Locally led adaptation – a time for action podcast
In the run-up to the UN climate summit (COP26) negotiations, IIED presents a new mini-series of three podcast conversations examining issues and solutions to locally led adaption to climate change.
This podcast mini-series explores locally led adaption to climate change – a topic gaining increasing prominence in the run-up to the UN climate summit (COP26) and in other major policy processes.
At the Climate Adaptation Summit in January 2021, 40 governments and leading organisations endorsed the eight principles for locally led adaptation. In doing so they committed to making sure that people most affected by climate change are empowered to determine pathways for adaptation.
As the number of sign-ups grows, what will endorsement mean in practice? What actions will be taken to put communities in the ‘driver’s seat’ for adaptation decision making?
How will endorsing organisations shift to ‘business-unusual’ practices to enable people on the frontline of climate change? And what will be done to track and monitor progress? The move towards local leadership must become central to international climate policy processes too – what will it take to make that happen?
Hosted by IIED’s Aditya Bahadur and Marek Soanes, the podcasts use innovative formats to bring together expert researchers, policymakers and practitioners from around the world to consider these vital questions.
The podcast is divided into three episodes:
- Episode 1: From principles to practice: commitments from donor organisations
- Episode 2: The ‘A’ Factor: accountability for locally led adaptation
- Episode 3: Taking locally led adaptation global
Subscribe
You can subscribe to the podcast on your favourite podcast app as follows:
The podcast is also available on IIED's YouTube channel.
Episode 1: From principles to practice: commitments from donor organisations
In the first podcast, we explore what needs to be done to put the principles for locally led adaptation into practice. Three representatives from leading donor organisations interview each other and present their plans. In turn, their commitments are evaluated by an expert representing local voices.
The conversation features:
- Heather McGray, director of the Climate Justice Resilience Fund
- Cristina Dengel, knowledge management officer with the Adaptation Fund
- Vincent Gainey, climate resilience advisor with the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office, and
- Suranjana Gupta, advisor on community resilience in the Huairou Commission.
Episode 2: The ‘A’ Factor: accountability for locally led adaptation
In the second episode, modelled on popular UK television programme 'The X Factor', four global practitioners and researchers from principles-endorsing organisations spell out what they propose to do to enable local people to be in the driving seat of climate adaptation decision-making. Then two expert ‘judges’ hold them to account...
The conversation features:
- Dr Lisa Schipper, an environmental social science research fellow at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford
- Sheela Patel, founder and director of the Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC)
- Colin McQuistan, head of climate and resilience at Practical Action
- Professor Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) and professor at the Independent University Bangladesh
- Tamara Coger, senior associate in World Resources Institute's Climate Resilience Practice, and
- Simon Addison, principal researcher and team leader in IIED's climate governance and finance team
The ‘A’ Factor: accountability for locally led adaptation full transcript
[Introductory excerpts] [00:00:00]: [Music] I’m taking deep breaths because there is nothing more disempowering than the whole monitoring evaluation hypocrisy that we see today in development… the idea is to go on this 10-year journey of learning and sharing learning, and adding to each other as a collective enterprise of individuals working together… there are massive gaps in the amount of finance being allocated and delivered to local actors… I think that Colin has painted a fantastic fantasy…
Aditya Bahadur [00:00:41]: Hello, hello, hello! Welcome to The A Factor, the gameshow where the fun never stops and insults from our expert consultants and judges fly thick and fast. I’m your host, Aditya Bahadur, and I work at the International Institute for Environment and Development.
At the Climate Adaptation Summit in January this year, more than 40 major international and local organisations publicly signed up to eight principles for locally led adaptation. This moment was the culmination of one process where the World Resources Institute and the International Institute for Environment and Development consulted with a large number of organisations from around the world to arrive at these tenets for localising processes of adapting to climate change.
But it was also the beginning of another process. By signing these principles, organisations have committed to work towards ensuring devolved decision-making, addressing structural inequalities, providing patient and predictable funding to local actors, investing in local institutions and capabilities, building a robust understanding of climate risk that draws on local knowledge, enabling flexible programming and learning, ensuring transparency and collaborative action.
Today’s discussion is sharply focused on exploring The A Factor. Yes? You guessed it. It stands for ‘accountability’. Over the next 40 minutes, four expert contestants from around the world will propose mechanisms and approaches through which the community of practice that has signed up to these principles can learn from each other, monitor progress and hold each other accountable for bringing them to life. Two expert judges will channel their inner Simon Cowell and comment on these approaches to outline whether they feel these are going to deliver an impact on the ground for local communities battling against climate impacts.
I am delighted to have with us today Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh; Simon Addison, principal researcher for climate governance and finance at the IIED; Tamara Coger, senior associate at the World Resources Institute; Colin McQuistan, head of climate and resilience at Practical Action. Our two expert judges who will respond to pitches from these contestants are Lisa Schipper, research fellow at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford in the UK; Sheela Patel, a renowned social activist, director of the Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres or SPARC and the former chair of Slum Dwellers International. A very warm welcome to you. Without further ado, I’m going to invite our first contestant, Saleemul Huq. Saleemul, the floor is yours.
Saleemul Huq [00:03:33]: Thank you very much, Aditya, for inviting me to join this very interesting format. It’s new for me so I hope I am able to do it justice. What I’m going to talk about is work that I have been involved in from my centre in Dhaka, Bangladesh, for many years earlier called community-based adaptation, now being called locally led adaptation.
And you mentioned the Climate Adaptation Summit, which took place in January. Just prior to the summit, we organised from my centre a major global online conference on locally led adaptation which ran for seven days and we had 90 sessions from all over the world. We ran it 24/7, 24 hours for seven days, and had a lot of input from all over the world, many, many different organisations and people.
Coming out of that, what we have now decided to do is to, we’re calling this, the conference is called Gobeshona, Gobeshona is a Bangla word for research. And it’s a platform of researchers in Bangladesh. We have now come out of that with what we are calling a 10-year journey on locally led adaptation, which we are going to take forward through the Gobeshona Network on Locally Led Adaptation and Resilience.
This network consists of individuals who have been involved in this work, who are interested in remaining involved in it. And to build our collective knowledge, energy, support, work together going forward. Not representing organisations, because many of the LLA principles were adopted at the summit by organisations. But we are individuals, many of us working in some of the organisations but representing ourselves as individuals and collectively wanting to take forward the agenda and also being involved in the monitoring, the measuring, the accountability, the bringing together of knowledge on this, sharing it with each other and building what we call social capital.
And what we are trying to do is to enhance membership on the basis of recommendations. It’s not an open network, it’s a by invitation network or by nomination network, and the focus is on young people, early career people working on this issue that are interested, either as practitioner or advocates or researchers or working in organisations but with an interest in enhancing their knowledge and working on this issue. To join this network, we have about I think in the order of 50 or 60 participants now. We welcome any further nominations to join us.
The format in which we take this forward is once a month a Zoom call where we all join and we share knowledge and what we are doing. And then periodically we come together, or we plan to come together, thrice a year: at the beginning of the year at the Gobeshona Conference – the next one is going to be in January 2022 from the 22nd to the 28th of January - then in the middle of the year there’s the community-based adaptation conference that IIED organises. This year it’s in June. It’s also being co-organised this year by ICCCAD and BRAC. And then at the end of the year there is the annual Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention where IIED organises a two-day major side event called Development and Climate Days, where we can either be there physically in person or reconvene online as a group to join forces, share what we’re doing and engage and network with other people outside the network.
The idea is to go on this 10-year journey of learning and sharing learning and adding value to each other as a collective enterprise of individuals working together. The annual meeting in January, Gobeshona, which we organised, we will focus on the learning aspect. And we want to bring together our collective learning each year as we go on this journey for the next nine years to 2030. And hopefully achieve a much, much bigger expansion of the locally led adaptation activities, with genuine local leadership, which is the outcome that we are trying to seek, and we are looking to have local leaders to become part of this network.
And so it’s a bottom-up enterprise with individuals as the key elements. And to finalise my pitch, I’ll say that the 10-year journey is going to be measured in the number of friends we make, not by the number of miles we travel. Thank you.
