1

Annual Report for the IUCN Framework Partners

May 2013 Table of Contents

Progress on Implementing the IUCN Programme 2013-16 2

Programme progress indicators 2

Programme priorities 3

Use of IUCN resources 5

Income/expenditure 5

Business development 8

Union development and governance 9

One Programme implementation 9

Union development 10

Annex 1: IUCN Programme Baseline Analysis for 2013-16 12

Annex 2: 2012 Allocation of Framework Funds 22

Annex 3: Overview of Cooperation between IUCN Regional Secretariat and IUCN Members

23

Annex 4: IUCN Programme 2013-2016: Implementation through Capacity Development 26

Annex 5: Framework of Action to Strengthen the Union 36

This report contains reporting against all of the topics covered in the Annotated Reporting Format for the IUCN Framework Partners, dated July 2012.

2

Progress on Implementing the IUCN Programme 2013-16 Starting with the 2013-16 Programme, IUCN has introduced a set of result and impact indicators which will be measured during the period of the Programme. Through result and impact monitoring, IUCN will show its contribution to changes, but cannot attribute these changes directly to its programmatic and project activities. To support monitoring, a baseline has been established for all indicators, which captures the situation as of the start of 2013, based on implementation from the previous intersessional period. In early 2013, IUCN surveyed its programmes to collect data from more than 60 field based projects on governance changes and impacts on biodiversity and human wellbeing and more than 80 examples of policy influencing activities to measure policy results and impacts. Operationalizing the indicators from the Programme 2013-16 will necessitate finding a fit between the results and impacts IUCN wants to measure and the data available from field projects and policy influencing work. Programme progress indicators The agreed reporting framework specifies reporting against three indicators; however, IUCN was able to prepare a Programme baseline report (see Annex 1) for all indicators. The three agree indicators and their measures include:

• Use of the Red List of Threatened Species: IUCN measures downloads from the Red List website as a proxy for use. In 2012, there were nearly 7,000 non-spatial downloads of Red List data. By mid-2012, IUCN was able to measure non-spatial downloads, which numbered nearly 4000 for the second half of the year.

• Area of well managed protected areas: from 2009-11, the area under protection grew by over 800km2 for terrestrial and over 9000 km2 for marine. IUCN’s work under World Heritage led to the inscription or extension of over 20 new World Heritage properties. A 2010 survey of around 8000 protected areas management effectiveness assessments revealed that 24% have sound management, 36% have basic management, a further 27% have basic management with major deficiencies and 13% have management which is clearly inadequate.

• Area of landscape sustainably managed for climate change adaptation:

Through a global survey of 60 field projects, IUCN measured the scale of projects delivering nature-based solutions to economic and social, climate change and food security (in many cases, projects are delivering multiple benefits). Of the surveyed projects, 50 reported delivering benefits related to nature based solutions, 34% at national scale, 28% at sub-regional scale, 18% at local scale, 16% at regional scale and 14% at global scale.

In addition to these three measures, prioritized for reporting by the framework partners, IUCN has prepared a full baseline analysis of the result and impact indicators identified in the IUCN Programme 2013-16. The Programme baseline also represents the situation at the end of the period 2009-12. Please see Annex 1: IUCN Programme Baseline Analysis for 2013-16

3

Programme priorities As part of the budget and planning process for 2013, a set of Programme priorities were identified for each of the four business lines. Each programme was requested, as part of its budget and workplan submission, to identify the priorities against which their workplans would align. The Programme priorities for 2013 are listed below.

Business line Continuing priorities New, joint Programme development priorities

Providing knowledge products

• IUCN Red List of Species • Protected Areas, WDPA • IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

• Natural Resource Governance • Human Dependency on Nature • KBAs / Overlay of spatial knowledge

products Delivering results on the ground (Only major programmes are mentioned here)

• REDD+ / Landscape restoration • MFF • BIOPAMA / Green list of Protected

Areas • SOS • Ecosystem-based adaptation

• Land, water and food security • Global Coast – Coastal rehabilitation • Area-based business engagement

Strengthening policy and governance

• Strategic Plan and CBD support • Gender policy and capacity-building • World Heritage advice and support • UNFCCC support • GEF project agency

• IPBES support • Nature-based solutions in policies

on climate change, food security, development

• IUCN business development for environmental governance

Engaging and leveraging the Union

• Membership services • Governance support • Implementation of the One

Programme Charter

• Member capacity-building, primarily through joint Programme implementation

• Union Development Plan An analysis of all workplans revealed the following (noting that Engaging and Leveraging the Union was not included in the analysis, as one would not expect programmatic units to implement the proposed set of priorities for this area):

