“The revival, strengthening, as well as the government’s support and recognition of the sulagad system of livelihood make way for added food security and environmental protection.”

Santos Unsad, Titay Bleyen (Assistant to the Supreme Chieftain) of the Timuay Justice and Governance (TJG) organization shared the benefits of the sulagad system, a Teduray and Lambangian indigenous livelihood practice, that is both environment-friendly and sustainable. He pointed out that the said custom rejects the use of commercial fertilizers and pesticides which, then, preserves the fertility of the soil. 

Through the Indigenous Navigator Initiative Philippines, the Dayalogo 2, entitled “Indigenous Peoples and the Protection and Sustainable Management of our Environment,” took place on 14 January 2021, 9AM to 12NN, via Zoom Meeting.  One hundred sixty-six (166) participants from different indigenous peoples’ organizations and communities, and representatives from several national government agencies (NGAs) in the Philippines, namely the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the Department of Finance (DOF) on behalf of the Bangsamoro Government Intergovernmental Relations Body (IGRB), and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), joined the second event in the Dayalogo series of Tebtebba.

The representatives of indigenous communities discussed their different issues on the safeguarding of their ancestral domain and its surrounding environs. These concerns included the presence of oil palm plantations, the non-recognition of traditional farming practices, the conflicting political boundaries involving forest reserves, and the insufficient indigenous peoples’ representation in the management of critical environmental systems, including marine-protected areas, among others.

Several speakers also shared their indigenous knowledge systems and practices such as the sulagad system and pag-uuma (swidden farming). They explained the reasons for these indigenous practices as well as the need to sustain, revive, and strengthen their usage.  Others called for support in developing their own three-dimensional (3D) maps. These maps have been useful in defending their territories and resolving boundary conflicts.

“Ang tradisyunal na uma o kaingin ng mga katutubo ng Palawan ay siyang pangunahing pinagkukunan ng pagkain—bigas at samu’t saring gulay at prutas. Ito ay isang sagradong bagay na hindi pwedeng walain dahil ito ay bahagi na ng aming kultura. Hindi sumisira sa ating kalikasan ang pag-uuma dahil may mga pamamaraan upang tukuyin ang mga lupa na pwedeng umahin at hindi. (The traditional swidden farm among the indigenous peoples of Palawan is their primary source of food—rice and various vegetables and fruits. This is a sacred custom that should not be abandoned because it is part of our culture. Swidden farming does not damage our environment because there are processes to indicate which lands can be used and not for this practice),” John Mart Salunday of Nagkakaisang mga Tribu ng Palawan stressed as he discussed the relevance of swidden farming, an agricultural system that is customarily used by indigenous peoples in Palawan and other parts of the Philippines.

“It is highly essential for indigenous peoples and the government to have these dialogues so that concerns are resolved and best practices are shared continuously,” Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Tebtebba Executive Director, stressed during her opening remarks for the said event. She also thanked the different government agencies, headed by the NCIP, for supporting and attending these discourses.

Similarly, NCIP Commissioner for the Cordillera Administrative Region and the Region 1 Gaspar Cayat shared that he supports Tauli-Corpuz’ call for sustained, collaborative dialogues between the different indigenous peoples’ organizations and the government. “The NCIP and other government agencies are one with you (in this continuous Dayalogo series),” Cayat said.

The Dayalogo series is a Tebtebba initiative that aims to assist sustained, collaborative, and constructive dialogues between Philippine indigenous peoples and various government agencies towards the better implementation of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals. It was made possible through the assistance of the European Union, SwedBio and the Pawanka Fund.

1. Background

The term Nature-based Solutions (NBS) was adopted by and popularized by the IUCN members during the 2016 World Conservation asn was defined as “actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits”.[1]

While the NBS concept and term have gained momentum and is now being used by conservation organizations, governments and the UN, many are also critical about how it has increasingly being used to “greenwash” potential false solutions to climate change. 

In 2019, the Secretariat of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) began the development of a series of guides under the eight areas of results for investment, the objective of which is to respond to decision B.17/08 of the Board and to address to provide guidance to Implementing Agencies (IAs), Designated National Authorities (DNAs) and other stakeholders on potential areas where the GCF investment has the greatest impact. The first zero draft of the sector guides is expected to be completed after the second round of consultations.

The Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) approach is being defined within the Green Climate Fund as an integral part of the sector guidelines for the impact areas of investment in the Forest and Land Management, Ecosystems and Ecosystem services.

During the Pre COP 25 held in Costa Rica in 2019, a panel of experts highlighted that it is possible to conserve 30% of the planet by 2030 through the NbS strategy, with actions such as reforestation and the protection of oceans. Nature, which came second in the fight against climate change, can be part of the answer to protect natural resources and offer a path towards sustainability and food security.

Indigenous Peoples are very interested in providing contributions to the consultation process, with the intention of integrating their vision, from a rights-based and culturally appropriate approach within the framework of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) in the different sectors as part of actions for mitigation and adaptation to the effects of climate change.

However, there are important barriers that must be overcome to change the paradigm and achieve the goals of the NBS and these are all mentioned below.

 

2. What does Nature Based Solutions (NbS) mean?

The Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) is a new terminology, specifically introduced to promote nature as a means of providing solutions to the challenges of mitigation and adaptation to climate change. But had we heard something similar before?

The concept of NbS is rooted in the relationship between biodiversity and human well-being. Nevertheless, this relationship has been recognized for centuries under the concept of traditional knowledge which has been the basis of the relationship of Indigenous Peoples with their lands and territories. Its framing as "ecosystem services" only began to appear in scientific literature in the 1970s.[2]

In Europe, policy makers have integrated the concept into their new framework program for research and innovation known as “Horizon 2020”, thus providing a new narrative involving biodiversity and ecosystem services aligned with innovation objectives for growth and job creation and with a possible opening for ways of transformation towards sustainable social development.[3] In the United States, "nature-based infrastructure" and "engineering with nature" are more commonly used as descriptions of actions that support resilience and reduce the risk of flooding. For its part the International Union for Conservation of Nature defines it as: "Actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems, which address social challenges effectively and adaptively, while providing benefits for human well-being and biodiversity"[4].

Like other concepts, the NbS intends to establish an explicit link with the pillars of sustainable development, attempting to address the causes and consequences of climate change, while supporting biodiversity and ensuring a flow of ecosystem services on which human well-being depends.

The reality is that the definition of these interventions in the territories, with a new terminology, could mean great risks for Indigenous Peoples as there is no clarity and different interpretations of what it means. Some barriers that we can identify are related to the multiple interpretations that this terminology carries, and, therefore, interventions in the territory could mean negative impacts for Indigenous Peoples or other local actors.

There are also barriers related to governance. For example:

• Definition of rights of carbon sinks,
• Mechanisms for fair and equitable distribution of benefits, and
• Volatility in climate change policy.

But the great flaw that we identify is that it maintains traditional conservationist approaches that separate Indigenous Peoples from participation in the processes, and above all, the actions and decision-making that could be carried out in our lands and territories.

 

3.  Challenges in the management of Nature-based Solutions (NbS)

A group of CIFOR and COWI consultants[5] have identified the following barriers that must be overcome to carry out the paradigm shift and allow the achievement of the GCF objectives, these are:

• Failing to recognize the actions that have driven the paradigm shift in the past (for example, understanding what has driven the reduction of deforestation in recent years);
• There is an idea that standing forests have no value. This situation forces a permanent subsidy for the standing forest. On the other hand, with a short-term vision, we see that banks prefer to finance deforestation rather than conservation or reforestation. Therefore, it is necessary to change the perception of the economic agents about the forest. There are limited resources for this. However, clearer and guaranteed land tenure is needed before subsidies can be channeled effectively;
• There is a need to internalize ecosystem services in the accounting of national economies;
• A long-term vision is needed, as well as a working governance mechanism;
• It is necessary to give recognition to the stakeholders and their values that make the paradigm changes (for example: ancestral knowledge of indigenous peoples); and
• It is necessary to improve the organization of small businesses in communities and facilitate access to financing supply chains that are effectively linked to responsible markets.

Other types of barriers that the GCF must overcome is the fact that NbS often involve multiple actions in transboundary cases, including, for instance, forest ecosystems and watersheds that are shared across jurisdictional and territorial boundaries. In these cases, joint decision-making processes are required between neighboring regional, national or local governments. Those management, negotiation and consultation processes take time while the nature and impacts of climate change do not wait.

