In Bali, build a Fund you can be proud of
In Bali, build a Fund you can be proud of
This is the meeting where the Board will discuss:
• Country ownership (of activities funded by the GCF);
• The composition of National Designated Authorities and focal points (the two bodies currently envisaged at the national level, in addition to the funding entities mentioned below);
• Options for country coordination and multi-stakeholder engagement (very important – governments can’t fight climate change on their own); and
• Additional modalities that further enhance direct access, including through funding entities (quite literally, last but not least, for herein lies transformational change – explored in more detail in the previous blog, here).
In brief, the Board will be talking about how the GCF will interface with countries, and what sort of national architecture will be needed for countries to access GCF funds. This may be a good time, therefore, to deconstruct some of those (development jargon-laden) topics listed above, and explore their interactions.
What, for instance, do we mean by country ownership? The World Bank defines it as “sufficient political support within a country to implement its developmental strategy, including the projects, programs, and policies for which external partners provide assistance.”
Wrong answer! This definition could apply equally to external partners deciding what’s to be done, and governments then selling that plan ex post to the country (“line ministries, parliament, sub-national governments, civil society organizations, and private sector groups”).
The 2011 Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation takes the definition of country ownership somewhat out of the dark ages, taking forward the Paris Agreement on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Accord. It defines country ownership as “ownership of development priorities by developing countries…led by developing countries, implementing approaches that are tailored to country-specific situations and needs”. This definition is not just the result of developing countries pushing for more ownership – it is the result of a realisation by developed and developing countries, based on years of experience, that country ownership is an absolute pre-requisite for effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability.
This definition of country ownership, applied meaningfully, would mean that decision-making on the activities that are to be funded should be taken in-country – through “enhanced direct access” and in-country (national) “funding entities”. Country ownership, moreover, does not stop at the government or national level – it implies the active engagement of the electorate, or multi-stakeholders. It means the use of existing country systems to the extent possible, instead of creating additional bodies that dance to a foreign tune. It means ownership across sectors, not just ownership by the environmental sector.
Developing countries have sometimes been afraid to explore beyond the surface of “country ownership”, sometimes claiming national sovereignty on the design of national processes, but in this instance they must. Country ownership costs time and money if it is to be done meaningfully – engaging stakeholders, not only in the planning phase but also through implementation and post-project/ programme sustainability; bolstering existing national systems to bear the additional burden; creating incentives for mainstream sectors to participate; and creating effective accountability systems, to prove to the local, national and international community that the funds have been used effectively. Adequate funding will have to be built in to allow for this – in the readiness phase, but also on a more sustained basis, to ensure that the results live out the duration of the activity. IFIs do not usually take these longer-term costs (or resulting benefits) into account.
Country ownership, multi-stakeholder engagement and enhanced direct access are therefore closely connected and should be discussed in connection with one another in Bali. Once the Board has explored the depths of its willingness to signal transformational change on each of these very important issues, it can address the issue of the institutional architecture that will be needed at the national level to implement this vision. Enough flexibility must be built in to the guidelines for each country to design the architecture to also suits national circumstances – as long as they meet certain prerequisites identified by the GCF Board. Ideally, this architecture should:
1. Build on existing national mechanisms that have been most successful in implementing local-level action through devolved governance and decentralisation, facilitating multi-stakeholder decision-making processes, and in cross-sectoral integration. For instance, Indonesia may choose to use the mechanisms it has in place for its National Program for Community Empowerment – the Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Mandirithe (PNPM). India may choose to build in an integral role for Panchayat Raj (local governance) institutions, as it has done in its broadly successful National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The Philippines may choose to build upon its Climate Change Commission and Peoples Survival Fund. Creating a new architecture for the GCF comes with the following risks:
a. It will be designed only to suit the GCF/global requirements, and not national circumstances and needs.
b. It may not have the same relationship with the key sectors, that an existing home-grown mechanism/ body already has.
c. An existing mechanism is likely to be more sustainable in the long-run, rather than one that relies entirely on the GCF for its existence.
d. A mechanism for the GCF alone could end up creating a “climate finance silo”, by creating separate channels for climate finance at the national level.
2. The mechanism should ideally be designed to pool climate funds from different sources and contributors, to prevent in-country fragmentation, and to facilitate a consistent and simple process for access.
3. It should have high-level leadership, and buy-in from mainstream ministries and sectors. The default leadership in many countries – the environment ministries – simply do not have the clout to create buy-in for these mainstream sectors. It will be worth thinking about other incentives that can be created for engaging mainstream sectors.
4. It should be able to reach out to the sub-national/local level – not just to deliver funds that are already “tied”/ earmarked for centrally decided programmes, goals and activities, but also easily accessible funds that local communities can avail off, to address concerns they have identified. A strong role should be built in for responsive local governments.
5. The GCF should actively support community driven climate action, rather than simply community-based action that calls only for participation. Gender-responsive, transparent multi-stakeholder decision-making should be the goal at every stage.
6. There must be strong formal mechanisms for transparency, “top to down” accountability, and dispute settlement built in, through which local communities can question the decisions of the national mechanism/ body.
How will the currently mandated bodies of NDAs, NFEs and focal points fit into this national architecture? We think that will be a decision for the countries to take – as long as the basic standards set out by the GCF Board are satisfied, they should be able to identify an existing national level climate change commission or national climate fund as the NDA, if this is what works best from the point of view of national-level implementation. The in-country architecture cannot be designed only to suit the requirements of the Fund – it must also work from the point of view of effective implementation at the national and sub-national levels.
