 the panel. So thank you everyone for joining us today. The panel today, it consists of myself, Christine Rodel, and Dr. Lalanath Desilva from the Independent Redress Mechanism of the Green Climate Fund. And we're joined also by Helen Magata and she's from Tibteba, an Indigenous People's Organization based in the Philippines. And we're going to be doing a joint presentation today on how to access remedy for harm caused from adaptation products, projects, sorry, products. So to speak, I think we can go to the first slide and feel free everyone to use the chat to introduce yourselves and say hello or ask questions. I think between Helen, Lalanath, and myself, we can, when we're not speaking, we can be answering some questions in the chat. And we'll also have a lot of Q&A time at the end. Our plan today is to spend 30 minutes, roughly 30 minutes speaking about the independent redress mechanism or from our perspective, and then 30 minutes from Helen at Tibteba's perspective, and then have 30 minutes for Q&A. So plenty of time to discuss Q&A after the presentations. We also have some polling questions which we'll put up on the screen just to check the temperature, to see what you think about what we're saying, and to get some ideas. So it's okay if you can enter the presentation mode? Yes, and yeah. And then shall I just put it into the full screen? Yes, please. Yeah. Can you see it now properly? Yes. All right. And so to speak, I think I'll just say next slide. Each time the slide needs to be moved. So yeah, we can start with next slide please. All right. So just a couple of housekeeping. We were asked to give some housekeeping rules before getting going on our presentation. So as to speak mentioned, this meeting is being recorded and it may be made available later on on the IED's website. So just to note that it is being recorded. There have been some security precautions taken to discourage uninvited participants. So you would have received your secure link and that's how you are in the room today. Please do not share this link with anybody on social media. It's a link specifically for you to participate. We also ask that you close all non-essential applications on your devices so that it's not distracting during the meeting. So things like Skype or other applications. And then as I said, feel free to use the chat to message both substantively if you want to chat about any things and those not presenting can answer your questions. But then also if you're having any technical difficulties, please use the chat to speak up. Next slide please. So just a quick in case people are not familiar with the Zoom platform that we're using today for this conference or that's being used throughout the CBA 14 conference. Just a quick recap because I'm sure a lot of you have been in other sessions given the time in the week. But there's a button to the left of your screen for muting and unmuting. So you would have been muted as you entered the room. But if you want to ask questions when we get to particularly the Q&A session, then you just unmute yourself in the left hand corner to activate your microphone. We also encourage you to share your video with us, particularly when we're engaging in questions. But if you're experiencing any technical difficulties or your bandwidth is low, then turning off your camera can help to better your internet connection. You can click on participants. So there's an icon for participants and you can see now there's already 26 participants in the room, which is great. We're glad that you've all joined us. You can click on that icon and it'll open up a panel on the right of the screen where you can interact with participants. So you can send private messages to participants. There's also a chat function. So you click that chat icon in order to be able to open up the chat. And then there's a reactions, there's a reactions button where you can click like and dislike if you want to show some emotion during our presentation, some virtual emotion. Next slide, please. So with that, we'll go into our poll questions. So can we please have the polls up on the screen? So we just thought we'd check the temperature a little bit before getting going with our presentation. So our first question for everyone in the room today is, do you know what a grievance redress mechanism is? Have you ever heard of one before? Then are you familiar with the Green Climate Fund? As I said, Larlanith and myself are from the Independent Redress Mechanism at the Green Climate Fund. And then for those of you who are familiar with the Green Climate Fund, do you know that it has its own grievance mechanism called the Independent Redress Mechanism? And then lastly, what should project affected people do when they face adverse impacts from climate adaptation projects? So they call the police through the project implementing entity, contact the grievance redress mechanism of the project implementing entity, or do not take any action since all climate adaptation projects are good. So we'll just give a minute or two to answer these questions. And they're anonymous, by the way, so feel free to open up. So another 30 seconds, I think there's six people who haven't voted, but maybe let's just give it a little bit longer and then we'll look at it. Okay, great. I think we can end it there. Okay, so we asked, do you know what a grievance redress mechanism is? So we have quite an even split. And it's perfectly fine if you've never heard of one before. And that's part of coming today and sharing a skill. So we have six people who know what it is. Another six who've heard about it, but don't know much about it. And then eight people who have never heard of a grievance redress mechanism before. Are you familiar with the Green Climate Fund? Okay, so some more people are familiar with the Green Climate Fund, which is interesting. So 14 people know about the Green Climate Fund. And then some know a bit, and then two have not heard of the Green Climate Fund before. Christine, we are not seeing the poll on the screen. Can you please share with us? I'm so sorry. So we've actually ended the poll. I can share. I can share. Do you want to re-share it? Okay. Yeah, I can share. Great. Okay, we can open it up again. There we go. No, I'm asking for the result. Yeah, yeah, we go. Oh, the results. Oh, sorry, sorry. Okay, there we go. Yes, thanks. Thanks so much. Yes. Okay. And then so the question was about the Green Climate Fund. So there's quite a lot of you who know about the Green Climate Fund, which is great as four people, only a bit and two knows. For those of you who are familiar with the Green Climate Fund, do any of you know about the grievance redress mechanism? So only three yeses. So quite a low number. Seven have heard about it, but don't know much about it. And then 10 don't know anything about it. And then what should project effects people do when they face adverse impacts from climate adaptation projects? So we said, pull the police to the project implementing entity, contact the grievance redress mechanism, or do not take any action since all climate adaptation projects are good. So yeah, there wasn't really a right or wrong answer here. I mean, I don't think any of us think that necessarily all climate change projects are good or they generally are. And that's obviously their goal. But as experience has shown, even projects that are intended to do good can sometimes have negative impacts or adverse impacts. And if they do, then people should have recourse to remedies. You can call the police. You can try to sue the project implementing entity. Sometimes there are things like privileges and immunities, which prevents you from being able to sue some sorts of institutions. But those are sometimes options. But then what is often an option and which we'll get into more today is that a lot of project implementing entities will have a grievance redress mechanism, which is there and to provide redress in the case that harm has been caused. So we'll end it there. Thanks to everyone for participating in that poll. Can we have the next slide, please? And then I'm going to turn it over to the head of the independent redress mechanism, Dr. Lalanath Tisilva. Hi, everybody. I'm Lalanath Tisilva, and I am the current head of the independent redress mechanism of the Green Climate Fund. I've been there for about four years. And let me start by trying to give