Another identified challenge area is related to the multiple actions that are implemented by the different ministries (agriculture, livestock, forestry and the environment, finance, development, and transportation), which, although they have the same objectives in relation to facing climate change, their actions are framed in contradicting national policies.

 

4. The meaning of NbS for Indigenous Peoples

The indigenous peoples in the 2019 Climate Summit proposed actions on Nature Based Solution and assert that: 

 Indigenous Peoples knowledge systems are nature-based and honor the complex interdependence of all life forms. This is the root of success for the sustainable management of their resources, including waters, rivers, oceans, peatlands, forests, deserts, prairies and savannas, developing effective solutions and practices for biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Securing the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their lands, territories and resources can conserve and restore our most vulnerable ecosystems, increase the storage of carbon, scale-out agroecosystems for sustainable food production, and restore harmony with nature and all life forms in partnership with states, donors, civil society organizations, and others, using a human-rights- based approach.[6]

However, the great challenge with the NbS issue is the lack of clarity on the type of climate actions that could be taken from this approach. The limitations that it represents so far are that they see nature as a space separated from people. Where are the Indigenous Peoples who have lived in these areas for immemorial times and who, based on their traditional knowledge, have practiced NbS in a more harmonious way than the perspectives put forward by the international environmental organizations or even by the very institutions of the United Nations that are promoting them? 

On many occasions, we, the indigenous peoples, have raised our voices to call for the integration and recognition of our knowledge and actions in response to climate change, and in most spaces, we have found ears that were deaf to our position. Therefore, nature-based solutions, from this perspective, seem to be an approach that is leaving us aside. Those who promote this perspective, speak about actions that are going to be carried out in our territories, and talk about nature as if there were no Peoples living within these ecosystems, it is therefore a strategy that lacks the adequate and necessary basis to be an integrated approach and, therefore, the scope or success could mean serious, damaging impacts on Indigenous Peoples or Communities living in the ecosystems to which BNs are turning their attention. 

Indigenous Peoples have, for centuries, had their own effective strategies for conserving forests, waters and soils. Indigenous peoples live in both urban and rural areas and, today, represent more than 476 million people spread over 90 countries of the world, which represents 6.2% of the world population.[7] Currently, it is estimated that 80% of the world's biodiversity is protected by Indigenous Peoples[8], who are legal owners of at least 11% of the land[9]. Indigenous Peoples represent around 15% of people living in extreme poverty[10].

Cultural conceptions, perspectives and practices related to climate comprise an important part of the diverse knowledge that Indigenous Peoples possess, which has allowed them to build and use effective strategies for "adaptation" to climate change. This kind of approach is missing in the NbS perspective.

For Indigenous Peoples, Nature-based Solutions are seen as living WITH nature, not above or below it, being an integral part of a territory. Nature is not manipulated only to obtain economic benefits, and above all, we understand and include those non-economic and intangible benefits such as culture, identity and spirituality that are related to nature and the solutions that we have day by day in response to climate impacts, an aspect that in most cases is not included in the accounting of the NbS.

When the land and its resources are used and enjoyed in a traditional way, it signifies the application of knowledge that was generated over centuries, through the observation and interaction of peoples and nature. This knowledge is framed in a cosmogonic and holistic vision of respect for life, which considers nature as sacred and recognizes humanity as an integral part of it. Under this approach, the balance of the environment in which people live is guaranteed, while continuing to produce services such as water, air, fertile land, food, housing and medicines.

Now, Indigenous Peoples’ need in today's conflictive context, guarantees that these practices will continue to be maintained over time, and for this, the mechanisms and policies that ensure the conditions of traditional territorial governance must be strengthened. The aim is for indigenous knowledge and traditional practices to be recognized and respected, starting with processes of demarcation and titling of territories, within the framework of the collective right to self-determination, which would give them autonomy to make their own decisions and be recognized as bearers of rights, environmental authorities and agents of change. Likewise, this would ensure that climate actions and investments must be carried out from an approach of rights recognition and respect for the traditional life systems of Indigenous Peoples.

It is important to understand that Indigenous Peoples have responded from this NbS approach to challenges such as climate change, food security and disaster risk, and that their experiences can be an important pillar to be integrated into policies and actions of different entities and States, including the GCF.