Read more about this subject
-
Instalink / 10 October 2024
-
News / 3 October 2024
CVM trial of Vale Executives over Brumadinho Dam Collapse brings new momentum
Fabio Schvartsman and Gerd Peter Poppinga attended a Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM) trial session, last Tuesday, October 1st. Poppinga was convicted by one of the CMV directors, but the second CMV director requested more time to review the case files, postponing the judgment by 60 days. Victims’ families and supporters will have to keep waiting for justice regarding one of Brazil’s worst human and environmental disasters.
-
Instalink / 3 October 2024
-
Blog / 30 September 2024
Of EACOP and tales of a defender in development
The Joke Waller-Hunter (JWH) Initiative creates opportunities for young people in the environmental sector in developing countries to unfold their full potential. By providing small grants to individuals to expand their knowledge, experience and training, the Initiative aims to strengthen environmental Civil Society Organisations capacity and efficiency. Grantee Brighton Aryampa wrote a column for Monitor about his journey to becoming a Human Rights Defender, and his work battling the EACOP.
-
Publication / 24 September 2024
-
News / 24 September 2024
Massive Wildfires Ravage South America
“The fires have reached proportions we have never experienced before.”
Large swathes of South America are currently draped in smoke. From Buenos Aires, to São Paulo to Asunción people struggle to breathe due to unprecedented fires raging on the continent, fuelled by extreme drought, the expansion of the agriculture frontier and rising temperatures linked to climate change.
-
Blog / 29 August 2024
Local action for resilient wetlands and riparian lands of the Athi river basin in Kenya
and Kyra Pohlan
Communities throughout the Athi river basin rely on healthy and resilient semi-aquatic ecosystems, such as riparian and wetland areas, for their well-being and livelihoods. These habitats have become ever more important for local communities in adapting to the effects of climate change, in particular the more frequent and more extreme periods of drought and flooding. By conserving and re-establishing riparian lands and wetlands, groups from the Athi River Community Network do not only protect their immediate environment but also contribute to the well-being of downstream areas.
-
News / 16 August 2024
Statement on the denial of legal protection by the Philippines Court of Appeals towards environmental defenders Jonila Castro and Jhed Tamano
Both ENDS expresses its profound concern over the recent decision by the Philippines Court of Appeals to deny legal protection to Jonila Castro and Jhed Tamano against unlawful harassment and reprisals from state forces. Castro and Jhed are two young environmental human rights defenders who were violently abducted by Filipino armed forces in September 2023, for almost 17 days, in a case that made international headlines. The two women had been working as community organizers in Northern Manila Bay, where large-scale land reclamation's have wreaked havoc on communities and ecosystems.
-
Letter / 22 July 2024
Joint Call to Action: International Civil Society Demands Justice for Berta Cáceres' Murder Victims in Honduras
This is a joint call to action by international civil society organizations to call upon the Honduran authorities to ensure there is justice for the victims of the murder on Berta Caceres. Eight years and four months have passed since the crime against Berta and the Honduran justice system has not confirmed the sentences of those convicted and has not prosecuted the intellectual authors. We are extremely concerned that independent administration of justice and international agreements on human rights are not being upheld.
-
News / 17 July 2024
EU Exits Energy Charter Treaty (ECT): A Milestone for Climate Action
The European Union's decision to exit the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is a landmark victory for climate action. For years, the ECT's Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism has enabled fossil fuel companies to challenge climate policies, hindering progress towards sustainability.
-
News / 9 July 2024
‘Dare to Trust’: Both ENDS and the Dutch Postcode Lottery team up to show the power of trust-based partnership
For more than thirty years, Both ENDS has collaborated with partner organisations around the world to advance environmental justice. Our relationships with partners, many of which span decades, are based on shared values, respect and trust. Together, we are strengthening knowledge, networks and movements, and engaging in joint advocacy aimed at bringing about a more just and sustainable world.
-
News / 9 July 2024
Help the fight for a world without fossil fuels: sign this initiative
The climate crisis can no longer be ignored. With record temperatures and unprecedented extreme weather conditions, we see the devastating effects of climate change all around the world. The Netherlands has recently faced both unprecedented heatwaves and prolonged rainfall that have severely impacted our agricultural sector. These events painfully highlight: we must act now.
-
News / 4 July 2024
Karin van Boxtel new director of Both ENDS
Karin van Boxtel (35) is the new director of environment and human rights organisation Both ENDS. Karin has been running the organisation temporarily, together with Annelieke Douma, since the departure of the previous director, Danielle Hirsch. She has now been appointed permanently to make Both ENDS stronger and more future-proof. Karin will take up her new post on 1 September. Until then, she will continue as co-director on an interim basis.
-
News / 3 July 2024
-
Video / 3 July 2024
Jonila Castro of AKAP KA & Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment
Jonila Castro works for AKAP KA Manila Bay and/or Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE). The livelihood of the majority of the Filipino people depends on the environment, on the seas and the lands and mountains.
-
News / 3 July 2024
Illegal logging is devastating Suriname's forest: The Saamaka and their fight against deforestation
The Saamaka people of Suriname have long resisted the government's violation of their land rights. Despite a 2007 ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) against such violations, the government continues to grant logging and mining concessions on Saamaka territory without free prior and informed consent (FPIC). New report shows this has led to deforestation, land dispossession, and disruption of their livelihoods. A recent example includes a 42.7 km road built through their lands for logging access.
-
External link / 2 July 2024
-
External link / 2 July 2024
-
External link / 2 July 2024
-
External link / 2 July 2024