you a little definition on what we mean by redress grievance redress mechanisms. So grievance redress mechanisms, or GRMs, are institutions or instruments or methods and processes by which a resolution to agreement is sought and provided. So this is a definition that the Asian Development Bank uses and the Center for Poverty Alleviation, which is a body in Sri Lanka with whom the ADB worked. This is a definition that they have produced. So there are many other definitions, but they pretty much all have a similar idea. But essentially GRMs are arrangements by which people who might be affected by a grievance or have a grievance can take it to this mechanism or can take it to this arrangement. And then their grievance will be looked into and the remedy found for them. Next slide, please. So one of the earliest grievance mechanisms to be established was in 1993, more than 25 years ago, when the World Bank created what is called the inspection panel. I'm sure some of you have heard of the inspection panel, which is also 25 years old. So the inspection panel consisted of three independent members. And sometimes they could also have a member from civil society or otherwise people who have worked in development for long periods of time and gained expertise. They are appointed by the board of the World Bank and they hold office for five years at a time. So the panel consists of three members. And anybody who is affected by a project of the World Bank could send in a complaint to the World Bank's inspection panel. And if the grievance was or the complaint was found to be eligible, and we'll talk about that in a minute, what eligibility means, if it is eligible, then the inspection panel would conduct an investigation and make a recommendation to the World Bank's board as to what might be done. And then the management of the World Bank would come up with a plan as to how to provide remedies for people who might have been affected. So let's say the World Bank funds a dam project. The dam is inundating a large extent of land. Indigenous people are displaced. Communities are displaced. And they are not properly compensated for the lands that they're losing. Nor are they given proper resettlement facilities to go somewhere else. Their lives are disrupted. They could file a complaint with the inspection panel. And the inspection panel at this time over the last 25 years have produced a large number of such, there have been large number of such complaints. And they have a website. You can go there and take a look at all of the cases that have been done and what remedies have been afforded. And so since 1993, almost every other international financial institution, the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank working in Latin America, EIB, the European Investment Bank, they've all established grievance mechanisms of their own, also sometimes called accountability mechanisms. And then there are also institutions like our own, the Green Climate Fund, which has established a grievance mechanism. The Adaptation Fund has a grievance redistribution. The Global Environment Facility has a grievance mechanism. And many, many other institutions. And very interestingly, private sector organizations. So the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank has one. The Deutsche Bank has one. Even some international civil society organizations like the Conservation International World Wildlife Fund and smaller groups like Prof. Nanpe in Peru, they have all started establishing grievance mechanisms because it is important, because conflict has costs. When there is a conflict in a development project, whether it be adaptation project or other kinds of development projects, those have significant costs. And it is much better to invest in a grievance mechanism, which can solve those costs early. And so many of them, 20 such organizations, not such grievance mechanisms, accountability mechanisms, established what is called IAMNet, the Independent Accountability Economism Network, IAMNet. That was in 2007. There are 20 members, as I said. And then in 2011, we had the UN Human Rights Council appoint, you know, he was appoint Professor Ragi was appointed as a Special Rapporteur on Business and Human Rights. And he after a number of years of work presented to the Human Rights Council, what are now known as the Ragi principles. And in it, basically, one of the principles was that people should be entitled to a remedy if they have been harmed. And then he went on to describe some basic principles for these grievance mechanisms amongst those principles, the need for transparency. The grievance mechanism should be predictable. The grievance mechanism should be one that is always consulting with stakeholders and so on. There are eight such principles. And then we in the Green Climate Fund established the Independent Registration, which I said I had. And Christine is the Registrar and Case Officer. She is the one who is responsible for taking in all the complaints and communicating with and having conversations with complainants and then progressing these complaints. That was in 2013. So we've been in existence for about four years now. And then a very interesting report came out from OHCHR, which is the UN Human Rights body about these grievance mechanisms. It's an interesting report which deals, which kind of collected a lot of information about these grievance mechanisms across the board and have presented them in a very interesting report as to what they are, how they operate and how they can be improved. Next slide. Here are just all of the different organizations in the IAMnet who are part of the IAMnet. There you see the ADB, the more recently established Asian Investment and Infrastructure Bank, AIIB, small organizations like the Black Sea and Trade Development Bank. They all have, by the way, grievance mechanism JICA from Japan, the International Finance Corporation, IFC, which funds much of the private sector arm of the World Bank. You see UNDP has a mechanism as well, and UNDP is operating and doing many adaptation projects across the world. The Agence Francaise, the développement, which is the French Development Agency. So you have a number of these organizations, which are very much part of the IAMnet. Next slide. Over to you, Christine. Yeah, great. Thanks very much, Lalenith. So as Lalenith mentioned, my name is Christine Rodel, and I'm the Registrar and Case Officer at the Independent Redress Mechanism, and I'm responsible at the initial stages. So if a complaint is submitted, you will be engaging with me initially. So I'm very glad to meet you all today. So just a little bit about our mechanisms. So as Lalenith has sketched, there are these grievance redress mechanisms or independent accountability mechanism, whichever way you call it, within a lot of international finance institutions. There's been increasing pressure for finance institutions to have these mechanisms. So if you're looking for the mechanism of a particular finance institution, have a look on their websites and see if you can find out information about their grievance mechanism. But today, because we're giving the presentation, we will take you through our procedures in a little bit of detail to explain how these mechanisms work. But we see this more as an example of grievance redress mechanisms, and you can then use that as a skill when you engage with any financial institution. So in general, there are some good practices amongst grievance mechanisms and similarities in our procedures. We're not all exactly the same. We've all developed over different periods of time, and some of the newer ones, and I say that including the independent redress mechanism at the Green Climate Fund, have more progressive procedures because we've had the benefit of learning from other mechanisms. But in general, there is a similarity in the process. So we hope that our presentation today will be useful in dealing with any mechanism. So to sketch our position within the Green Climate Fund, so we are part of the Green Climate Fund. We sit within the same office. We're employed. Well, this is an interesting nuance, but let me get to that in a minute. We are independent in that we are one of three independent units at the Green Climate Fund. There's also an independent integrity unit and an independent evaluation unit. And then there is the secretariat, which is the rest