• Providing knowledge products: The workplans revealed extensive plans to align to the new Natural Resource Governance Framework, significant alignment against the Red List of Threatened Species and the new Red List of Ecosystems. The analysis revealed less alignment of programmes against the World Database on Protected Areas (mainly the work of the Global Programme on Protected Areas and the World Commission on Protected Areas) and the new Assessment Framework for Human Dependency (on nature). In the latter case, alignment will come once the concept for the priority has been developed further and discussed more widely.

• Delivering results on the ground: The analysis revealed strong alignment between the workplans and the priorities of protected areas, ecosystem-based adaptation, area-based business engagement and REDD/restoration. Alignment was modest against global coasts and the land, water and food security priorities. For the latter, alignment will come once the concept for the priority has been developed and discussed more widely. Finally, alignment against the Save Our Species (SOS) priority was low. IUCN’s Global Management Team discussed the low alignment to SOS and Global Coasts, agreeing that there is a role for regional programmes to become better engaged in SOS and that IUCN’s approach to coastal conservation, which includes Mangroves for the Future (MFF), would be better served by linking MFF to the Global Coasts priority.

4

• Strengthening policy and governance: Most programmes are well-aligned to the

Convention on Biological Diversity priority and there was a strong support in the regional programmes for implementation of the World Heritage Convention priority. Alignment to the priorities of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and policy related to Nature-based Solutions remains a work in progress, particularly for the latter, where there is still work to be done to map policy targets for nature-based solutions. Policy priorities related to business, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and gender lag behind the other priorities. IUCN’s Global Management Team concluded that global programmes who are leading on these issues will need to proactively engage other programmes to ensure delivery.

IUCN will measure, during the next planning cycle, the extent of delivery against each of the agreed priorities for 2013 and make adjustments for the 2014 planning cycle.

5

Use of IUCN Resources Income / expenditure Overview of the 2012 Financial Results Table 1 below summarises IUCN income and expenditure for 2012 compared to budget. The income and expenditure statement consists of two components: core income and expenditure, which includes income from Framework Partners; and project income and expenditure, funded by project restricted funding. Table 1: Summary of 2012 Income and Expenditure

The total deficit for the year was CHF 2.1m. This comprises:

1) A deficit of CHF 1.0m on core income and expenditure – funded by IUCN reserves 2) A deficit of CHF 1.1m on project income and expenditure – funded by funds received

in the prior year. Core income and expenditure The main funding streams of the core budget are Membership dues and Framework income. In addition, staff charged to the core budget earn income by charging their time to projects. This is shown as an expense under project income and expenditure, and as an income (cost recovery) under core income and expenditure. Significant items In mid 2012 IUCN was informed by the Netherlands Government that they would be unable to continue as a Framework partner in 2013. As a consequence, in September 2012, IUCN instituted an adjustment programme to reduce costs in anticipation of the expected decline in Framework funding. As a result, redundancy costs of CHF 1.0m were incurred in 2012. IUCN had to make provisions of CHF 1.0m for unpaid membership dues. Provisions were required for State Members who were experiencing severe economic difficulties and were unable to pay their dues (Portugal, Greece, and Ireland). These costs were offset by a successful 2012 Congress which realised an accounting surplus of CHF 0.8m.

CHF m2012

Actual2012

Budget2012

Variance2012

Actual2012

Budget2012

Variance2012

Actual2012

Budget2012

Variance

Membership fees 11.6 11.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 11.4 0.2Framework income 16.3 16.5 (0.2) 0.3 0.0 0.3 16.6 16.5 0.1Project income 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.9 88.2 (13.3) 74.9 88.2 (13.3)Other income 5.4 4.3 1.1 2.2 0.0 2.2 7.6 4.3 3.3Total income 33.3 32.2 1.1 77.4 88.2 (10.8) 110.7 120.4 (9.7)

Cost recovery 26.3 27.6 (1.3) (26.2) (27.6) 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.126.3 27.6 (1.3) (26.2) (27.6) 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.1

Operating expenditure (59.8) (59.2) (0.6) (51.1) (60.6) 9.5 (110.9) (119.8) 8.9

Operating deficit (0.2) 0.6 (0.8) 0.1 0.0 0.1 (0.1) 0.6 (0.7)