Aditya Bahadur [00:08:06]: Thank you Saleem bai. Lisa, does the 10-year journey have The A Factor?
Lisa Schipper [00:08:11]: Well, Saleem, I know that you have a very good reputation in building friendships and that you are able to bring people together. And you do have a good track record, I will admit that. But what I’m thinking about here is how do we move from sort of this collection of enthusiastic individuals at the local level to actually bridging to the levels above, to the funding architecture, which essentially also needs to learn? And so I would say in this case it’s probably not sufficient to have just these local leaders, and maybe more thought needs to be put into how to bridge between the different levels that have power, including of course those who have all of the money and are sitting on it.
Aditya Bahadur [00:08:52]: Thank you, Lisa. Sheela-ji?
Sheela Patel [00:08:55]: As soon as I start I have to claim that I am part of this journey, so I am biased. But I am a critically biased person. So let me start by saying that this locally led adaptation process has drawn in social movements, like SDI, like the Huairou Commission, like the Waste Pickers’ Network and many others who considered that their journey was not related directly to climate change. And what the locally led adaptation process has done has demonstrated to us that climate is the foundation of everything that we need for communities. And therefore looking at ways by which the aggregation of individuals that social movements are, we see a way by which we can become critical people that bring in large volumes of people with different voices and a stake in this process. I believe that change requires as much energy and impact from people from below as it needs people from above. And I think that the locally led adaptation process, and the work that Saleem is institutionalising without saying so, is bringing these large varied aggregations to hold institutional arrangements that have sat in the sanctity of their offices about this process. So I champion this very much. And I think it’s a marathon we have to be part of.
Aditya Bahadur [00:10:38]: Thank you both very much. Time for our second contestant. Simon, the floor is yours.
Simon Addison [00:10:47]: Thank you, Aditya, and it’s wonderful to have the opportunity to pitch our Good Climate Finance Observatory. Now those of you that have looked at the locally led adaptation principles will see that finance is really at the heart of what it takes to get locally led adaptation moving quickly and at the scale that is needed to meet our ambitions over the next 10 to 20 years.
However, we also know that the quantity and the quality of finance that is getting to the local level is really still wanting. There are massive gaps in the amount of finance that are being allocated and delivered to local actors. And particularly to the communities that need finance in order to implement their locally led adaptation solutions. And there are huge problems with the quality of finance in terms of whether it’s accessible or suitable to those at the local level who need the money the most.
What we’re proposing is an observatory, a kind of online portal, that would track and assess financial allocations and related policies, to see how they support equitable locally led adaptation to climate change, particularly in least developed countries and in small island developing states. And this observatory would aim to increase transparency in financial flows and the adequacy of policies. It would support accountability. It would allow people on the ground, communities, local NGOs and national governments to hold donors accountable for keeping their end of the bargain. And also for doing assessments of the quality of their policies. It would also give us an opportunity to showcase exemplary policy solutions while directing governments to more impactful allocation of resources.
Now we’re proposing that we would track and assess data on two main channels. The first is quantity of finance. So what’s the scale of finance flowing from international donors to national and local entities to support locally led adaptation actions? And is that finance reaching where it should do? Secondly we’d be looking at quality. So to what extent does climate finance and its related policies, how far is that aligned with the principles of good climate finance, as we’ve outlined in IIED’s Good Climate Finance Principles, and also the principles of locally led adaptation.
We would then provide access to a range of different types of information looking at those questions of quality and quantity. And this would be things such as data on climate finance allocations that would track those flows from donors to LDCs, SIDs and local actors. We’d also have a portal in which you’d be able to access and to review global and national policies on climate finance and adaptation. And these would be supplemented with assessment reports of those policies, looking at how well they align with the principles of locally led adaptation. And we’d also provide country and donor profiles so that you would be able to effectively click on a country or on a donor, look at the finance that they’ve provided, look at the quality assessment and see for yourself how well they’re performing.
This database we would expect to be updated weekly. And we’d be exploring things like the use of artificial intelligence to scrape data from available databases. And that would then be triangulated with regular key informant interviews, with key decision-makers and holders of information in key institutions. Now we look at this not as a platform to be led by IIED, but something that would be a collaborative exercise in which we would bring together a variety of partners to both host and to manage this platform, this observatory. But also to engage in decision making and to, to feed data into it.
A number of different communications channels would utilise the data that came out of this. Firstly you would have the online observatory itself which would be a portal for climate finance and donor and country profiles and policies. We’d also be publishing regular blogs and analyses as the climate finance landscape changes.
The quarterly updates in an annual report giving our state of the climate finance landscape. This would then be supplemented with an annual deliberative dialogue in which we’d bring together stakeholders from local communities to national NGOs, local NGOs and donors to take stock, holding donors and governments accountable and maintaining pressure for positive change. That’s the Good Climate Finance Observatory, Aditya. Over to you.
Aditya Bahadur [00:15:32]: Fantastic, Simon. Sheela-ji, does the Climate Finance Observatory have The A Factor?
Sheela Patel [00:15:41]: It has tremendous potential for that, I can tell you. But the reality is that many things are needed to make that happen. Because the thing about making finance accessible to everybody is something we listen for the last three decades. We don’t even see a trickle. So first of all you have to make all of us into believers. And I think the most important thing is that there are a lot of things that are not discussed in public, which is risk. Everybody is so fearful of risk that most of the money that is there doesn’t go down because people are fearful of it. And nobody talks about it. Nobody has more risks that they face than the poor and vulnerable. So one of the things that I think this observatory challenges is to understand how the money not only flows there but what it does below. And what are the bottlenecks, the challenges, both political, social, project based? Because there are a lot of things at the base where policies make it impossible for things to happen. So I think you need lots of people like us, sitting and poking holes in what seems to be a beautiful solution.
Aditya Bahadur [00:16:59]: Thanks, Sheela-ji. Lisa, is the Good Climate Finance Observatory likely to deliver impact?
Lisa Schipper [00:17:05]: Hmm, well Simon certainly is very focused on financing. I am trying to imagine exactly how that would play out. I think vulnerability reduction isn’t the focus of most adaptation projects, and this is what concerns me because when I think about some of the impact that something like this could have on a local level, I wonder is it just going to get stuck in sort of addressing adaptation, or financing adaptation projects that focus only on the impacts of climate change.
As recent research has shown that adaptation projects are often increasing vulnerability, redistributing vulnerability or making, or introducing new vulnerability. And so my question really is how do we, or my concern is that you know, if the focus of the finance is just about making sure that it’s more accessible, people understand how to use it, we know where it’s coming from – does that… that may not actually make any difference if the adaptation projects themselves are not actually refocused so that they actually address the drivers of vulnerability. So I’m worried that this is going to lead to, you know, another factor that contributes to maladaptation if not administered properly.
Aditya Bahadur [00:18:17]: Wonderful. So quickly over to contestant number three – Tamara, the floor is yours. [Music]
Tamara Coger [00:18:26]: Thanks, Aditya. Okay, I’m going to present a set of recommendations for how to leverage a monitoring, evaluation and learning or MEL system, to put the principles for locally led adaptation into practice. And this is all about how to decide what is important to measure, how to measure it, how to learn about what’s working and not working in a way that itself is locally led.
So we know MEL is an important process for navigating all of the complexity and uncertainty of adapting to climate change. But MEL also involves power and decision making. And so it can either perpetuate structural inequity or it can actively address inequities. So what would it look like for MEL to both support resilience measurement and support more balanced power in decision making? I have some key ingredients to shift MEL for adaptation away from a conventional top-down approach that may support donor reporting but doesn’t necessarily contribute to the local communities who are trying to adapt to climate change. And these recommendations are based on some recent research that WRI did where we looked into adaptation measurement and participatory monitoring evaluation and decolonising of MEL and synthesise some of these key ingredients.
So, it’s not a single tool or any sort of silver bullet, it’s more of a recipe for better MEL that supports locally led adaptation. So number one is to understand and respond to structural inequalities that may manifest through the MEL process, such as how power dynamics affect those, whose objectives are put first or whether different world views and definitions of resilience are equally valued. And we want to make sure that the metrics, the evidence, the learning, all these outputs of the MEL process, that those aren’t biased towards those who have the most power. Number two is to embrace downward accountability.