of the GCF. Now, the secretariat, they have their own executive director and their staff and their budgets and all of that is determined under the head of the GCF under the executive director. Whereas the independent units, their heads are appointed by the board of the Green Climate Fund and the board is made up of political appointments and it's 12 members from developing countries and 12 members from developed countries. So they are the board and the board appoints the heads of these independent units and then the heads appoint or recruit their own staff. So there is this independence in how the mechanism is set up. We do our own budgeting, which gets approved again by the board and we don't report to the management of the institution or the secretariat as we call it. Next slide please. The IRM generally has five functions. We like to say we have five functions and I'll sketch these in a little bit of detail. I'm actually going to start with the second one there, complaints and grievances because this is the most obvious function of a grievance redress mechanism and it's the function that is common amongst all of those mechanisms that were put up in the slide with all of the logos. So the main purpose of a grievance mechanism is to receive complaints about projects, so potential harm that has been caused by projects and to try and address those complaints and grievances. So that is a common function of grievance mechanisms. The IRM of the GCF also has a unique function and that is reconsideration request. So what is the reconsideration request? Basically if a accredited entity, so this is again something that you'll understand more if you are familiar with the GCF, but the Green Climate Fund, it doesn't conduct projects on its own in countries. It is a financial mechanism and it partners with what are called accredited entities, which are entities at the national, regional or international level that have been accredited to do or to implement projects. So those accredited entities will come to the board with their project proposals and then if their proposals are denied funding, so the board refuses to fund those projects, then the country involved, so we call it the National Designated Authority, so this is getting a little bit technical, but essentially the country involved can say, we would like you to reconsider that denial of funding and that's something that gets brought to us, to our unit, and we will then make recommendations on whether funding should be reconsidered. So a long explanation for what is essentially a reconsideration request. We also have an advisory function which is something that is quite common amongst grievance redress mechanisms, so we can advise the institution based on lessons that we learn in the cases that we handle and we also quite uniquely have a function where we can advise based on best international practice as well. So that's to ensure that systemic change happens within the institution, so that we're not just handling cases on a case by case basis, but we're also taking those lessons and those learnings and feeding it back into the institution to make sure that there is positive change over time. We also have a capacity building function and that's to ensure that there are grievance mechanisms at other levels as well. So as I mentioned, the GCF gives financing or funds to accredited entities. Now these can range from small national entities, like Laila has mentioned, Profa Nanpe and that comes up in our case example as well, or it could be large institutions like the World Bank, which is an accredited entity of the Green Climate Fund as well. But each of these accredited entities are required to have their own grievance mechanism and one of our functions is to make sure that we build the capacity of those grievance mechanisms so that they are able to handle complaints as well. So we're really talking about this ecosystem of grievance mechanisms and trying to provide as many avenues for recourse for people who are affected by projects. And then lastly we have an outreach function. So that is essentially what we're doing today is ensuring that people know about us. So there's no point in having these mechanisms where people can go and access remedy if they don't know that the mechanisms exist. So very importantly, we conduct outreach to make sure that people know that we exist and how to use us. Next slide please. You might have to speed up. Okay, yes, sorry, I've just looked at my clock. So very quickly, I'm going to take you through a typical complaints handling process and this is similar across different grievance mechanisms. So when a complaint is filed, we would first have to determine whether that complaint is eligible. So is it something which is within our power to consider? There are some things that we can't consider, for example, procurement issues or things that are related to fraud and corruption because those are handled by other units within the GCF. We then have to determine once it's eligible whether to do a problem solving process or go into compliance review. Now a problem solving is always offered it's a more flexible process really getting to the hearts of the issue without looking strictly at whether there was compliance with the rules and regulations affecting the project. If problem solving fails or if the parties don't want to go into problem solving, then we do a compliance review and that's to check that the project actually complied with all of the processes that was required to do. Then either an agreement will be reached in problem solving between the parties or there will be recommendations that flow from a compliance review that will then need to be agreed to by the board and then following that process we have what we call a remedial action plan. So something that addresses the harm and we would then have that implemented by the management of the institution and the IRM would monitor the implementation of that plan and then eventually we get to the closure of the case. Next slide please. So the kinds of remedies that we can offer are remedies either to redress the harm so to bring the people into the position that they would have been back for the project and so this could include things like compensation for example if people had been resettled as a result of the project but they hadn't been adequately compensated for that resettlement that's something that we could within our power recommend. We also could take measures to bring the project back into compliance so for example if a project has not conducted proper consultation or if a project has failed to get the consent of indigenous people in the area that it's working we can take measures to ensure that those requirements are met. We can also do things like you know look into the to the way that the project is being implemented and make sure that it's being implemented in accordance with its proposal so these are all measures to bring it back into compliance which we can recommend. Next slide please. We also have what's called a sewer motor function which is basically the ability to self initiate so we can we can also decide to do our own investigation and that investigation can be done if three criteria are met so if we receive information from a credible source that there's been an adverse impact from a project so this isn't a complaint that comes just formally as a complaint but if someone sends us a tip-off or we see an article on the web or there's a news article that we come across just some sort of information that is credible and suggests that there's been an adverse impact and we then think that if that's true if the information we receive is true there'll be a significant risk to the GCF and then lastly if we believe that the affected people so the people who are actually being affected by this harm are not themselves in a position to submit a complaint because we if they are in a position to submit a complaint we don't want to take that agency away from them it's better if they bring us the complaint and they drive the process but if we feel that there is just no way that they would be able to submit a complaint on their own then it would qualify for a self-initiated investigation. Next slide please. So this brings us to our case study which Helen from TipTever is here and she is going to talk in quite a bit more detail but essentially Helen's organization TipTever