GEF proposes a shift in environmental funding with record $5.3B in pledges

The Global Environment Facility announced earlier in the month that it had raised $5.25 Billion to support conservation and protection programs worldwide in the next four years.

The 30% budget increase for one of the world’s largest and most influential environmental funders is accompanied by a shift in the GEF’s approach to grant-making, according to Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, its CEO and Chairperson.

Rodriguez told Mongabay that he is pushing to increase the flexibility and cross-cutting nature of the GEF’s grant programs. This includes new mechanisms that allow non-governmental entities to directly receive support from the GEF without having to go through government channels. If this approach is successful, it could allow Indigenous and local communities more funds to support conservation projects and environmental initiatives.

Rodriguez stated that GEF resources are not for governments but for countries. Countries are more than just governments: there are many stakeholders, including the private sector, NGOs and communities.

We are now planting a seed through which the GEF will be able to provide direct access to actors other than state actors, he said, explaining that, aside from the small grants program, the approach requires NGOs to obtain approval from the national governments to secure funds.

This restricts who can get GEF support as in some cases civil society can have hostile relationships with governments. We want to change this.

Despite the pandemic, increasing geopolitical volatility, the GEF has managed to secure a record replenishment.

Rodriguez said that the GEF was a political animal at the end of it all. The GEF is a mature organisation, which makes it unique and able generate progress. There’s a lot of written political agreements on how it should operate and that gives us the specific circumstances to keep on providing solutions and generating progress.

We’re really threatened by global challenges, but the GEF has proven to be kind of a bubble space, politically speaking, which gives us hope.

These issues were discussed by Rodriguez and other Mongabay founder Rhett. A. Butler spoke to Rodriguez in April 2022.

This interview was conducted for clarity. You can read an earlier interview with Rodriguez that provides more context about his background and vision of the GEF. This interview was published in October 2020.

INTERVIEW WITH GEFS CAROLOS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ

Mongabay: This is the first replenishment by the GEF since 2020, when you assumed the helm. It is a record-setting event. Can you give some context about the significance of this replenishment

Carlos Manuel Rodriguez: This is a great breakthrough. The GEF had stagnated at around four billion in the three previous four-year periods. With this 30% increase, we’ve gone from a billion a year to more than $1.3 billion annually. This is the largest increase in at least 15 year.

And there’s potential that this could grow because there are informal pledges that may materialize into formal commitments later this year.

Mongabay:What are the priority areas for the GEF as a result of this new round of funding, and what are they?

Carlos Manuel Rodriguez: The goal is to assist countries in meeting their international obligations. This includes the implementation of the Paris Agreement or the Convention on Biological Diversity. That includes everything from protecting biodiversity to climate change to toxic chemicals to plastic pollution.

This proposal centers on the need to rebuild, post-pandemic in a way that ensures a blue, clean, resilient recovery. This requires a One Health and One Planet approach to environmental health that encompasses all aspects.

Mongabay: How much does politics play into the GEF process

Carlos Manuel Rodriguez: GEF donors can be different. There are two types. They have very different political views.

We’ve got what we call the non-recipient donors. These are industrialized countries that have been part of the core of the GEF partnership in the provision of funding. The top donors to the GEF — like the U.S., Germany, Japan, France, and the U.K. — provide 80-85% of the funding. There are also a bunch of smaller but very important and consistent donors, like South Korea, New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, Slovenia — that are part of this group.

We also have recipient donors. These are countries that are also donors to the GEF. They contribute because they have a political stake in the decision-making process. China, Brazil, Mexico and India are some examples. These countries may have different priorities and political positions than the non-recipient donor.

This makes the replacement process political. It can be challenging and interesting, but it also forces us to reach consensus on programming and the budget. This allows us to be prepared to address the major challenges of the next 10 years.

Mongabay: On that front, how insulated if the GEF process from global tensions like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? Do geopolitical concerns slow down the agenda’s progress?

Carlos Manuel Rodriguez: The GEF is the political result of political negotiations that began over 30 years ago. It’s a multi multilateral organism. Politics is the heart of what we do.

Country ministers are the country’s political focal point. It might be the Minister for Finance in some countries, while it might be the minister of environment in others. The GEF is a political beast, that’s for certain.

It is a mature organization that makes it different and able create progress. There’s a lot of written political agreements on how it should operate and that gives us the specific circumstances to keep on providing solutions and generating progress.

Unfortunately, in the climate negotiation, and now more than ever in CBD negotiation, when we need cooperation; things are turning very complicated and difficult as we see more nationalistic or populist movements at country level.

We’re really threatened by global challenges, but the GEF has proven to be kind of a bubble space, politically speaking, which gives us hope.