Other income and expenditure (0.8) (0.9) 0.1 (1.2) 0.0 (1.2) (2.0) (0.9) (1.1)

Net deficit (1.0) (0.3) (0.7) (1.1) 0.0 (1.1) (2.1) (0.3) (1.8)

Project Income & ExpenditureCore Income & Expenditure Total

6

Project income and expenditure Project expenditure was 15% below budget. Although several Regions and Programme units achieved budgeted implementation levels, others were unable to meet budget due to delays in signing new agreements or delays in implementation. A net deficit of CHF 1.1m was realised on project income and expenditure. This represents a cash flow movement and has been funded from deferred income (project income received prior to 2012). It has no impact on IUCN reserves. Framework contributions received and allocated Framework income of CHF 16.6m was received in 2012, compared to CHF 17.9m in 2011.

Table 2: Contributions received from framework partners

Although France signed a four year agreement with IUCN for the period 2009-2012, core funding was only provided for the years 2009-2011. Figs 1 and 2 below show the 2012 allocations of framework income within IUCN. Further details are shown in Annex 2.

Fig 1: Framework allocations 2012 (CHF 16.6m)

Partner 2012 2011CHF m CHF m

Denmark 3.2 3.4 Netherlands 3.2 3.2 Norway 2.4 2.3 Sweden 2.7 3.0 Switzerland 2.1 2.1 France - 0.9 MAVA 1.0 1.0 Finland 0.9 0.9 United Arab Emirates 1.0 1.0

Total 16.6 17.9

5.3

2.3 2.7

3.0

1.2 2.1

Regions

Biodiversity Conservation Group

Nature-based Solutions Group

Programme Policy Group

Commission

Corporate Functions

7

Fig 2: Framework allocations to regions (CHF 5.3m)

Table 3 shows the 2012 Secretariat expenditure by organisational area and the percentage funded by framework income. Table 3: 2012 expenditure funded by framework income

Framework income funds Programme capacity and priority areas of the IUCN Programme. It allows IUCN to leverage additional resources in the form of project restricted funding for the implementation of the Programme. The level of leverage is higher for the Regions, the Biodiversity Conservation Group and the Nature-based Solutions Group where framework funding supports the development of a sizeable project portfolio, and lower for the Programme Policy Group which is more dependent on core funding. Reserves The level of unrestricted reserves at 31 December 2012 was CHF 13.2m (31 December 2011: CHF 14.2m).

0.9

0.8

1.0 0.5

0.6

0.5 0.4

0.3 0.2 Central and West Africa

Eastern and Southern Africa

Asia

Meso America

South America

Europe

West Asia

Oceania

US

Total expenditure

Framework allocations

% funded by Framework

Leverage ratio

CHF m CHF m

Regions 58.9 5.3 9% 11Biodiversity Conservation Group 11.1 2.3 21% 5Nature-based Solutions Group 15.2 2.7 18% 6Programme Policy Group 4.6 3.0 65% 2Commissions 1.3 1.2 92% N/ACorporate Functions 13.6 2.1 15% N/ACongress 2.8 - - - Other 5.4 - - -

Total 112.9 16.6 15%

8

Business development IUCN has developed the four business lines of the business model adopted in 2012: 1. Providing knowledge products: IUCN has prioritized six flagship Knowledge Products

and started work towards integrating them. There are ongoing fundraising and partnership development efforts for knowledge products, not only with donors, but also with the private sector. The preliminary vision for the integration of the knowledge products is that “nature and natural resource related policy and investment decisions are made, improved and measured based on evidence of their effects on biodiversity, its management and the equitable distribution of its benefits”. Led by the Species Survival Commission, the World Commission on Protected Areas and the Global Species Programme, IUCN has increased the sophistication of the knowledge products, e.g. inclusion of the Invasive Species Database within The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, expansion of World Database on Protected Areas to include Green listing, and increased assessments of species and ecosystems.

2. Delivering results on the ground: IUCN has worked to secure large programmes and

further funding behind existing programmes to enable Results on the Ground such as BIOPAMA (Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management), Building River Dialogue and Governance (BRIDGE), Save Our Species (SOS), and Mangroves for the Future (MFF). IUCN is also working to increase the speed of project implementation and cost recovery rates within IUCN and with Members. Demonstrating cost effectiveness and impact is a precondition for the further development of this business line.

