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.

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]) 

BAGUIO CITY, Philippines – “As the original stewards and owners of the lands and waters on this planet, our message throughout our discussions this week is that cultural intelligence working with nature is the best way forward”. Ken Paul from the Assembly of First Nations was speaking on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biological Diversity (#IIFB) during the Second Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) on the Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, held in February this year in Rome, Italy. His message guides the indigenous participants in the different agenda being discussed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (#CBD).

As the implementation period for the current Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, including the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, draws to a close, the CBD is undertaking a comprehensive and participatory process for the development of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The process adopted by the fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD fosters the engagement of all relevant stakeholders; thus, it is important that #indigenouspeoples are able to effectively participate in this process in order to ensure a framework that recognizes their rights and role in its implementation.

The process of the development of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework established an open-ended intersessional working group on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework that will meet three times prior to the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (originally scheduled for October 2020, but now moved to 2021 due to the global pandemic).

The OEWG already met twice on August 27-30, 2019 and February 24-29, 2020, in Nairobi, Kenya and Rome, Italy, respectively. In these meetings, IIFB has generally been pushing for several lobby points, such as for the security of indigenous peoples lands, territories and resources be reflected as part of a target, that cultural diversity be reflected as directly linked with biodiversity, as well as that a rights-based approach be adopted and incorporated in the monitoring and implementation of the framework.

During the OEWG-1, the IIFB provided inputs on the potential elements of the structure and scope of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. In the OEWG-2, the IIFB asserted how indigenous peoples rights should be reflected in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and successfully lobbied with party delegations from Philippines, Australia, Mexico, Colombia and Norway. Because of these efforts, currently, several concepts that are supportive of indigenous peoples’ rights are included in the report of the meeting and is recommended to be considered in the preparation of the documents for the upcoming Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) at its third meeting, Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) at its twenty-fourth meeting, and OEWG-3 for the post 2020 global biodiversity framework. This enhances the chance of indigenous peoples to negotiate for better policies when the framework structure is finalized and adopted in COP 15.

Several examples are the widening of scope of benefit sharing to include biological resources and ecosystem services, recognition of indigenous food systems, recognition of customary sustainable use, integration of cultural values, utilizing ecosystem-based approaches, and protection of the right to free prior and informed consent, among others.
In the beginning of 2019 up to the present, a series of global, regional, thematic consultations, and online forums were organized by the CBD Secretariat as part of the process of developing a robust post-2020 global biodiversity framework. While

indigenous peoples were able to attend the consultations, some concerns had to be raised, such as the limited number of indigenous participants during the regional consultations and that the outcomes of the global thematic dialogue for indigenous peoples and local communities were not reflected in the zero draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Intersessional meetings of the Ad-Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions (WG8J) and the SBSTTA 23 were also convened in November 2019 in Montreal.

The WG8J 11 examined the potential role of traditional knowledge, customary sustainable use and the contribution of the collective actions of indigenous peoples and local communities to the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. IIFB was able to influence the recommendations adopted by the SBSTTA and WG8J including for an option for a permanent body to address indigenous peoples’ concerns in relation to biodiversity when negotiating for the form by which the WG8J will continue post-2020. This is to address how indigenous peoples’ concerns are currently being addressed in the CBD, where by an ad-hoc working group is meeting once a year to address issues only relating to traditional knowledge. The IIFB asserts that indigenous peoples are central to the achievement of the objectives of the Convention, and that their rights and issues are relevant to all aspects of the Convention.

Meanwhile, SBSTTA 23 reviewed possible elements for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The that IIFB contended that the evidence base shows that indigenous peoples territories show less decline in biodiversity, and as such, indigenous peoples right to land, territories and resources must be secured and reflected in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Throughout the meeting, IIFB and allies in the CSO had called for the full recognition of indigenous peoples lands, waters, territories and resources. This remains a contentious issue for many countries, because it is usually interpreted as challenging the sovereignty of a nation over all territories within its jurisdiction.

To date, most of the upcoming CBD meetings were postponed in light of the current coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic while some were held through a combination of live virtual sessions and online discussions. Despite this setback, indigenous peoples look forward to participation fully and effectively in this process and its implementation for the years to come.

As aptly intervened by Aslak Holmberg on behalf of the IIFB during the opening of OEWG-2, “Nature needs urgent measures. We need to act now to protect our biodiversity. There is no more time to waste. The recognition of our rights to govern our own territories and practice our knowledge contributes to community and ecosystem resilience. As the guardians and defenders of Mother Earth, we urge all governments to act on behalf of biodiversity. See us as the most valuable part of the solution, and work together with us towards a new relationship with nature - one that heals and sustains for all of our future generations.”