As Chief of Staff at Langland Conservation and a trustee of the Helvellyn Foundation, Becky Holmes bridges professional expertise in conservation with her personal commitment to philanthropy. As a second-generation philanthropist, she brings fresh thinking to environmental giving. In this conversation, she shares her journey, her family’s approach, and why unrestricted, trust-based funding is at the heart of their work.

Becky, how did you find your way into philanthropy?

My main job is Chief of Staff at Langland Conservation, which supports conservation NGOs with intelligence. But my philanthropy story began in 2020. My dad founded a business in 1990 that became increasingly successful, and that year he, my sister and I decided to set up the Helvellyn Foundation.

We didn’t know much about running a family foundation at the time but we’ve always been passionate about biodiversity. Growing up, my family loved nature. We spent time by the sea, climbed mountains in the Lake District, and my childhood heroes were people like Steve Irwin and David Attenborough. It felt natural to focus our giving there.

You’ve chosen to focus on biodiversity, rather than the broader category of ‘environment’ or climate change. Why?

“Environment” can mean many things from climate change to animals to regenerative agriculture. We decided to draw a line around biodiversity. Of course, it overlaps hugely with climate work, but this focus keeps us strategic. It’s also personal. My love for wildlife is rooted in my upbringing, and I feel it’s an area where philanthropy can have a direct, tangible impact.

The Helvellyn Foundation is known for its unrestricted approach to funding. Why take that route?

We’ve always provided unrestricted funding, which is still unusual in the conservation sector. Coming in without preconceptions, it just made sense: if you’re not an expert in the field, why dictate how the money is spent? Restricting funds often benefits the funder more than the grantee.

Our trust-based approach builds real relationships. Some of our long-term partners come to us for feedback on funding proposals or to ask if they can use part of a grant for match-funding, things they wouldn’t feel comfortable asking most funders. That trust means they can use the money more effectively.

Can you share a bold or unconventional funding decision you’re proud of?

One example, separate from the Foundation, was helping a woman take legal action against an agency after she called out greenwashing and was treated badly. I gave £10,000 towards legal fees, but I encouraged her to treat it as match funding. That helped her secure another £20–30k from others. The ripple effect for pieces like that can be so powerful: if companies know they can be held accountable, they’re hopefully less likely to greenwash.

What have you learned from early missteps?

Our very first grant was only £10,000 for six months, which I can now see was too small and too short. We also accidentally restricted it. We’d asked where the money would be spent, just out of interest, but the grantee felt locked into that plan. Now we make it clear: you don’t need to tell us in advance, unless you want to.

The key is to ask for feedback and adjust. We’re better funders now because we’ve been willing to learn.

What advice would you give to someone new to philanthropy, especially if they’re young or second-generation?

Just start. Don’t wait until you have the perfect strategy. Try different things, see what resonates, and refine from there. In conservation especially, funding is urgently needed. Every year you wait is a missed opportunity to have impact with your money.

Also, speak to people who are already doing it; funders, networks, practitioners. They’ll tell you where your money can have the biggest impact and save you a lot of time.

From your perspective, what’s the most effective way to create systemic change in biodiversity?

There’s no silver bullet. You have to fund the whole ecosystem, from policy change, to data collection, to community livelihoods, to on-the-ground species protection. Take the illegal wildlife trade: you need to reduce demand, tackle corruption, protect habitats, and support sustainable local economies. Philanthropy can play a role in all those areas.

Have there been challenges in being part of a philanthropic family?

I run the Foundation with my dad and sister and sometimes we may disagree on funding decisions. Ultimately, it’s our Dad’s money, so we have to find consensus that he is happy with. But it’s brought us closer, I speak to my sister more than ever. And I respect that my dad chooses to give generously when many in his position don’t.

Within the philanthropy community, it’s been the opposite of challenging. Meeting peers in similar situations has been invaluable, where you share experiences you can’t necessarily discuss with your friends who aren’t in the same position.

What’s your view on the future of philanthropy?

Becky: In an ideal world, philanthropy wouldn’t be needed because governments would do their jobs. But we’re far from that, so it remains vital.

If you have wealth, don’t just sit on it to preserve it for generations. What kind of world will that future family inherit if you haven’t invested in protecting it? A positive impact on the planet is a far better legacy than being another multi-generational wealthy family.

And remember, philanthropy can be enjoyable. You can be deeply involved, visiting projects around the world, or you can simply give and get on with your life. It can be whatever you want it to be, but the important thing is to start.