In this episode, we dive into Decolonizing and Indigenizing Philanthropy, movements that are changing how non-Indigenous donors support Indigenous-led organizations, and promoting the creation and expansion of networks for Indigenous-led funds.

To decolonize philanthropy, we must dismantle the colonialism embedded in the funding mechanisms of Western organizations, when working with Indigenous partners. True allyship begins with actively listening to the communities we serve.

Joining International Funders for Indigenous Peoples has been critical in Azimuth’s learning journey and helped us answer a crucial question: How can Indigenous Peoples access funds and resources without once again being subjected to the violence of colonialism?

Our guest today, Naomi Lanoi Leleto, a Maasai from Narok, Kenya, is at the forefront of the movement to Indigenize Philanthropy. She is a board member at the International Funders for Indigenous Peoples, Program Coordinator for Global Indigenous Grantmaking and Coordinator for the East Africa Advisory Board for the Global Greengrants Fund.

Naomi worked as a Women Land Rights Program Officer at the Kenya Land Alliance, advocating for the effective implementation of constitutional provisions to secure women’s land rights. She has extensive experience advocating for inclusive grantmaking that upholds the rights, self-determination, and environmental work of Indigenous Peoples.

Naomi has a Master’s degree in Legal Studies from the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program at the University of Arizona. She has contributed to the UN’s Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues since 2011.

Play the video version below (English subtitles available), or scroll down for the podcast version and the transcript. 

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT

Maybe we could start with our interconnected stories. Your journey of activism and alliance with Indigenous communities in Kenya, championing land rights and environmental stewardship, has been inspiring to us. We have partnered with twoEndorois-led organizations. The Endorois are a community that has faced displacement twice: first due to a tourism project, and more recently due to the rising waters of Lake Bogoria where they relocated. Their story is one among many, and I think you can help us understand the broader impact of climate change on communities in Kenya. 

Can you tell us a little about your story, and maybe elaborate on how climate change contributes to the ongoing struggle for land rights?

NAOMI LELETO

Thank you so much, Carla. Let me start by saying that I appreciate your work in decolonizing philanthropy. At GGF actually, within the Indigenous Peoples Program, within which I operate in, we have a similar approach. And this is an approach we call “Indigenizing Philanthropy.” And this means, of course, rethinking traditional philanthropic models, to of course better serve the unique needs and aspirations of Indigenous Peoples. And that is based on the the five principles, of course, as detailed by IFIP (that is International Funders for Indigenous Peoples) of respect, reciprocity, responsibility and redistribution. Very recently we added another R, which is the redistribution.

Indigenous philanthropy approaches come with an understanding that community work is complex. Community work is nuanced. Community work is homegrown. With this understanding then, an effective effort or initiative in one Indigenous community may not be effective in another community. So to truly honor Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination, each community’s effort must be supported in their own context and in their own unique way, with respect to their traditional governance systems.

Let me start by saying that in the Rift Valley of Kenya, water fluctuations, though not unprecedented, the situation now poses new and what I would call immediate risks to larger populations, due to the rising levels in at least about 7 lakes. That is Lake Baringo, where the Endorois are. We have Lake Bogoria, the neighboring lake that is almost merging now with Lake Baringo. We have Lake Turkana in the north. We have Lake Nakuru, we have Lake Elmenteita, we have Lake Magadi and I think Lake Logipi. And this of course, as you clearly posit, has led to displacement of Indigenous communities.

Notably, the Endorois in Lake Baringo, and one other community that I would perhaps want to share more about, because I know you’ve already interacted with the Endorois, and that is the El Molo Indigenous communities in Lake Turkana. And just to share a little bit about the El Molo. The El Molo are Indigenous. They are a fisherfolk community in Lake Tukana who are actually the face of extinction, and that’s why I perhaps wanted to give or share more about them. They are the face of extinction, and are struggling against assimilation by majority tribes, as well as struggles around their land rights due to encroachment by the majority communities.