together with another organization called Forest Peoples Programme wrote an article about the very first project funded by the GCF FP001 in Peru. Next slide please. And this project as I said it was in Peru and it's it had many activities. Helen's again going to speak in a little bit more detail about the project so I won't spend too much time on it because I want to make sure we don't overshoot. So this project was about strengthening the government's institutional capacity about creating capacity or strengthening capacity for Indigenous communities and developing sustainable bio businesses and providing scientific knowledge for managing and protecting the ecosystem. Next slide please. So TipTever and the Forest Peoples Programme had written a briefing paper on what they saw as problems or potential concerns with this project. So their concerns were firstly that there had been lack of clarity in the funding proposal and in the information that was being put out by the Green Climate Fund and the accredited entity which is Profa Nanpe about how this project's aim of creating conservation areas would or wouldn't would or wouldn't have an impact on the Indigenous people's land titling claims. So there are ongoing efforts in this region to to title the land to get community title over it and there was no or from from their perspective not a lot of information about how this project and its conservation areas would impact those those existing processes underway to obtain land titling. There was also as they set out in the paper inadequate from from civil society's perspective the process to obtain consent from Indigenous people which is a requirement so it's one of the requirements if you're doing a project in an Indigenous people's community that you have to obtain their consent for the for the project and there was inadequacy of of the methods used to obtain their consent and also the where their consent had actually been obtained from from all of the relevant parties and then lastly there was an allegation or a concern that the project had been miscategorized. So there are different categories of risk and those categories when you when you classify a project according to a certain category it determines how much assessment or the the rigorousness of an assessment that you have to do. So there was a concern that this project had been classified as the lowest risk when actually it should have been classified as a higher risk. Next slide please. So we looked into this case we've we agreed that there was credible information and we looked we did a number of interviews we had 15 interviews in total we did an assessment of the GCFS information so we looked on the the portfolio database looking through old emails looking through old communication with the accredited entity and we set out in our report on this matter that we thought there was prima facie so prima facie really just another way for saying on the face of it so we didn't do a full blown investigation but based on what we'd looked at we thought that there was enough information that there that there was you know some reasonable suspicion that there were adverse impacts and we also thought that if those adverse impacts were true that this would pose a risk to the GCF and we assessed the situation and said that we didn't think that the indigenous people in this community were in a position to themselves complain to us because they were so remote they spoke their own language and they were difficult to access they they didn't have the technology and we didn't think that there was a reasonable expectation that they could have made a complaint themselves so even though there are many different ways you can submit a complaint to the to the IRM and we tried to make it as easy as possible we didn't think that they knew about us and would be in a position to complain next slide please so we then said to the the Green Climate Fund we can either do a full blown investigation or we can set out our findings make our recommendations and we can pause during a full blown investigation on the basis that you agree to follow four actions so four types of actions that we think is needed in the situation and the secretariat so the GCF they agreed to this and they agreed on the basis of our recommendations to produce guidance on free prior informed consent requirements so what is the documentation that's needed to show that free prior informed consent has been obtained so they agreed to produce more guidance on this and they also agreed to produce guidance on risk categorization so how do you classify risk for projects that are involving indigenous people and those those pieces of guidance were set out in the operational guidelines on the indigenous people's policy but Telen will also speak a bit more to they also agreed that so those two are quite systemic recommendations and actions that were taken that go to the whole GCF but specifically on this project they also agreed to obtain an opinion from an expert in land titling to assess what impact the establishment of the conservation area would have on these land titling efforts and that opinion has been prepared and it's available on our website and then they also agreed that the the final process for obtaining consent on the conservation area that that needed to be conducted in line with the the new guidance that had been issued so a more rigorous process in assessing whether the free prior informed consent has been obtained for this next stage which hasn't yet been finalized so we are still monitoring that fourth outcome next slide please so this is essentially the the end of of my presentation because or mine and lala's presentation because we want to hand it over to Helen from Tobcheba to give more information from her perspective and also her use of the grievance mechanism through through doing this briefing paper and from from our perspective we're very happy that the the green climate fund was was willing and able to implement these four action items and we thought it was a good outcome to achieve both systemic change for the institution and also change in relation to the particular project and so we view this as as a as a good case of of cooperation with our institution and that we were able to achieve an outcome that was positive and so before i hand it over just a quick more of a silly poll question if we can have the poll up so i hope that this is now changed do you now understand what a grievance redress mechanism is yes no or i know some more but i'm still a bit confused okay i'm in a cap at one minute so another 15 seconds to respond and mostly yes as i see and and some i know more but i'm still a bit confused which is absolutely fine it's difficult to to fully explain grievance redress mechanisms in a short amount of time all right if we can share the poll results please all right so we have 16 yeses and two i know a bit more but i'm still confused or i'm still a bit confused so thank you very much for for your interaction and participation and for listening to this presentation um and we'll now turn it over to hillan um from tipteba who will take it take you through the case in a bit more detail and also explain more about the the agency of civil society organizations thanks so much thank you christine and uh thank you lalana tafi if uh we can share the uh power point power point presentation please can you see it can everybody see it yes we can see i can see it okay so um i'm my aficficat mankawaii mazumi mazumi amin that's good morning uh good afternoon and good evening to everyone in my um indigenous language so before i start my presentation i'd like to give a brief um um introduction of my institution um i work with tipteba foundation that's the indigenous peoples international center for policy research and education it's an indigenous peoples organization based in northern philippines so it was born out of the need for heightened advocacy to have the rights of indigenous peoples respected and protected and uh fulfilled worldwide so we are part of a larger network called elatia elatia is a mazai uh term that means neighborhood this is the indigenous peoples global partnership on climate change forest and sustainable development so this network was formed in 2009 through the leadership of tipteba foundation and it's now currently composed of 19 indigenous peoples organizations and networks and ngos in 13 