3. Strengthening policy and governance: IUCN has worked to identify IUCN strengths

and opportunities for business development within its Policy and Governance work, especially regarding capacity development and ecosystem services. IUCN is in the process of becoming a GEF project agency (Global Environment Facility), which will strengthen the scope for capacity development of local IUCN Members. Specifically, capacity development is targeting gender dimensions of the implementation of the three UN Conventions adopted around the 1992 Rio Summit. Introducing payments for ecosystems services aimed at both conservation and community empowerment is a policy and governance tool, which is more advanced in water than in other sectors. IUCN explores its business development opportunities in other sectors as well.

4. Engaging and leveraging the Union: IUCN delivered the 2012 World Conservation

Congress (Members’ Assembly and Forum) enabling the Union to come together to agree positions and explore new ideas. The Congress provided a financial surplus to the Union. The development of a Framework of Action to Strengthen the Union, in order to Leverage the Union, to further deliver results and raise income to IUCN has been launched. IUCN welcomed 86 new Members in 2012 (including 5 State Members: Bhutan, Guinea, Iraq, Nigeria and Vanuatu), the highest annual intake to date, bringing the total Membership to 1258. The Brazil National Committee of IUCN Members was officially recognised, bringing the total of IUCN National Committees to 57, with 7 Regional Committees of IUCN Members.

The business model has proved useful for both Secretariat units and the IUCN Commissions to focus their resource mobilization efforts on areas of competitive strengths of IUCN. However, the initial lessons learned have confirmed that fund-raising opportunities are more difficult for Leveraging the Union and Policy and Governance than for Knowledge Products and Results on the Ground. With respect to Knowledge Products, the ambitious plans to integrate the six flagship knowledge products will require funding partners who support global public goods for better policy and investment decisions for nature and people.

9

Union development and governance One Programme implementation In this section of the reporting format, the reporting topics include “extent of collaboration with and involvement of Members, National/Regional Committees and Commissions” and “capacity building of Members”. One Programme Engagement IUCN undertook two analyses of the extent and nature of engagement between the Secretariat and Members in 2012. The nature and extent of engagement of the Commissions is well documented. All but one Commission engage directly with their Secretariat counterparts in planning and delivery of the Programme and the value of volunteer contributions was included in the IUCN Financial Plan for 2013-16. During the budget and planning cycle, all programmes were requested to estimate the extent of their engagement with Members, National/Regional Committees and Commissions. Across all IUCN programmes in 2013, approximately 50% of the work will be delivered with Members, 40% with Commissions and 5% with National/Regional Committees. Since 2010, this level of engagement represents a strong upward trend. In 2012, IUCN collected data on how Members are typically engaged, noting that the role of Commissions has always been apparent in joint workplans with the Secretariat. Typically, vis-à-vis Members IUCN acts as a:

• Convener and facilitator of governments and civil society, across a range of sectors and in transboundary situations, all in support of biodiversity conservation and natural resource management.

• Coordinator and joint implementer making use of Members’ capacities in implementation of major IUCN initiatives such as supporting REDD+, coastal management and mangrove restoration, forest landscape restoration and protected areas.

• Grant-maker and fundraiser through notable grant-making schemes in Meso-America (the Solidarity Alliance Fund), Central Africa (Central Africa Regional Programme for the Environment), Asia (Mangroves for the Future) and globally through the Save Our Species fund.

• Institution and capacity builder: IUCN builds capacity in Members through joint implementation and through more formal training opportunities for topics such as Red List Assessment and Protected Areas Management Effectiveness.

• Advisor to civil society and governments in multilateral environmental agreements, and through technical assistance to a range of activities.

Capacity Building In order to realize this Mission, IUCN must focus part of its efforts on capacity development1, especially of its Members, as mandated by the IUCN Statutes

1 Capacity development encompasses the acquisition of skills and knowledge for individuals, but also the improvements of institutional structures, mechanisms, procedures, and finally the strengthening of an enabling environment with adequate policies and laws (UNEP 2002).

10

Currently, a very large number of IUCN programmes and projects provide Members and partners with significant capacity building opportunities, for example in relation to:

• Building capacity for conservation knowledge and action (e.g. Red Listing, protected areas management effectiveness, disaster risk reduction, gender and climate change)

• Building institutions and networks (e.g. establishing Ministries of Environment in Mauritania, Guinea Bissau and Senegal, building networks of MPs and scientists)

• Convening and facilitating (e.g. platforms for national strategies, chairing regional roundtables, large projects such as Mangrove for the Future, trans-frontier consortiums)

• Coordinating implementation (e.g. large projects with over 50 institutions e.g. Programme for Regional Coastal Management in West Africa)

• Issuing grants and funding to Members (e.g. grant allocations to NGOs and CBOs, fund raising services to States).