And the worst of it all, and perhaps this is where I would want to give a little bit of depth, is how they have negatively been affected by the Lake Turkana power plant project. And this is the largest African wind energy plant. They actually disregarded the impact of the project on the El Molo community. And also disregarded other Indigenous communities, like the Samburu, the Turkana, the Rendille. These are the neighbouring communities, who have been affected by the project. They said that these communities are non-Indigenous. And this is a decision that contradicts what I would call the African Commission on Human Rights’ – on Peoples’ and Human rights – recognition of these communities as Indigenous. They’ve already been recognized, they’ve been documented. So this was very unfortunate.

In essence, while renewable energy is crucial for mitigating global warming, the implementation of such projects, and many other projects across the globe, can disregard what I would call the social responsibility, as a social fabric, towards local communities. And the installation of the wind turbines in Indigenous Peoples’ territory (you’re talking of more than 300 wind turbines by this particular company) has adversely affected Indigenous communities by occupying their land without proper FPIC (Free, Prior and Informed Consultation). And what that has done, it has violated their rights.

And in essence the land rights for Indigenous communities have indeed been a contentious and complex issue in many parts of the world. And you realize that Indigenous Peoples, they have a deep historical and cultural connection. So that intersection of land rights for Indigenous communities and climate change adds another layer of complexity to an already challenging issue.

And maybe to close on that question, there are 4 aspects. There is the aspect of ownership. There is the aspect of control. There is the aspect of use. And there’s the aspect of access. Without these four aspects, or if any of these four aspects is missing, then totally you have violated Indigenous Peoples’ rights. So that is a bit that I wanted to add. And really look at the situation of the rising waters, look at the situation of climate change, and just perhaps the depth at which indigenous Peoples’ struggles are ingrained. So it’s quite an unfortunate situation, Carla.

CARLA SANTOS

Science increasingly recognizes Indigenous knowledge as a powerful tool for preserving biodiversity and fighting climate change. We’ve seen increased global visibility of Indigenous rights violations, more recently with the violent images of the Maasai evictions from Loliondo and of the Ogiek from the Mau forest. Is this increased recognition translating to meaningful change in greater participation of Indigenous Peoples in decision-making?

NAOMI LELETO

The acknowledgement of traditional knowledge of course is affirmed as a positive step, especially when Indigenous communities seek justice in court or discussion points in meetings and conferences. However, in practice, the implementation of this recognition is lacking. An example of these disparities is evident in the case of the Ogiek, in Kenya, and of course the Maasai in Loliondo, Tanzania, as you clearly put it.

Now, let me give just a brief overview of the Maasai in Loliondo, because this is an area where GGF has really put in a lot of effort, and we’ve really stood in solidarity with this community. Even with the Ogiek community. With the Loliondo injustices, the Maasai and their livestock continue to face what I would call forceful eviction. And this is way back, not only when the current eviction started in June 2022, but way, way back. And this is to make way for exclusive tourism, hunting for the UAE royals. And this actually started with the conversion. What happened is it started with the conversion of land ownership from village land to game reserves. And this occurred without consulting the pastoralist people in Loliondo.

And it’s funny because the government justifies this conversion by promoting what I would call conservation as a primary reason for land grabbing. And conservation has been the question that is really affecting a lot of Indigenous communities. And I think their aim is to appeal to the global community’s interest in wildlife conservation. However, you realize that for the past 30 years, conservation has not been an issue. It’s never been an issue to the Maasai.

And the Maasai community could not go down without a fight, really. They resisted the eviction through justice systems, and many of them, they still have court cases, and many of them have lost their lives. And here is why they did that. One, the grabbed land is vital for their pastoral livelihoods. Number two, the decision lacked FPIC principles. And then number three, the process was unlawful and violent and cruel. And then lastly, no due diligence was conducted to assess the consequences of taking the land. So unfortunately, despite the potential for mutually beneficial dialogue between the community and the government, the eviction was marked by force, corruption, discrimination. And I said it was unfortunate. I’ve experienced and really worked very closely with the communities, and I think I’m still traumatized by what I’ve seen, what I heard. It was not necessary to use such force.

And now, coming to the Ogiek. The eviction from Sasimwani in Mau is both also unjust and unwarranted, especially considering that the Kenyan government has not yet even implemented the landmark 2017 court case that recognized the Ogiek’s rights to their ancestral land. And this was followed by yet another judgement by the African Court in 2022, which was prompted by the government’s failure to implement the 2017 decision. Now this highlights the ongoing plight of the Ogiek, who continue to face evictions from their ancestral lands.