The successful development of the sector guides and NbS practices must be based on the recognition of the individual and collective rights of Indigenous Peoples, incorporating ancestral knowledge and investing in NbS processes that are led by Indigenous Peoples themselves, in such a way support for the strengthening of indigenous leadership capacities.[11]

 

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

• The use of narrow conservation-definition of NBS could potentially jeopardize the well intention of the GCF. It is like isolating people (and Indigenous Peoples) from nature, that nature will provide for itself. This may lead to the eviction of communities in the name of climate actions.
• The current definition of nature-based solutions is limited and is business-as-usual that already existed around ecosystems. Such actions perpetuate the separation between nature, culture and human rights, including indigenous peoples’ rights. They devalue the culture and traditional practices and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples in the face of a global agenda of large conservation organizations and their interests.
• The lack of recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples by States does not facilitate this demarcation and titling process in indigenous territories, a situation that may limit environmental management with a rights-based NbS approach and from the vision of indigenous peoples.
• To be successful, NbS governance requires (and indeed allows) active cooperation and coordinated action among stakeholders whose priorities, interests or values may not be aligned or even create conflict. Governments, the business sector, indigenous peoples and society as a whole must reconcile interests and ways of collaborating tasks that the GCF can help to promote.
• It is necessary to have political coherence to avoid the conflict between the policies that are generated from the governments or from the ministries. For example, it is common to identify conflicts between the guidelines and actions of the ministries of mines, energy, and environment.
• The NbS approach generates positive results if it is implemented with the full commitment and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples, if rights safeguards are applied and if it is designed to strengthen resilience to climate change. The implementation of the GCF's Indigenous Peoples policy should be the minimum standard on that path.
• Likewise, the issue of security of land tenure of Indigenous should be a requirement if this NbS approach is to work in these territories. This is because it would ensure their full and effective participation in decision-making instances. In this way, they will ensure the protection and restoration of the ecosystems where they live[12] and will also strengthen existing traditional governance structures and, in turn, the Peoples and their self-determination process.
• It would be great to organize and finance exchange visits between Indigenous Peoples who have demonstrated positive and successful practices in managing their territories and resources using indigenous knowledge in the perspective of Nature-based Solutions.

---

[1] fom: https://www.iucn.org/theme/nature-based-solutions, accessed November 20, 2020.

[2] Emmanuelle Cohen-Shacham et al. 2019. Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions. ELSEVIER. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901118306671.

[3] Carsten Nesshöver, et al. 2017. The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. ELSEVIER. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969716325578.

[4] IUCN. 2020. El Estándar de UICN reforzará el impacto de la Soluciones basadas en la Naturaleza frente a los desafíos globales. https://www.iucn.org/es/news/soluciones-basadas-en-la-natureleza/202007/el-estandar-de-uicn-reforzara-el-impacto-de-la-soluciones-basadas-en-la-naturaleza-frente-a-los-desafios-globales.

[5] CIFOR y COWI (2019) Workshop for Development of the Nature based Solutions Framework and Sectoral Guidance for the Forest and Land use and ecosystems and Ecosystem Services on November 15, 2019, carried out in G-Tower, Songdo, Incheon - South Korea.

[6] From: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/28890/Securing_rights.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, accessed November 20, 2020.

[7] UN. 2020. Mensaje de la Presidenta del Foro sobre el COVID19. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenous-peoples-es/2020/04/07/mensaje-de-la-presidenta-del-foro-permanente-sobre-el-covid-19/.

[8] CCMSS. 2017. El 80% de la biodiversidad del planeta está resguardada por pueblos indígenas.  https://www.ccmss.org.mx/80-la-biodiversidad-del-planeta-esta-resguardada-pueblos-indigenas/.

[9]According to an article written by Peter Veit and Katie Reytar (World Resource Institute) titled By the Numbers: Indigen and Community Land Rights, globally, indigenous peoples and local communities have formal legal ownership of 10 percent of the land, and they have some degree of government-recognized management rights over an additional 8 percent. Two-thirds of the world's land owned or controlled by communities is found in five countries: China, Canada, Brazil, Australia and Mexico. That means that at least a third to half of the world's land is informally held by indigenous peoples and local communities, only under customary tenure agreements. Without legal recognition, indigenous peoples, communities and their lands are "vulnerable to illegal, forced or unjust expropriation, capture and displacement by more powerful interests". https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/03/numbers-indigenous-and-community-land-rights.

[10] Banco Mundial. 2018. Pueblos indígenas. https://www.bancomundial.org/es/topic/indigenouspeoples.

