This Padlet is your mission briefing space as we prepare for the upcoming PSP Global Virtual Retreat in June. It will take you less than 30 minutes to complete.

Here you’ll reflect on your context, engage with others, and share what you’re seeing in the field.

Instructions:

• Complete each Checkpoint by adding a post (click the ➕ under each column).

• You can write text, upload images, or even link to something that inspires you.

• Come back anytime before the retreat to update or explore others’ reflections.

Let’s mobilize for nature — together possible!

• Start by watching the video! Johanna, Juliana, and Simon will walk you through a quick refresher on the three Pathways of the PSP Strategy.

  
  

  Then, share your reflections:

  
  

• Which part of the PSP strategy still rings most true for your work today?

• Why does that matter in your current context or region?

• Start by reviewing the short presentation: "WWF Public Sector Partnerships: Landscape and Issues." It gives a quick overview of the current PSP landscape and some of the key challenges we're navigating together.

Then,

• Choose an image/emoji that depicts your “Donor Mood"

  
  

Example: “Mood = Stormy. We’re seeing rapid shifts in donor priorities, but using it as a chance to rethink long-term partnerships.”

• What challenges or opportunities are emerging in your PSP landscape?

• How are you adapting?

• Share a recent success, challenge, or insight from your PSP journey.

You can upload a photo, link a resource, or share a (video) story. Let others learn from your experience.

Example: “We used the 5R framework to facilitate a powerful dialogue between communities and local funders. Here’s what we learned…”

• Share questions, ideas, or give a shout-out to someone’s insight.

• Share examples of the great PSP work you are doing and inspire colleagues!

• Respond to posts using the comment or reaction buttons.

PSP training is increasingly essential in the Philippines, where climate risks are high and funding opportunities, such as those from USAID, have recently declined.

I think in order to ensure a healthy stream of PSP funding, we need to build new partnerships and look at funding that is not earmarked to nature protection.

I think we're seeing a global shift in country priorities, specially with the Trump administration's decision to shut down USAID along with reducing defence funding for EU and NATO with the ripple effect being felt in other important donor countries. In light of this massive hit to existing PSP resources, I think it is time that we look inwards in order to guage what has worked and what hasn't, specially in trying to guage the impact of our project interventions post project closure. Often at times, the impact of our activties cease once the funding ends. As a first off, we need to start identifying best practices from the network where work we did 10 years ago continues to yield benefits for both nature and communities to this day and seek to replicate those in other network offices and future project proposals. Second, it is crucial that we embed exit strategies, along with the relevant financial schemes + the capcity of local communities and government partners to enusre the continued impact of project interventions. We need to work towards the financial sustainability of our work.

With many donors going this route and an unclear landscape of how these gaps will be filled, this is call for action for us to start thinking in a more serious and concerted manner about how to improve our PSP and other fundraising across the network.

We need to find other and equally reliable sources of funding, nurture south-south funding partnerships and think seriously about innovative ways to fundraise for our programmes.

As all tree pathways are interdependent it is difficult to prioritize. However, I see the highest potential for fruitful discussions within the retreat are pathway I and pathway III as it is strongly embedded in in our day-to-day work. Pathway II strongly overlaps with the political department, which is not part of the PSP-team. Further, I see the best potential of streamlining the WWF-work in pathway III. As all pathways are linked it seems important, the interfaces of the pathways are revised.

Further, the PSP-team is now embedded in the department Funding for Nature, therefore synergies between Payments for Environmental Services, Bankable Nature Solutions can be leveraged.

Japan: situation is quite unique - the Japanese Government policy is to support humanatarian assistance. Try to link our existing funding call with biodiversity - we're working with Save the Children, for example, and trying to integrate biodiversity as well.

Pacific: 2030 Strategic plan has been developed - so close to sending it for review to the AP30 team, we're tyring to move away from our conventuonal funders, such as Austrailia, UK, etc, and move towards Asia. We're quite lucky in Fiji - Korea and Japan are key partners. Its about trying to align with both their priorities and but also balancing to make sure that our priorities are met as well.

EPO: Focus on private sector actors, working a lot with EIB and that's something we need to work better on. Working increasingly with the finance practice to work on biodiversity and wildlife credits. EU is shiftnig away from the Calls for Proposals, and giving funding to EU intermediaties like GIZ, FID, or UN organisations, like FAO, UNDP, and we have to work behind the scenes. There is very publically unavailable vialble documentation, so need to have very strong partnerships: in sum, banks, private secotr, fiance sector, and

Pakistan: 1. Thematic prurotieis, and 2. Geographic priotoeis. In Pakistan re: 1 a lot of forest and biodiversity is no longer enought. Geograhic context: shift to different geopharpies, Pakistan is not a priority, one such example is the EU. With the passage of time, we need to adopt to the situation.

-Changes in ministerial PSP-Donors due to new government.

BMZ and BMWK were the biggest PSP-contributors within Germany. The BMZ will have less funding opportunities, while the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) has changed to Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy of Germany (BMWE). Therefore, less focused on climate action. The results for PSP will show soon.

-Localisation getting more priority

-Shifting geographical and thematic priorities

Opportunities to Strengthen PSP

-Find more partners to go together (SDG 17 building more partnerships) to enable shift away from small projects to larger programmes.

-Articulate WWF value for money to private sector stakeholders.

-Leverage PSP funding to get other funders on board

-Impact communication and visibility of results and outputs

Opportunities for strengthened engagements: Partnerships with Local NGOs and building rapport with Embassies.

Increased competition

Opportunity:

• working with diaspora on conservation is an interesting point for Africa country offices

• bring funds from other sectors that have not been explored so far e.g. private sector as a leverage point - rubber plantations to mitigate environmental & social impacts and improve their CSR

• cooperate with the private sector (e.g. Legacy Landscape Fund)

• Localisation is becoming more important

• Competition is intense and funding is shrinking

• Shifting donor focus to domestic priorities and less international aid.

Opportunities

• strong partnerships with our allies (other INGOs) to join forces in programme design and implementation.

• Embrace localization and leverage it to influence and mobilize resources for conservation (not necessarily ensuring finances only go through our books)

• Re-evaluate our structures as an INGO, to ensure we are fit to deliver on private sector funding or blended finance (demonstrate Return on investment - ROI, ensure strong capacity in these areas) and robust systems and processes that will not slow down delivery of resources)

additional challenges - cost recovery is more difficult, and co-financing requirements are getting higher/tougher (15-20%)

Also, political instability and delayed local decision-making are slowing progress, but local partnerships are gaining importance.

Donors demand strategic alignment, robust KPIs, and accountability. There's also a rising trend toward integrating private sector engagement, blended finance, and locally led development.

There's still bipartisan conservation support and chances to re-engage through multilateral funds.

Collaboration with the UN and NGOs like CARE offers entry points while local capacity builds.

WWF can serve as a trusted intermediary to manage and allocate funds to local actors, leverage blended finance, and co-design nature-positive investment models with donors like CAF. The moment is ripe to position WWF as a connector across sectors, scaling both credibility and conservation impact.