Introduction

Contributing less greenhouse gas emissions, indigenous peoples have and continue to offer solutions to combat climate change. They have been stewards of the earth protecting and maintaining forests and biodiversity which up to now remain intact.[1] Indigenous peoples around the world are approximately 370 million --- 5 percent of the world’s population but 15 percent of the world’s poorest. At high risk and most vulnerable to climate change impacts and to inappropriate solutions to climate change and development initiatives, indigenous peoples customarily manage over 50 percent of the global land mass but legally own just 10 percent.[2] Of the earth’s biodiversity, 80 percent are found in indigenous peoples’ lands and territories.[3]  In Asia, indigenous peoples are two-thirds of the world’s indigenous peoples.[4] In the Philippines, they are about 12-15 million.

Impacts of Climate Change to Indigenous Peoples

The closeness of indigenous peoples to nature gives them ample knowledge about the waters, soil, plants and animals which makes them understand if changes are happening in their environment. Long before, they have felt and observed signs that global warming is happening. Despite the early warning signs, they have not been spared from experiencing in greater degree, the disastrous effects of climate change.  

The majority living in territories and ecosystems that are very fragile and vulnerable to climatic changes,[5] indigenous peoples bear the brunt of climate change and the impacts of solutions to these changes, some of which are flawed.[6] The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) noted that indigenous peoples are the first to feel the dire consequences of climate change, being dependent for their survival to and close relationship with the environment and the resources therein. These impacts include political and economic marginalization, loss of land and resources, human rights violations, discrimination and unemployment.[7] If indigenous peoples are disproportionately impacted, indigenous women and children are particularly more vulnerable and more affected as described below.

(Download attachment below to read full article)

---

[1] Jeffrey Y. Campbell, No Sustainable Development Without Indigenous Peoples,  https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/no-sustainable-development-without-indigenous-peoples/(August 8, 2019)  

[2] Indigenous Peoples Major Group, Indigenous Peoples’ Proposed Action on Nature Based Solution, https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/28890/Securing_rights.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

[3] Ibid. 

[4] Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, Overview of the State of Indigenous Peoples in Asia, www.aippnet.org (May 2014). 

[5] Tebtebba Foundation, Introduction in Indigenous Women, Climate Change and Forests (Baguio City, Philippines: Tebtebba Foundation, 2011), xiv. 

[6] United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Backgrounder: Climate change and indigenous peoples, https://www.un.org/en/events/indigenousday/pdf/Backgrounder_ClimateChange_FINAL.pdf.

[7] Ibid.

Globally, Indigenous peoples are among the most vulnerable to both the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the measures being implemented to curb it. The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Elatia (Indigenous Peoples’ Global Partnership on Climate Change, Forests and Sustainable Development) and UPAKAT (a national network of indigenous political structures and indigenous peoples organization for the promotion of traditional knowledge and wisdom in the Philippines) partners of Tebtebba point out many factors that make indigenous peoples among the most vulnerable in the pandemic and what responses indigenous peoples are doing.

(Download information packet in high resolution [ENGLISH] [FILIPINO]) 

Resumen de contenido

Este documento ha sido escrito para describir y guiar a las Organizaciones de Pueblos Indígenas (OPI) en América Latina sobre el Programa de Preparación y Apoyo del Fondo Verde del Clima –FVC - (Programa de Readiness) y para ponerles en conocimientos y prepararlos para acceder directamente a los recursos financieros del Fondo Verde del Clima (FVC).

Las organizaciones de pueblos indígenas en América Latina, como en otras partes del mundo, han insistido y han mantenido un proceso permanente de presión sobre su demanda de acceso directo a los recursos financieros del FVC.

Este proceso presenta dos áreas: por un lado, los altos estándares y parámetros rigurosos del FVC, primero, para ser acreditado y segundo, para acceder adecuadamente a los fondos. Por otro lado, debemos considerar el historial y las capacidades administrativas, técnicas y financieras de las organizaciones de pueblos indígenas. Sin embargo, estos son dos aspectos muy diferentes, tanto el FVC como las Organizaciones de Pueblos Indígenas (OPI), tienen que analizar sus relaciones, conocerse mutuamente y trabajar juntos para allanar el camino para que OPI accedan a los fondos.

Este trabajo se realizó principalmente a nivel de escritorio solamente. Se ha dedicado mucho tiempo navegando por las distintas páginas del sitio web del FVC; se revisaron las decisiones de la Junta Directiva y también los informes de organizaciones regionales como el Observatorio para la Acción Climática (OLAC) y el Grupo de Finanzas de América Latina (GFLAC).