• Advising on policy and programmes (e.g. capacity for environmental agreements to regional PA management effectiveness, use of standards, etc.)

IUCN does not yet have a structured approach for capacity development; hence the current effort to scope the issue and produce strategies, packages and pilot programmes for delivery by global and regional programmes, and Commissions. To make progress IUCN plans to design specific capacity development packages, and to test their delivery, in three specific areas, namely: Enhancing biodiversity conservation: • The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and the achievement of the Aichi Targets • Management effectiveness of protected areas and World Heritage sites Strengthening gender equality and equity: • UNFCCC negotiations and gender-responsive climate change policies and strategies • Ecosystem-based initiatives aimed at food security

Fostering ecosystem management and restoration: • Ecosystem management and nature-based solutions to climate change, food security

and development

In each area, IUCN can provide expert knowledge, leverage a wide-reaching global network and deliver a diverse number of capacity building options, including training and workshops, data collection and research for natural resource management, assistance in project design, implementation and monitoring and evaluation, advocacy support, policy influence, establishing multi-stakeholder processes, and definition of standards and tools. Please see Annex 3: Overview of Cooperation between IUCN Regional Secretariat and IUCN Members, and Annex 4: IUCN Programme 2013-2016: Implementation through Capacity Development Union development The IUCN Council decided in January 2013 to prepare A Framework of Action to Strengthen the Union. The purpose of the Framework of Action is to undertake concrete, targeted, time-bound steps that will lead to 1) raising IUCN’s profile, leadership and influence, within and beyond the conservation community and to 2) strengthen IUCN as an effective Union, including its membership, governance and structure by proactively engaging its constituency towards the implementation of the Programme and the fulfillment of the IUCN mission.

11

A broad consultation will serve as the baseline for developing concrete tools and mechanisms to strengthen the Union. These consultations will fully involve National Committees, Members and Commissions.

The Framework aims at actions that can be fulfilled by the Union within the Statutes, the One Programme Charter and the IUCN Programme 2013-2016. Some of the actions recommended through the Framework may need to be considered by the 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress. In this case, Council will prepare recommendations for consideration by the Congress.

The Framework of Action does not aim to produce a single plan, but rather a series of actions and recommendations for the Secretariat, Council, Commissions and Members on the two Council priorities of raising IUCN’s profile, and strengthening IUCN as an effective Union.

All actions will be identified as “immediate”, “short-term”, “medium-term” and “long-term” priorities, and will be implemented accordingly throughout the 2014-2016 period, and beyond for those recommendations needing Congress approval. A Steering Committee will be tasked to oversee the development of the Framework of Actions and provide strategic guidance, execute some of the actions, and review and approve the different steps and documents before submission to Council.

Please see Annex 5: Framework of Action to Strengthen the Union, Purpose and Process, Revised, May 2013.

12

Annex 1 IUCN Programme Baseline Analysis for 2013-16

This report summarizes the baseline for impact and result indicators as described in the IUCN Programme 2013-16 at the start of 2013.

Impact Global results and results indicators Common impact indicators The proportion of the most important areas for biodiversity effectively managed for the conservation of species, ecosystems and genetic diversity Increased contribution from sustainably managed natural resources to household members Trends in benefits that people derive from selected ecosystem services (e.g. gender-differentiated changes in security of water access and food)

Valuing and conserving nature The conservation status of species and ecosystems is improved

Credible and trusted knowledge for valuing and conserving biodiversity leads to better policy and action on the ground Indicators: 1. Extent, representativeness and connectivity of effectively

managed protected areas 2. Proportion of identified key biodiversity areas within and

outside protected areas 3. Number of exports of data from the IUCN Red List 4. Extent to which IUCN advice and positions are followed

in CBD, CITES and WHC

Effective and equitable governance of nature’s use Effective, just, gender-responsive and equitable conservation yields tangible livelihoods benefits

Improved governance arrangements over natural resources deliver rights-based and equitable conservation with tangible livelihoods benefits Indicators: 1. Enhancement of institutional and governance

arrangements based on a new IUCN natural resource governance framework

2. Extent of protected areas managed in accordance with the IUCN’s natural resource governance framework

3. Area (in ha.) of agriculture, fisheries and forestry managed according to IUCN’s natural resource governance framework