countries in africa asia and in latin america so currently we also have a small indigenous peoples advocacy advocacy team that is a task to engage and follow uh the green climate fund so next slide please so for this session i'm going to share our experience in relation to the independently dressed mechanism in uh on a particular gcf funded project so in november 2015 in zambia the green climate fund approved the first batch of projects presented by accredited entities so one project approved by the fund was fp001 which pristen uh and lala nath has already mentioned it's entitled building the recent resilience of wetlands in the province of that and del maranon in peru it is presented by profanampe it's a not for profit private entity working for public interest in the country in peru so what the project wants to do wanted to do was to reduce deforestation and carbon emissions in the region in that region and we'll also focus on working with local government and 120 communities most of which are most um are indigenous so the project also aims at strengthening protected areas created by the local government as well as creating new protected areas so it also includes supporting development of land use plans and um ecological uh zoning for the area and there are some other components dedicated to supporting community enterprises so it's a cross-capping project meaning that it has both adaptation and mitigation components and the mitigation element or component of the project seeks to avoid deforestation and enhance resilience of the conservation conservation efforts in the region of an estimated more or less 4 000 hectares of forest and peatlands for over a 10 period of time next period please next slide please so uh there was long discussion and deliberation of the board member of the particular project but despite the long discussions and deliberation it got adopted with conditions and i'd like to i'd like to share with you the conditions in the board meeting um it's a little uh small in the screen but i think we're we're going to share the slides later on but i'd like to focus on two of the conditions that include a that the accredited entity meaning profanante need to clarify which indigenous organizations wish to participate in the project and to obtain clear written consent form from their representative organizations in order to ensure that the project is only implemented in the territories of this indigenous people's organizations that have provided provided clear consent that's one of the conditions and the second was that the profanante provide an opportunity for participating indigenous people to take part in the project design in dialogue with uh with them with accredited entity so please take note that this project it's fp 001 was the first ever batch of projects in the green climate fund that was adopted by the by the fund and so it sets precedent on how the gcf will handle the next batches of funding proposals then next slide please so the project has raised a lot of questions among indigenous peoples and civil societies um that were that were in the board meeting and even those were not in the board meeting so the civil society organizations for example raise concerns about the miscategorization of the proposal in the proposal it's assessed as category c and category c for the green climate fund is the lowest risk categorization of project meaning it has minimal to no impact social and environmental impacts and cso's will then we're raising this question because um apparently if you work with or or uh because you cannot categorize a project that seeks adaptation in a conservation area as c because then it means it might it might have some uh social and environmental impacts on on people's livelihoods or people's uh cultures or people's um yeah the way of living so meanwhile uh the initial announcement of the intention of considering considering the project proposal stirred the concerns of various NGOs and uh indigenous peoples in Peru actually the interethnic association for the development of Peruvian rainforest or IDCEP sent a letter to the gcf expressing their opposition to the accredited entity as recipient of gcf funds in their letter they highlighted concerns about their negative experience or the negative experience of indigenous peoples working with the entity including how it only focused on conservation and natural management um additionally the project area is home to eight at least eight indigenous peoples and it's clear that the project has direct implications for their for their rights to land resources and to free prior and informed consent uh all of which are binding obligations of the Peruvian state um including inter international agencies such as the gcf for example um from our reading of the funding proposal there were things that were also of immediate concerns to us and for our indigenous peoples partners from the region first um it is unclear in the proposal how the creation and consolidation of new protected areas will affect ongoing efforts of indigenous peoples in the region to secure legal recognition of their collective customary lands um which by the way is a very is well advanced initiative in this in this region so this initiatives of indigenous peoples in securing their customary rights to their customary land is nowhere uh you can you cannot treat it anywhere in the proposal it's not there's no information of all uh it is also unclear how the development of state-sponsored uh zoning of forests will affect indigenous peoples uh we were particularly concerned that the project argues that this management plants or zoning of forests will effectively replace the need for indigenous peoples to secure their canoe rights but at the same time it also highlights that this rights will be conditional or continued compliance of indigenous peoples with the conditions um will uh will be established by the project um and as I said earlier the project wants to reduce deforestation by half over 10 period life cycle of the project however um we noted that there's a low level of deforestation in the region and we erased in the green climate fund that at the funding proposal was unclear where these reductions will be secured we raised concerns that indigenous peoples traditional land use practices and customary resource use may be targeted and there's nowhere in the project document that provides guaranteed that indigenous peoples rights to resource use will be fully respected and not restricted by the by the project um and last but not the least we also noted that the description of free prior and informed consent process was very broad in the project proposal we had no way of checking who were in the meetings how it happened uh when and where all of these uh meetings or processes uh happened there were no details whatsoever and actually when we raised the obligation of the entity to ensure the right of indigenous peoples communities to give or withhold their FPIC or their free prior and informed consent at that time the GCF secretariat stressed that profanante is an NGO and therefore according to their interpretation uh should not be obliged to respect or conduct the process of FPIC and and furthermore they argued that the entity provided extensive documentation on the consultations that they have carried out in the in the uh areas so next slide so what did we do next slide please so the governing and instrument of the GCF provides that the fund should promote the input and participation of stakeholders including private sector app for CSOs women and indigenous peoples so just to let everybody know that there's an existing network of CSOs local communities and indigenous peoples it's called the observers of the green climate fund that facilitates collaboration among among them to inform and influence the GCF policy decision making processes so that the voices of communities and rights holders that are going to be impacted by this GCF funded activities will be integrated into the operational modalities of the fund so we work through a variety of means including sharing of information collaboration of analysis of funding proposals and policies we also do collective positions and advocacy and the small team of indigenous peoples is part of this observer network um we only receive funding proposals uh two three weeks prior to board meetings unless the proposals are assessed as having