Conventional monitoring evaluation learning supports accountability upwards towards donors, but donors and implementers should also be accountable to local partners. So one way to do this, for example, is by choosing indicators that reflect local priorities and definitions of resilience as well as using indicators of agency and social inclusion in the adaptation process. The next is ask how MEL processes and outputs create value for local actors. And this is key to avoid extractive MEL.
Unfortunately, even what we often think of as participatory processes can be extractive if they don’t generate value for local partners. And the good thing is that this can be balanced with donor reporting requirements. But it means thinking about reporting on what matters to local partners, asking evaluation questions for example that would be useful at the local level. The next is to take a demand driven approach to building capacity.
We talk a lot about capacity building at the local level, but if monitoring, evaluation and learning is going to support locally led adaptation, the local actors themselves should be determining what capacity external expertise or information that they need. And speaking of information, the next system is to enlist both local and scientific knowledge to understand and navigate the complexity and uncertainty involved in locally led adaptation.
And to make sure that indicators and metrics reflect what local partners view as important to measure, and what reflects their definitions of vulnerability, of adaptive capacity, of strength and resilience. The next one, towards the bottom of the list but still super important, is to prioritise learning. Learning is an adaptation strategy in its own right and it’s especially relevant for locally led adaptation because of its role, potential, for building adaptive capacity at the local level. Learning, when we talk about learning, we’re talking about supporting adaptive management, experimentation and also learning from failure.
And last on my list that I’ll present, is to collaborate with knowledge brokers. This is a more practical point, to work with people who can translate terminology and concepts between both external and local actors to help enable that ownership, that contribution of local partners. So this is, this is important so that we don’t let the differences in cultural norms and terminology inhibit a locally led MEL process. There are of course challenges to this, the main one being that this is a big shift from common MEL practice, from business as usual monitoring evaluation and learning, but that’s kind of the point.
So in summary, funders, intermediaries, other organisations that have endorsed the principles for locally led adaptation can take up these recommendations to help them put the principles into practice. And we need to try to be more open minded and critical about monitoring evaluation and learning and ensuring that the time and resources that we’re putting into collecting data and evaluating programmes, that that’s all used to create value for the people, for the communities who are facing the risks that globally led adaptation seeks to address.
Aditya Bahadur [00:23:02]: Thank you very much, Tamara. Lisa, do these principles for MEL for locally led adaptation have The A Factor?
Lisa Schipper [00:24:12]: Yes, in fact I’m almost ready to sign a contract with Tamara here. I feel like this was very well argued. I think it’s absolutely correct that there needs to be sort of more thinking done about how to do monitoring evaluation and certainly how, who to engage in the learning.
I think the question about is locally led learning actually happening is critical, that’s very [laughing] important. And certainly of course the accountability dimension. But the problem that I struggle with… all of these monitoring and evaluation, although maybe not learning so much, is that there’s always a question about these indicators – what are these indicators? And the indicators tend to be an exercise in reductionism where we end up choosing the things that we know we can measure because they’re somehow cleanly and neatly defined.
So what I would propose that would be needed here as well is additional creative approaches to avoid this reductionist approach, so that we don’t result in the indicators are limiting what we can actually track and consequently what we actually care about. So maybe just expanding this a little bit.
Aditya Bahadur [00:25:25]: Thanks, Lisa. Sheela-ji?
Sheela Patel [00:25:28]: I am… I’m taking deep breaths because there is nothing more disempowering than the whole monitoring and evaluation hypocrisy that we see today in development.
And let me be very honest about that – it is absolute mockery in relationship to the lives of the poor that are vulnerable, that have to end up doing things that work in the monitoring and evaluation industry, which is extractive, which is very hierarchical and which is in a way, without meaning to be like this, is almost abusive of the real lived experiences of poor people. And I think that, while Tamara’s process just warms every bit of my heart, the combination of global requirements, the imagery of wanting perfect, beautiful things happening below where everybody has to be a caricature of success and pretend that nothing goes wrong, is really the biggest challenge to learning and development.
And so, while these kind of principles keep coming up - I’ve been doing this for the last 35, 40 years - even Robert Chambers will tell you of how participatory processes have been extrapolated in order to make them functional for LME that works for those who give the money.
So I think we have to do a lot more work on this, Tamara, because this is fantastic but I’ve seen many iterations of this which have failed miserably because the asymmetry of power is very strong, and social movements have a lot of problems in dealing with this, as do the whole concept of projectisation of development investment.
Aditya Bahadur [00:27:44]: Thank you, Sheela-ji. On to our final contestant, Colin McQuistan, the floor is yours. [Music]
Colin McQuistan [00:27:52]: Thank you very much for this invitation and I’m really looking forward to trying to explain what Practical Action, the organisation that I work for, has committed to in regards to the local led adaptation initiative.
So just a bit of background, Practical Action, we’re a development organisation, we’ve been active for over 50 years. We are working in communities on the frontline of climate change and we’re involved in developing ingenious solutions to the wicked problems that those people face. However, since the 1990s we’ve realised that more and more of these ingenious solutions are focused on adaptation and this is adaptation in response to the climate impacts that these people and these communities are facing. So we see the commitments to the locally led initiative as principles that we as a development partner need to aspire to.
And I will be honest with everybody that we’re only just starting on this journey. We’re still struggling to articulate what these will really look like in practice, but we’re committed to that process. As we see it, locally led adaptation is about meeting the needs of local communities to respond to the challenges they face, impacts on their lives and livelihoods. Impacts that these people and these communities are least responsible for creating in the first place.
So what are we doing to try and operationalise locally led adaptation? Well the first is we’re trying to learn from our recent past, from those recent projects and programmes, what’s worked, what hasn’t worked, and really trying to understand better why these, why these outcomes have occurred. We realise that there is a necessity as a development partner to overcome the project mentality versus the communities’ day-to-day aims and objectives. And one of the ways we find this, to overcome this, is by having standardised framings – engaging a community in a discussion about something, and avoiding the technical language.
We recently had some success in Nepal getting communities to look at natural capital but by removing the need to talk about ecosystems, to talk about the technical terms and just talk to the communities about the wetlands where they collect fish, the forests where they collect medicinal plants. We also know that we need to overcome known and unknown barriers around participation, power and decision making.
And ultimately it’s down to the local facilitators both working in local civil society organisations, in local partners, we need to find incentives to get those people to work better as these interlocutors between the community, the project aims, local government, national policy processes.
So we’re trying to shift and adapt our existing monitoring, evaluation and learning processes. We’re trying to develop community generated indicators for more of our projects – indicators that measure and respond to what the community think is the best way of measuring progress. What do the communities want to understand better and how can we incorporate that into our monitoring evaluation process? It’s important not only to be thinking about… and thinking about ingenious solutions, but it’s also important to think about process indicators. We’re not going to get to adaptation immediately, we’re going to be on a journey towards a more adaptive outcome. And it’s important to be able to understand that process.
We’re committed to co-generating indicators based above these ideas, and integrating into a coherent approach that our monitoring and evaluation staff in the country offices can use more effectively. We also recognise that we need to think about integrating indicators into what communities already recognise, measure and understand. For example, the number of hours spent weeding plots or the days spent harvesting, the internal changes that are necessary. The first thing is we need senior leadership and political leadership for this change. They need to get those messages out to our project staff, to our project leaders, to our country directors, to get this commitment to local led adaptation mainstreamed across the organisation.
We need clarity and simplicity in the way that we communicate that. And we need to recognise that the ownership of information, data, reports, blogs, we need to turn it on its head. It belongs to those communities, to those people on the frontline of climate change and we need to be better at articulating that we are an advocate on their behalf.
Finally, we’re exploring learning journeys, ways to understand process and not just outcome, getting community members to talk about their experiences, mixing subjective and objective indicators, increasing and improving our ability to think using systems, systems’ thinking approaches, and exploring accompanied learning journeys. And finally, we’ve still got a long way to go, but, but key, we need to get donors on board and convince them of the benefits of locally led adaptation and the role that local interlocutors can provide in, in enhancing the delivery. And we need to get learning out there, we need more sharing of the benefits, how to overcome the scientific paper process towards knowledge which overlooks too many people’s lived experience. So thank you, that’s my pitch from Practical Action.
