Biodiversity fund COP16 row

A fund set up at UN biodiversity talks has been heavily criticised by developing countries and human rights campaigners at the latest round of talks in Cali, Colombia. 

The fund was created following the nature deal struck in 2022 at UN biodiversity talks in Montreal. There was major disagreement during negotiations over how the fund would be managed. 

Developing countries opposed the fund being set up under the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a collaboration between the World Bank, UN agencies and governments that manages several environmental funds. 

Financing

The COP ended with a compromise that the GEF would govern the fund on an interim basis, and the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) was officially launched in August 2023. 

Ahead of the latest talks at COP16, a handful of countries including Canada, Germany, the UK, New Zealand and Spain had committed just under $250m in total. A further eight governments paid into the fund during the talks, including New Zealand, Norway, and Denmark, taking the fund’s total value to some $413 million. 

But arguments over the governance of the funding continued during the two-week negotiations, spilling over the scheduled end of the talks in an all-night session. 

Finally, Colombian COP president Susana Muhamad proposed that a dedicated global financing instrument for biodiversity would be set up under the authority of the Conference of the Parties (COP), as developing countries have been calling for.

But after several hours of further discussion, many negotiators had to leave to board flights home. Lacking sufficient numbers to come to an agreement, the talks collapsed. The issue will now have to be picked up at a meeting next year. 

Discrimination

Human rights campaigners have also complained about the fund, arguing that it fails to meet its own standards in terms of the involvement of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs). IPLCs hold or claim as traditional territories the equivalent of almost 50 per cent of the land area in 42 countries, representing 80 per cent of global biodiversity. 

Ecosystems inhabited by IPLCs have consistently better-preserved biodiversity, water, and other natural resources. Many scientists, and campaigners on human rights and biodiversity have therefore argued that they should be able to access funding for projects that protect and restore nature.

The GBFF has an “aspirational target” for 20 per cent of monies it pays out to go to IPLCs, and that the fund supports “human rights-based implementation”. So far, it has distributed $110 million to 22 projects spread across 24 countries, including six least developed countries and seven small island developing states. 

These include ecotourism in Indonesia; protection of conservation areas in Mozambique; training in protected area management in Angola and restoring forests in Jordan. 

However, analysis by Survival International of the 22 projects approved by the GEF so far has found that it falls “grievously” short of these promises. 

Only one will likely benefit indigenous people, it concluded. This project was proposed by the Brazilian government, and represents around seven per cent ($8 million) of the total so far approved by the fund. 

Consent?

All the other projects claim to allocate money to IPLCs. If they did, this would total nearly 40 per cent of the total allocated, it said. However, none of the other 21 programmes contain any actual budgetary provision for work with indigenous people, and only seven include work with other local communities, it added. 

Furthermore, the NGO accused the GEF of failing to ensure that indigenous peoples have been properly consulted on plans. Under international law, indigenous people have a right to what is known as Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). However, proper FPIC is missing in all the projects approved by the GBFF, it said. 

In addition, nearly half the funding is going towards projects that involve ecosystem restoration and the so-called 30x30 target, under which countries agreed to increase the extent of protected areas to 30 percent of the earth’s land and seas by 2030.

Survival International and other indigenous rights groups have long opposed the 30x30 target, as they fear that it will intensify atrocities against indigenous peoples such as the eviction of thousands of Maasai people from the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania. 

The GBFF funds are channelled through 18 formally approved organisations working as ‘agencies’ for the GEF. These include large international conservation organisations such as WWF and Conservation International, and UN agencies including the UN Development Programme and UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. 

They are also responsible for supporting countries to meet GEF social and environmental safeguards, working with government bodies or local conservation organisations. 

Together, these organisations will earn $9 million in agency fees for submitting and managing the projects, according to Survival International.

Scrapped 

Survival International wants the GBFF to be scrapped, and a new process set up whereby funding is primarily directed to IPLCs, and to initiatives aimed at recognising and protecting their land rights. These would also be much cheaper than “the expensive, colonialist, top-down, militarised approach” of the conservation industry, it said. 

Simon Counsell, consultant to Survival International and former head of Rainforest Foundation UK, said: “This fund desperately needs major reconsideration going forward. 

“Rather than being a transformational type of fund with a new approach, the GBFF is simply reinforcing the old top-down fortress conservation model that we've seen acting against local communities and indigenous people for decades. 

“Sadly, it's not doing much or anything to tackle the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss such as overconsumption and subsidies to destructive industries.” 

Safeguards

A WWF spokesperson said that it was working with governments in Brazil, Gabon, Peru, South Africa, Cameroon, Central African Republic and the Republic of the Congo, working as an agency of the GEF to allocate funding to projects. 

“In each project WWF has worked with, and will continue to work with, project partners to ensure that Indigenous Peoples and local communities are included in the development of projects, and that project funds flow to them through direct subgrants or by receiving support in the form of technical assistance and resources. Both WWF and the GEF require all projects that could impact Indigenous Peoples to go through an FPIC process.”

In a statement, Conservation International said: “We respectfully disagree with Survival International’s findings and their characterisation of Conservation International.”

It reviews every project to ensure alignment with GEF policies, and the projects under the GBFF have completed an Environmental and Social Safeguards Screening, it said. 

Its GBFF-funded project in Mexico has an indigenous people’s plan with a budget to ensure that the principles of FPIC are adhered to. It started consultations in March 2024, and these will continue. More than 70 per cent of the funds allocated to the Mexico project will benefit IPLCs. 

“These communities will play an active role in guiding the use of these funds, ensuring that resources are directed according to their priorities and needs specifically. The project will engage Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and other stakeholders in an inclusive and participatory process."

In a statement, the GEF said that the target for 20 per cent of the GBFF to go to indigenous peoples includes agency fees. Of the funds allocated so far, 35 per cent support actions by IPLCs, they said.

“Each project is requested to provide the amount of GBFF project financing it is allocating to support actions by IPLCs. Only GBFF financing that is either directly managed by IPLCs or correspond to activities for which the design and management have been led by IPLCs can be included in this amount,” it said.

Independent evaluators also check the amounts spent, both mid-way through the project at when it is completed. The GEF’s environmental and social safeguards were developed with guidance from GEF Indigenous People’s Advisory Group and other experts, it added. 

This Author

Catherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for the Ecologist. She tweets at @Cat_Early76.