Daniel Sopia lost a five-year, $6.5 million grant and had to let 10 people go. The chief executive of the Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Organization also cut 72% of his group’s budget. Plans for new conservancies, meant to secure movement corridors for elephants and other wildlife, were shelved. “The new conservancies that we had identified to support under the project were put on hold,” he told Mongabay.
His case sits inside a larger accounting. A 166-page report from the consultancy One Earth Partners, covered by Mongabay on September 24, tallies what the shutdown of USAID did to conservation and environmental work. The firm was founded in 2025 by Monica Bansal, a former director of USAID’s Center for Energy, Infrastructure, and Cities, and Hadas Kushnir, who used to lead the agency’s Natural Climate Solutions Division. Mongabay called it the first comprehensive review of the closure’s effect on the agency’s nature-related initiatives.
What the report covers
The authors based it on survey data and interviews with 150 people connected to USAID’s work in Bangladesh, Peru, Kenya, Colombia and Vietnam. They conclude that many projects in fragile ecosystems have stalled or collapsed. A list of 100 projects looking for new funders accompanies the report.
The termination of around 5,200 contracts in early 2025 ended work as varied as collecting plastic waste on East African beaches, wildlife ranger patrols in Vietnam and crop substitution for coca farmers in the Amazon, Mongabay reported. In the 2024 fiscal year, USAID spent $365.75 million on biodiversity conservation, $256.5 million on climate adaptation and $247 million on clean energy. Another $232.25 million went to natural climate solutions, ocean plastics and pollution.
Some losses were specific. USAID had trained Colombian and Peruvian officials to use satellite data to monitor Amazon deforestation. It was also the lead donor for anti-poaching and wildlife law enforcement at Mozambique’s Gorongosa National Park. Both efforts ended when the agency closed, the report says.
In Bangladesh, an ecotourism effort stalled just as it neared completion. USAID staff had spent nearly two decades brokering revenue-sharing deals between the Forest Department and local communities, including one for the Baikka Beel wetland. Management of the wetland reverted to the government. Kenya, the report finds, was among the hardest-hit countries, because USAID had been an early backer of its community-led conservancies.
Reactions and a counterpoint
Kushnir listed the environmental effects interviewees described: increased deforestation and poaching, greater risk to environmental defenders, and backsliding in policy. A State Department spokesperson declined to address the report directly and pointed in an emailed statement to the administration’s work on illegal fishing, logging and mining.
Not every group fared the same. Resson Duff of Maliasili, which supports community conservation groups across Africa, said about one-quarter of its partner organizations had received some USAID or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service money. For them, U.S. funding made up just under 30% of their budgets, but many found new donors. “They actually were able to raise more money,” she said.
The authors concede that USAID had flaws, including onerous requirements for local grantees and high overhead costs. Bansal said a better foreign assistance structure is possible. Kushnir said the project list is meant to show funders where the gaps are.
