186] Some environmental advocates argued that the episode illustrated how corporate partnerships could provide reputational benefits to companies.^[18][186] In response, CI vice president Justin Ward told HuffPost that the video was misleading and not representative of CI's interactions with corporate partners, and said the organization did not offer image-management services and required potential partners to undergo a due diligence process.^[18] Ward also said corporate partnerships accounted for less than 10% of CI's budget and argued that working with companies could be appropriate when relationships were transparent and funds were directed to conservation programs.^[18]

Botswana corridor dispute

In 2013, Survival International and Botswana's Khwedom Council said that Basarwa (San) residents of the Ranyane settlement in Ghanzi District were being pressured to relocate.^[187][188] They linked the dispute to proposals for the Western Kgalagadi Conservation Corridor, a wildlife corridor project that News24 reported had been developed with Conservation International.^[188][187] The Guardian Sun reported that the matter was before the High Court and subject to an interdict halting relocations; government spokesperson Jeff Ramsay denied that residents were being forced to move and said that relocations involved only households that had requested assistance.^[187][188]

Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative in Peru

In December 2021, Sapiens magazine reported similar issues in Peru. At the Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative in Peru, CI had brokered the sale of carbon credits created from preserving forest land to the Disney Company to offset their cruise ships' activities. While approximately half of the local farming families signed on to preserve the forest in exchange for economic development programs funded by CI, some wanted to retain the right to expand their farms and engage in logging in the forest, leading to violence against Park rangers from the Peruvian National Service of Natural Protected Areas (SERNANP) and the threat of evictions. Local members of the Rondero autonomous peasants group told reporters that 50 homes in the forest were demolished in 2021, while SERNANP reported that none of the homes were currently inhabited. Conservation International stated that the demolitions were not funded by carbon credit revenues.^[189][190]