6
Workshop on the Proposed Indigenous Peoples’ Policy, including Safeguards and Redress Mechanism, for the Green Climate Fund : sharing of results 4-5 February 2017

Sharing Results Training-Workshop to Develop Concept Notes of Indigenous Peoples for the Green Climate Fund for Community-Based Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Workshop on the Proposed IndigenousPeoples’ Policy, including Safeguards and

Redress Mechanism, for the Green ClimateFund

: sharing of results

4-5 February 2017

GCF 101

• Lesson: Indigenous peoples engaged when the GCF was taking offalready

• Experience: We were able to achieve significantly since weparticipated

• Agreement: Participation of indigenous peoples is crucial asmagnitude of funds will have the capacity to impact our lands,territories and resources.

Our calls to the GCF

• Free standing Indigenous Peoples Policy• Recognition of IPs as distinct and separate constituency• Engagement and participation• Strong safeguards including FPIC• Grievance mechanisms• Access to GCF Resources

Opportunities of engagement

1. REDD+ and Results based Payment: March experts’workshop

2. Independent Redress Mechanism: February webinars3. ESMS: IP Submission due on February 24, work with CSOs4. IP policy: Submission before BM 16 c/o small working

group within the partnership

5. Access to the GCF Resources: differentoptions and modalities

Green ClimateFund

IP Group(International,

Regional orNational) National IP Group

(Enhanced Direct AccessPilot)

IP Groups (asExecuting Entities)

ExistingAccredited

Entity

Source: Niranjali Amerasnghe’s ppt

Some issues and challenges

• On Access:Which way option is best for IPs?How to do it without jeopardizing policy work?Is it possible to ask for dedicated funds that would be managed by an IPchosen AE?

What do we want to see in an AE, if we choose to work through thatmodality?

What is the possibility of tapping the private sector to co-manage funds forIPs?