Target 20 – Mobilizing resources from all sources
By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 from all sources, and in accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in the Strategy for Resource Mobilisation, should increase substantially from the current levels. This target will be subject to changes contingent to resources needs assessments to be developed and reported by Parties.
The collective actions of IPLCs on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are making important contributions towards this target and many IPLCs’ initiatives benefit from existing biodiversity funding sources. However, these sources can be difficult for smaller organisations to access. Increased accessibility of existing sources of finance and a relatively modest increase in total financial resources available for IPLC initiatives would be a cost-effective way to increase progress towards the attainment of all the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
GBO-4 noted that there were limited data on mobilisation of financial resources, especially in relation to domestic funding for biodiversity initiatives, but that the information available suggests that significantly more funding is needed to enable the successful achievement of this target and of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-20 as a whole.1CBD. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. A mid-term assessment of progress towards the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. (2014). at <http://apps.unep.org/publications/pmtdocuments/gbo4-en.pdf> Resources for implementing the Strategic Plan are limited and need to be augmented by all sectors of society. IPLCs, through their collective actions, are already making meaningful contributions to the implementation of all the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. With a relatively modest increase in financial resources and support, these contributions could be even greater. A strong argument for further and continued investment in local initiatives is that the outcomes often serve multiple policy objectives, including community development, environmental recovery and cultural wellbeing, whilst being highly cost-effective and offering good value for money. A recent study by the World Resources Institute (WRI) concluded that: “Securing indigenous forestland tenure is a low-cost, high-benefit investment and has significant potential for cost-effective carbon mitigation”.2World Resources Institute (2016) / Ding, H., Veit, P.G., Blackman, A., Gray, E., Reytar, K., Altamirano, J.C. and Hodgdon, B. 2016. Climate benefits, Tenure loss: the economic case for securing indigenous lands in the Amazon. World Resources Institute. http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/Climate_Benefits_Tenure_Costs.pdf. See also http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/10/protecting-indigenous-land-rights-makes-good-economic-sense Similarly, recent research conducted on the viability and costs of local monitoring of forest degradation and biomass in Tanzania, India and Madagascar demonstrated that forest monitoring can be done as effectively by IPLCs themselves as by trained scientists, but at half the cost (see also Target 19). IPLCs’ actions can help make viable otherwise unaffordable or technologically draining initiatives, through their traditional knowledge and on-the-ground presence.3Danielsen, F. et al. At the heart of REDD+: A role for local people in monitoring forests? Conserv. Lett. 4, 158–167 (2011)
Inclusion and involvement of IPLCs in current biodiversity funding
The main financial mechanism for the implementation of the CBD as a whole is the Global Environment Facility (GEF). To date, GEF has supported 160 full- and medium-sized projects involving indigenous peoples. Two-thirds of these projects were either designed exclusively to benefit indigenous peoples (many of them were executed by indigenous peoples’ organisations), or had distinct components and/or sub-projects benefitting and targeting indigenous peoples. The GEF Small Grants Programme (GEF-SGP) is another funding source that enables GEF to partner with indigenous peoples globally (see case study “The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Small Grants Programme: funding for IPLCs”). Approximately 15 per cent of the GEF-SGP projects target and involve indigenous peoples.4Global Environment Facillity (GEF). Principles and guidelines for engagement with indigenous peoples. 28 (2012). at <https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/publication/GEF IP Part 1 Guidelines_r7.pdf> http://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/publications/GEF_IP_Part_1_Guidelines_r7.pdf 5Global Environmental Facility (GEF). Indigenous Communities and Biodiversity. (2008). at https://www.thegef.org/publications/indigenous-communities-and-biodiversity6GEF Principles and Guidelines for Engagement with Indigenous Peoples, para 23-24 The GEF’s Principles and Guidelines for Engagement with Indigenous Peoples7Global Environment Facillity (GEF). Principles and guidelines for engagement with indigenous peoples. 28 (2012). at <https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/publication/GEF IP Part 1 Guidelines_r7.pdf> http://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/publications/GEF_IP_Part_1_Guidelines_r7.pdf recommend that GEF-SGP use a flexible and streamlined project cycle and flexible disbursement terms in order to accommodate different cultures, customs and seasonal movements. They also recommend that it accept proposals in national languages and in non-traditional formats, including video and community theatre8Global Environment Facillity (GEF). Principles and guidelines for engagement with indigenous peoples. 28 (2012). at <https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/publication/GEF IP Part 1 Guidelines_r7.pdf> http://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/publications/GEF_IP_Part_1_Guidelines_r7.pdf 9Global Environmental Facility (GEF). Indigenous Communities and Biodiversity. (2008). at https://www.thegef.org/publications/indigenous-communities-and-biodiversity However feedback from indigenous organisations whose proposals were selected for inclusion in existing GEF-SGP projects reveals that in reality, the processes can be very complicated, strict and demanding. For small grassroots organisations with limited staff and resources and no fluent English proficiency, compliance with requests, expectations and conditions in order to receive the funding presents a significant hurdle. It seems that certain safeguards and policies related to finance, accountability and grievances, which were designed to apply to large projects, are also applied to small projects, thus causing challenges for indigenous or local project holders.10Based on anonymised personal communication, 2016. Two others sources of funds are as follows:
- The IFAD Indigenous Peoples’ Assistance Facility (IPAF) provides grants of between US$20,000 and US$50,000 to small-scale projects designed and implemented by indigenous peoples’ communities and organisations. Many of these are related to traditional knowledge and customary use.11IFAD. Indigenous Peoples Assistance Facility. at <https://www.ifad.org/topic/ipaf/overview> Since 2011, 31 projects have been approved in 26 countries, and US$ 1,138, 000 have been awarded overall. IFAD has made efforts to increase the participation of IPLCs by transferring decision-making powers to regional indigenous organisations, giving them increased responsibility for the selection and implementation of projects.
