Target 20: Resource mobilization

• The collective actions of IPLCs to conserve and sustainably use their lands and territories, and the biodiversity that these areas contain, make a substantial non-financial contribution towards the goals of the CBD.
• Funding for their actions needs to be proportionate to the scale of their contributions. It also needs to be made more accessible, through improved targeting, information-sharing and training, and culturally appropriate procedures.
• Safeguards need to be integrated into all resource mobilisation processes to bring an end to the negative impacts of biodiversity financing on the rights and livelihoods of IPLCs, and to build on the relationship between secure IPLC rights and positive biodiversity outcomes.

For IPLCs, the key issues related to Target 20 are the need for full recognition of the value of their collective actions and increase in support for these actions at a scale that is proportionate to their contributions; and the need for stronger safeguarding measures to reduce negative impacts of biodiversity financing on them.

Funding IPLCs in proportion to the scale of their contributions

Global recognition of the value of collective environmental actions has increased significantly across the work of the CBD in recent years, including in planning for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.¹ However, a lack of national reporting on support for collective actions makes it difficult to assess whether this has translated into concrete support where it matters. The CBD has tried to push for better national reporting: the CBD Financial Reporting Framework has included elements on expenditure related to IPLC collective actions since COP12 (in 2014).² By September 2018, however, only seven countries reported having undertaken some assessment of the role of collective actions and no country indicated that a comprehensive assessment had been undertaken.³

An assessment in 2019 by the OECD estimated annual finance for global biodiversity at US$77.87 billion.⁴ The findings included the following points:

• Most of the funding—US$67 billion—was domestic public expenditure. Some Parties, including Canada, the EU, Norway, New Zealand and Australia, had been very supportive of allocating domestic funding to conservation by IPLCs. However, for most Parties no information was readily available on this.
• International bilateral and multilateral public expenditure related to biodiversity was estimated at US$4.9 billion per year. This includes funding through the Global Environment Facility, the Green Climate Fund, and the World Bank. Understanding how much of this expenditure is directed at IPLCs requires further in-depth review.
• Private finance was estimated to be at least US$7–10 million per year.⁵ The potential for private finance mechanisms (such as offsets and payments for ecosystem services) to support IPLC collective actions is not yet clear.

In summary, there is not enough evidence to assess in any detail the overall level of funding available to support IPLC collective actions. However, given that IPLCs customarily own or manage at least 50 per cent of the world’s lands, and vast marine areas, and that these areas hold a large proportion of the planet’s biodiversity⁶, the available information suggests strongly that the proportion of biodiversity funding available for IPLCs lags far behind their current contributions to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

There have been, however, some positive advances. One programme that has proven effective in many places in channelling funds to indigenous peoples and local communities for biodiversity stewardship is the Global Environment Facility’s Small Grants Programme, and the experiences of the programme offer several useful lessons (see Box 45). These lessons, however, are not universally consistent, and persistent marginalisation in some countries continues to ensure IPLCs lag in access even to proactive funding streams such as the Small Grants Programme. The Global Environment Facility’s announcement in 2019 of the new US$25 million ‘Inclusive Conservation Initiative’ dedicated to enhancing the efforts of indigenous peoples and local communities to “steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits” is a welcome step.

Safeguards in biodiversity financing

The second key issue for IPLCs in relation to Target 20 is the need to strengthen safeguarding measures to address the continued negative impacts of biodiversity financing on IPLCs. Currently, in spite of widespread recognition of the positive role of IPLCs in striving to meet the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, there are many cases where activities to progress towards these same targets are carried out in opposition to IPLCs rather than in collaboration with them, with serious impacts on their rights and livelihoods⁸. In response to this situation, in 2014 at COP 12 the Parties to the CBD adopted a set of voluntary guidelines on safeguards in biodiversity funding mechanisms (see Box 46) and some progress was made at subsequent COPs in developing a framework for its implementation. For IPLCs it is essential that these steps are consolidated urgently in the post-2020 framework to ensure effective safeguarding and to put an end once and for all to human rights abuses in the name of conservation.

