fundamentos de las finanzas para el clima para los pueblos indígenas

8/18/2019 Fundamentos de las Finanzas para el Clima para los Pueblos Indígenas

1/38

Working for the recognition

protection and fulfillment of indigenous peoples’ rights

Climate

Finance

Fundamentals

relevant

for Indigenous Peoples

Global Workshop of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Finance and

the Green Climate FundSeptember 8-9, 2015

Grace Balawag

Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre forPolicy Research and Education)


2/38



Climate Finance Fundamentals

Main Reference: Climate Finance FundamentalsBy Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Boll Stiftung, North America, and

Neil Bird, Overseas Development Institute

Objectives: To provide introductory briefing on various aspects of climate finance to the

debate on global climate change financing

To gain a better understanding of climate change finance flows to developing

countries and some dedicated funds for IPs/LCs

Outline of presentation:

1. Framework and principles of public climate finance2. The evolving global climate finance architecture : multilateral, bilateral, national

channels and funds

3. Climate finance thematic briefings – Adaptation, Mitigation, gender, climate

funding for specific regions

4. Climate finance for Forest Protection/REDD+: multilateral and bilateral

5.Multilateral REDD+ funds with dedicated funds/grants for IPs/LCs – FCPF-CBP,FIP-DGM, UNREDD-CBR+, others

6. Climate Finance and Gender

7. Some lessons learned and experiences


3/38


4/38



Global climate finance

framework and principles

Source: Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Boll Stiftung, North America, and


Other important principles, which can be instructive for a climate finance

governance framework stem from Parties’ existing human rights

obligations or a larger body of environmental law outside of the UNFCCC(such as the Rio Declaration and follow-up outcomes).

While the precise meaning of these principles remains a matter of

interpretation and discussion, collectively they can nevertheless serve as

normative guidance for a coherent framework by which to assess andcompare existing as well as new funding mechanisms and commitments,

including under a new universal legally binding global climate agreement

to be finalised by 2015.


5/38

Working for the recognitionprotection and fulfillment of indigenous peoples’ rights


framework and principles



Fundamentally, the Convention has laid out that the parties need to take climate

actions, including on finance, on “the basis of equity and in accordance with

their common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and respectivecapabilities” (UNFCCC, Art. 2).

Interpreted as the principle that ‘the polluter pays’, this is relevant for the

mobilisation of climate change funding, as is the UNFCCC requirement for

“adequacy and predictability in the flow of funds and the importance of

appropriate burden sharing among the developed country Parties” (Art. 4.3.)

The Bali Action Plan from 2008 likewise stipulates that funding must be adequate,

predictable, sustainable as well as new and additional (Bali Action Plan, Art.

1(e)(i)).

In the Cancun Agreements, paragraphs 95 and 97 of the outcome document of the

Ad-Hoc Working Group on long-term cooperative action (AWG-LCA) echo these

funding principles on long-term finance that “scaled up, new and additional,predictable and adequate funding shall be provided to developing country

Parties.”

Since Durban, a series of workshops on long term finance sought to provide further

clarity on how to mobilise climate finance.


6/38



framework and principles:



Polluter pays – this principle relates the level of both historical and current

greenhouse gas emissions to the amount each country should pay for climate

action, with an understanding of a “common but differentiated responsibility andrespective capabilities” determines climate finance as distinctly different from aid

flows.

Respective capability – contributions should relate to a measure of national

wealth more broadly defined, as well as the status and trend of national economic

and social development (the right to sustainable development referred to in Art. 3.4

of the Convention). A country’s obligation to pay for climate action – and whether totransfer funds internationally or implement them domestically – should be

correlated with a sustainable and universally accepted living standard for each of its

citizens.

New and additional – funding should be additional to existing official development

assistance (ODA) commitments and other pre-existing flows from developedcountries to avoid the diversion of funding for development needs to climate

change actions, commonly understood to be above the 0.7 % of gross national

income (GNI) that has been the ODA target.


7/38






Adequate and precautionary – in order to “take precautionary measures to

anticipate, prevent or minimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its

adverse effects” (UNFCCC, Art. 3.3.), the level of funding needs to be sufficient tokeep a global temperature increase as low as possible. Most current global funding

needs estimates use a top-down approach by tying their costing to a 2° C global

temperature increase scenario. A better gauge of adequacy might be cumulative

national estimates of need, based on countries’ own climate action priorities.