high or medium social and environmental risk uh so there was the then there was not much time to really consult with our partners in the region but we did reach out and got some information about how some indigenous peoples groups are supportive of the project and some as I've mentioned already are are not supportive of the project so we prepare the strong CSO intervention in the board meeting in Zambia citing the clear lack of proper understanding by the GCF secretariat of the operative uh implications of the implementation of FPIC we also raised about the profanum about the entity's capacity to fully implement implement GCF requirements on grievance mechanisms uh informations stakeholders engagement and all of all of these necessary safeguards in particular to implement environmental and social management plans as all of this were required by the GCF from an accredited entity so there was a long back and forth about how GCF policies will be implemented in the in this particular proposal in in all other proposals that were up for for adoption that meeting but what was clear to us during that time was there was no single policy document that points out or guides both the GCF and accredited entities how to conduct consultations or free prior and informed uh consent processes for that matter um they only uh yeah so then they the the GCF only had the interim performance standards of the IFC on indigenous peoples that doesn't even elaborate on free prior and informed consent so as christine has already mentioned stepped about together with forest peoples program we wrote a policy brief right after the board meeting pointing this pointing this lapse of a green time at fund so we noted the concerns of indigenous peoples in the policy brief and that we also noted that uh the discussions in the board during the the board meeting was mostly about procedural matters so well while procedural and participatory issues were important for us a failure to pay proper attention to substantive issues like land territories livelihood rights and participation of indigenous peoples in the initial phase of the GCN fund a GCF funding proposal might set up a bad precedent and jeopardizes the fund's capacity to respect uh the standards and we also pointed out that this presents a huge reputational risk to the very young fund so fp001 case shows that the GCF needed to develop its own capacity to fully assess and ensure compliance with international human rights standards and obligations relevant to indigenous peoples um we sent this policy brief to the board members to the GCF secretariat we met with uh advisors and we met with the co-chairs of of the GCF then and raised about the lack of an indigenous peoples policy and guidance in the green climate fund we also met with civil society organizations and other friendly NGOs who were willing to raise the issue of indigenous peoples in and outside the fund um we also met with the the executive director of Profo Nante and other representatives of the accredited entity to clarify our concerns um just please take note that the while the TOR of the independent redress mechanism of the green climate fund was set up in 2016 2013 I think it was later on in 2016 17 yes yeah that the TOR was uh was updated and that the the team of the IRM was was uh composed in short back then we didn't have the opportunity to bring out our concerns to the IRM and to of for this particular project right after the the liberation of the project so um next slide please just maybe before I end my presentation I'd like to share some insights from our experience on this case so first um doing remedies for climate adaptation should be proactive um in this case our letter or the letter of indigenous peoples including the policy brief that we wrote and was done around the time when the funding proposal was just was being approved by the board and it would take another two more years before the entity started implementing actually implementing the project hence there was no actual negative impact yet on the ground when we wrote the project but uh they were already red flags or potential concerns and impacts of the then upcoming funding proposal so down the road four years after the project would become the first recipient of the self-initiated inquiry of the independent redress mechanism and and this initial self-initiated preliminary inquiry of the IRM would then trigger some policy movements and recommendations to the GCF so remedy should not only look at us at what it can do to correct wrong it should also seek measures to ensure that harm in the first place should not take place but I think the highest standard of safeguard mechanism is that remedy mechanism should first and foremost endeavor to do good as is enshrined in many of the GCF policies um only in 2018 in its 19th board meeting did the green climate fund adopted its own indigenous peoples policy the policy was far-reaching very robust and contained the elements that would have guided entities and the GCF itself on funding proposals relevant to indigenous peoples um it also spelled out what's what constitutes free prior informed consent and redress and grievance mechanism and I'd like to share or quote what the IG policy says about grievance and redress mechanism first that the GCF and accredited entities have the responsibility to facilitate resolution of grievances promptly in an accessible fair and transparent manner it should be culturally appropriate readily accessible at no cost to the public and without retribution to the individuals groups or communities that raise issue or concern um so indigenous peoples or local communities can bring their grievances in any language or in any form that they are comfortable with in our experience we raise our grievance by writing a policy brief but this should not also preclude the option to use the accountability mechanisms of the green climate fund in this case the IRM and that of the accredited entities grievance mechanism um so currently the secretariat the GCF secretariat is now finished developing the indigenous guidance for the implementation guideline of the sorry of the indigenous peoples policy and um I cannot overemphasize the role and power of civil society organizations local communities and indigenous peoples um in changing the narratives and influencing policy environment of the fund changing narratives and mindsets and making the issues of indigenous peoples a permanent uh concern or a permanent um a permanent element of discussions in the green climate fund um the role of bridging the gap between the communities and the GCF the role of giving voice to people or communities who might not be able to reach the fund or the IRM so the recommendation of the self-initiated inquiry of the IRM have been very very instrumental and have helped shape the operational guidance of the GCF's own indigenous peoples policy particularly the definition and operationalization of free prior and from consent uh it also influenced ensuing discussions of how the fund should look at risk categorization of proposals to include rights of vulnerable groups including indigenous peoples so um and this would be my last point looking back it has been a long journey from 2015 when FBA 001 was approved even with conditions um I have to admit we felt a little helpless maybe and uh frustrated then I think that was the collective feeling of the indigenous peoples advocacy team we didn't know how and where to follow up our concerns but when we were contacted by the IRM almost two years after and we learned that there was going to be a self-initiated preliminary inquiry we were thankful that we wrote the policy brief and that we received a huge backup from CSOs and other support NGOs because then we knew we knew our concerns did not fall on deaf ears after all so for young institutions such as the GCF there's so much to learn from other institutions and equally important if not more important there's so much to learn from other stakeholders from countries and and from the ground so lastly of course it would be ideal if the IRM does not hear from us at all at all or at least does not hear of any grievance mechanisms from from us at all but as the GCF has started dispersing um funds for developing countries projects are also starting to be implemented and along the way as Kristen has appointed out maybe things would not turn out as initially