Adding complexities to the situations behind some of these evictions is the involvement of carbon markets, where the Kenyan government appears to be solidifying its territorial and financial control over the valuable assets of Indigenous Peoples’ natural resources. The Mau forest, being Kenya’s largest forest, is actually attracting interest from offsetting companies and potentially influencing the government’s action. And this being the reason why Indigenous Peoples like the Ogiek find themselves at the forefront of questionable climate solutions. And these solutions are being used to justify evictions and emissions.

For example, in October, Blue Carbon announced, that is October last year, they announced a significant agreement with Kenya’s government and the State of Environment and Climate Change, aiming, of course, to generate carbon credits for a vast project area. And this is totally unfortunate. The least that the government can do, is to at least have a discussion with these communities. These are communities who possess knowledge on how to conserve. And the approaches with which these carbon markets are being brought to the communities, there is a lot of transparency issues, there’s land grabbing, there’s no consultation approaches, there are a lot of gaps. There are a lot of gaps and again there are a lot of questions.

And what is the logic? What is the logic of all this? To allow polluters to pay forest owners to absorb their emissions through the carbon absorption capacity of trees. And these developments suggest a shift in the perception of carbon. Traditionally, and looking at it from a very layman’s perspective, when I was growing up I was told carbon is poisonous and carbon is black. But it’s now lucrative and I think carbon is now white. That is the irony.

Just to say that at the center of any climate solution there must be acknowledgment that the local communities are among the most vulnerable to the impact of disasters like floods, like drought, like wildfires and climate-induced natural disasters. So to conclude, you realise that insecure land rights provide little incentives or capacity to mitigate or adapt to the effects of climate change. And engagement with communities points to the fact that carbon offset projects have been conceptualized without Free, Prior and Informed Consent, and they are dotted with minimal or no community involvement in development phases. So disregard to existing community land governance structures is a very common trend, and I think now that is the language falling under conservation, that is the language falling under protected areas, that is the language that the African governments are speaking.

CARLA SANTOS

Various reports have shown that despite increased funding to fight climate change, the percentage going directly to Indigenous Peoples is residual. How can we change this, especially regarding the significant funding streams nations commit to in events like the COP?

NAOMI LELETO

Less than 1% of official designated assistance, or for climate change, and less than 5% of official assistance for general environment protection is allotted to Indigenous Peoples. And much of the funding they do receive reinforces the same capitalistic economic policies that threaten their lives and lands.

For example, I think it was in 2021, 5 governments and 17 private funders, they pledged the 1.7 billion USD in Glasgow, the COP in Glasgow, in support of Indigenous and Local Communities’ land tenure. And this signaled an overdue shift in funding priorities. But Indigenous communities were skeptical, and we still remain skeptical. Where is the money? And is this new money? Or was this money paid to ongoing projects? There are a lot of transparency issues and there are a lot of questions that need answers.

And maybe to help answer this question, I would also ask, what if there was a different way of supporting communities? A way that philanthropy could be more meaningful than detrimental. More humble than self-congratulatory. And that’s the approach at Global Greengrants, the approach of Indigenizing Philanthropy, and the kind of philanthropy that engages with Indigenous cultures, decision-making and traditional institutions or systems, to not only transform philanthropy, but also restore balance, restore sovereignty and self-determination, that of course support justice and equity for the people and nature.

And I know there have been several calls for philanthropy and Indigenous Peoples organisations’ accountability mechanisms that will ensure funding will go directly to organizations led and governed by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Of course we have a deep personal connection with stewardship of land and oceans, and perhaps when you think about the decentralized model, or what I’m calling Indigenizing Philanthropy at GGF, our mission is ensuring that this funding, climate funding especially, reaches grassroots movements effectively and responsibly on a large scale, and supporting these movements to make a lasting impact. We are dedicated to strengthening our values, aligning our organizational structure and our aspirations for more effective and globally integrated organization, and designing what I would say are pathways or an ecosystem of grassroots funding in our sector.

CARLA SANTOS

Is there a global trend of increased funding for Indigenous-led organizations, even from foundations and organizations that traditionally didn’t support them? Any examples of this shift and how it leads to significant changes for Indigenous-led organizations?