[11] Townsend J., Moola F., Craig, M-K. 2020. FACETS. Nature-based solutions to climate change are more likely to succeed when Indigenous Peoples are involved. https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2019-0058.

[12] Nature-based Solutions to Climate Change. 2020. Key messages for decision makers in 2020 and beyond. https://nbsguidelines.info.

 

Introduction

The importance of national ownership of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) by the main actors in the climate agenda has been part of the negotiations of the Parties, and among them, Indigenous Peoples, as observers. The concept of national ownership of climate issues is based on ensuring a negotiation process that is transparent and adjusted to the social, economic, environmental and cultural reality in each country. The importance of the level of national ownership in climate issues implies having the participation of those actors who are most affected by climate change and especially by those whose mitigation and adaptation actions may have an impact on their territories and livelihoods. In other words, national ownership implies taking measures of national involvement which, then, means making the commitment as their own.

The concept of national ownership has been used in the development cooperation agenda since the 1990s, when the discussion pointed to a paradigm shift from the donor community towards an empowerment of the recipient countries, which meant higher levels of involvement, participation and collaboration of society. This idea has been taken up with greater emphasis in climate finance actions since the signing of the Paris Agreement.[1]

 

Country Ownership in the Green Climate Fund

The issue of National Ownership has been in the discussion of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) since 2013, when the Board “recognized that the national ownership approach is a central principle for building the Fund's businesses” (decision B.01-13 / 06). By decision B.17/21[2], the GCF Board adopted the Guidelines that, although it does not present a detailed definition of the concept of country ownership, the Board members / alternates highlighted the following components as important[3]:

1. The adoption of guidelines that aims to improve ownership in countries;
2. Call on the Secretariat, accredited entities, implementing partners and designated national authorities / focal points to follow these guidelines;
3. Request the Secretariat to annually evaluate the experiences gained from the application of these guidelines and to continue to improve the guidelines based on lessons learned and observations of current best practices; and
4. Decide to conduct a review of the application of these guidelines as necessary, or at least every two years.

One of the most relevant decisions that the GCF Board has taken to implement the concept of national ownership has been the creation of the National Designated Authorities[4] or Country Focal Points. These are usually located in government institutions, acting as links between each State and the GCF. In fact, in the Governing instruments for the GCF, it defines the following: “Recipient countries may designate a national authority. That National Designated Authority will recommend funding proposals to the Board in the context of national climate strategies and plans…. National Designated Authorities will be consulted on other funding proposals for consideration prior to submission to the Fund to ensure consistency with national climate plans and strategies[5]”.

This issue has been highly relevant in the Board's discussions regarding the role of the National Designated Authorities (NDA) and the nomination for accredited entity and non-objection procedures, in such a way that, gradually, it has been integrated into the operational modalities, country programming and structured dialogues[6].

In such a way, the issue of national ownership turns out to be a concept that is implemented through the NDA, which has great decision-making power and offers the country the great opportunity to exercise national sovereignty regarding climate finances for the country.

The foregoing is confirmed, for example, when an Accredited Entity submits a concept note, to be reviewed by the GCF Secretariat, this will request confirmation from the National Designated Authority or the Focal Point that the concept note fits the context and country priorities[7]. In other words, the country in question has the opportunity to exercise the right to define its own vision of development.

Another important decision was B.05/14 of 2013, which reaffirms that the Readiness and Readiness Preparatory Support Program (RPSP) is a priority strategy for the GCF to improve ownership and access of the countries. On the 22^nd Board session, a new RPSP strategy for 2019-2021 was approved. This revised strategy, approved in decision B.22/11 has a long-term focus, providing a vision and objectives at the program level.

Another relevant aspect on the issue of national ownership or country ownership is the issue of the involvement of key stakeholders in the participatory processes of consultation, design, implementation and evaluation of projects that are financed by the GCF, as established in the Gender policy, the Indigenous Peoples Policy, and the GCF's Environmental and Social Safeguards Policy and by the Governing Instrument of the GCF.

