Biodiversity Funding Gaps for Local Communities
Recent studies have brought into light disconnect between biodiversity funding and the local communities that manage these vital resources. Conducted by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), the analysis focused on the Global Environment Facility (GEF). This institution aims to mobilise $200 billion annually for biodiversity under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. However, most funding fails to reach Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC), who are crucial custodians of biodiversity.
Key Findings of the Study
The study examined GEF funding in five countries – Kenya, the Philippines, Malawi, Vanuatu, and Antigua. It revealed that while some funds were allocated to local actors, most were indirect beneficiaries. For instance, in Malawi, only one local organisation received a mere 0.3% of a project’s budget directly. This trend shows a systemic issue in funding distribution.
Challenges Faced by Local Communities
Many IPLC groups reported challenges in accessing GEF funds. In Bangladesh, no local recipients were identified as projects had not begun. In the Philippines, an indigenous group struggled since 2009 to obtain clear information on funding applications. These barriers highlight the lack of transparency and accessibility in the funding process.
Role of Intermediaries
The funding gap is exacerbated by GEF’s reliance on large international agencies and development banks as intermediaries. These agencies often make decisions without consulting local communities, leading to confusion and delays. Many indigenous organisations lack understanding of the funding process, resulting in missed opportunities.
Successful Initiatives – Small Grants Programme
The GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) has shown promise in directly supporting local groups. Grants up to $50,000 have been effectively used for community-led projects, such as restoring a village reservoir in Antigua. However, the small funding amounts and approval delays remain obstacles, particularly for remote communities.
Gender Inequality in Funding
The study also brought into light gender gap in GEF funding. Although gender indicators exist, they are seldom applied effectively. Indigenous and local women, who play vital roles in resource management, are frequently excluded from decision-making processes and funding opportunities.
Recommendations for Improvement
As the next GEF funding discussions approach, experts suggest several changes. They advocate for expanding the successful SGP model to all funding streams, publishing clear data on fund allocation, and simplifying the application process for local groups. Emphasising long-term, flexible funding will enhance local organisations’ capacity to lead projects.
Need for Local-Led, Gender-Responsive Action
Experts stress the urgency for committing to principles that support local-led and gender-responsive biodiversity action. This approach is essential for ensuring that the communities most connected to nature receive the necessary resources to protect and restore biodiversity.
| Related | |
|---|---|
