Key nature fund failing to get money to frontline communities
This week’s replenishment phase meetings for the Global Environment Facility in Paris need to look at access and transparency issues.
Not enough money from a key global fund designed to protect nature is reaching the communities closest to the biodiversity crisis, according to new analysis by IIED.
The two-year study of the multi-billion-dollar Global Environment Facility (GEF) also highlights how funding is often failing to support local priorities. And it raises concerns about the transparency of funding information.
The research set out to find out how much money is getting to Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IP and LCs), and specifically IP and LC women’s organisations.
It puts forward several recommendations that should be considered as part of this week’s GEF-9 replenishment phase meetings in Paris.
The key findings are:
- Limited funding is reaching IP and LCs, including women’s organisations. At best, 24% of the GEF-6 funding round and 30% of GEF-7 funding round was ‘targeted’ specifically at IP and LCs. However, many projects targeted them as indirect beneficiaries rather than direct recipients, meaning the flow of funds to the local level was likely even more limited.
- There are persistent information gaps and limited transparency. The GEF reporting framework does not require intermediaries to report how much money reaches IP and LCs or women and girls directly.
- There are ongoing access issues and funding is generally short-term. As revealed through interviews, Indigenous Peoples and local communities said they found the GEF difficult to navigate and support hard to come by. They said that when money was provided, it often didn’t cover a long enough time frame.
- Funding doesn’t necessarily match IP and LC priorities, especially when it comes to the most pressing needs. It is critical that IP and LCs are part of the design and delivery of funding for nature and not relegated to passive beneficiaries.
- Insufficient support for local capacity building and project preparation means some organisations are unable to fully participate in the GEF process and miss out on funding.
- The GEF’s small grants programme demonstrates a positive example of how the funding process can be strengthened across the full funding portfolio.
The research focused on publicly available data for recent replenishment phases of the GEF, complemented by interviews with funding recipients in Kenya, Malawi, Vanuatu, the Philippines, and Antigua and Barbuda.
IIED is recommending that the GEF improves funding transparency and puts in place reporting requirements to track how much money makes it to IP and LCs and women’s organisations.
There also needs to be an overhaul of the application process to make it easier for IP and LCs to get information and funds.
GEF funding should be long-term, patient, predictable, inclusive and flexible enough to help local organisations build capacity.
IIED researcher Nicola Sorsby said: “Most of the earth’s biodiversity is managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities, which is why it’s critically important to ensure they get the support they need to protect and restore nature.
“Our research shows not enough money is getting to those who are best placed to protect nature.
“To make the system work, the funding process needs to be simplified, and local priorities respected.
“The task of restoring and protecting nature is too important to not get this right, which is why policymakers meeting in Paris this week need to consider practical changes to help Indigenous Peoples and local communities get the support they need.
“The Global Environment Facility is an important mechanism for reversing the loss of nature. However, it needs to improve its approach and learn from more positive examples, including its own small grants programme.”
For more information or to request an interview, contact Jon Sharman:
+44 7407 727 886, or [email protected]