Aditya Bahadur [00:33: 40]: Thank you, Colin. Sheela-ji, do you think the vision for internal accountability for locally led adaptation that Colin has laid out is likely to have The A Factor?
Sheela Patel [00:33:52]: For me, these are very important lists of issues, and the reality is that as intermediary institutions, even people like Practical Action, which a lot of grassroot organisations really respect for their philosophy and action, the reality is that today the person who gives the money, the institution that gives the money calls the shots. And one of the things which I see as a theme through today’s discussion is that there is no shortage of rhetoric, but there’s a lot of shortage of creating architecture that will change power structures, which will change accountability systems and will transform the way in which we do these things.
My organisation, my network, sits at the bottom of this pile. We have three to four intermediaries between those government institutions that give the money and when it reaches us. And we have a web of demands and expectation which we can barely cope with. So it’s very, very important to acknowledge the value and contribution that all these speakers have made. The question is, how are we going to align in order to do the pushback? Because right now, none of us can do these pushbacks on our own. And so all this discussion will come to nought if at the end of it, we become the project managers of a contract that we can’t even change. That’s the reality today.
Aditya Bahadur [00:35:33]: Thanks, Sheela-ji. Lisa, do you think Practical Action’s plans for holding themselves accountable for operationalising locally led adaptation are robust enough?
Lisa Schipper [00:35:43]: I think that Colin has painted a fantastic fantasy. But I agree with everything and I think it’s, I think it’s wonderful and I, I’m cheering for you. But I worry a little bit, like Sheela said here also, you know, how she’s asking – how do we align to organise these pushbacks that she says.
And I’m thinking, you know, the machinery of development aid is enormous and Practical Action sits in some ways at one end of the spectrum and I worry that we are, you know, allowing adaptation projects to fall into the same traps as development aid has for decades. And what I wonder is, you know, at the end of the day where do questions about justice fit? And how would even people who work in these big development organisations cope with a potentially lost job, because they no longer need to be there, because their expertise is no longer required?
So, while I totally support the idea that there must be more sort of locally driven everything [laughs] in adaptation projects and planning, I am also concerned that we need to, how do we get the troops together? Maybe it’s Saleem’s 50,000 friends who will join together to push back against this big development aid machinery. But I’m just wondering about that as well.
Aditya Bahadur [00:37:06]: Thank you, Lisa. [Music]
Four strong contestants, four strong models and approaches for accountability for LLA. Before we end, I’m going to go back to our participants, give them a minute each to respond to what they heard from the judges about their approaches and maybe ask one of their fellow contestants a question, or make a comment on their pitches. Saleem-bai?
Saleemul Huq [00:37:36]: Thank you very much. Very, very interesting pitches and excellent comments back. Let me just very quickly respond to Lisa’s comment on my pitch about whether we would be effective at the scaling up. I don’t know, but without our bottom-up voices, the top-down will not be effective in my view at all.
So we are offering ourselves as part of an ecosystem of many actors, most of the other actors being very, very powerful actors and we being very less powerful actors, but we want to raise our voice and we want to make it heard. And we hope that by harnessing the social capital and building the capacity of local leaders to actually have their voices felt, not by big top-down programmes but a bottom-up approach, will be the way to go and we see ourselves linking up with every single one of the other proposals that have been made.
We should be part of that. We don’t see ourselves as a separate entity, we see ourselves as integrated into everything else that other people are doing.
Aditya Bahadur [00:38:40]: Thank you. Simon, any response to what you heard from the judges about your pitch?
Simon Addison [00:38:46]: Two things. Sheela raised a very pertinent question about risk and the challenges of getting donors to accept risk. And Lisa’s question was around how do we avoid maladaptation in the delivery of finance. And these are both really, really critical questions and I appreciate them both.
I think the way that we would approach that in terms of the observatory, is to really drill down in the assessment of finance and policy by using the principles for locally led adaptation and the principles for good climate finance, which integrate a consideration of both the risk appetite of donors but also those risks around maladaptation and the failure to deliver change for those who are most vulnerable.
So taking into account structural inequalities in climate risk in the way that finance is structured. So I think those principles can guide us in doing our analysis of finance in the observatory to really make a robust analysis.
Aditya Bahadur [00:39:53]: Great. Thanks, Simon. Tamara, over to you for any quick responses to the judges or comments on your fellow contestants?
Tamara Coger [00:40:03]: Sure. Well thanks, thank you to the judges for, for your feedback and your comments. I wanted to particularly pick up on Sheela’s points, and thank you, Sheela for, for reminding us that, about the importance of monitoring evaluation learning and that it’s not about, it’s not just about using the MEL process to support locally led adaptation, but it’s also about the risks and the potential harm by doing this wrong, by not taking up these principles and that there’s a flip side to that.
And also reminding us that, that right now, you know, this is a lot of good and helpful words and rhetoric but that we really need to be putting this into practice and move beyond the rhetoric. So thank you, Sheela, for, for that push and for that reminder.
And I also wanted to commend Colin and Practical Action for integrating monitoring evaluation of learning so prominently into their proposals for putting the principles into practice. It’s great to see that being integrated and taken up as a strategy approach to implementing locally led adaptation.
Aditya Bahadur [00:41:17]: Great. Colin, any final thoughts from you, responses to the judges?
Colin McQuistan [00:41:22]: Thank you very much. Yeah, I mean I totally agree with what Sheela highlighted. The development system and the fact that there are many organisations at various points and a lot of intermediaries between investment and action on the ground. And I think we need to look at ways to streamline that, we need to, we need to look at ways to empower the voices of those at the bottom of the pyramid and not where it currently lies, which is at the top of the pyramid.
I think the other important thing is that there is loads of great work already going on, and it’s not that… it’s not that development itself as a sector is bad, but we’re not good enough at learning from failure. We’re not good enough at accepting that not all things are working and that we need to change and think of different ways of doing things. And I think what’s really critical as a development partner is we need to look at those incentives for change and improvement. And then finally I totally agree with what Lisa said.
I think we do also have the need to put ourselves into the equation and, and the question of whether we are a long-term component, or whether we are just there for a period and then need to step away and leave things to those actors on the ground. We need to embrace that more and not take this ownership and not take this: “This is our community, this is our adaptation project and we’re going to make it succeed whatever way is needed”. So thank you, it’s been a great opportunity to share ideas.
Aditya Bahadur [00:42:56]: Thank you, Colin. Lisa, any quick final thoughts from you?
Lisa Schipper [00:43:00]: I think it’s inevitable that these four proposals have essentially all highlighted very similar issues and that is that there’s a desperate need for locally led adaptation processes and locally led learning and these things. But that if we don’t also get the other, the other layers on board, then the likelihood of failure is quite high. And I think what I’m asking for and what I’m looking for here is a little bit more reflection on, for example, Saleem, like how will he connect with those higher levels.
And I agree, you know, that, that we’ll have to keep pushing and trying but I also think there needs to be formalised more, so these dialogues need to be more formalised so that this cross layer of learning can happen.
Aditya Bahadur [00:43:48]: Thank you, Lisa. Sheela-ji, the last 30 seconds are yours.
Sheela Patel [00:43:51]: Well I think that the most powerful transformation is to have more and more real grassroot leaders sitting with people who make decisions about money. You know the whole conversation changes, we’ve had many instances where this has happened and the whole quality of the discussion, the whole tenor of who needs to do what is transformed and changed.
So I think we need to explore innovative ways, because we keep talking about changing the architecture, but let’s do it in a way that transforms the discourse and holds everybody accountable to the same principles. I want to see that happen tomorrow.
Aditya Bahadur [00:44:39]: A big thank you to our judges, Lisa Schipper and Sheela Patel. And to our contestants – Saleemul Huq, Simon Addison, Tamara Coger and Colin McQuistan. We’ll let the listeners decide which of you has The A Factor.
Episode 3: Taking locally led adaptation global
In the third and final episode, four experts on climate policy explore ways to align global climate finance systems more effectively with the real situations of people in communities and at the local level, to ensure successful locally led adaptation to climate change.