NAOMI LELETO

I think to answer this question, let me borrow from IFIP statistics. They commissioned a global analysis to determine the level of funding to Indigenous Peoples. I think that was between 2016 and 2019. And the report points to only 0.6% of funding. And I think this is an increase from a previous report, of 0.1% in their previous findings, if I’m not wrong. Now, this means, these figures, that there has been a growing recognition of the importance of supporting Indigenous-led organizations, even from foundations and entities that traditionally did not prioritize Indigenous causes. And the positive trend is driven by maybe greater acknowledgement of the unique perspectives, knowledge, especially related to environmental conservation and sustainable resource management.

And also the rise of social movements and increased awareness of Indigenous issues globally, I would say has also contributed to this shift. And also donors and organizations are recognizing the importance of supporting initiatives that empower Indigenous communities and address historical injustices.

So while these examples perhaps illustrate a positive trend, there are challenges. The challenges and disparities in funding still exist. And it’s essential to continue monitoring developments in different areas that advocate especially for equitable support for Indigenous communities.

However, I think we must acknowledge that Indigenous Peoples are coming from periods of intergenerational trauma. These are the gaps that we are not addressing. And most of us think of, “Oh, it’s just about money,” but also there are many ways of supporting Indigenous communities, even being in solidarity with their struggles and processes is also another thing. I think, and I challenge philanthropy to invest more, it’s important to emphasize, prioritize funding for healing spaces. Talking circles, healing exchanges. And this is one gap that is quite glaring.

Very few people, very few funders are willing to invest in these approaches and perspectives, because most funders are interested in documentation, they’re interested in reports, they’re interested in documentaries. And remember, for example when you talk about healing spaces, talking circles, ceremonies, these are sacred. And these are practiced, they are not documented. So it becomes very difficult to tell funders that you don’t have a report. These are our sacred practices. We don’t document, we practice. So this is an area that I’ve noticed gaps in. My prayer is for funders to support operations of community-led healing centers. Because these centers can serve as safe and culturally sensitive spaces for various healing modalities. Funding initiatives that create safe spaces for trauma recovery. And these spaces should be designed to be culturally relevant and free from judgement. That is one area that I really wanted to to highlight.

And provide resources and support for individuals dealing with trauma, and encourage restorative (and actually underlined restorative, not resilience, restorative) building activities. The reason why I had to mention that is that I’m very careful not to really say “resilience”, because the concept of resilience can sometimes be framed within a colonial narrative that implies Indigenous Peoples have overcome adversity imposed upon them by external forces. And this narrative may actually negate the urgency and self-determination of Indigenous communities.

And overemphasis on resilience actually might overshadow the ongoing struggles and hardships that Indigenous communities face, especially on issues related to land and their territory, on issues related to environmental justice. So that’s why Brazilians should be understood within the context of self-determination, in the context of cultural revitalization, and the ongoing efforts of Indigenous Peoples to address historical and contemporary challenges. I just needed to say that, perhaps, in answering your question.

CARLA SANTOS

Thank you, Naomi. And you have touched this question already: Indigenous communities face challenges in getting funds because colonial grantmaking mechanisms still guard most of the available money. The bureaucratic requirements begin with needing organizations to be formed under specific legal frameworks and being on the loop about legal and tax requirements. There is also a philanthropic culture that prioritizes donor satisfaction and donor centricity, which often can mean sacrificing their priorities for more palatable initiatives or ways of functioning. Even project framework requirements sometimes pose a hurdle, because these communities traditionally and effectively solve their problems in ways that may differ from the conventional, mainstream way of philanthropy. Indigenous Peoples are adapting, particularly the younger generation, so the question is, how can philanthropy change these processes to better serve Indigenous communities, while respecting their own ways of doing things?

NAOMI LELETO

We believe, for example, in our grantmaking, that the best and most suitable solutions to environment and other social justice comes from people directly affected by these challenges. And our work is rooted in the theory of change, and it is built in the power of local actors to leverage systemic changes.

And thinking about Indigenous Peoples marching to stop oil development in the Amazon, to teams of citizens organizing to monitor industrial water, and many, many more examples. To even the youth voicing around various climate injustices. Now we see the youth becoming very active.