Lo que encontramos en esta investigación es que, a pesar de que el FVC es una organización nueva, en comparación con otras organizaciones financieras internacionales, como el Banco Mundial u otros bancos regionales, ha logrado crear una estructura orgánica robusta. Aunque la CMNUCC tomó la decisión de crear el FVC a partir de 2009 en Copenhague, el Fondo se creó como resultado de la 16ª Sesión, celebrada en Cancún, México, en 2010. Fue solo hasta noviembre de 2015, hace 5 años, que FVC aprobó sus primeros ocho proyectos.

En este proceso, el FVC ha sido muy ágil al definir y establecer su estructura orgánica, políticas, programas, procedimientos, mecanismos y garantizar su correcto funcionamiento. Estos son componentes muy robustos y estrictos del GCF.

Si bien la participación de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC) y el sector privado, como observadores activos, es muy limitada, las Organizaciones de Pueblos Indígenas lograron, lograron un acuerdo con las OSC de los países en desarrollo, a través del cual se le asignó un espacio en el Equipo de Observadores Activos.

Por su parte, las OPI han demostrado mucha tenacidad y capacidad de cabildeo, en su demanda de tener una ventana especial en el FVC, sin embargo, esto no se ha logrado. Quizás la creación de la Plataforma para Comunidades Locales y Pueblos Indígenas (LCIPP, por sus siglas en inglés) es un signo de los resultados y el impacto de ese esfuerzo, que podría avanzar en la provisión de recursos financieros a las OPI´s.

El problema ahora es que el FVC tiene un proceso de acreditación que es muy rígidos y estrictos, de tal manera que a las OPI les resultan ser condiciones y parámetros muy difíciles de cumplir. A pesar de esto, el FVC se preocupa por facilitar el proceso de acreditación para el cual está considerando nuevos enfoques. Una opción parece ser el enfoque de evaluación específica del proyecto. También vemos que la Junta Directiva del FVC ha adoptado decisiones para darle prioridad a entidades nacionales directas en aquellos países que aún no tienen una Entidad de Acceso Directo.

Summary report

This document has been written to describe and guide Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPO) in Latin America on GCF's Readiness and Preparatory Support Program (readiness program) and to alert and prepare them to directly access to financial resources of the Fund.

Indigenous Peoples’ organizations in Latin America, as in other parts of the globe, have insisted and have a permanently lobby process on their demand for direct access to the financial resources of the GCF.

This process presents two areas: on the one hand, the high standards and rigorous parameters of the GCF, first, to be accredited and second, to properly access the funds. On the other hand, we have to consider the history and administrative, technical and financial capacities of the organizations of indigenous peoples. These are two very different aspects, however, both the GCF and the IPOs, have to analyze, and get to know each other and, work together to pave the way for the IPOs to access the funds.

This work was carried out mainly at the desk work level only. It´s spent a lot of time browsing the various pages of the GCF website; the decisions of the Directive Board and also reports from regional organizations such as the Observatory for Climate Action (OLAC, for its Spanish acronym) and Latin American Finance Group (GFLAC, for its Spanish acronym) were reviewed.

What we find in this research is that despite the fact that the GCF is a new organization, compared to other international financial organizations, such as the World Bank or other regional banks, it has managed to have a robust organic structure and a well-defined mandate and procedures. Although the UNFCCC made a decision for the creation of the GCF from 2009 in Copenhagen, the Fund was created as a result of the 16th Session, held in Cancun, Mexico, in 2010. It was only until November 2015, 5 years ago, that GCF approved its first eight projects.

In this process, the GCF has been very agile in defining and establishing its organic structure, policies, programs, procedures, mechanisms, and ensuring its proper functioning. These are very robust and strict components of the GCF.

Although the participation of civil society organizations (CSO) and private companies as active observers is very narrow, Indigenous Peoples Organizations managed, in agreement with the developing countries CSO, to share one of the space assigned to them in the Active Observer Team.

For their part, the IPOs have demonstrated a lot of tenacity and lobbying capacity, in their demand to have a special GCF window for indigenous peoples, however this has not been achieved. Perhaps the creation of the Platform for Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples, is a sign of the results and impact of that effort, which could advance the provision of financial resources to the IPO.

The issue now is that the GCF has accreditation processes that are very rigid and strict and that for IPOs they represent conditions and parameters that are difficult to comply with. Despite this, the GCF is concerned with facilitating the accreditation process for which it is considering new approaches. One option appears to be project specific assessment approach. We also see that the GCF Board of Directors has adopted decisions to prioritize national direct entities in those countries that do not yet have a Direct Access Entity.

Download attached file to read full report.