The policy on Indigenous Peoples approved by the Board also addresses elements of country ownership (decision B.19 / 11):

“This Policy complements best practices for country coordination and multi-stakeholder[8] engagement processes to develop national strategic frameworks… and will apply to these and any future GCF engagement processes. Specifically, this Policy informs the Designated National Authorities and Focal Points that any consultative process through which national priorities and strategies on climate change are defined must also consider the applicable national and international policies and laws for Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, the criteria and options for coordinating countries through consultative processes should include Indigenous Peoples in an appropriate manner. The requirements of this Policy are part of the relevant standards of the GCF Social Safeguards Strategy (ESS) that accredited entities and States must take into account when developing proposals, as well as monitoring and evaluation after approval”[9].

The GCF guidelines indicate that within the framework of national ownership actions: The financing proposals that are submitted to the GCF must be in accordance with the National Plans for Sustainable Development, the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions at the National Level (INDC) and the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), National Adaptation Action Programs (NAPA), National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and other adaptation planning processes, as applicable:

1. Support long-term planning by identifying climate change financing and investment needs and relevant implementing entities;
2. Act as a framework for capacity building at the country level, consolidating all interactions in terms of readiness, project preparation facility (PPF) and funding proposals; and
3. Support direct access and foster collaboration between international entities and local institutions, as appropriate.

The GCF has taken initiatives to implement country ownership, for example by improving direct access to financing, as a way to increase the level of national ownership over projects and programs (Decision B.10 / 04. (Annex I, Report of the Tenth Meeting).

The Board, with its decision B.10 / 06, instructed that the Accredited International Entities (IAE), in their accreditation application, will clearly indicate how they intend to strengthen or support possible sub-national, national and regional entities to meet accreditation. Even the GCF included this condition in the accreditation process (Decision B.14 / 08) and the investment criteria (Decision B.07 / 06).

So, why do Indigenous Peoples seemingly continue to be outside the decisions of the GCF? What does it take for Indigenous Peoples to be considered within the framework of national ownership? How do they acquire the capacity to participate?

The answers to these questions could be posed as follows:

First, it must be remembered that in decision B.14 / 08, the Fund confirmed that the principle of country ownership goes beyond the authorities of the national government. This decision "includes ownership by local communities, civil society, the private sector, women's groups, Indigenous Peoples organizations, municipal / village level governments, etc." In other words, the process must be absolutely inclusive.

Second, it is related to “true country ownership” that also depends on full, effective and timely access to culturally appropriate information. The Information Disclosure policy (approved by the Board - Decision B.12 / 35, paragraph a) includes relevant provisions to ensure that Indigenous Peoples are fully and effectively consulted and engaged. Timely and culturally appropriate information is also essential to ensure the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent with respect to any activity that occurs on the lands and territories of Indigenous Peoples.

Third, to empower the countries, their national and sub-national entities, the RPSP must be developed, to comply with the capacity requirements, as well as with the norms and safeguards, especially the fiduciary, social, environmental, gender, labor and participation of people and communities. This is necessary because until now it has been seen that NDAs and many State officials related to these issues are unaware of the international and national legal framework on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, which represents an enormous limitation to ensure the involvement of these peoples. Furthermore, it is necessary for the RPSP (Readiness and Preparatory Support Program) to finance actions aimed at having a wide dissemination at the national and subnational levels of the GCF's Indigenous Peoples Policy.

Fourth, the accreditation policy has, so far, enabled 79%[10] of GCF funds to be allocated to accredited international entities, positioning them in the role of intermediaries.

To strengthen national ownership, a 180-degree turn could be made, such that the implementation and execution of projects and programs is undertaken only by national and sub-national entities that comply with solid fiduciary, social and environmental standards, gender and labor norms and safeguards to guarantee the full and meaningful participation of individuals and communities. In this way, accredited international entities would assume an executing function only in a few very exceptional circumstances, either due to their technological complexity or because they are multi-country projects or programs.

Fifth, it has already been difficult to achieve a financing balance between adaptation and mitigation, but what if the Board makes the decision to define a financing ceiling for international entities and a floor for the allocation for national and sub-national entities in relation to total funds of the GCF?

Sixth, most of the consultation and engagement activities are related to NDAs, GCF Board members, external experts and focal points. The only possible opportunities for Indigenous Peoples and civil society to participate is through an online questionnaire or in structured dialogues if these include elements related to the assessment.[11] This situation could be overcome in other ways, for example with financial resources from the GCF that allow local and national participatory processes.  For its part, the IEU has found that the GCF's policies related to stakeholder participation are deficient since they do not start from a properly clear definition of the concept of country ownership. For now, it has been easy for NDAs to issue letters of no objection, based solely on the consideration that the proposals fit with national development plans. However we do not know the levels at which important stakeholders - such as indigenous peoples, women, youth - are taken into account. There is no clear guideline from the GCF on how AEs should report these levels of participation.