Safeguards for biodiversity and conservation funding have been introduced increasingly in international public expenditure. The Global Environment Facility introduced requirements for safeguards in 2011,¹³ the Green Climate Fund adopted the International Finance Corporation ‘Performance Standards’ as interim safeguards in 2014,¹⁴ and the World Bank (and all other multilateral finance institutions) have had safeguard frameworks in place since the 1990s / early 2000s. Key elements of these safeguard frameworks are prohibitions against forced resettlement, and requirements of consultation, participation and, in some cases, consent prior to activities being approved for funding.

IPLCs make substantial contributions to all 20 of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets in the form of widespread, diverse, collective actions of the kinds that feature throughout this report. They act as environmental managers, stewards and watchdogs, in many cases on an entirely voluntary basis and under very challenging conditions. Where appropriate enabling conditions are in place, successful collective actions can spread organically through existing networks with relatively small amounts of financial support, having an impact disproportionate with the money provided. Two examples are provided in this section: one in Thailand with domestic funding from the national government (Box 47) and one in Antigua and Barbuda with funding from Global Environment Facility’s Small Grants Programme (Box 48).

Many IPLCs continue to receive little or no support for their actions, the support that is available is difficult to access, and they continue to face opposition, hostility and violence as they try to defend their lands and resources against unsustainable exploitation by others and also in the context of protected areas-based conservation. The adoption by the CBD of voluntary guidelines on safeguards in biodiversity financing mechanisms is an important step forward in relation to this last point, including in terms of recognising the importance of tenure over IPLC traditional territories for their survival and ways of life, and the importance of obtaining their free, prior and informed consent.

• IPLCs should further document their collective actions relevant to the objectives of the CBD, including collation of case studies.
• Governments should disaggregate figures on domestic support for IPLC collective actions in national reports to the CBD. Further, international public expenditure on biodiversity conservation should be disaggregated and account for funding provided directly to IPLCs.
• The United Nations Development Programme’s Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) should also disaggregate figures and develop a comprehensive method for governments to measure expenditure levels for biodiversity and estimate future financial needs. In addition, mechanisms should be developed to enable IPLCs to fully participate in designing policies and programmes.¹⁵
• Governments and international funding organisations should increase comprehensive, long-term, direct financial support for IPLC collective actions in line with their needs as expressed by IPLCs.¹⁶ These mechanisms should promote replication and scaling-up of successful initiatives and instruments, and should ensure improved access to funding information, including application and project timelines.
• Governments should include IPLCs on national committees with roles and responsibilities for national budgets related to domestic biodiversity financing.
• Governments and relevant actors should increase human, technical and institutional resources in relation to recognition of IPLC rights and actions—for example, advising, building capacity, improving participation and reporting—and broader forms of support for community conservation initiatives including legal, political, social and economic.
• Governments, NGOs and others should provide training on how to access funding, for women as well as men. This includes training on understanding funding guidelines, writing complex project documents, and financial management and accountability.
• Governments, international funders, and private sector funders must integrate adequate safeguards and measures related to social inclusion in all resource mobilisation processes.

• OECD (2019) Biodiversity: Finance and the economic business case for action. Report prepared for the G7 Environment Ministers’ Meeting, 5-6 May 2019. Paris: OECD. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversity/G7-report-Biodiversity-Finance-and-the-Economic-and-Business-Case-for-Action.pdf
• Global Environment Facility (2019) Environmental and social safeguard standards. Washington D.C.: Global Environment Facility. Available at: https://www.thegef.org/documents/environmental-and-social-safeguard-standards
• Pérez, E.S. and Schultz, M. (2015) ‘Dialogue workshop on assessment of collective action in biodiversity conservation: Co-chairs’ summary’. Panajachel, Guatemala, 11-13 June 2015. Montreal: Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/financial/micro/collective-action-report.pdf
• Swebdio (2016) ‘Collective action by Indigenous peoples and local communities’. Available at: https://swed.bio/news/collective-action-by-indigenous-peoples-and-local-communities/