Predictable – a sustained flow of climate finance is needed through multi-year,

medium-term funding cycles (3 – 5 years) to allow for adequate investmentprogram planning in developing countries, to scale up or maintain existing efforts or

to fast start a country’s national adaptation and mitigation priorities with initial

tranches made in the secure knowledge of continued funding


8/38






Fund administration and governance: National governments and global funding

entities (receiving contributions from developed countries) are obligated to

administer public funds in a way that is both transparent and accountable. Accountability furthermore suggests that broad stakeholder participation and

representation should be ensured in the administration of climate funding on the

principle of equity.

Transparent and accountable – while relevant for all stages of the climate funding

cycle, both these principles are most strongly tied to the governance of climate

funds. Transparent administration of public climate funding requires publicly available,

accurate and timely information on a mechanism’s funding structure, its financial

data, the structure of its board, its decision making-process as well as actual

funding decisions and disbursements made, as well as implementation results.

Principle of accountability demands the existence of a redress mechanismthatwould ensure a country’s or affected citizens’ proceduralrights to challenge

climate funding decisions or climate finance project implementation, as well as

strengthened parliamentary oversight.


9/38


Global climate finance architecture:



Global climate finance architecture is complex: finance is channeled

through multilateral funds – such as the Global Environment Facility and

the Climate Investment Funds – as well as increasingly through bilateralchannels.

In addition, a growing number of recipient countries have set up national

climate change funds that receive funding from multiple developed

countries in an effort to coordinate and align donor interests with nationalpriorities.

There is generally much more transparency about the status of

implementation of multilateral climate finance initiatives than of

bilateral climate finance initiatives. The proliferation of climate financemechanisms increases the challenges of coordinating and accessing

finance.


10/38


Global climate finance architecture:



Climate finance refers to the financial resources mobilised to help

developing countries mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change,

including public climate finance commitments by developed countriesunder the UNFCCC

In 2009 Copenhagen Accord, and confirmed in the Cancun decision and

Durban Platform, developed countries pledged to deliver finance

approaching USD 30 billion between 2010 and 2012.

No clarity on mid-term finance targets and post-2012 public contributions

have risen only slightly, countries have reiterated their commitment to

increasing climate finance to USD 100 billion per year from public and

private sources by 2020.


11/38


Global Climate Finance Architecture


12/38


Multilateral

channels

for

climate

finance

as

implementing

agencies

and

institutions

Multilateral climate finance initiatives often break from contributor

country‐dominated governance structures, typical in development

finance institutions.

Gives developing country governments greater voice and representation

in decision‐making.

Steps to increase inclusion and accountability in multilateral fund

governance have

also

been

taken,

including

by:

creating

a role

for

non

‐

governmental stakeholders as observers to fund meetings, with varying

degrees of active participation opportunities


13/38


Multilateral Channels for climate finance

Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) play a prominent role in

delivering multilateral climate finance. Many have incorporated climate

change considerations into their core lending and operations, and mostMDBs now also administer climate finance initiatives with a regional or

thematic scope

Multilateral Development Banks: WB, AfDB, ADB, IADB, EBRD

Multilateral Funds and Initiatives: e.g AF - Adaptation Fund,

CIF - Climate Investment Funds (implemented through WB, ADB, AfDB,

EBRD, and IADB)- CTF, SCF – SREP, PPCR, FIP; FCPF, UNREDD,

GCCA - Global Climate Change Alliance, GCF - Green Climate Fund,

GEF - Global Environment Facility, etc.


14/38


Bilateral Channels for climate finance

Large share of public climate finance is spent bilaterally, administered

largely through existing development agencies.

With limited transparency and consistency in reporting of bilateral financefor climate change, however, with countries self-classifying and self-

reporting climate-relevant financial flows absent of a common reporting

format, or independent verification.

Bilateral Funds and Initiatives: NAMA Facility (UK and Germany), GCCI

(US), ICF(UK), NICFI (Norway), ICI (Germany)

GCCI - Global Climate Change Initiative (US)

ICF - International Climate Fund (UK)

ICFI - International Climate Forest Initiative (Norway)

ICI - International Climate Initiative (Germany)NAMA facility - Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action facility (UK and Germany)


15/38


National Climate Change Funds

National climate funds have been established by several developing

countries with a variety of forms and functions, resourced through

international finance and/or domestic budget allocations and the domesticprivate sector.

