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.

 

Strengthening the Protection of Indigenous Peoples in Asia

“Land rights, Environment and Climate change in the Asian region”

Friday 30 October 2020, 10:00-11:30 (ICT Bangkok time)

 

“The promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples and their traditional practices, are key to sustainable conservation, biodiversity and climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. For States to put into action their development pledge of leaving no one behind, the obligations towards indigenous peoples must be at the forefront and must be reflected in effective policy measures and in the effective allocation of resources”

- Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples Regional consultation on the rights of indigenous peoples in Asia September 2020

 

Background

Asia is the continent with most of the world’s indigenous peoples. More than two thirds of the world’s indigenous peoples live in the region. While estimates vary – among other reasons, due to the inconsistent national terminology used to describe indigenous peoples and the challenges indigenous peoples face in terms of self-identification – approximately 400 million indigenous peoples live in Asia. Indigenous peoples in Asia include those referred to in national legislation and policies as tribal peoples, hill tribes, ethnic minorities, natives, customary communities, scheduled tribes and Adivasis. All Asian States voted in favour of the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the General Assembly in 2007 (except one State which abstained).

With the aim of engaging with indigenous peoples in Asia, the former Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, conducted a regional consultation jointly with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bangkok ( UN OHCHR Bangkok),with the support of the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact and the Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education.

The consultation was held in Bangkok from 13 to 15 November 2019 and attended by more than 100 representatives of indigenous peoples including academics, lawyers and representatives of civil society organizations, independent national human rights institutions and UN Agencies from Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, the Philippines, Timor-Leste, Thailand, Viet Nam, and Taiwan. In parallel, the Special Rapporteur issued a public call for contributions to a report on the situation of the human rights of indigenous peoples in Asia, in follow up to the regional reports prepared by her predecessors in 2007 and 2013.

 

Registration

Please confirm your interest and availability to participate in this webinar, by complete Microsoft Form (via the QR code or clicking here) by Wednesday 28 October 2020. The link to the online meeting with confirmed participants.

 

Download attachment for more information

 

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

On 15 October 2020, Tebtebba’s IPAF Coordinator, Ruby Bangilan-Española, was invited to share about the Indigenous Peoples Assistance Facility (IPAF) in the ongoing Pacific Regional Consultation Workshop (14-16 October 2020) for the Indigenous Peoples’ Forum (IPF) at the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

The 2021 global meeting’s theme is “Indigenous People’s Food Systems and Livelihood in the Context of COVID-19,” a currently relevant focus as communities worldwide, including Indigenous Peoples, grapple with the said infectious and deadly disease and its corresponding impacts on food security and livelihood accessibility.

In preparation for the upcoming global meeting of the Indigenous People’s Forum that is to take place in Rome, Italy in February 2021, these consultation workshops are held in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Pacific regions. Participants include “representatives of indigenous peoples’ organizations, institutions and communities; national and regional organizations involved in IFAD-funded projects; IFAD staff; partners of the Indigenous Peoples Assistance Facility (IPAF); members of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII); and government representatives.”[1]

These regional events will enable attendees to examine IFAD’s engagement with indigenous peoples’ communities, and exchange experiences as well as share best practices specifically about indigenous food systems and livelihood accessibility which, as mentioned, is this 5^th global meeting’s agenda.   

 

Project Orientation and Rapport-Building with the Bakarwal Youth in Pakistan.

 

Launched under IFAD in 2006, IPAF “aims to strengthen indigenous peoples’ communities and their organizations in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean by financing small projects which foster their self-driven development in the framework of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).”[2]

The IPAF is carried out by means of allowing various indigenous peoples’ organizations worldwide to submit project proposals in relation to the Facility’s main objective, “to build a direct partnership with indigenous peoples to enable them and their communities to design, approve and implement [grassroots] development projects based on their own perspectives.”[3]

Hence, to submit an initiative proposal, any eligible indigenous peoples’ organization must focus on indigenous peoples’ identity, culture, natural resources, and knowledge. Additionally, these projects must be built and executed by indigenous peoples’ communities and their corresponding organizations.

Once a project proposal is submitted to the IFAD through the Facility’s call for proposals phase, submissions are reviewed.

Once an indigenous peoples’ organization’s project proposal is confirmed for funding, it is then granted a fund that may range from $20,000 to $50,000 USD depending on the Facility’s judicious prerogative.

The regular Indigenous Peoples’ Forum (IPF) is a unique process under IFAD that aims to have indigenous peoples’ organizations and institutions, IFAD, and governments in an all-encompassing dialogue. It is an international gathering that takes place every two (2) years wherein recommendations are made in relation to the improvement of relations of indigenous peoples, IFAD, and government, gearing toward indigenous peoples’ active participation in project and policy conceptualization, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.

“It’s good that Pacific was able to carry out a face-to-face consultation workshop because for Asia, we are still organizing the region’s own consultation workshop but it will have to be in virtual and series form due to the on-going restrictions caused by the pandemic,” Ms. Espanola shares. Various lockdown and social distancing protocols are currently enforced worldwide in a bit to halt the rapid COVID-19 transmission, posing dire challenges to the usual flow of interaction and communication.

----

[1] The Indigenous Peoples Assistance Facility (IPAF), “Summary report from the regional consultation workshops held in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Pacific,” 2019, p.3.

[2] The Indigenous Peoples Assistance Facility (IPAF), “Assessment of the Performance of the Fourth Cycle,” International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 2019, p.9.

[3] The Indigenous Peoples Assistance Facility (IPAF), “Linking grass-roots indigenous peoples’ organizations and the international community,” 2019, p.4.