- The CBD LifeWeb Initiative was launched at the ninth Conference of the Parties to the CBD (CBD COP9) to help bridge the funding gap for achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. It aims to act as a match-making facility between countries and actors seeking funding for protected areas and donors interested in supporting them. Expressions of interest can be submitted by local indigenous or community groups, accompanied by an endorsement letter from the national Focal Point for the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas. A limited number of projects focusing on community-based solutions have been submitted and partially funded through the Initiative.12LifeWeb. LifeWeb. Partnerships for financing biodiversity. at <https://lifeweb.cbd.int/explore>
Mitigating risks and harmful impacts of biodiversity funding on IPLCs and their territories
The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) has called for caution regarding the potential harmful impacts of biodiversity funding on IPLCs and their lands and territories. They have pointed out the risks of public-private partnerships related to biodiversity in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples and the importance of free, prior informed consent (FPIC) and social safeguards to protect indigenous peoples and the environment.13RMIB-LAC. Statement on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) at WGRI 5-II. Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. (2015). at <http://reddemujeresindgenas.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/international-indigenous-forum-on.html> “IPLCs are aware of the risks, challenges and impacts that the biodiversity financial mechanisms bring. Therefore for us the social safeguards are important to protect the Indigenous Peoples life and the Mother Earth”.14COP 12 IIFB Statement on Resource Mobilization & Financial Mechanism / http://iifb.indigenousportal.com/2014/10/08/cop-12-iifb-statement-on-resource-mobilization-financial-mechanism Similarly in a submission to the CBD’s twelfth Conference of the Parties, SwedBio15Swedbio is a programme of the Stockholm Resilience Centre (http://swed.bio/). See “Biodiversity financing and safeguards: lessons learned and proposed guidelines”, a submission to COP 12, has recommended scaling up biodiversity funding in order to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, but at the same time recognising the potential impacts funding can have on both biodiversity and people’s livelihoods, and the importance of consultation and participation of IPLCs in the design of financing mechanisms which affect them.16Ituarte-Lima, C., Schultz, M., Hanh, T., McDermott, C. L. & Cornell, S. Biodiversity financing and safeguards: lessons learned and proposed guidelines. 2014, (2014). They recommend a holistic approach to safeguards which acknowledges the importance of the interplay between the local context and international or national processes.
Methodologies for assessment of IPLCs’ collective actions and non-monetary contributions towards implementation of the Strategic Plan
CBD Decision XII/3 on resource mobilisation17https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-12/cop-12-dec-03-en.pdf recognises the role of collective actions by IPLCs and the contributions of customary sustainable governance and management to biodiversity conservation and to the utilisation and maintenance of biodiversity. Many examples of such collective actions are included in the various chapters of this report. However how best to assess and evaluate the contributions of these measures, in ways that are recognised and understood by a diversity of actors, is not yet clear. To address this issue a Dialogue Workshop on Assessment of Collective Action in Biodiversity Conservation was held in Panajachel, Guatemala in 2015 to discuss available methodologies.18CBD. UNEP/CBD/COP/12/INF/7. CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THE CONTRIBUTION OF COLLECTIVE ACTION TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION. (2014). at <https://www.cbd.int/kb/record/meetingDocument/101073?Event=COP-12> Participants stressed that in some cases the benefits of collective action can be reported in monetary terms, but in most cases they need to be reported as non-monetary contributions. It was suggested that further work be carried out, together with IPLCs, on a list of non-monetary and culturally relevant indicators, taking into consideration the problems with putting economic valuations on traditional knowledge. At the grassroots level, clearer information on this issue is needed. It was also recommended that, rather than aggregating data on the contributions of collective actions under Target 20 (in relation to resource mobilisation), it should be described and assessed in relation to all the targets in the Strategic Plan – something that has been done in this report.19Pérez, E. S. & Schultz, M. Co-Chairs’ Summary Dialogue Workshop on Assessment of Collective Action in Biodiversity Conservation, Panajachel, Guatemala – 11-13 June 2015. (2015). at <https://www.cbd.int/financial/micro/collective-action-report.pdf>
Greater support for IPLCs represents a cost-effective means of accelerating progress in implementing the Strategic Plan, and of supporting sustainable development more generally. Governments and donors and all relevant actors should:
- Increase funding to IPLC initiatives in a culturally appropriate and accessible manner that can contribute to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-20.
- Acknowledge the contributions of IPLCs’ collective actions in the implementation of the Strategic Plan. In consultation with IPLCs, governments in particular should explore how these collective actions could be reflected in their national reports.
- Mitigate harmful impacts of biodiversity funding on IPLCs and their lands and territories, applying social safeguards and free, prior informed consent (FPIC)
Primary case studies
Sorry, we couldn't find any posts. Please try a different search.
- On GEF and indigenous peoples:
- Partnership in Practice: Engagement with Indigenous Peoples (2014)
- User Guide: Indigenous Peoples and GEF Project Financing (2016). https://www.thegef.org/topics/indigenous-peoples
- On funding for indigenous-partnered projects: http://thephilanthropist.ca/2016/07/drops-in-the-soil-not-in-the-bucket-the-case-for-borderless-indigenous-philanthropy/
- On collective action: https://www.cbd.int/financial/collectiveaction.shtml and https://www.cbd.int/financial/collectiveworkshop.shtml