AF - Amazon Fund

BCCTF - Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund

BCRF - Bangladesh Climate Resilience Fund

FONERWA - Rwanda National Climate and Environment Fund

GRIF - Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund

ICCTF - Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund

MCCF - Mexico Climate Change Fund

PSF - Philippines People's Survival Trust


16/38


Climate Finance on Thematic and

specific regions

Adaptation: To mitigate climate change are crucial, however, it is

also essential to assist developing countries to adapt to the

impacts of climate change already being experienced due to past

andcurrent GHG emissions.

Finance is necessary to fund activities that respond to impacts

such as flooding, cyclones, coastal erosion, droughts andincreased variability of precipitation.

Currently, about 24% of the financing approved since 2003 flowing

from the dedicated climate finance initiatives that CFU monitors

supports adaptation.


17/38



specific regions

The provision of adaptation finance is made more

complex by the unequal distribution of climate changeimpacts with some of the poorest countries affected

worst (especially Small Island Developing States

(SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs)).

These countries also have differing institutional

capacities to respond to climate change and to ensure

that financing is utilised effectively and equitably,

including with attention to gender.


18/38



specific regions: Adaptation

Funds exclusively supporting Adaptation (2003-2014)

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR)-CIF Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF)

Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Program (ASAP)

Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF)

Adaptation Fund (AF)Regionally, adaptation finance has primarily been directed

to Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia and the Pacific, followed

by Latin America and the Caribbean.


19/38



specific regions: Mitigation

Funds primarily supporting mitigation (2003-2014)

Clean Technology Fund (CTF)-CIF

Global Environmental Facility Trust Fund (GEF 4/5)

Global Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy Fund

(GEEREF)

Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Program for Low IncomeCountries (SREP)


20/38



specific regions: Mitigation

Climate finance can play a crucial role in assisting developing

countries in making the transition to more environmentally sustainable

systems of energy production and use, while also addressingdevelopmental priorities of energy security and energy poverty.

Largest sources of public finance for climate mitigation in

developing countries are the World Bank administeredClean

Technology Fund (CTF) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF),while the EU’s Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund

(GEEREF) and the World Bank’s Scaling up Renewable

EnergyProgram (SREP) provide mitigation financing on a smaller

scale.

53% of total climate finance since 2008 has been approved in

support of mitigation activities in fast growing countries, primarily for

the development of renewable energy technologies.


21/38


Climate funds focused on forest

protection (REDD+)

REDD+ has come into prominence following the recognition that land use

change, principally deforestation, is responsible for 12 - 20% of global

greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, tropical forests provide multipleecosystem services and support the livelihoods of an estimated 1.6 billion

of the world’s poorest people who are dependent on forest resources.

REDD+ has the potential to help promote environmental and socially

sustainable use and conservation of forest resources as part of

development strategies, provided safeguards, inclusive gender sensitive

beneficiary schemes and traditional and indigenous usage rights are

acknowledged and protected.

The Warsaw Framework on REDD+ negotiated at COP 19 has highlighted

the importance of safeguards implementation in addition to focus onfinancing for verified emissions reductions results


22/38


Forest protection / REDD+ finance:

multilateral funds

REDD+ finance is provided by several different institutions under

multilateral funds basically for “readiness” activities to prepare countries

for funding based on demonstrated reductions of deforestation andassociated emissions:

World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Readiness Funds

(FCPF–RF) with MDBs

Forest Investment Program (FIP) of the Climate Investment Funds

(CIF) with MDBs UNREDD program with UNEP, FAO and UNDP as implementing

agencies

World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility-Carbon Fund (FCPF-

CF) with MDBs

Amazon Fund Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF), administered by African

Development Bank


23/38


Other bilateral REDD+ finance

Outside the multilateral climate funds, a number of significant

new bilateral pledges have been made alongside the UN

Climate Summit in September 2014, including

Norway’s USD 300 million pledge to Peru for verified emissions

reductions, and

USD 150 million to Liberia to support zero deforestation by 2020.

2014 also saw additional, albeit non-legally binding, political

commitments to REDD+ through the New York Declaration on

Forests.

This declaration signed at the Climate Summit also pledges to

cut natural forest loss in half by 2020, and strive to end it by

2030.