The conversation features:
- Ayesha Constable, national adaptation plan coordinator in Antigua and Barbuda’s Department of Environment
- Eileen Mairena Cunningham, a Miskito indigenous researcher and vice-president of the Indigenous women's organisation Del Rio Coco Wangki Tangni (website in Spanish)
- Mamadou Honadia, former senior climate negotiator for Burkina Faso and now advisor to the chair of the Least Developed Countries Group of the UNFCCC
- Josh Amponsem, founder of the Green Africa Youth Organization and youth fellow at the Global Center on Adaptation, and
- Marek Soanes, researcher in IIED's Climate Change research group.
Taking locally led adaptation global full transcript
Marek Soanes [00:00:00]: So welcome to the third podcast in our series exploring locally led adaptation, taking locally led adaptation global. My name is Marek Soanes, a researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development, and I am in the unenviable position of taking over from our previous host, Aditya Bahadur, who’s taken me through the last two podcasts in this series. So wish me a bit of luck.
So you’re joining me from our conversational podcast exploring the role that global climate policy plays in supporting locally led adaptation. So connecting the global to local level action. A bit of background: at the January Climate Adaptation Summit, more than 40 major international and local organisations publicly endorsed eight principles for locally led adaptation. These set out good practice for shifting the way climate finance is delivered and adaptation action is supported, including increasing devolved decision making, better addressing structural inequalities, providing more patient and predictable funding to local actors, investing in local institutions and their capabilities, building a robust understanding of climate risk that draws on local knowledge, traditional and indigenous knowledge, enabling flexible programming and learning and ensuring transparency and collaborative action.
Now, the shift to locally led adaptation action is gaining momentum. Over 50 organisations have now endorsed these eight principles and they have recently gained support from the UK COP26 presidency and the G7’s finance ministers. There is real momentum growing behind this action up to COP26. So today’s discussion places a firm eye on COP26 in Glasgow in November exploring the role that global climate policy is and should play in shifting towards more local led adaptation.
Global climate policy obviously includes the UN [Framework] Convention on Climate Change itself, the Paris Agreement, which were all incredibly important for setting global and climate ambition and providing a framework for adequate finance, technical and capacity building assistance to the developing countries that need it most. Today we’re incredibly lucky to be joined by four amazingly diverse guests to discuss the role that climate policy has and should play in supporting more locally led adaptation on the ground. Our first guest is Ayesha Constable, who is the national adaptation plan coordinator within Antigua and Barbuda’s Department of Environment within the Ministry of Health, Wellness and the Environment. Ayesha, welcome.
Ayesha Constable [00:02:30]: Thank you very much, Marek, and thank you for the opportunity to share on the work that we’re doing around adaptation in the Ministry of Health, Wellness and the Environment in Antigua and Barbuda. And as much as it’s a government entity, we are certainly advocates for locally led adaptation.
Marek Soanes [00:02:47]: Fantastic, Ayesha. My second guest is Eileen Mairena Cunningham, who’s a member of CADPI, the Centre for Autonomy and Development of Indigenous Peoples in Nicaragua, and is the developing countries’ active observer for the Green Climate Fund. Eileen, welcome.
Eileen Mairena Cunningham [00:03:04]: Thank you, Marek, for your invitation for this podcast. I think it’s a great opportunity to share with all of you what Indigenous People have been doing around the globe about adaptation. Actually, I’m also a part of a local Indigenous women organisation in the border of Nicaragua and Honduras that is Wangki Tangni organisation and we have a lot of experience in adaptation in the region. Thank you.
Marek Soanes [00:03:29]: Eileen Mairena, fantastic, thank you very much. Our third guest is Joshua Amponsen, who is executive director for the Green Africa Youth Organization, and a youth fellow at the Global Centre on Adaptation. Joshua, welcome.
Joshua Amponsen [00:03:41]: Thank you very much, Marek, and happy to be here. Yes, I’m Joshua and for the past couple of years I’ve been focusing on youth engagement in climate adaptation at the local and international level, supporting private sector organisations and also national policies in terms of how young people could be better engaged in climate adaptation.
Marek Soanes [00:04:04]: Welcome, Joshua. It’s a pleasure to be joined by Mamadou Honadia, a former negotiator for Burkina Faso in UNFCCC and a former advisor to the Prime Minister’s office on the Green Climate Fund. Mamadou has been an expert in finance, adaptation, capacity building, national adaptation planning and loss and damage. It’s a pleasure, Mamadou, to be joined by you today.
Mamadou Honadia [00:04:27]: Thank you, Sir. You rightly introduced myself. I would add that I’m actually operating as a LDC chair advisor, member of Elders Group and I’m also an independent expert at the national and international level.
Marek Soanes [00:04:46]: Thank you, Mamadou.
[Music]
Marek Soanes [00:04:57]: So, to our first question to the panel. Ayesha, why do you think locally led adaptation is so important?
Ayesha Constable [00:05:04]: In my own experiences, I find that local communities are certainly on the frontlines of climate change, not just as victims I must add, but as you know poor regions who are shaping the outcomes of climate change processes and are using Indigenous knowledge and the resources available to them to enhance their own resilience. And so it’s important that any process that seeks to address, you know, what happens at the local level engages local communities and local groups. Also as, as we know, climate change, as much as it’s a global phenomenon, has very unique impacts at the local level, which are shaped by local circumstances, and not just physical circumstances but also, you know, issues related to economic situation, other social issues at the local levels. And so to take a one-size-fits-all approach to adaptation planning is to exclude inadvertently some of these unique realities that are happening and shaping responses in our communities at the local level. And, again, in that respect, wanting to ensure the principles of justice and equity and inclusiveness in all the work that we do around climate change. It means also giving space to these communities and groups that are otherwise excluded from this process.
Marek Soanes [00:06:38]: Fantastic, thank you so much, Ayesha. And, Eileen, as you mentioned, you work with Indigenous organisations including women’s led Indigenous groups. From your context, why is locally led adaptation so important to achieve climate resilient societies?
Eileen Mairena Cunningham [00:06:55]: The reality is adaptation is really not a new concept for Indigenous people. We have seen around the globe that Indigenous people have been adapting to the environment for centuries and I think that now the problem is that this is coming so rapidly. So, local led adaptation is so important for Indigenous People and as just said, it’s not only for Indigenous, I think it’s for different ethnic around the world. Because these current situation in our territories are the reflection of this climate impact, that is not only affecting our resources or territories or lands, it’s also affecting our way of life, our livelihood. So what we have seen around is that this climate change is undermining our livelihood but also the policies and action that are not including Indigenous people or local community to address the climate change. We are left behind, are left aside of all these negotiations.
Indigenous people think it’s important to be part of the adaptation process, of the adaptation action, because we have a lot of knowledge. Ayesha also already said about this. Indigenous people have a specific knowledge, a specific action that maybe the state can take into account that can be part of policies in and scale up in, in global space. And we also think it’s important in all these adaptation processes, that the effective participation of the actors should be in place. Most of the action that adaptation for climate change are taking place in our lands and territories and how is Indigenous people left aside? This is like that. So for us it’s really important because it’s our lands. It’s not only a space where we live, it is the basis of our culture, the basis of our survival as indigenous people.
Marek Soanes [00:09:06]: Thank you so much. Mamadou?
Mamadou Honadia [00:09:09]: Locally led adaptation is very important because since the beginning of the negotiations, developing countries, including Burkina Faso, advocated that we are always impacted, affected by climate change. The first reaction we have to add is really to first adapt, and secondly think how we can mitigate the emissions. So since the beginning of the negotiations, my country knew that adaptation is very crucial, very important for us. So locally led adaptation is very important because it will identify vulnerable people, vulnerable regions, that are impacted by climate change.
So talking about locally led adaptation means that we have to make distinctions between those living, for instance, at the capital, and those who are suffering at the grassroots level, I mean the communities and villages. So to me, actually, if we would like to address the issue of adaptation, let’s go at the grassroot level. Let’s go to the communities where people are really working under a sort of - how do I call it? - are living with difficulties without any substantial means in order to survive. So actually, when we talk about food security, we think first to local communities. So to me, locally led adaptation is very crucial in that context.