Mongabay: $1.3 billion dollars seems like a lot of money, but relative to the scale of the problems we face, it’s not. What are your thoughts on the possibility of achieving greater impact?

Carlos Manuel Rodriguez:I am aware that the CBD was requested by developing countries for 100 billion dollars. The GEF has just increased the pot by $1.5billion in 4 years. We are seeking ways to have more impact than the GEF by helping countries close the financial gap at their own level. This will have an impact at a global level. We will invest in activities and projects to align all public and private investments with the Paris agreement, and the new CBD agreement. This will change the way that investments are made from negative to positive.

It is possible in a few countries. Once the path forward was clear and understood, Costa Rica was a very successful country. The long learning-by doing process was then undertaken in the face of many political challenges. These included resistance from the fossil fuel industry, big agribusiness, and other industries that were resistant to changes to the incentives or subsidies they depend on. These ideas can be explored in the GEF.

That being said, recipient countries like China, India, Brazil, and others welcome help from the GEF, but don’t want the GEF to be messing around with their domestic politics. They insist that they are sovereign, autonomous nations. There is agreement that one needs to phase out perverse incentives and policies — the GEF offers a scientific and technical approach that can help countries make their own political calls they need to address these issues. The GEF supports this effort with the data, funding and sector engagement. This approach creates trust and confidence.

As the first CEO of the GEF from the Global South a lot of my ideas didn’t resonate with the Global North at the beginning. My friends in the Global South thought I was going be a good Ambassador for them, but the reality is that you must take a political approach to build consensus for action. Unilateralism doesn’t work.

Mongabay: Another component of politics would be the different stakeholder groups that aren’t countries. These include Indigenous and local communities, who have historically been marginalized in these spaces. How is the GEF going to deal with this lack of representation? Will it ensure that funds reach smaller communities who have less institutional capacity?

Carlos Manuel Rodriguez: I think what we — the GEF — proposed to donors is really ahead of the curve in terms of supporting non-state actors. The CBD meeting brought out the recognition that Indigenous communities and local groups play a vital role in protecting biodiversity. This was a rare occurrence. There is widespread agreement that this recognition and engagement is necessary.

I brought a different narrative to the GEF when I joined it in terms of how we operate. My narrative was: GEF resources are not for the governments of these countries.

Countries are more than just governments. Among the many stakeholders are the private sector and NGOs as well as communities. And even though the GEF has a small grant program that works with Indigenous communities, we’re still not there yet.

We must create conditions for recipient countries to undergo a domestic consultation process. This isn’t just the priorities of the Minister of Environment or Minister of Finance — it needs to include meaningful engagement of stakeholders from civil society, the private sector, and communities.

This is possible in 30 percent of GEF recipient countries. It is already happening. But in the rest of the countries, it’s a huge task.

We are now planting the seeds that the GEF can provide direct access for non-state actors. This represents a paradigm shift because it is very different to what we’ve been doing for the past three decades. And we’ve received hard pushback from some governments who want to maintain control over the process. What this has meant in practice in many countries is an NGO currently has to go through a government screening process — like securing an endorsement letter from a government agency — to get GEF funds. This limits the number of people who can apply for GEF support, as civil society in some countries can have antagonistic relationships with their governments. We want to change this.

We will promote these changes through GEF-8. This is understandable, given the sensitive political nature of many countries, such as those dealing with human rights issues.

This shift isn’t a secret: I’ve been very straightforward about this issue. It’s the right thing to do and represents the spirit of what is coming out of this replenishment process.

Mongabay: I wanted to return to GEF-8’s funding priorities. What has changed since GEF-7’s?

Carlos Manuel Rodriguez: Countries have competitive priorities — some want more action on climate change, others want more focus on biodiversity, etc — but the unwritten agreements of the GEF is you put money in the pot to support the overall vision. This has meant that countries must design projects that address the different conventions individually within the limited allocation of resources.

With the thinking that restrictions limit impact, I’ve proposed a more flexible approach. This idea is based upon my experience as an environment minister in Costa Rica. In terms of the system’s rules, my first job was in a straight jacket.

I would like to see recipient countries have more flexibility to use their resources to achieve multiple outcomes in all the conventions.

Secondly, we’re expanding our impact programs that augment the regular resource allocation. We’re going from three impact programs to 11. These programs include developing the blue economy, accelerating the green transition, and many others. These programs offer countries more opportunities to tap into additional resources. A country might have an allocation of $15 million and can access the impact program to double it.

GEF responds to countries’ desire to do more work on solutions that are nature-based by offering more flexibility and integration.

Third, policy coherence is a third area. This means that every investment made by the GEF should have a cross-cutting component. In the past, countries have invested more money in economic activities that damage nature than they have in protecting it. To change the status-quo, we must disrupt this policy incoherence. This requires creating positive incentives to do the right things.