And on all the stories we’ve shared, right from the Ogiek to the Maasai in Loliondo… And actually what I also wanted to share, even as we think about that approach and how GGF stood in in solidarity with some of these communities, is even the aspect of reducing the bureaucracies within which we operate in. For example, if you’re helping communities who are being evicted, who are being displaced, and you want them to fill very detailed forms. Remember, some of them don’t even have computers, to even sit down and make that possible. So even changing the mindset, changing the approaches within grantmaking, how do we ensure that such bureaucracies are lessened? How do we receive videos, for example, as forms of reporting? How do we encourage the youth to use – now what is trending is TikTok – to use technology that they are closer to? Just being flexible and making work and funding a little bit different, if not fun.

Even if we are thinking of themed grants, let us know, as I started to say, that community work is nuanced, and it’s homegrown and it’s complex. So whatever works in Latin America, let’s not assume that it will work in in Kenya. Whatever works in Asia, let us not assume that it will work in Australia with the Aboriginal Indigenous Peoples.

So having that understanding, and appreciating that, I think that’s very important. Just being very flexible, and being very innovative. But most importantly, operating from a point of humility. Because when you operate from a point of humility, it makes it easier to understand where communities are coming from and the struggles that they are going through.

CARLA SANTOS

Thank you. We have had a great experience supporting small grassroots organizations. Global Greengrants has been doing meaningful work in this area for many years. Would you share an anecdote or observation that reflects the significance of directly funding Indigenous-led initiatives?

NAOMI LELETO

When you talk about small grants, when you talk of working directly with communities, I think that is our area and that is our identity.

And one of the things that we’ve really done, especially within our decentralized model, is understanding that communities are coming from sometimes very difficult geographies. We need to at least recognize that when we make calls for proposals, not all of them will have access to these calls. Communities, for example, who are not structured, but are doing amazing work. Communities who don’t have a computer on their desk, and they don’t even know that funding exists.

As GGF, what we do, we try to reach these communities through our advisors, who are localized, who are experts and are staying within communities, who can at least access some of these initiatives done by communities. And in that sense, then, we are reaching out to communities, and supporting communities, who’ve been left out within the funding landscape for many, many years. And that is where we go to.

When you talk about grassroots, and when I hear people talking about grassroots, I tend to ask, what is grassroots? How do you understand that term? Because for many years, funding has been captured. Captured by organizations that can speak English, captured by organizations that can access calls for funding, and captured by organizations that feel superior and are just out there to receive money. But when you go to the grassroots, the reality is that this money is not getting to the grassroots, because the people who are most vulnerable, the people who are most impacted, are not receiving this money.

So the beauty of working with communities, the beauty of having a relationship with communities, the beauty of trusting that they will do whatever they will do with the money that you’ve given them. Because the other issue, also, is about trust. You have millions of evaluations. You see funders spending so much money traveling to visit communities for evaluation purposes. That money could have gone into useful ways. You spent almost 10,000 USD to come and evaluate a project of 3,000 USD. I think it’s a high time we have a sit down, and really ask questions about the approaches to funding. Are we serious? And are we intentional in what we are doing?

CARLA SANTOS

What advancements have you witnessed in the movement to the decolonize philanthropy? What frustrations persist? And what hurdles are particularly challenging?

NAOMI LELETO

Decolonize is good. I normally use “Indigenizing Philanthropy”. Is to critically dive into the importance of Indigenous cultures and cosmovisions. When you think of decolonizing philanthropy, dive into Indigenous decision-making, really work closely, and think of supporting traditional governance systems. As a way to not only transform philanthropy, but also restore balance and sovereignty that supports justice and equity for people and nature. And you realize that Indigenous traditional leadership, which has been long overlooked, yet necessary, is critical in achieving this transformation.

And I’ve seen a shift to strengthen grantmaking that takes root in the models of traditional governance of Indigenous Peoples, while of course focusing on traditional association and decision-making. But there are many challenges, as you put it. And especially around funders operating on assumptions. We really need to examine our assumptions in grantmaking. And what this will do, it will improve the chances of collaboration, especially with Indigenous Peoples. And we need to recognize that communities, just like any other, they have diverse views, they have diverse demands, and we cannot assume a unified position.