Marek Soanes [00:11:09]: Thank you, Mamadou. Joshua, you have represented but also mentored young people, increasing their representation in global and local climate processes. From the perspective of youth engagement and youth representation, why do you think locally led adaptation is so important?
Joshua Amponsen [00:11:28]: Thank you very much, Marek. When it comes to locally led climate adaptation, the essence of it, and I’m going to draw back to one of the principles of locally led action which is understanding risk and uncertainty, because the climate issue is huge and there are vulnerability differences from one place to the other, leading from one individual to another, it becomes really essential that within local communities the young people particularly are more interested to see what does the future hold for them, what can they do to support in terms of adaptation and building resilience, and facilitating how they can work together with different stakeholders to strengthen the resilience of their communities as well as be able to protect their own future, and reduce their, their risk as well. So that becomes very essential. The international level could do policies and could set certain agendas but it’s going to come down to actions that are taken locally to protect livelihoods and to, from the perspective of young people, to ensure that there is intergenerational equity, that young people have a future that they deserve.
Marek Soanes [00:12:34]: Thank you so much, Joshua.
[Music]
Marek Soanes [00:12:41]: And you’ve touched upon the role of climate policy. You’re engaged and interacting with global climate policy in slightly different ways. Ayesha in the planning process for climate change that was enacted under the Cancun Adaptation Framework in National Adaptation Plans. And Eileen, you obviously are representative for civil society organisations in one of the main financial mechanisms of the Green Climate Fund to support developing countries and their climate action. Joshua, you have both represented and supported youth engagement in global climate forums, including the Conference of the Parties for the UNFCCC. Firstly, Ayesha, these global climate policy frameworks – why are they so important for influencing what happens on the ground in terms of adaptation?
Ayesha Constable [00:13:34]: These frameworks, they set the tone for what happens at every level of climate governance. The Paris Agreement, the UNFCCC, they determine what the priorities are globally. They help to shape the priorities that funding entities eventually adapt. They also help to set the framework within which governments operate and within which entities such as the Green Climate Fund operates. So they play a significant role in setting the foundation for planning and climate governance globally. I suppose that in doing that, however, the gap there is in making the connection between what is happening at that highest level of decision making and what is happening in terms of climate impacts at the local levels. And so sometimes there is a disconnect.
However, if frameworks such as these global frameworks set the right precedents, that connection becomes very important in terms of establishing what are the parameters in which climate change happens and climate change planning takes place. And in a big way as well, the global policies determine what national governments and regional governments do around climate change implementation and governance. So it is important that these frameworks be in place to ensure, you know, a very streamlined approach but it’s also important that we identify the entry points in all these frameworks for the integration of considerations that are unique to local communities and find ways to give local communities an opportunity to shape these processes so that they’re not just on the receiving end of whatever is determined at the COP, but the decisions and the outcomes of those processes are tailored to meet their unique challenges.
And I, I believe that Eileen said it very well in terms of it’s not just a matter of how do local communities benefit from these decision making processes, but how does the broader framework of planning benefit from the knowledge and the experience that local communities have honed and harnessed over the years by virtue of having done this for centuries just for their survival.
Marek Soanes [00:16:14]: Ayesha, that’s really interesting to hear about how climate policy in your opinion sets the tone for what, I guess, what support is provided but also sets the tone for climate action on the ground. Eileen, from your perspective, how does global climate policy actually interact with the constituencies that you support for their adaptation on the ground?
Eileen Mairena Cunningham [00:16:36]: As Ayesha already say, these global policies should be the guideline for action at international level. And what we see is that one of the main challenges is that lack of funding to implement the adaptation policy arise in many case. Without this stable financial law, it will affect these implementations at national level. And above all, without clear guidelines for implementation, with the participation of local stakeholders as Indigenous People, women, we will be having incipient action that will not achieve a resolution for the current climate problem. So for us it’s important that these, these policies, that are defined for implementation have that, of the adaptation process, understand that these schemes are not only uni-directional. We have seen for decades that most of these actions came from top down to our communities, to our territories.
And I think that that is a moment to change this idea. And as I say, there is a serious experience and process that we can show that also can be scaled up at national and international, at global levels. And I think this process can be an enriched with the action from the local level. For Indigenous People we talk about complementarity. And I think this can also apply in this case because, if we don’t change this top-down scheme, the complementarity cannot be done. And with the inclusion of the bottom-up ambition, we will see that we can work together, we can work with a collective vision and not individually or with this idea of overlapping ideas. I think Indigenous People in adaptation issues, we also are talking about the importance of work together, to work together with other different stakeholder. We have seen in the UNFCCC, the local community and the Indigenous People platform, that is a supportive institution, especially because the link that we want to establish with the organisational base and the issues of adaptation to climate change. So I think we have a great opportunity to include other stakeholders in this process.
And also I think activities programme and project action should be carried out with the local level, with the grassroots level organisation, because the impact of adaptation you can only measure at local level. And adaptation should be planned and should be a result of a political decision in our countries. So it’s important to have these conscientious efforts and planning to achieve certain objective and should result in some changes in institutional changes, in behaviour changes, and adjustment of technology in our countries. So for us it’s so important the global policy, because these can bring changes at the local level also. But we really think it’s important to have a dialogue. We say, for Indigenous People, it’s a dialogue of knowledge. So that is something that we want to raise in decision.
Marek Soanes [00:18:04]: Thank you, Eileen. Mamadou, could you give us an example of how global climate policy specifically can support locally led adaptation, whether it be in its support of and frameworks for finance, technical assistance or capacity building? So how global climate policy can actually affect the support for locally led adaptation on the ground?
Mamadou Honadia [00:20:56]: Global climate policy can bring many assets, many supports to locally led adaptation. The examples I can provide from my experience is when we negotiated the national adaptation programmes of actions, the global climate policy frameworks has been [inaudible 00:21:20] to assist vulnerable countries, mainly SIDS and LDCs, to cope with climate change. And the process helped us to formulate some guidelines on how we can address with NAPAs. So based on that, all least developed countries have the opportunity to design the national adaptation plan of actions. At this stage, 98% or 99% of LDCs are formulated with NAPAs and among them, around 70% of them have been funded by GEF because within the NAPAs we have been invited, you know, to make a list of priority actions that could help us to cope with climate change, but at the grassroots level. So this is one example of how the global climate policy could promote locally led adaptation.
Marek Soanes [00:22:30]: Thank you, Mamadou. So Joshua, why do you think global climate policy is so important for influencing climate action on the ground, including the representation and engagement with young people?
Joshua Amponsen [00:18:28]: Thanks very much. When I think of global policies and other international level policies are adopted, how it filtered down to local action and particularly engagement of young people, it’s basically the ambition and the hopes of new policies. So when there is a lot of concern, a lot of a sort of anxiety around, particularly when it comes to climate change, and the uncertainty of the future that is ahead of us and why adaptation is very important. When we have policies at international level, that sets very high ambitions, it’s really to get everyone up on their toes to act. And I think that is very, very important when global ambitions are, when global policies are not ambitious enough, then government and of course the decision makers and actors are relying on that to say, I’ve done my fair share of it, I’ve contributed X amount of money, I’ve done, I’ve put X strategies in place as it is demanded by this global policy.
And if those, those policies are very, very ambitious, then a lot of young people can ride on that to also not just advocate for what they think they need, but also what globally has a consensus on to say that, OK, the Paris Agreement calls for X, Y, Z and this is what I’m going to push my local government to do. And as an individual, I’m going to also use this policy to guide my actions. Because not everyone can, not everyone will be on top of the science, on top of the technical details. But when you get global policies adopted and they have been communicated in the most simple way for everyone to know that, OK, for the next five years, for the next ten years, for the next 20 years, this is what we’re going to collectively as a group try to do. It really helps others who are not really on the same page to be able to use those key words and key messages to take action.
