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
-
Letter / 22 juli 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 juli 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 juli 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 juli 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 juli 2024
Karin van Boxtel new director of Both ENDS
Karin van Boxtel (35) is the new director of environment and human rights organization Both ENDS. Karin has been running the organization 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 juli 2024
-
Video / 3 juli 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 juli 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.
-
Publication / 2 juli 2024
-
Blog / 21 juni 2024
International coorperation - especially now!
This blog is written in Dutch
-
News / 19 juni 2024
Recognition for PROBIOMA from the Chamber of Deputies of the Plurinational State of Bolivia
PROBIOMA have received recognition from the Chamber of Deputies of the Plurinational State of Bolivia. The presentation of this tribute took place at the Museum of Natural History Noel Kempff Mercado, in the framework of the Environment Day.
-
Publication / 18 juni 2024
-
News / 18 juni 2024
Impact of oil extraction on women's health in Bayelsa
In the context of Shell's imminent divestment from onshore oil industry in the Niger Delta, Both ENDS partner Kebetkache publishes a new report showing severe health and environmental challenges faced by the women of Otuabagi in the Niger Delta due to Shell's crude oil exploration. -
News / 18 juni 2024
Dutch government threatens to put human lives at risk again in infamous TotalEnergies gas project in Mozambique
The Dutch government threatens to blunder again by providing export support for TotalEnergies' controversial gas project in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique. This follows from an analysis of 9000 documents from FOI requests, commissioned by Milieudefensie and Both ENDS. Anne de Jonghe, Both ENDS: “When the export support was issued in 2021, critical voices were minimized, while TotalEnergies was heard and trusted. That should not happen again."
-
Event / 17 juni 2024, 15:00 - 16:00
Environmental Litigation: An Underestimated risk for Investors
Extreme weather events, environmental degradation and stakeholder activism force companies to reconsider climate change as an aggravating risk with tangible impacts on global supply chains, business performance, brand reputation and ESG ratings. Business strategies that neglect adequate environmental action can lead to consumer boycotts, negative media attention, investor runs and even legal action.
-
Dossier /
Transformative Talks
At Both ENDS we aim to connect people for change. Together with environmental justice groups from the Global South, we work towards a sustainable, fair and inclusive world.
-
Pathway /
Promoting people-driven solutions
Our goal is a massive upscaling and mainstreaming of bottom-up, planet-friendly practices, supported by favourable governance systems and availability of financial resources. There are many examples of successful community-led livelihood models based on collective participation, healthy ecosystems, gender justice and a vision of wellbeing beyond individual wealth. Approaches such as Regreening focus on ecosystem restoration led by forest communities or local farmers in the Sahel. These initiatives recognise and respect the interdependence between human prosperity and healthy ecosystems. They help to empower women, youth and other groups that often lack access to decision-making processes and tend to be excluded from land, water and forest management to assert their agency and rights to self-determination.
-
Pathway /
Supporting a powerful civil society
Our goal is that civil society can work openly and safely, make their voices heard and influence decision-making on ecosystem challenges and matters of environmental justice and human rights. A strong civil society is indispensable to a healthy society. It checks the power of both state and corporate actors, holds decision-makers accountable, and defends the rights of those marginalised from positions of influence. A strong and independent civil society can advocate for fair and ecologically responsible policies as well as challenge structural inequalities in decision-making. It can also use accountability mechanisms to seek redress for the negative consequences of such inequitable decision-making, and instead promote, implement and upscale transformative practices.
-
Pathway /
Advocating for just governance worldwide
Our goal is to achieve systemic change at all levels of social, political and economic institutions, to ensure that these unconditionally respect human rights and planetary boundaries. This requires policy coherence and consistent decision-making across all sectors - from trade, finance and energy to food production, agriculture, climate action and water management - and across all sections of society - from individual to family, farm, neighbourhood, city, province and national levels.
-
News / 11 juni 2024
Stand in solidarity; sign the petition
Together with a vast majority of Dutch NGO's, political movements and other concerned professionals we have started a petition to call out to the Dutch new government to invest in international cooperation and stop the planned budget cuts (2,5 billion euros).