AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION-AFRICAN CSOs BIODIVERSITY ALLIANCE
STATEMENT ON THE GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK TRUST FUND
The African CSOs Biodiversity Alliance (ACBA) and the African Wildlife
Foundation (AWF) welcome the Convention on Biological 'Diversity's decision
15/7 on Resource Mobilization, which requested the Global Environment Facility
(GEF) to establish a special trust fund to support the implementation of the
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), to complement existing
support and scale up financing to ensure its timely implementation, considering
the need for adequacy, predictability, and timely flow of funds.
We further welcome the 64th Global Environmental Fund
(GEF) Council decision on document GEF/C.64/05/Rev.01 providing progressive programming
directions for the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, hereafter referred to as
GBFF.
The ratification and launch of the GBF Fund at the GEF 7 Assembly
in Vancouver is a significant milestone towards the implementation of the
Global Biodiversity Framework targets.
For Africa, a region rich in biodiversity, the GBFF provides an
excellent opportunity to increase biodiversity finance and ensure that finance
is accessible, especially to local actors, who while they continue to play a
crucial role in conservation, receive inadequate resources to advance work that
compliments that of national governments and other conservation partners.
We specifically commend the following elements of the trust fund
directions:
-
Emphasis that the GBFF will be country driven, funding
programs and projects which are based on national priorities as articulated in
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs)
-
The provisions for about 20% of funds to reach Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs)
-
The focus on Small Island Developing States
(SIDs) and Least Developed countries
(LDCs), with the recommendation that 36% + 3% of
resources be allocated to them. Noting that the 3% portion to SIDS and LDCs will
be reviewed after 3 years of the date of the Fund ratification at the Assembly.
If unused, the 3% will be reprogrammed to other countries.
-
Efforts to reduce the administrative burden of
applying for and receiving funds by proposing the one-step project approval process
-
Acknowledgement on the importance of target 22 (on
inclusive and equitable engagement of IPLCs, Women, Youth, People living with
disabilities and other vulnerable groups) and that it must be reflected in
program design and implementation for all projects to be funded by the GBFF.
The
following however can be strengthened in designing the GBFF:
-
IPLCS: While there is encouraging guidance and commitment for
IPLCS to receive resources to contribute to the implementation, we equally note
that the role of IPLCs is effectively limited to the 20 % of the program
portfolio, with state actors and implementing agencies still wielding
significant control and influence over the process. In addition to at least a
20 % share, IPLCs should be integral in defining priorities and designing the
overall country portfolio. This way, investments from the broad country
portfolio will respond to IPLCs' needs in a more targeted, cohesive, and
comprehensive manner. Furthermore, to increase the likelihood of local actors accessing
funds, more work is required at a national level to strengthen and amplify
processes that allow governments to partner with local CSOs and IPLCs. Explicit
language is needed regarding how these resources will reach the local level.
-
Strengthening Safeguards: Existing standard safeguards across the GEF provide a good basis to help
avoid violation of people’s rights. However, these standards do not definitively
require Free Prior and Informed Consent for projects affecting indigenous
people and local communities. To be consistent with the requirements of the GBF targets on recognizing
and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities,
including over their traditional territories, the GBF Fund should adopt and apply the
principle of Free Prior and Informed Consent for projects involving and
affecting indigenous people and local communities.
-
Megadiverse countries and Biodiversity Hotspots: While we welcome the focus on LDCs and SIDS, countries with biodiversity
hotspots which represent a significant percentage of the 'world's biodiversity,
should be prioritized to receive funding. Countries with biodiversity hotspots have
an increased responsibility to protect these natural assets to the benefit of the
global community.
-
Youth
Empowerment: While IPLCs have been included as custodians, they are not a homogenous
group. They include youth, women and other subgroups hence greater attention is
needed to ensure all these subgroups are equally engaged, primarily urban and
rural youth who make up a significant proportion of the global population. As
rural youth have special circumstances and many are disadvantaged, they deserve
special attention. GEF Secretariat should equally commit to monitoring and tracking
the level of funding allocated to these sub-groups.
-
Executing agency: Most of GEF funding is channeled
through international NGOs and multilateral agencies that act as intermediaries.
These agencies tend to have high costs and bureaucracy thereby reducing the
funds available for biodiversity conservation, especially by frontline communities
that include CSOs, IPLCs and urban and rural poor. The GBF Fund should
prioritize partnerships that enhance the capacities of frontline communities,
learning, and efficiencies. This would be more cost-effective and empower
national actors and frontline communities to sustainably use and conserve
biodiversity. Funding channeled through intermediaries must have delegated
resources to strengthen local actors' institutional capacity to manage funds
and monitor and report.
-
Operational Effectiveness: In line
with ensuring that the GBFF programs and projects should be based on national
and local priorities, the GEF secretariat must mobilize and support countries
to develop strategies and finance plans while ensuring the participation of
local stakeholders. The GEF Secretariat should commit to improve accessibility
and the timely flow of funds through additional capacity to facilitation of the
project cycle and validation system.