proposed or designed or maybe there are impacts or potential impacts that were not foreseen while designing the projects and we are all enjoying to be equal stakeholders to reach out to remedies as needed so let us continue to fulfill our role to be to be bridged with our communities or voice or gatekeepers as needed and I thank you I end my presentation here thanks thanks Helen um so we still have a good 27 minutes for for um for questions and answers so we've we've done good time and still lots of time to engage with everyone we've seen a number of really interesting questions already on the chat and we've tried to respond to everything but if there are some questions there that you feel haven't been addressed or haven't been addressed fully please feel free to raise them now again and if there's additional questions we still have lots of time I also really like there was a question or a comment from Monisha about ways to to increase the the independent redress mechanisms visibility so if anyone has ideas on how we can do better in terms of our outreach we would really love to hear them we we are doing events like this but not only events like this this is obviously an event it's not not necessarily accessible to to project affected people and we try to do in country events as well before covid we did we did in person events in regions that that have gcf projects this year we've completely reshifted that and we're doing online events we've done now one for the pacific region one for brazil we're doing one for mongolia next week and we're also doing the central asian region at the end of october we tried to do those in in the languages so next week's mongolian one is in mongolian with an interpreter mongolian presentations so so we're trying to to do different strategies and for our outreach events we were trying to focus on regions where we think that there is a higher risk so we've done a risk assessment and we're trying to to get our name out there in regions that we think are more likely to generate complaints but these are just some ideas and we'd love to hear yours so let me stop talking so that we can go to questions and answers so so please feel free to either type in the chat that you have a question or to raise your hand which you can do if you click on where's the raise your hand function why do i not see it now participants if you open up the suspense that's right okay ask for the floor on the chat or you can just ask for the floor on the chat so yes 24 minutes so please feel free to jump in with questions i know that people are not shy because we've had lots of good questions so someone has to be first to break the ice Monisha you've raised your hand please go for it um perhaps um you know adding to the strategies that you're already using to make this redress mechanism more widely known and accessible perhaps another strategy could be to partner up with with a national level institution who have a network throughout any specific country so that it's not like a one-off event that you carry out but you rather have a partner who is grounded and who knows the reality who knows what needs to be done and what the best ways are to reach to the communities that's what i could think of i don't know if that's already something that gcf is doing and that could be an independent body besides the sorry i forget the terminology the the accredited entity not the accredited entity but some other entity so it's like a third party verification or so that so that communities feel that they can so there's there's a trust element to have a third party around as opposed to going through the accredited entity against home they may have grievances can i can i jump in here so i think that's a really great idea monisha we've tried some of that and i think we should do continue to do them and do them better so for example we might we have partnered with and we will partner very soon with the end with e-law i don't know if you know about e-law e-law is the environmental law alliance worldwide and this is a network of 300 public interest lawyers and scientists working around the world we are running a workshop with them to let them know about the irm we we've also worked with you know we we can work with for example teb taba which is helens group which has a large number of indigenous groups affiliated to them another thing that we are thinking about doing is working with federations of indigenous people for example there are large federations in peru which have the membership of hundreds of indigenous people's communities we can try to run a workshop with those people as well so they are independent of the accredited entities and i want to put out the word here if any of you know of such entities or would like to collaborate with us to get the word out to your colleagues to you know community-based organizations do send us an email our email addresses irm at gcfund.org i actually put it in the chat do send us an email and we'll be happy to try to share to share do an outreach workshop and an outreach work might be just an hour might be 90 minutes like this there's a lot of information we can give you just during even a short period of time like that and maybe just to add to to lalena's comment what what we have also been trying to do is when we when we do outreach in a particular country or particular region we've been partnering with local NGOs for that event specifically so the one in mongolia next week for example we have three local NGO partners who are putting the workshop on together with us so they're involved in the planning they've helped us craft the agenda to try and make it relevant for the region make sure that we have people speaking on panels that are not just ourselves so that is also something that we've given some thought to just to mention that i see we also have some questions in the the chat alfie your question and it's seconded by by jerry in tanzania very few organizations have accreditation or have accredited for the gcf funding mechanism can you extend your outreach program to tanzania and other least developed countries particularly in africa so yes i mean gcf is is definitely doing projects in through throughout africa and there is of course this difference between what the gcf does and what us as an independent redress mechanism do so to get accredited getting accredited and getting funding that's really part of of the kind of the gcf secretariat or management side there are processes that are set out on the gcf website for how you can get accredited for funding and it's not only government institutions or large multinational corporations there is this possibility for smaller organizations to become accredited and get funding and then in terms of our own outreach in in africa we we have done some outreach in africa we were in abhijan last year in west africa and we were also in southern africa at the beginning of this year but unfortunately we went but but our event was was cancelled because of covid and so we've done some online outreach for southern african civil society organizations as well but certainly we can certainly do more in in africa because there are a lot of there are a lot of projects in africa and a lot of there's certainly a lot of intent from the gcf side to do projects in africa and christine i was just looking looking on the website of the gcf and tanzania unfortunately doesn't have any gcf funded projects as yet interesting and that's because tanzania entities and and and other credit entities haven't applied to the fund to do projects in africa they do have a readiness program which means the gcf is giving the government money to get ready to apply and get ready with proposals to apply for funding but none have been funded yet at the moment in tanzania but may very soon be funded i mean this the current funding rate is ten billion dollars which has to be given away in the next three years so it is possible that there may be funding proposals coming up in tanzania and i see rachel as well said that botswana doesn't have any either um yeah a large number of countries i mean over 60 65 countries have already got funding and some of them have multiple projects in angolia there are actually five projects in my own country in Sri lanka we have two projects egypt has a large number of projects so some countries are better at applying for funds because they've really mastered