Subscribe
Money meant to protect forests, oceans and wildlife is not reaching the people who live closest to nature, a new study has found.
The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), a United Kingdom-based policy research organisation, along with partners in five countries, conducted a detailed analysis of biodiversity funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
GEF is one of the largest international funds for nature and climate action. It is playing a key role in delivering on the $200 billion annual biodiversity finance goal under Target 19 of Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF).
Their study analysed data from GEF-funded projects and interviews from community groups in Kenya, the Philippines, Malawi, Vanuatu and Antigua. The findings showed that most indigenous people and local communities (IPLC) received little to no direct support from these funds, despite being the primary custodians of biodiversity.
Although 24 per cent of GEF-6 funding and 30 per cent of GEF-7 funding was targeted at local actors, in most cases, these groups were listed as indirect beneficiaries and not direct recipients of funding, according to the analysis.
In Malawi, only one local organisation received direct funding and that too just 0.3 per cent of the project’s total budget.
“Our research shows not enough money is getting to those who are best placed to protect nature,” said Nicola Sorsby, researcher at IIED.
In Bangladesh, researchers could not find local recipients because the projects hadn’t started.
No IPLC women’s organisations were found to be receiving direct support in any of the five countries studied. One indigenous group in the Philippines said: “We have tried to get funding from GEF since 2009, but we got no clear information on how to apply or take part.” Meanwhile, other groups in the country were selected by intermediaries.
The findings echo concerns raised at COP16 in Colombia, where governments failed to agree on clear strategies for mobilising funds to meet the KMGBF Target 19, which aims to raise $200 billion per year by 2030 from all sources.
A factsheet by Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on the money trail for biodiversity pointed out that funding flows remained unclear and hard to track, with gaps between pledges and actual delivery from developed countries.
The research shows that a major reason for the funding gap is GEF's reliance on large international agencies, development banks, and national government offices to distribute the money.
The intermediaries known as ‘implementing agencies’ and ‘operational focal points’ often make decisions without involving the communities the funds are meant to support.
This system creates confusion, delays and often locks out small communities groups. IIED’s interviews found that many indigenous organisations did not even understand how to access GEF funding or were told no projects were available even when the groups were actively receiving funds.
The findings also highlighted that communities were often brought into projects after they had been designed and approved, giving them no real say in what is done or how funds are used. In Malawi, one group was asked to join a project only after another partner had dropped out.
The study pointed to one big spot — the GEF Small Grants Program (SGP). This programme provides a small amount of money, usually upto $50,000, directly to local groups.
The analysis showed that SGP has been more successful in reaching indigenous and local actors, offering them more flexibility and ownership of their projects.
In Antigua, one community used SGP grant to restore a village reservoir and develop a tourism park. In Vanuatu, several communities praised the simpler process and more direct support.
However, the study also found that the small funding amount and delays in approval still posed problems, especially for groups in remote areas.
IIED’s research also found that gender equality is largely missing from GEF’s main funding streams. While there are gender indicators in project documents, they are rarely used properly and there’s no requirement to track how much money reaches women’s organisations directly.
As a result, indigenous and local women who play a crucial role in managing natural resources are left out of decision making and funding.
With the next round of GEF funding talks (GEF-9) scheduled for later this year, and Target 19 progress is under close global scrutiny, researchers say its time for real change. The CSE factsheet also emphasised that financial solutions currently on the table remain small-scale and fragmented.
IIED recommended expanding the successful SGP approach across all GEF funding; publishing clear data on who is receiving funds and how much; and simplifying the funding process so that local groups can apply directly without relying on intermediaries.
They also advocated for long-term, flexible funding to help local organisations build capacity and lead projects. Committing to principles for local-led, gender-responsive biodiversity action is the need of the hour, the experts highlighted.