However, an analysis by Survival International of the 22 projects approved by the GEF to date found that these commitments were “significantly” falling short.
They concluded that only one option was likely to benefit indigenous peoples. The project was proposed by the Brazilian government and represents approximately 7 percent ($8 million) of the total amount approved by the Fund to date.
Agree?
All other projects claim to allocate funds to IPLC. If so, this would amount to almost 40% of the total amount allocated, the report said. However, it added that 21 other programs do not include actual budgetary provisions for work with indigenous peoples, and only seven include work with other local communities. .
Additionally, NGOs accused the GEF of failing to ensure that indigenous peoples were properly consulted on the plan. Under international law, indigenous peoples have a right known as free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). However, all projects approved by GBFF lack proper FPIC, it said.
Additionally, almost half of the funding will go to projects related to ecosystem restoration and the so-called 30×30 goal, in which countries have agreed to expand the scope of protected areas to 30 percent of the Earth’s land and oceans by 2030. It is filled.
Survival International and other indigenous rights groups have long been committed to the 30×30 goal, concerned about escalating atrocities against indigenous peoples, such as the eviction of thousands of Maasai people from the Ngorongoro Reserve in Tanzania. I have been against it.
GBFF funds are channeled through 18 officially recognized organizations that act as GEF ‘agents’. These include large international conservation organizations such as WWF and Conservation International, as well as United Nations agencies such as the United Nations Development Program and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
It is also responsible for working with government agencies and local conservation organizations to help countries meet the GEF’s social and environmental safeguards.
According to Survival International, these organizations will earn a total of $9 million in agency fees for submitting and managing the projects.
scrap
Survival International wants to abolish the GBFF and establish a new process where funds will be directed primarily to the IPLC and its efforts aimed at recognizing and protecting land rights. These would also be much cheaper than the conservation industry’s “expensive, colonialist, top-down, militarized approach,” the magazine said.
Simon Counsell, a consultant with Survival International and former director of the UK Rainforest Foundation, said: “This fund is in desperate need of a major rethink.”
“Rather than being an innovative type of fund with new approaches, the GBFF merely reinforces the old top-down, fortress conservation model that has been acting for local communities and indigenous peoples for decades.
“Unfortunately, governments are doing little to address the root causes of biodiversity loss, such as overconsumption and subsidies to destructive industries.”
Safety measures
A WWF spokesperson said the agency is working with the governments of Brazil, Gabon, Peru, South Africa, Cameroon, the Central African Republic and the Republic of Congo to allocate funding for the project as an agency of the GEF.
“For each project, WWF works with, and will continue to work with, project partners to ensure that indigenous peoples and local communities are included in the development of the project and that project funding does not come from direct grants or from organizations. We have support flowing to them in the form of technical assistance and resources. Both WWF and GEF require that all projects that may impact indigenous peoples go through the FPIC process. ”
“We respectfully disagree with Survival International’s findings and with Conservation International’s characterization,” Conservation International said in a statement.
It said it reviews all projects to ensure compliance with GEF policies, and projects under the GBFF have completed a review of environmental and social safeguards.
GBFF-funded projects in Mexico include indigenous planning with built-in budgets to ensure compliance with FPIC principles. Negotiations began in March 2024 and will continue. More than 70% of the funds allocated to the Mexican project will benefit IPLC.
“These communities will play an active role in guiding the use of these funds, ensuring resources are allocated in line with their priorities and needs. and other stakeholders in an inclusive and participatory process.”
GEF said in a statement that the goal of donating 20% of GBFF to indigenous peoples also includes agency fees. Of the funds allocated so far, 35% has supported IPLC activities.
“Each project is asked to provide a GBFF project loan amount to be allocated to activities supported by the IPLC. Only GBFF loans managed directly by the IPLC, or GBFF funds corresponding to activities whose design and management are led by the IPLC. can be included in this amount,” the report said.
An independent valuer will also check the amount spent during the project and upon completion. It added that GEF’s environmental and social protection measures were developed with guidance from the GEF Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group and other experts.
this author
Katherine Early is a freelance environmental journalist and chief reporter for The Ecologist. She tweets at @Cat_Early76.