the art of applying others are still not applied at all but all developing countries all developing countries particularly ldc's these developed countries as well as sims the island nations have have preference so they they can get funds much quicker and easier and other countries all developing countries are entitled to apply for funding from the gcf for both climate mitigation and adaptation project christine yes yeah um i i just like to also share our our other the other things that we are doing uh in terms of making sure that we we perform our role in bridging communities voices to the gcf and to the irm for this matter so um last we also do regional workshops with our partners where we introduce what the green climate fund is all about and deal or provide sessions on how they do uh complaints for example so we do translation of of our materials into the two kinds of translation uh into their own language and also translating the materials into more popular form so it's easier to understand for for communities um and i think one other thing that we all we all of us in this webinar can do is that and we have we have actually tried this and it worked we introduced the irm to the communities that we work with and then we just we just trust that the irm carries on so uh there there was one project for example in kenya and we heard of some some concerns from our partners so what we did was because we cannot we kind of i mean it's not our role to resolve the concerns so what we did was we introduce our partners to that to the irm and uh and then they took it from there so i think just just by making this introduction and making uh making them know that such a mechanism exists and introducing them to the irm directly is a is a very very practical and um practical step that we can do at the country level thanks thanks Helen any other questions um i does that answer your question monisha um and london's also responded on the chat as well um yeah that is true yeah london's do you want to take it interesting question that monisha is raising i mean who can help these communities so even if they know about the irm and how can they uh you know file a complaint they may not be able to write they may not be illiterate um so there are a number of civil society organizations that actually specialize in helping uh communities and other civil society organizations to file complaints and i've given four names their accountability council is one which also has branch officers in a number of different countries i know they have an office in india and you know they're in also in africa and then there is somo which is based in the Netherlands which also has uh contact points uh then there is back information center which specializes in filing complaints with the with the world banks inspection column and then for the asian region there is the adb's ng o forum which of which fires cases and maybe helen i don't know of others but even helen's own group tip to bar you know can help you um and and and as a last resort you can always write to the irm or as a matter of fact you can also write to people like the inspection panel whoever the donor agency is concerned most grms you know and you don't you can try to help these communities the community doesn't need to write a long you know complicated legalistic document that is not required even a sentence saying you know my house was taken away and i have not been paid compensation or i don't know why is enough to trigger a complaint you know if we get a complaint like that on our on our web form or even on a telephone call we will then try to get contact details and get in touch with the person talk to them and see what their complaint is and try to figure out the nature of the complaint so there is a lot of help out there of course you're knowing where to go for that help is is that is the challenge and also maybe just to add to what lan already said the irm is quite unique in that our procedures and guidelines specifically allow us to cover the costs of effective participation in our process so if a community is unable i mean there are no formal costs involved but we recognize that that formal costs are not the only kinds of costs so you know if there are costs involved in in getting to meetings in any kind of engagement that's needed and that could even extend we haven't had any requests for it but if an advisor is needed to assist a community that might be something that we could consider is is necessary for effective participation so these are all kinds of things that that we can test within that ability that we have to to pay for effective participation so for example we have received complaints there's an ongoing complaint for example from morocco in the size region in which the the allegation is this is a water project where groundwater is depleted in morocco and the government i believe wants to pump water from a dam a nearby dam and ask people to stop using the groundwater so that aquifer can be recharged and then there is a complaint there about you know people are concerned about how much they'll have to pay for this water they they believe that they may not have been properly consulted and given the information they need so that's that's a kind of one of the complaints that is ongoing another complaint that we received recently from india was some mangroves had been cut in the area in which the green climate fund actually had has a project to protect those mangroves that that that complete unfortunately we couldn't proceed with simply because the mangroves that have been cut outside of the project area itself which is with the gcf project area it's a way from it but if it was within project area then that's a that's a complaint we could definitely have also looked at so you know you can have complaints of different kinds of ways in which people might have been affected so we still have nine minutes uh so if there are any further questions please raise your hand or post in the chat so i think it looks like we've exhausted questions so you all have our emails you have please write in if you have any thoughts or comments or want to make suggestions or actually work with us collaboratively happy to receive your emails and build and communicate with you thank you very much for being for joining this session and i hope you'll speak about what you learned to your colleagues and spread the word as much as you can particularly to communities that might be affected not only by green climate fund but by any other institution that might actually have a grievance mechanism to which they can go so back to you christine to wind up thanks so much and um i just wanted to say thank you as well to iied for hosting us uh this has been a really great platform for us to connect with people um i think at one point we had over 30 and people are obviously dropping out now as we end the session but it's been a really good opportunity to connect um and i also wanted to really thank helen magata from tip taba for agreeing to to talk to us well with us on the session um it's been it's been really great um getting to know tip taba better over the last couple of years that i've been at the irm and it's really good to have partners in civil society that we can count on to help spread the message of the irm and to work with in relation to complaints or these sort of self-initiated investigations um we call our self-initiated investigations a potential backdoor to the irm so the the complaints of the front door but then this is another way that that um that grievances can be brought to our attention so we're really encouraged civil society to use that as well um so thank you very much um and it's been really great yeah sure we will make our presentations for helens and ours available through our yeah we we have shared them with the i i d i i ed and and we i mean from our perspective and i'm sure helen's the same although helen's short if it's not but um they are public information and and i i i ed is welcome to share them um and and we hope that you all receive them that way and if not email us and we'd be happy to share them directly with you at the email all right well thank you everyone have a good day wherever you are in the world whether it's morning or afternoon or night and thank you very much and thanks for all the the thank yous on the chat it's much appreciated um and have a good have a good night