An analysis by the United Kingdom-based policy research organisation International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) reveals that only a small share of funding from a key global nature conservation fund is actually reaching local communities (LC) and Indigenous peoples (IP), who are often on the frontlines of protecting biodiversity. IIED, along with partners in five countries, conducted a detailed analysis of biodiversity funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
The GEF is the largest source of multilateral funding for biodiversity globally and supports nature projects in developing countries. But greater transparency is needed on where the funding is allocated, the IIED stated in a briefing.
The report came just before the meetings between donor and recipient countries in Paris on May 22 to discuss funding round nine, which will run from July 2026 to June 2030.
IIED's two-year analysis showed that just 24% of the $1.4bn in biodiversity grants disbursed during the sixth allocation round of the major multilateral nature fund, which ran from 2014 to 2018, was directed toward local communities and Indigenous peoples. Meanwhile, in round seven between 2018 and 2022, only 30% of the $1.7bn in grants reached these groups. The briefing, as per report, suggested these figures are problematic since local people are "custodians of significant biodiversity across their lands and territories."
In Malawi, only one local organisation received direct funding and that too just 0.3% 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. They also did not find any IP and LC women’s organisations receiving funding in any of the countries.
Overall, interviewees reported that the GEF process is often inaccessible to local groups. Few IP and LC organisations understand how the GEF works, very little information about the GEF funding is in the public domain and many IP
organisations don’t know how to access funds from the GEF or its IAs.
Many funding recipients reported problems accessing funding, largely due to funding always flowing through IAs and country operational focal points (OFPs) and not directly from the GEF itself.
"One Indigenous organisation in the Philippines reported actively seeking funding from the GEF since 2009 but never being able to find information on how to apply," the briefing mentioned.
Meanwhile, the study also pointed out how the GEF Small Grants Program (SGP) is a working example of how GEF funding can be delivered in business-unusual ways. This programme provides a small amount of money, usually up to $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.