24/38


Multilateral REDD+ finance with dedicated

IP Funds and IP observers

FCPF–Readiness Fund: FCPF- Capacity Building Program for IPs

and Southern CSOs/LCs (FCPF)

CIF-Forest Investment Program (FIP): Dedicated Grant Mechanism

for IPs/LCs (DGM)

UNREDD program: Community-Based REDD+ (CBR+)

Note: All these funds have IP Observers in the Governance/Policy

Bodies: FCPF-Participants Committee, CIF-Trust Fund Committees

and FIP Subcommittee, UNREDD Policy Board


25/38


FCPF Capacity Building Program (CBP)

The objective of the capacity building program is to provide Forest-

Dependent Indigenous Peoples and other Forest Dwellers and

Southern CSOs with:

information, knowledge and awareness on REDD+ in order to

enhance their understanding of REDD+, and

to engage more meaningfully in the implementation of REDD+

activities.

The aim is to support activities that empower and enable these

stakeholder groups, to enhance and influence REDD+

development outcomes, and also to strengthen mechanisms for

inclusion, accountability, and participation.


26/38


FCPF-CBP

Eligibility criteria for the selection of activities within the regions are proposed:

Be located in FCPF REDD Country Participants;

Be proposed by networks or organizations of Forest-Dependent IndigenousPeoples and/or Southern CSOs and local communities, as appropriate, or be

explicitly endorsed by relevantnetworks and organizations;

Prepare national and regional organizations of Forest-Dependent Indigenous

Peoples and/orSouthern CSOs, as appropriate, to contribute to their national

REDD+ readiness processes;

Reinforce the national REDD+ readiness efforts; Include regional and/or national capacity building workshops and initiatives on

REDD+;

Emphasize the dissemination of capacity building benefits to local communities;

and

Show how FCPF support to Forest-Dependent Indigenous Peoples and

Southern CSOs and local communities will be leveraged to attract additional

support.


27/38


FCPF-CBP

Examples of themes and topics that would be eligible include:

Research and policy work on land tenure, social and environmental issues;

Sustainable livelihoods and governance issues in the context of REDD+Readiness;

Analytical and design work on benefit sharing and grievance redress

mechanisms;

Integration of indigenous or community land use mapping in REDD+ processes;

Support for multi-stakeholder dialogues and collaboration between government,

Forest-Dependent Peoples and Southern CSOs, respectively;

Other activities contributing to the national Strategic Environmental and Social

Assessment (SESA); and

Community-level monitoring of and reporting on various aspects of the overallREDD+ process (to enhance transparency/accountability).


28/38


CIF-FIP Dedicated Grant Mechanism for

IPs/LCs (DGM)

DGM is a global initiative conceived and developed as a special window under the

Forest Investment Program (FIP) to provide grants to Indigenous Peoples and

Local Communities (IPLCs) intended to enhance their capacity and supportinitiatives to strengthen their participation in FIP and other REDD+ processes at the

local, national and global levels

DGM Design was developed by a working group of IPs/LCs, facilitated by the CIF

Administrative Unit (AU) to be implemented in the 8 FIP Pilot Countries through

Country Grants Projects, under an overarching umbrella of a Global Component,

which will serve as the learning and knowledge-exchange platform for the DGM

Framework Guidelines for the DGM define the common framework for

implementation of the DGM and will serve as guidance to all stakeholders

participating in the program, including FIP Focal Points in the countries, the

National Executing Agencies (NEAs), members of the National Steering

Committees (NSCs), the Global Executing Agency (GEA) and Global Steering

Committee (GSC) of the DGM, civil society, IPLCs, CIF AU and the MDBs.


29/38


UNREDD Community-Based REDD+

UNREDD-CBR+ is a partnership between the UN-REDD Programme and

the GEF Small Grants Programme to deliver grants directly to indigenous

peoples and communities to empower them to fully engage in the design,implementation and monitoring of REDD+ readiness activities, and

develop experiences, lessons, and recommendations at the local level

that can feed into national REDD+ processes.

CBR+ supports community-level projects that complement UN-REDD

National Programmes, national REDD+ readiness processes and/or

strategies.

Currently in its pilot phase, CBR+ is being implemented in six countries:

Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Panama, Paraguay, Democratic Republic of theCongo and Nigeria.


30/38


Gender and Climate Finance

Women, who form the majority of the world’s 1.2 billion poorest people,

are often disproportionally affected by climate change impacts as a result

of persisting gender norms and discriminations. Women and men alsocontribute to climate change responses in different ways.

The Cancun Agreements acknowledge that gender equality and the

effective participation of women are important for all aspects of any

response to climate change, but especially for adaptation.