The tradition for decades has been that the decision-making process has been top-down. Nonetheless, the current practice delves on the creation of processes that involve stakeholders (those who have an interest in a decision or are affected by it) and recognize the importance of public attitudes, perceptions, beliefs and knowledge.

Stakeholder engagement has become a critical component of many state and local agency operations that are now requiring major stakeholder involvement in some form. Methodologically, there is no pattern the need to involve stakeholders, However, there is awareness that stakeholder participation is important and has many benefits.

A great challenge that will continue to exist is that "[c]ountries retain a lot of flexibility to institutionalize their own processes and, therefore, determine what national ownership means for them." This is highly problematic, as it would mean that unless some minimum common criteria and standards are clearly adopted and implemented, there may never be a homogeneous level of compliance in stakeholder engagement and even less so in Indigenous Peoples’ engagement in different countries.

Clearly, the recommendation to the NDAs and to the GCF itself is that they should apply section 7.1.1 of the Indigenous Peoples Policy which calls on accredited entities and executing entities to interact proactively with the relevant peoples to guarantee their ownership: Accredited entities will consult with indigenous peoples on the cultural appropriateness of proposed services or facilities and will seek to identify and address any economic, social, or capacity constraints (including those relating to gender, the elderly, youth, and persons with disabilities) that may limit opportunities to benefit from or participate in the project.

Finally, it should be noted that there is no one-size-fits-all approach when involving stakeholders including the  collection of their contributions or recommendations and then incorporating that information into the decision-making process. The contexts vary and each one must be analyzed: the actors have different interests and the national legal frameworks may either facilitate or not the participatory processes. For there to be a correct sense of country ownership, it is absolutely necessary to carry out participatory processes and support a due process of consultations.

---

[1] Asfaw, Solomon, Cory Jemison, Aemal Khan, Jessica Kyle, Liza Ottlakán, Johanna Polvi, D4etlev Puetz, and Jyotsna Puri (2019). Independent Evaluation of the Green Climate Fund’s Country Ownership Approach. Evaluation Report No. 4, October 2019. Independent Evaluation Unit, Green Climate Fund. Songdo, South Korea.

[2] GCF. 2017.  GCF/B.17/21. Decisions of the Board – seventeenth meeting of the Board, 5 – 6 July 2017. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b17-21.pdf.

[3] GCF. 2017. Guidelines for enhanced country ownership and country drivenness. This document is as adopted by the Board and contained in annex XX to decision B.17/21. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/guidelines-enhanced-country-ownership-country-drivenness.pdf.

[4] There are currently 147 Designated National Authorities registered with the GCF. See: https://www.greenclimate.fund/about/partners/nda (revised August 20, 2020).

[5] https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/governing-instrument.pdf  (revised July 30, 2020).

[6] Ídem.

[7] Henrich Boll.2014. Strengthening country ownership, country driven approach, direct access.

https://us.boell.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2012/10/letter_on_country_ownership_and_direct_access_xxm20.pdf)

[8] We note that a simple reference to “multi-stakeholder” engagement cannot satisfy or guarantee the effective participation of Indigenous Peoples. This is true for several reasons, the first is that Indigenous Peoples are “rights holders” and our rights to self-determination, land, territories and resources, traditional knowledge, Prior, Free and Informed Consent it is recognized by international law, enshrined in ILO Convention 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[9] https://www.greenclimate.fund/document/indigenous-peoples-policy (revised June 15, 2020).

[10] GCF. Project portfolio. https://www.greenclimate.fund/projects/dashboard.

[11] Letter of the International Forum of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change to the Board. October 22, 2015 at the 11th. Board session.

The Green Climate Fund approved sixteen (16) new projects amounting to over USD 1 billion, in its recently concluded 27^th Board meeting that was held virtually on 9-13 November 2020. At least six of these newly approved GCF projects will impact indigenous peoples. 

While most of the projects were approved by the Board without so much discussion, there were some proposals that were met with different positions by both the Board members and observer organizations.

