Global Biodiversity Framework Fund: reflections and recommendations for advancing direct and equitable funding for Indigenous and community-led conservation

First published on 11/28/2024, and last updated on 12/10/2024

By Giovanni B. Reyes (President, Bukluran-Philippine ICCA Consortium)

Equitably and effectively addressing intertwined environmental and climatic crises requires recognizing, respecting, and supporting the rights and leadership of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.^[1] The Global Biodiversity Framework explicitly acknowledges Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ contributions “as custodians of biodiversity and partners in… conservation” and commits to upholding their rights._^[2] However, there are deeply rooted barriers to realizing these commitments.

Full statement available here

Among these barriers are unjust distribution and modalities for conservation funding. Direct and equitable funding for Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ self-determined conservation decision-making and actions are urgently needed. The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) presents an opportunity and responsibility to advance the transformative changes required to ensure this. 

This article highlights the importance of and recommends direct and fair funding within the GBFF. It aims to amplify calls from Indigenous Peoples and local communities for transformative change in funding, including associated relationships of power and access, and to help ensure accountability of donors and other duty-bearers.

Urgent need for transformations in conservation funding 

Historical and current situations of Indigenous Peoples and local communities show their unmatched roles in biodiversity protection. These contributions far exceed the proportion of global conservation funding received but often go unrecognized. As front-liners in stewardship, we call for and anticipate greater support for effective, equitable, and inclusive responses to rapid biodiversity degradation and intensifying climate loss and damage. Transformative change is urgently needed to avoid losing further ground or generating only the same paltry achievements toward global conservation targets by 2030.^[3] “Business as usual” approaches are failing us. 

This change must include transformation in conservation funding and financing, including ensuring: 

• Direct access to finance is available to Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including their organizations and networks;
• ‘Intermediaries’ are institutions that Indigenous Peoples and local communities themselves identify as having a history of acceptable working relations with them and whom they designate as fiscal sponsors, in line with their right to self-determination; and,
• Funding modalities and use by conservation actors uphold human rights.^[4]

Direct access to finance and channeling funds through intermediaries recognized by Indigenous Peoples and local communities are meant to ensure modalities are aligned with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and other human rights instruments and enhance governance, ownership, empowerment, cost-effectiveness, and results.

These approaches would advance the 2021 commitment by major donors to “promote effective inclusion of IPLCs in decision-making and consult them in the design and implementation of finance instruments.” They would also help close the yawning gap between high biodiversity levels of Indigenous-managed lands and CBD Parties’ far too meager progress on biodiversity targets.^[5]

GBFF: an opportunity and responsibility to advance transformations in funding 

At COP16, delegates from state parties and non-state actors shared insights and analysis related to funding for biodiversity. They also heard reflections from Indigenous Peoples and local communities, whose roles are central to achieving the targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework.

GBFF will scale up financing to implement the Global Biodiversity Framework. The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and all actors involved have an opportunity and responsibility to ensure the GBFF’s design and implementation advance the transformations needed to recognize and support the rights and contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

At the GBFF pledging session, Parties were reminded that Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, GEF’s Chief Executive Officer, said, “Aligning the GBFF with the role of Indigenous peoples is smart.”^[6]

From our perspective, the CEO’s statement amplifies three things, each of which must guide the GBFF.

• One
  “Living in harmony with nature” is a goal the global community seeks to realize by 2050 and has long been a lifestyle of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The spiritual and cultural values we attach to land and resources have resulted in today’s protection of over 25% of the earth’s land and 37% of the planet’s remaining natural areas, including 60% of all land mammals having more than 10% of their habitats within Indigenous lands. But for how long? How can we sustain this without appropriate support?

• Two
  Multiple science and policy groups’ findings affirm that Indigenous Peoples and local communities contribute enormously to biodiversity conservation yet receive the least financial support.^[7] Current financial architecture stands in glaring contrast to these roles in biodiversity conservation. Much of the current biodiversity and climate finance does not reach Indigenous Peoples and local communities. This must change. Financing the GBFF necessitates donor recognition of the need for such change and the need to “consult and cooperate”^[8] with Indigenous Peoples and local communities to align GBFF with our rights and roles.

• Three
  Indigenous Peoples Organizations with experience implementing small, medium, and large-scale projects can improve the current funding landscape and tackle systemic barriers. Among these are complex, bureaucratic, and inflexibledonor requirements and their international intermediariesunknown to indigenous peoples and local communities. These are perceived as obstacles to accessing funds. Alternative models and mechanisms can enable more funding to be channeled to Indigenous Peoples and local communities on fair and fit-for-purpose terms.

Given the GBFF’s high potential for transformational impact on Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ funding situation, it can create a pivotal partnership that shifts from a donor-beneficiary relationship to one that treats Indigenous Peoples and local communities as partners rather than beneficiaries. 

These transformations–while ambitious–are not new and can be guided by existing experiences and lessons. This pivotal partnership model has already been proven under a GEF-funded Philippine ICCA Project.^[9] In this model, the nexus between the donor, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities was built on trust and belief in Indigenous Peoples’ capacity for decision-making, with technical and facilitative support from implementing partners.

The result? A large-scale project with a medium-scale project budget that exceeded project targets and pushed the country to the forefront of inclusive conservation in Asia. It was later designated as a “Global Best Practice” at the 7th GEF General Assembly.

Likewise, powerful examples of direct funding can be found in the Synchronicity Earth-funded^[10] initiative addressing Nature, Climate, and Energy in Biodiversity Hotspots and the Indigenous Peoples of Asia Solidarity Fund mechanism.^[11]

Recommendations 

Based on the considerations above, recommendations for GBFF design and implementation include:

1. Establish a dedicated funding stream for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, with less stringent, more flexible funding, mainly where disasters and context changes occur. 