The other bit of that is just adaptation in general. I mean adaptation, if you look at adaptation pathways, we need to look at all variety of options we have in, so, in addressing floods, in addressing droughts, addressing heatwaves, cyclones. And when you have all these options, it becomes important that we are able to look at best practices over the years and see how to improve on those, and also then facilitate knowledge as change, which is the main pillar of adaptation. And that becomes essential in global policy because then global policy will rely on what different countries are doing, pull all of that together to be able to draw a path and say that OK, after years of experience in these hazards and these impacts of climate change, it is essential that we prioritise these key, these key efforts. So if you look at these specifically, if you look at the funding gap for adaptation – and at the global level this is a huge topic – this is allowing every young person to be able to say that we need equal amounts of funding coming to adaptation, the same money goes to mitigation, and even in some contexts, we need more money for adaptation than mitigation because mitigation received a lot more funds over the past years.
The global consensus on these other global policy directions could put more sort of ambitions behind what adaptation needs to be prioritised. If I look at previous years, a lot of advocacy from young people have been on mitigation because it came easier because a lot of global conversations were on mitigation, compensation, carbon off-setting, carbon markets. So a lot of the young people were also advocating along these lines, reducing our footprint. But now that there is sort of focus on adaptation and resilience towards a global event like COP, a lot of young people are also sort of getting more information about it and advocating around that. And I see this to be very, very essential in terms of getting the global conversation to set a certain agenda and it’s filtering down to local communities. And every young person being able to leverage on that, to advocate at the local level.
Marek Soanes [00:26:46]: Thank you, Joshua.
[Music]
Marek Soanes [00:26:54]: Now you touched on the COP, the Conference of the Parties that this year will take place in Glasgow in the United Kingdom in November. And it’s, I guess, one of the key moments to reflect on the ambition that was set by the Paris Agreement. Now, you’ve all mentioned some incredibly important topics of why global climate policy impacts on adaptation on the ground, whether that be providing the strategy to bring people together, setting the right ambition and tone, providing adequate finance both to do what is needed but also to address historical injustices. But also to provide accountability. Briefly, could you touch upon what we would like to see happen? What could global climate policy be doing better to actually impact and support locally led adaptation on the ground? Ayesha, do you want to touch on that?
Ayesha Constable [00:27:46]: Yeah. I suppose that the, the current efforts, though commendable, are not fool-proof, and they certainly have not addressed all the challenges that exist. And they have not supported in every single way, all that needs to be done to ensure the integration of, you know, local level concerns and the concerns of marginalised and vulnerable groups fully. Eileen mentioned the Indigenous People’s platform of the UNFCCC. And there are other mechanisms and clauses that make reference to these considerations in terms of vulnerable peoples and relevant issues concerning these communities. But what we have seen is that, even in those instances where these frameworks are put in place, there are loopholes and there are instances where they don’t get due consideration at the national level.
I’d like to think, and believe that in the case of Antigua and Barbuda, and with the work that the GO is doing, we subscribe wholeheartedly to these principles, but also in wanting to ensure that we don’t just do it in principle but in practice. And so there are different opportunities created for local level input, for engaging stakeholders at every level in every aspect of the decision making. And in some instances we even go beyond the recommendations from these policy frameworks. Bearing in mind our understanding of the local context, and the need to, you know, fully integrate those unique concerns. One of the challenges I find with the current framework, I suppose by the UNFCCC for instance, and with the funding mechanism which is the GCF, is that in many instances, there is such a focus on playing by specific rules in, you know, streamlining the processes and operations through cred-accredited entities in the case of the GCF, which usually must have in place some very strict fiduciary mechanisms so that communities on the ground are unable to tap into these opportunities because they can’t meet those checkboxes.
The NAP, for Antigua and Barbuda, the National Adaptation Plan, which we are currently developing, isn’t in fact funded by the UNFCCC, or rather the GCF, the NAP is funded by the GCF. And what we have sought to do, recognising that it does not effectively allow for local communities and community groups and, you know, these unregistered, unestablished entities to access this funding on their own, is we’re being that bridge, we’re making that link to these communities through our initiatives. And so we’ve created, through the different processes that support the implementation of the NAP, opportunities for different communities to participate in this process, to share their experiences, to, you know, offer their guidance in terms of what the local level issues are. And also to shape the outcomes of the process. So I suppose in kind of summing that up, the main challenge that I would observe in my line of work and from where I sit in this space, is the lack of mechanisms through these global policies to render direct benefits to local communities. And so the challenge then becomes, or the onus is then on entities that do have access to these opportunities and mechanisms, to ensure that we create space and opportunities for these communities to be involved in this process, that we recognise there are issues reporting and there are issues, and create, you know, systems and processes that allow for free and fair participation in all of the work that we’re doing. And hopefully by doing that and over time it sends a message and establishes a principle that can, at another point in time possibly, be adapted by these global frameworks. We don’t want to act as gatekeepers really. We want for there to be systems that allow for that, you know, a shifting of power to these local communities so they can, on their own, effectively participate and, and lead in, in their own right.
Marek Soanes [00:32:34]: Thank you, Ayesha. So, Ayesha’s mentioned, I guess, a real need to address the access challenges that currently exist that are provided by the convention in, in many cases, the Green Climate Fund, which is the world’s largest climate fund. Eileen, you represent civil society organisations, as an active observer on the Green Climate Fund board. What do you think the Green Climate Fund, as the main financial mechanism of the convention and the Paris Agreement, could be doing better to address challenges in supporting locally led adaptation?
Eileen Mairena Cunningham [00:33:09]: The Green Climate Fund can do so much things differently, and do better in so much issues. I think Ayesha, I echo what Ayesha said. The Green Climate Fund is really not a friendly structure, doesn’t have a friendly structure for local communities to have access to funds. And the Green Climate Fund have safeguards in place, have the Indigenous People policy in place, so that’s supposed to be a really robust, policies in place in the Green Climate Fund. But what we see is that it’s still focused on financial and business as usual. Even if they talk about paradigm shift, more participation in the guide, in the principle guidelines of the Green Climate Fund, it says that it should be a very transparent, and very, with equal… how to say, with equal participation at national level of women, youth, Indigenous People and other stakeholders.
But the reality is that Green Climate Fund is still behind all these, um, this process. And in this case I think it’s important that the Green Climate Fund look at the process on a national level, guide the national designate authority to work with other stakeholders because when you go through this international process, your government representatives are always open to talk with you. But when you came back to the countries, you just find closed doors. So it’s important the Green Climate Fund, the secretariat, the board members work in this so that these, these local communities, these Indigenous People that is so difficult for Indigenous People and local communities to follow all these processes, can have a space at national level. I think that is really important. I think, of course, the Green Climate Fund have been doing some baby steps to better some situations but there is still a lot of situations that can be, er, get better inside. That’s why we are working there, that’s why Indigenous People are follow up all of these, the CSOs, organisations, are really active in the process of follow up this. And we think a better GCF can be, can be in place.
Marek Soanes [00:35:49]: Thanks, Eileen. Ayesha, do you want to come back on that?
Ayesha Constable [00:35:51]: Yeah I would. Eileen has made some very good points and I think it’s evident that there are some systemic limitations, you know, in terms of the GCF as a funding mechanism. But the reality is that there are… there is room, rather, for governments to work with, with local communities. It might not be all rightly stipulated in some instances, and in others it is. But it leaves room sometimes for national governments to do as they please, really. To, whether or not they feel inclined to work with local communities or whether or not they believe that working with a local community might slow down the process and they’re hurrying to make submissions to the GCF or another funding entity, and checking off these boxes and doing that due process but inadvertently add more time and take more resources for them to engage. But the reality is, or the recommendation rather, is that we find ways to lobby our governments to make room for local communities and Indigenous communities in the case of Eileen, to ensure that their voices are represented, and not leave it to them to, you know, determine whether or not they want to or feel inclined to work with us in a particular location. Because the fact is that even with the limits in some of these global policies, local governments, national governments, do have it within their remit to take the opportunity and include local communities.
Marek Soanes [00:37:22]: Thanks, Ayesha. Eileen?