The GCF Board also approved other projects that are going to be either implemented in indigenous peoples’ territories, or would impact indigenous peoples directly or indirectly. These include FP141: Improving Adaptive Capacity and Risk Management of Rural Communities in Mongolia, FP 142: Argentina REDD-plus RBP for results period 2014-2016, FP 143: Planting Climate Resilience in Rural Communities of the Northeast (PCRP), Brazil, FP 144: Costa Rica REDD+ Results Based Payments for 2014 and 2015, FP 145: RELIVE – REsilient LIVElihoods of vulnerable smallholder farmers in the Mayan landscapes and the Dry Corridor of Guatemala and FP 149: Green Climate Financing Facility for Local Financial Institutions in Latin-America.

Through the CSO active observers, Erika Lennon and Eileen Cunningham Mairena, the issues of indigenous peoples including ensuring documentation and reporting of how Free, Prior and Informed Consent were obtained and formulation of safeguard mechanisms were reiterated.

Meanwhile, the GCF approved the application for accreditation of four new entities[2] to be intermediaries of climate change mitigation and adaption funds to developing countries. The IP team noted that during the midterm review of accreditation of the GCF secretariat, there was no mention of the GCF Indigenous Peoples Policy and of how accredited entities are implementing it. This is particularly worrisome as there is no clear mechanism as to how the GCF monitors compliance of accredited entities apart from their self-assessment or Annual Performance Reports (APR).   The Independent Evaluation Unit of the GCF also reported that there is very limited reporting on Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS) and gender from the APRs of entities. For instance, only 28 of the 55 APRs self-reported on tracking ESS and gender, and only one APR mentioned indigenous peoples.[3]

Additionally, the CSOs, IPs and local communities reiterated the need for entities seeking for accreditation to comply with the GCF standards and policies including, but not limited to, developing their own indigenous peoples’ policy.

It took the Board early morning of the 6^th day (Asia time zone) of the meeting to adopt the GCF’s Updated Strategic Plan for 2020-2023 which will be the basis of the fund’s direction under its first replenishment. The CSO observers expressed their disappointment at how little their inputs have been taken into account, including fully integrating equity and human rights in the Fund’s framework and operations. Additionally, the Civil society, local community and indigenous peoples’ network reiterated that the Plan  falls short in  improving GCF operations related to Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESSs), indigenous peoples, and gender standards and information disclosure. As such, the “failure to use a human-rights-centered approach that explicitly elaborates the protection and active promotion of beneficiaries’ rights, needs, and capabilities, a strong focus on equity, and a commitment to make GCF policies fully responsive to those concerns is worrisome for a fund that has a signaling function within the global climate finance architecture.”

Thus, it was recommended by the observers that “the remaining significant weaknesses in the proposed plan should still be addressed post approval as the Updated Strategic Plan remains a living document”.  

The Secretariat updated the Integrated Results Management Framework (IRMF) of the GCF based on the comments received from technical sessions with Board members and Accredited Entities. The IRMF document was just circulated to the observers a few days before the board meeting, so there was no ample time to discuss it. Hence, the observers urged the Secretariat to invite civil society, local communities and Indigenous People stakeholders, coordinated through the CSO active observers, to provide a written submission with their expertise and technical inputs on both the indicators and process as presented in this current draft before finalizing the IRMF for Board consideration at B.28.

The Green Climate Fund was established in the 2010 by the Conference of Parties as the financial operating entity of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to support climate change actions in developing countries.

The 27^th Board meeting was virtually participated in by the IP Advocacy team composed of Eileen Cunningham Mairena of Centro para la Autonomía y el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, Nicaragua; Helen Magata of Tebtebba Foundation, Tunga Rai of Federation of Indigenous Nationalities in Nepal (NEFIN) and Kathrin Wessendorf of International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA).

---

[1] This is the indigenous governance structure of the Caribbean Region of Nicaragua

[2] Applicant 102 (APL102) is Kemitraan bagi Pembaruan Tata Pemerintahan (Partnership for Governance Reform) (Kemitraan), based in Indonesia; Applicant 103 (APL103) is the National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), based in Nepal; Applicant 104 (APL104) is KCB Bank Kenya Limited (KCB), based in Kenya; and Applicant 105 (APL105) Camco Management Limited (Camco), based in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

[3] The IEU Evaluations were not presented during the board meeting due to time constraints