Let us also not assume that Indigenous Peoples’ needs are our needs. So you visit communities and perhaps you notice women are walking long distances to fetch firewood. “So what should I do? I should support these people with a solar panel.” That is your own assumption. Who told you they need that? Funders rarely spend time in cultivating and sustaining relationships. And this requires trust, as I said. It requires humility, it requires collaboration, and mission alignment and respect for this community.

What I see is a lot of power dynamics that exist, and we need to actually demystify some of these approaches. Because you also notice, as I said before, less FPIC, and not really involving communities in our ideation. You’re just coming to implement. You’ve not been with them when you’re starting or thinking around a certain initiative, but you want to implement it to them. How does that work? They were not part of the system, they did not contribute, they did not even have an idea. But you bring that to them, because you are coming as a savior to their struggles. That will not work.

CARLA SANTOS

Your experience as a lawyer and activist has given you a unique perspective on the political fight for the rights of Indigenous Peoples. You have worked on international policy and resolutions through forums like the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, while also having a hands-on approach through your work advocating for women’s land rights in Kenya. We would like to know more about how these two approaches complement each other when it comes to advancing the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

NAOMI LELETO

Let me start by saying that my experience has been very instrumental in a lot of my operations, and I say this with a lot of humility. I worked with grassroots women. I worked with grassroots organizations. And even at the national level, before I transitioned to philanthropy. I was a little bit skeptical actually, joining philanthropy, because of the experiences that I faced.

And when I came into this space of philanthropy, I realized that I’m operating at a point of privilege. And what that means is for me to really ensure that my work and my approaches is all based on humility. Because you’re transitioning from the end of receiving, you are now going to the end of giving. And for me to really do this work, I have to do it with a lot of humility, and understand and appreciate a lot of dynamics.

And I’ll give a story that made me question philanthropy, a long time even before thinking that I’d ever join this part of giving. And this is a story where I was overseeing a certain project, and we got support when I was working with the grassroots initiative for communities to drill a well. And that’s why I’m also skeptical of evaluation. So the well was done, and communities were happy. And remember that the well was a little bit further. And when the well was commissioned, communities had rules and regulations around how they’re going to operate.

In the morning, women should go fetch water. That is between, maybe from 8 AM to around 11 AM. Then from 11 AM, you have the animals coming in to drink water. The part of the area that I’m talking about is very hot and very dry. This is very systematic, and there’s a reason for that, because if the animals come fast, then the well will be dirty.

This funder comes in, and says she wants to meet the women at 8 AM. And the women had to follow the rules very religiously, because water is very scarce in that part of the world, and there’s a traditional system that governs, that sets rules. So this particular funder, she needed to meet with the women. They cannot have a similar sitting. Women and men will always have different sittings. So she said, “I want to meet the women first, and then the men. Because I have time bad, I need to to leave, I have other errands to run.” I found that quite illogical, because you do not even want to know how communities operate. I tried to tell her, “The women are not available in the morning, perhaps we can do this meeting in the afternoon?” And according to her, “It’s very hot in that part of the world, and I don’t think I can stand the heat around that time. So it’s either I meet these communities in the morning, because that’s the only time I have, and then I proceed to my other activities.”

And I share this story and I always remember how insensitive funders can be. What I did, actually, I did not even communicate to the organizers, or people who are helping mobilize communities, I did not want to change that approach within the operating. So after writing and communicating to her, and she couldn’t understand, I said, “OK. I think for the first time let’s see how this goes.” And she comes in, and no one is… Because we could meet under trees. Nobody showed up, until 1 PM. All this time, she’s ranting. And remember she cannot leave, because she needs to take photos, she needs to take videos, and all that.

And when the communities came, she was mad, she was insensitive. But I was privileged to do the translation, and I made sure I translated… So she wondered why she’s speaking with a lot of bitterness, yet the communities are smiling. Anyway, that is a story for another day.

But what I’m trying to say is, now being on this other side, I have to ensure that we operate to build relationships, we operate to build trust, we have less assumptions, I have less assumptions in my work, and I respect and really approach communities from their point, and not really from my point. So maybe that’s how I would answer that question.