Eileen Mairena Cunningham [00:37:24]: I think it’s important this part because the Green Climate Fund have this readiness programme. And Indigenous People have always said that the readiness is not only just to prepare the country to receive funds from the Green Climate Fund. It’s also to prepare local stakeholders, Indigenous People. So it’s important that the government include in this readiness process Indigenous People, women, youth and other stakeholders, local communities. And I think as Ayesha said, the lobby at national level is a really important issue when we talk about Green Climate Fund. I know it’s difficult in some cases, but if you… [laughs] advocacy is difficult always, so it’s a process and can be done in a time. So it’s important this, and I think we have seen in different parts of the globe, that at national level, if you advocate with your, national designate authority, you’re going to have some changes, you’re going to have opportunities to participate in the process. We have seen in Latin America this, Nicaragua by example took part of their readiness to make this dialogue with Indigenous People, with accredited entities, with private sector. I think it was really a good example how the readiness and how things can change in the Green Climate Fund. And this sets really a tone for other dialogues at national level. Now Colombia have a participation of Indigenous People in one of the projects that was approved last November. So I think it’s important also that about the… the national advocacy with the… with your national designated authority. Thank you.
Marek Soanes [00:39:18]: Thank you, Eileen. And over to you, Joshua. You’ve been, as we mentioned, you’ve been supporting youth activism on climate change and engagement in both global and local climate processes, including in Ghana. What, I guess, is your experience of the youth being and children being able to actually, being recognised as an important stakeholder in climate finance processes? Obviously we, we now have at the Green Climate Fund the world’s, one of the world’s largest international NGOs, Save the Children, have been accredited to the Green Climate Fund, which may open up opportunities. But what’s your experiences from your perspective?
Joshua Amponsen [00:39:56]: You know I’ve been listening to the conversation. It’s very interesting on both sides. To start with the question, the first thing that comes to my head is accessibility to whom, and facilitated by whom. There’s always going to be a level of accessibility, institutions are going to restructure to give room for… to ensure that they upgrade it. But we should recognise that when it comes to adaptation, there are structural inequalities and these need to be paid attention to, and sort of support in traditional structures to take care of the needs of groups that have not had the opportunity to tap into resources traditionally, it’s not going to necessarily work.
So on a personal note, from my side and from the metrics I represent and for the majority of young people and yeah, I talk about the… it’s a question of skill. So the fact that there might be opportunities for one entity or two entities at the global level to be able to engage somewhere, it doesn’t cut it, it doesn’t really fix it yet. We need institutions to significantly transform. One example is the Adaptation Fund, I mean, I’ve been engaging with the Adaptation Fund for quite some time now, after the 2019 report on the youth and climate adaptation, the Adapt for our Future report. We started a conversation around climate finance for young people, an innovative financing scheme. What could this look like? So there was a fund which was then launched by Adaptation Fund together with, with CTCN in Copenhagen and with UNDP to make it possible that you could apply to the fund without going through your NDE, your national designated entity. Because it’s not always the case that young people in certain categories or certain groups of people can reach the NDE at a country level, and be able to discuss a project and have the NDE endorse it and go to take it forward to a GCF or the Adaptation Fund.
So we really need to open up the space and to make it possible that groups that face inequalities in, in the accessibility to funding, could have a direct link to help to offer these funds without necessarily having to go through a sort of different levels of governance, the structures by these institutions. It makes it limiting, it makes it much more difficult. And even most importantly, there should be a quota. There should be a quota within GCF, within AF, within all the most lateral funds and the banks to say that, OK, within a year, this is how much of the funds that goes to you, focus that goes to, say, Indigenous Focus, that goes to this. Really acknowledging that there are specific groups that you need to highlight that they need direct access to this money, and you’re putting in conscious effort to make sure that they get the money.
I mean even putting the structural inequality aspect aside, globally currently, I mean, as, as we talk, adaptation finance is not reaching the most vulnerable. Right? If you look at the World Disaster Report, the, the 2020 report, it states very clearly that top-most vulnerable country, 20 countries, are not the ones receiving the highest per person funding when it comes to disasters. So that is even a bigger question than if you want to zoom in, into specific groups that are likely not to have influence in accessibility to these funds, it’s going to become a bit more critical. So, I know that these institutions are really doing their best and putting in effort. It’s just that more could be done. So I agree with Ayesha, more could be done. From my side I think direct access is needed. Supporting Eileen on the aspect of the GCF and sort of the structures, I think these structures need to evolve much faster. It needs to evolve way much faster because the issue at hand is critical, it keeps the speed of the climate impact on societies, it’s way faster than the speed of our institutions at the moment. So this is sort of the speed we need to go in terms of institutions transforming to enhance accessibility to funding by everybody.
Marek Soanes [00:44:05]: Thank you so much, Joshua. So I’m hearing very strong messages from all of you about what needs to change and what needs to happen for the global system to better support climate action on the ground, and locally led adaptation. That it’s about… one of the big issues is accessibility to finance, about supporting more direct access to that finance but also importantly, better democratisation of climate finance, ensuring that youth, Indigenous Peoples and non-state actors alongside public sector institutions can access this finance more directly to actually finance the solutions that they’ve, as Eileen put it, so clearly at the beginning, they’ve being implementing for decades on the ground, longer than decades. So that’s very, very clear.
[Music]
Marek Soanes [00:44:54]: With a firm eye on COP26 in November that’s coming up, could I, just to wrap up, could I ask you all just to give me… what’s your one big thing you would like to see coming out of COP26 to really make progress on these issues? Ayesha, over to you first.
Ayesha Constable [00:45:09]: I think for us as a small island developing state, I would be completely remiss to not say that it’s raising the profile of adaptation. We see that as a major priority and based on my work in that field, I also recognise that only a small percentage of what has been allocated to adaptation in terms of funding has come to SIDS, and so we want to see that rectified and we want to see the resources allocated for adaptation planning to go to the countries that are most in need. And also, we want to see any opportunity to integrate local led adaptation in that process exploited. Thanks.
Marek Soanes [00:45:50]: Fantastic, thanks, Ayesha. Eileen, what’s your one big thing for COP26?
Eileen Mairena Cunningham [00:45:53]: I think for Indigenous People it’s also important the issues of the real implementation of the platform of local communities and Indigenous People, that is the opportunity that we have to be interlocutors in these global negotiations. But we think here it’s important to have a greater dynamism related to financial access and resource for the operation of these platform of local communities as Indigenous People. And in these issues it’s also important to promote platform at a regional level. We have… we work in Indigenous People issues with seven sociocultural regions, so we think it’s important to have in every one of these regions, a platform that can bring all this knowledge, traditional knowledge of Indigenous People, or knowledge for adaptation, to the natural environment to the UNFCCC.
Marek Soanes [00:46:56]: Fantastic. Mamadou, what kind of outcomes would you be looking for?
Mamadou Honadia [00:47:01]: I know that the UK’s government is trying to set up a task force, a task force on access to climate finance. I really would make a plea to the UK’s government that this initiative should not end with a term of office of UK as COP president. Because adaptation, access to climate finance are very, very key in the UNFCCC processes. So, I would really invite the UK government to accept this challenge to champion adaptation and climate finance beyond this term of office. And certainly through UK, some additional developed countries will join.
Marek Soanes [00:48:01]: And Joshua, the floor is yours for the final big idea for COP26. Really a tough one, but your one big outcome you’d like to see?
Joshua Amponsen [00:48:09]: Thank you. My big one would be increased share of young people as part of the national delegation to COP26. Build on the capacity of young people, making them negotiators, bringing them to COP and allowing them to put their needs and their priorities forward at international decision making table. That’s it.
Marek Soanes [00:48:33]: Fantastic, Joshua. So I’m hearing really big, again, let’s see if these outcomes come, but it’s youth engagement in these international climate negotiations. It’s these regional dialogues that are feeding into the UNFCCC representing the voices of Indigenous Peoples. And it’s getting the allocation of climate adaptation finance much better aligned with the real vulnerabilities on the ground, particularly the small island developing states and the least developed countries. And ensuring the locally led adaptation principles are integrated into these agendas. That’s fantastic. Thank you, it’s been an absolute pleasure to talk to you on these issues.
Listen to our Make Change Happen podcast, which provides informal insights into IIED’s work to create positive change and make the complex issues we face more accessible to wider audiences.