Gender-responsive climate financing instruments and funding allocations

are needed and this is a matter of using scarce public funding in an

equitable, efficient and effective way.

It also acknowledges that climate finance decisions are not made within a

normative vacuum, but must be guided by the acknowledgement ofwomen’s rights as unalienable human rights.


31/38



The World Bank and the regional multilateral development banks

implementing the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) have gender policies

for their development financing operations. 2012 comprehensive CIF gender review confirmed that the programs

supported by the Clean Technology Fund (CTF), which finances large-

scale mitigation in large economies and accounts for 70 per cent of the

CIFs pledged funding portfolio of USD 7.5 billion, did not address gender

considerations systematically.

Gender is not included in the operational principles of the Pilot Program

on Climate Resilience (PPCR), which funds programmatic adaptation

portfolios in a few developing countries, although most pilot countries

have included somegender dimensions in their programme planningstage.


32/38



According to the CIF gender review, these vary from the inclusion during project

preparation of recipient country government agencies focused on women and

gender or gender experts from country missions, to outreach to women’s groups as

key stakeholders in consultations or the development of gender action plans for

specific projects.

Gender-responsive programme implementation is the real challenge going forward

with only a minority of the projects including gender indicators. Initial investment

plans analyzed by the 2012 CIF gender review of the Scaling-Up Renewable

Energy in Low-Income Countries Program (SREP), the newest of the CIFs, includeinformation about “environmental, social and gender co-benefits” by identifying

women as investment beneficiaries.

Efforts to secure greater involvement and empowerment of women andother

vulnerable groups appear uneven, however. the CIF gender review identified a

variety of concrete measures and tools that could strengthen its gender-

responsiveness, including the development of a gender scorecard or detailed

guidance on collecting data via gender-responsive indicators.


33/38



Under Adaptation Fund, operational guidelines were adopted that require the

inclusion of gender considerations in project and programme planning, as well as in

project consultation processes as an important review criterion. In October 2013, a

new environmental and social policy was approved, which further strengthened the

Fund’s attention to gender, as the policy outlines respect for human rights and

support for gender equality and women’s empowerment as key principles for the

design and implementation of Adaptation Fund projects and programmes.

The GEF is one of the longest standing international climate funds, but gender

considerations until more recently have not been prominent in program review andapproval processes, for example for the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and

the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF). In 2011, the GEF adopted a Policy

on Gender Mainstreaming which requires all existing GEF agencies (mostly MDBs

and UN agencies) to be assessed for their compliance with the GEF gender

mainstreaming mandate


34/38


35/38


Some lessons learned on current state of

dedicated public funds for IPs/LCs

Scope of climate-related fund allocations for IPs are primarily under forest

protection / REDD+ at local to global levels, with respective governance

mechanisms Channels and management of funds are through UN agencies,

INGOs/NGOs as global / national executing agencies or as intermediary

channels of funds due to financial and program capacity requirements as

defined by fiduciary standards

The capacity among IP organizations and networks to comply with the

standard rules and required fiduciary standards is limited; hence, the need

for the development of or strengthening of financial and administrative

capacities among IP/LC organizations

Other points for discussion….. e.g. direct access accreditation standards,safeguards, grievance mechanisms, etc.


36/38


Some lessons learned and experiences fromadvocacy work of IPs on other global funds

Active IP representation and effective participation in policy board meetings and

relevant submissions to governance bodies to lobby and bring up IP issues and

concerns through:

Designated Indigenous Peoples observers in governance bodies of funds/programmes;

together with other stakeholders such as MDBs, UN agencies, NGOs, CSOs, Technical

experts, private sector, among others

Approval of dedicated grants/capacity building funds for IPs/LCs, however, financial

management and channels for funds are still defined under standard fiduciary requirements

of WB, UN bodies, and through INGOs/NGOs/UN agencies

Continuing dialogues with IPs and multilateral bodies, state parties, UN agencies, policy

board members to sensitize them on IP priorities/concerns for their support

Support for continuing capacity building activities for IPs/LCs

Ensuring environmental and social safeguards, and accessible grievance mechanisms

Ensuring the respect and recognition of IP rights and traditional knowledge in all climate

change adaptation/mitigation measures


37/38



38/38


www.tebtebba.org

For more information, get some of our

publications, and please visit:

fundamentos de las finanzas para el clima para los pueblos indígenas

Documents