Indigenous and traditional territories are now biodiversity hotspots and critical carbon sinks. The Philippines is a case in point; with seven million hectares of Indigenous-traditional territory, from its total land area of 30 million hectares, it harbors more diversity of life than any other country on earth on a per hectare basis.^[12] The same is true for Madagascar. The two countries are the world’s top biodiversity hotspots. The two countries are the world’s top biodiversity hotspots, demonstrating the effectiveness of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as protectors of ecosystems crucial in combatting climate change and biodiversity loss. However, the two are chronically underfunded, reflecting the persistence of small portions of funds and limited resources reaching the ground, leaving Indigenous Peoples and local communities at risk and making it impossible to defend territories and achieve global goals.

2. Strengthen dialogues between Indigenous Peoples, local communities,and donors, exploring how a dedicated window halts rapid biodiversity loss.

3. Ensure GBFF’s 20% fund designated for Indigenous Peoples and local communities goes to initiatives they identified and is disbursed directly through their Representative Institutions, following proven “Best Practice” models. 

4. Explore additional, pivotal roles in the GBFF through the accreditation of networks, organizations, and bodies managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities to reach global goals through a more rapid shift from an “extractive-based economy” to a “regenerative economy” utilizing rights-based approach consistent with the Global Biodiversity Framework’s policy on prioritizing Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

5. Indigenous Peoples and local communities should be included in the governance of GBFF and all funding bodies or mechanisms established in their name and in implementing conservation projects through their leadership and with Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.^[13]

Conclusions 

The GBFF has an opportunity for a pivotal alliance between the force of multilateralism and the leadership of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. However, such an alliance must be firmly grounded in recognition and respect for our rights, including our traditional knowledge systems shaped by many generations of practice and a peoples’ journey for millennia, resulting in genuine and actual transformational impacts at scale. With a dedication to fundamental transformation, there is potential to benefit both people and the planet and promote a just and livable future. 

May the GBFF be known and remembered as having shaped direct access to funding with the wisdom of an Indigenous elder, the industry of an entrepreneur, the zeal of an economist, and the conscience of an ecologist.

About the author

Giovanni B. Reyes is a Kankanaey-Igorot from Sagada in the Cordillera Region of the Philippines. He is the President of the Bukluran-Philippine ICCA Consortium and the Chairperson of the Global Environment Facility’s Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (GEF-IPAG).

[1] The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation (Dawson et al., 2021); Local Biodiversity Outlooks (FPP et al., 2016; 2020);  Territories of Life Report (ICCA Consortium, 2021); Rights-Based Conservation: The path to preserving Earth’s biological and cultural diversity? (RRI, 2020); From Commitments to Action: Advancing Community Rights-based Approaches to Achieve Climate and Conservation Goals  (RRI, 2023);  The state of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ lands and territories (WWF et al., 2021) 

[2] The GBF was adopted by the 15^th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP16) in December 2022.  Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2022, para. 7(a); Respecting the rights and leadership of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in realizing global goals (Tugendhat et al., 2023)

[3] The biggest conservation commitment the world has ever seen with the Global Biodiversity Framework 30X30 calling for effective protection and management of 30% of the world’s terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine areas by the year 2030

[4] Core Human Rights Principles for Private Conservation Organizations and Funders (UNEP et al., 2024. Available here)

[5]  The Aichi Targets’ 30 goals to address underlying causes of biodiversity loss for 2011-2020 was deemed a failure by the United Nations and the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat.

[6] GEF CEO statement made in a meeting with GEF IPAG during the 7^th GEF General Assembly in Vancouver. 2023.

[7] See reports by the Center for International Forestry Research, World Bank Independent Study, and the UNCBD Outlook Report. 0.13% allocation on climate development aid that mentions an Indigenous Peoples’ Organization. 2023.

[8] The UNDRIP’s use of combined terms of “consult and cooperate” denotes a right of Indigenous people to influence the outcome of decision-making processes affecting them, not a mere right to be involved in such processes or merely to have views heard. It suggests Indigenous Peoples make a different proposal or suggest a different model as an alternative to those proposed by governments or other actors. (UN Special Rapporteur A/HRC/18/42 and EMRIP study on FPIC A/HRC/39/62).

[9] Philippine ICCA Consortium Project. 5th GEF Replenishment. 2019.

[10] Biodiversity Hotspots in the Philippines Project: Mapping the now-declared Heritage Site of Kabugao, Apayao Province, Cordillera, Northern Luzon, Philippines, and Formulation of Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan for Tinuy-an Falls in Southeastern Mindanao, – he Niagara of the Philippines.

[11] Established in April 2023 in response to the 1.7 billion Multilateral Pledge on Climate Change, Glasgow, Scotland. 2021. It currently provides grants of $5,000 to $50,000 to indigenous peoples’ communities in 13 countries from its initial 1.6M USD Solidarity Fund.

[12] Galindo, Jose and David, Felicimo, Jr. “Terminal Evaluation of the Project “Strengthening National Systems to Improve Governance and Management of Indigenous Peoples and Local Community-Conserved Territories and Areas or Philippine ICCA Project. UNDP. 2019.

[13] FPIC and other human rights instruments do not seek to provide Indigenous Peoples with special rights but aim to level up the enjoyment of rights and redress historical wrongs. As a restorative framework, FPIC and UNDRIP seek to revalue the demeaned cultures, ways of life, livelihoods, and traditional institutions of Indigenous peoples.