This blog was written Ziyaad Sahabun, a recent participant in the IRM's capacity building training. The blog reflects his views only.

My journey with the Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM) of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) has been one of steady learning, reflection and genuine growth. My first real exposure to grievance handling and mediation came almost a decade ago, when I was involved in the institutional response to a major industrial incident in Latin America. That early experience revealed the human consequences of inadequate access to remedy, and it has shaped the way I approach accountability ever since. Even so, the IRM’s curriculum offered something fundamentally new. It provided a structured yet deeply human way of understanding accountability in climate action. Each course built upon the last, creating a coherent progression that was both intellectually grounding and professionally enriching.

I currently lead Risk and Compliance at the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC), an intergovernmental organisation bringing together Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Réunion and Seychelles. When the IOC became a Direct Access Entity of the GCF in 2024, we assumed not only the task of managing regional climate programmes but also the responsibility to strengthen governance, transparency and access to remedy across our work. It was within this context that I undertook the IRM trainings, and it is through this institutional lens that their value became clear.

My first step was the IRM’s Basic Online Training on Grievance Redress Mechanisms. While introductory in form, the course revealed something profound. It reframed grievance mechanisms not as administrative procedures but as structured systems of listening. This resonated strongly within the second line of defence where I operate, reminding me that risk management and grievance redress are complementary rather than parallel functions. One anticipates and mitigates potential harm; the other identifies concerns that require attention. When combined, they build institutional credibility and strengthen public trust.

The IRM Capacity Building Training expanded this foundation. The programme was rigorous, practical and grounded in the realities of institutional accountability. It explored how grievance mechanisms uphold fairness under pressure, how independence and organisational alignment can coexist, and how cultural context shapes the legitimacy of any redress process. It was during this phase that I became part of the Grievance Redress and Accountability Mechanism (GRAM) Partnership, a network co-led by the IRM and partner institutions. GRAM nurtured a global community of practitioners, offering a collaborative space in which to examine emerging challenges, share insights and develop common standards of practice.

The Company–Community Mediation Course represented the most advanced stage of learning. Co-facilitated by Ms. Hwang and Ms. Vasiliev of the IRM, alongside Professors Gavrilă and Chereji, the programme translated theory into practice. Through guided simulations, we applied the PESA model, moving through the stages of Preparation, Exploration, Solving and Agreement. In one exercise, I represented a company in a dispute with affected communities. The experience required more than negotiation techniques; it demanded careful listening, respect for community perspectives and a recognition of the emotional and historical dimensions of conflict. The strong focus on reframing was particularly impactful. It demonstrated how shifts in language and perspective can turn confrontation into constructive engagement, a lesson that applies equally to mediation and to risk leadership.

These cumulative lessons have influenced the IOC’s governance approach. We are working to embed adaptive grievance pathways in regional project oversight, strengthen our compliance architecture and ensure that community voices inform programme implementation. This experience reaffirmed my belief that a complaint is not a disruption to be managed but a signal to be understood. It is an opportunity to learn, correct and rebuild trust.

Across all three IRM trainings, the overarching insight was unmistakable: effective accountability rests on humility, fairness and respect. For those working in climate finance, where credibility directly affects impact, this mindset is essential. The IRM cultivates precisely this balance of technical rigour and human sensitivity. Its training equips practitioners to manage risk responsibly, engage transparently and uphold the integrity that climate action requires.

For any stakeholder seeking to strengthen its approach to grievance redress or to build a culture of accountability, the IRM provides a unique and coherent learning pathway. It has been a privilege to take part in this journey. More importantly, it has strengthened my resolve to help ensure that climate finance is not only effective but also equitable, inclusive and grounded in trust.

---

Ziyaad Sahabun

Risk and Compliance Specialist

Indian Ocean Commission