斐济、萨摩亚和所罗门群岛的民间社会和信仰组织能否获得气候融资?

IF 2 3区 经济学 Q2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Kristina Fidali, Ofusina Toamua, Hemah Aquillah, Sereima Lomaloma, Placida Riah Mauriasi, Steve Nasiu, Aliti Vunisea, Sangeeta Mangubhai
{"title":"斐济、萨摩亚和所罗门群岛的民间社会和信仰组织能否获得气候融资?","authors":"Kristina Fidali,&nbsp;Ofusina Toamua,&nbsp;Hemah Aquillah,&nbsp;Sereima Lomaloma,&nbsp;Placida Riah Mauriasi,&nbsp;Steve Nasiu,&nbsp;Aliti Vunisea,&nbsp;Sangeeta Mangubhai","doi":"10.1111/dpr.12728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Motivation</h3>\n \n <p>Despite global rhetoric to increase climate finance to civil society organizations and faith-based organizations (CSOs-FBOs), little is known about how accessible climate funds are for these organizations in the Pacific Islands.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>We posed three broad questions: (1) what types of climate finance did CSOs and FBOs obtain? (2) what barriers did CSOs and FBOs face to obtain climate finance? and (3) what innovative approaches or solutions did CSOs and FBOs use to obtain climate finance?</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods and approach</h3>\n \n <p>In 2022, key informant interviews and focus group discussions were held in Fiji, led by House of Sarah; in Samoa, led by the Samoa Women's Association of Growers; and in Solomon Islands, led by the Coalition of Youths for Environmental Sustainability. Most CSOs and FBOs had fewer than 10 employees, with many relying on volunteers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>CSOs and FBOs generally pursued funding aligned to their values, priorities, and needs. None of the organizations had obtained funds from the large multilaterals, such as Green Climate Funds and Adaptation Fund. Their funds were seen as poorly suited to local organizations. The main barriers to obtaining climate finance were: (1) poor dissemination of information on the availability and suitability of funding sources for CSOs and FBOs; (2) overly complex donor processes and requirements; (3) insufficient capacity to write grant proposals and to manage funds; (4) poor recognition by donors of the role of CSOs and FBOs in development; and (5) difficult relationships with national governments and donors marked by differences in power. To overcome some barriers, some CSOs and FBOs partnered with regional or global organizations with the capacity to absorb the administrative burden of writing proposals and managing grants. In other cases, CSOs and FBOs made use of professionals with experience of donors who volunteered their time to craft or edit proposals.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy implications</h3>\n \n <p>Donors can create or inhibit equitable access to climate funding. If donors are genuinely committed to helping CSOs-FBOs obtain climate finance, they should reduce the complexity of grant-making and tailor it to local contexts and priorities. They should also work through regional or national intermediaries to reach grassroots organizations.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51478,"journal":{"name":"Development Policy Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can civil society organizations and faith-based organizations in Fiji, Samoa, and Solomon Islands access climate finance?\",\"authors\":\"Kristina Fidali,&nbsp;Ofusina Toamua,&nbsp;Hemah Aquillah,&nbsp;Sereima Lomaloma,&nbsp;Placida Riah Mauriasi,&nbsp;Steve Nasiu,&nbsp;Aliti Vunisea,&nbsp;Sangeeta Mangubhai\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dpr.12728\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Motivation</h3>\\n \\n <p>Despite global rhetoric to increase climate finance to civil society organizations and faith-based organizations (CSOs-FBOs), little is known about how accessible climate funds are for these organizations in the Pacific Islands.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>We posed three broad questions: (1) what types of climate finance did CSOs and FBOs obtain? (2) what barriers did CSOs and FBOs face to obtain climate finance? and (3) what innovative approaches or solutions did CSOs and FBOs use to obtain climate finance?</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods and approach</h3>\\n \\n <p>In 2022, key informant interviews and focus group discussions were held in Fiji, led by House of Sarah; in Samoa, led by the Samoa Women's Association of Growers; and in Solomon Islands, led by the Coalition of Youths for Environmental Sustainability. Most CSOs and FBOs had fewer than 10 employees, with many relying on volunteers.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Findings</h3>\\n \\n <p>CSOs and FBOs generally pursued funding aligned to their values, priorities, and needs. None of the organizations had obtained funds from the large multilaterals, such as Green Climate Funds and Adaptation Fund. Their funds were seen as poorly suited to local organizations. The main barriers to obtaining climate finance were: (1) poor dissemination of information on the availability and suitability of funding sources for CSOs and FBOs; (2) overly complex donor processes and requirements; (3) insufficient capacity to write grant proposals and to manage funds; (4) poor recognition by donors of the role of CSOs and FBOs in development; and (5) difficult relationships with national governments and donors marked by differences in power. To overcome some barriers, some CSOs and FBOs partnered with regional or global organizations with the capacity to absorb the administrative burden of writing proposals and managing grants. In other cases, CSOs and FBOs made use of professionals with experience of donors who volunteered their time to craft or edit proposals.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Policy implications</h3>\\n \\n <p>Donors can create or inhibit equitable access to climate funding. If donors are genuinely committed to helping CSOs-FBOs obtain climate finance, they should reduce the complexity of grant-making and tailor it to local contexts and priorities. They should also work through regional or national intermediaries to reach grassroots organizations.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Development Policy Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Development Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12728\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.12728","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

尽管全球都在呼吁增加对民间社会组织和信仰组织(CSOs-FBOs)的气候融资,但人们对太平洋岛屿上这些组织获得气候资金的情况知之甚少。我们提出了三个广泛的问题:(1)公民社会组织和fbo获得了哪些类型的气候融资?(2)公民社会组织和fbo在获得气候融资方面面临哪些障碍?(3)公民社会组织和fbo在获得气候融资方面采用了哪些创新方法或解决方案?2022年,在Sarah House的领导下,在斐济举行了关键线人访谈和焦点小组讨论;在萨摩亚,由萨摩亚妇女种植者协会领导;在所罗门群岛,由环境可持续发展青年联盟领导。大多数公民社会组织和自由组织的员工都不到10人,其中许多人依靠志愿者。cso和fbo通常寻求与其价值观、优先事项和需求相一致的资金。这些组织都没有从绿色气候基金和适应基金等大型多边机构获得资金。他们的资金被认为不适合地方组织。获得气候资金的主要障碍是:(1)关于公民社会组织和非政府组织资金来源的可得性和适宜性的信息传播不良;(2)捐赠流程和要求过于复杂;(三)撰写资助提案和管理资金的能力不足;(4)捐助者对公民社会组织和自由组织在发展中的作用认识不足;(5)与国家政府和捐助者之间的困难关系,以权力差异为特征。为了克服一些障碍,一些民间社会组织和非政府组织与有能力承担撰写提案和管理赠款的行政负担的区域或全球组织合作。在其他情况下,公民社会组织和自由组织利用有捐助者经验的专业人员自愿花时间起草或编辑提案。捐助者可以创造或阻碍公平获得气候资金。如果捐助者真正致力于帮助csos - fbo获得气候资金,他们应该减少赠款的复杂性,并根据当地情况和优先事项进行调整。他们还应该通过区域或国家中介机构与基层组织接触。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Can civil society organizations and faith-based organizations in Fiji, Samoa, and Solomon Islands access climate finance?

Motivation

Despite global rhetoric to increase climate finance to civil society organizations and faith-based organizations (CSOs-FBOs), little is known about how accessible climate funds are for these organizations in the Pacific Islands.

Purpose

We posed three broad questions: (1) what types of climate finance did CSOs and FBOs obtain? (2) what barriers did CSOs and FBOs face to obtain climate finance? and (3) what innovative approaches or solutions did CSOs and FBOs use to obtain climate finance?

Methods and approach

In 2022, key informant interviews and focus group discussions were held in Fiji, led by House of Sarah; in Samoa, led by the Samoa Women's Association of Growers; and in Solomon Islands, led by the Coalition of Youths for Environmental Sustainability. Most CSOs and FBOs had fewer than 10 employees, with many relying on volunteers.

Findings

CSOs and FBOs generally pursued funding aligned to their values, priorities, and needs. None of the organizations had obtained funds from the large multilaterals, such as Green Climate Funds and Adaptation Fund. Their funds were seen as poorly suited to local organizations. The main barriers to obtaining climate finance were: (1) poor dissemination of information on the availability and suitability of funding sources for CSOs and FBOs; (2) overly complex donor processes and requirements; (3) insufficient capacity to write grant proposals and to manage funds; (4) poor recognition by donors of the role of CSOs and FBOs in development; and (5) difficult relationships with national governments and donors marked by differences in power. To overcome some barriers, some CSOs and FBOs partnered with regional or global organizations with the capacity to absorb the administrative burden of writing proposals and managing grants. In other cases, CSOs and FBOs made use of professionals with experience of donors who volunteered their time to craft or edit proposals.

Policy implications

Donors can create or inhibit equitable access to climate funding. If donors are genuinely committed to helping CSOs-FBOs obtain climate finance, they should reduce the complexity of grant-making and tailor it to local contexts and priorities. They should also work through regional or national intermediaries to reach grassroots organizations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Development Policy Review
Development Policy Review DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Development Policy Review is the refereed journal that makes the crucial links between research and policy in international development. Edited by staff of the Overseas Development Institute, the London-based think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues, it publishes single articles and theme issues on topics at the forefront of current development policy debate. Coverage includes the latest thinking and research on poverty-reduction strategies, inequality and social exclusion, property rights and sustainable livelihoods, globalisation in trade and finance, and the reform of global governance. Informed, rigorous, multi-disciplinary and up-to-the-minute, DPR is an indispensable tool for development researchers and practitioners alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信