4. Extent of high seas administered in accordance with the ecosystem approach and IUCN’s natural resource governance framework

Deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges in climate, food, development Global challenges (climate, food, development) are addressed through the use of nature based solutions

Healthy and restored ecosystems make cost-effective contributions to meeting global challenges of climate change, food security and economic and social development Indicators: 1. Extent of incorporation of nature-based solutions in

policies on climate change, food security and economic and social development at international, national and corporate levels

2. Extent (in ha.) of resilient and diverse landscapes sustainably managed, protected or restored for food, climate change or economic benefit

3. Number of governments and public/private companies that have incorporated biodiversity values into planning and/or accounting systems

13

Methods The baseline was compiled based on targeted reporting from IUCN’s programmes, which included a survey of 64 field projects and 89 examples of policy influencing. It is assumed that this sample is highly representative but not inclusive of the all field projects and policy influencing. In order to code the data collected from field projects, it was necessary to conceptualize the results chain from what IUCN delivers (sub –results) to result influenced by IUCN and ultimately their impact (Figure 1). IUCN works on and reported on delivery of sub-results related to the enabling environment and also a series of governance changes that support results such as removal of threats, management regimes and realization of livelihood benefits. Impact reported include biodiversity impacts related to species and ecosystem functions. Livelihood benefits serve as a proxy for human wellbeing, but impact could be measured more directly through something like the Human Development Index. The results chain also indicates that governance changes occur throughout, as changes in the enabling environment and associated and policy changes, leading to different management regimes, which in turn, lead to a governance impact on equity and sustainable development. IUCN’s efforts in monitoring during the intersessional period will aim to reach the impact level.

Figure 1: Conceptualizing IUCN's results and impacts

SR= sub-results, R=results, I=impacts

The key points to remember when reading this baseline analysis are:

• The data is compiled from a variety of sources across IUCN using different base years (as data is available) and the figures reported here are the result of ongoing implementation;

• Many of the indicators are tied to knowledge products under development, so equivalent indicators have been substituted to show the starting point for IUCN in 2013;

• Area measures related to IUCN’s work on governance and nature-based solutions are used to show the scale of IUCN’s work and the actual benefits described vary from area to area, hence only examples are given.

14

Virtually all indicators, measures and descriptions represent results delivered in highly complex situations where IUCN is one actor amongst many implementing project activities. IUCN has made a contribution to the results and situations described in this report, but this should not be seen as full attribution. This baseline report is a part of IUCN’s new monitoring and reporting system that includes the Programme Indicators and reporting protocols to Council and IUCN’s framework partners. Reporting to Council and the framework partners combines programme, financial and organizational reporting. Valuing and conserving biodiversity Impact indicator: The proportion of the most important areas for biodiversity effectively managed for the conservation of species, ecosystems and genetic diversity Measuring the proportion of important areas effectively managed for conservation will require the application of the Key Biodiversity Areas Standard globally which is currently under development. At present, the extent of protected areas (see below) is one measure of extent, although this under-represents the extent of area-based biodiversity conservation, which includes both protection and other management regimes. Of the 64 field projects surveyed, 58% reported delivery of impacts on biodiversity in terms of impacts on species (22%) and on ecosystems (36%). Reports of impact on biodiversity were typically measured in proxy through efforts to improve the physical resources through restoration and improved management across a range of biomes. In addition, 72% of projects reported delivery of results, which included removal of threats through improved enforcement of laws (8%) and sustainable use regimes (13%) as well as management regimes, which include locally delivered management regimes (30%), protected areas (38%) and restoration (23%), noting that some projects delivered more than one type of result. Result indicators 1. Extent, representativeness and connectivity of effectively managed protected Areas IUCN measures not only the extent of protected areas, but also how important protected areas are for biodiversity conservation and how well connected these protected areas are to one another. This is based on the simple assumption that protected areas need to be in the places were biodiversity is in most urgent need of protection and that well-connected protected areas are more beneficial for species, permitting them to migrate as they would in the absence of human interference. Extent of protected areas Area under protection grew by over 800 km2 for terrestrial and over 9000 km2 for marine and IUCN’s work on World Heritage led to the inscription and/or extension of 20 new natural World Heritage properties. The total extent of protected areas as of 2011 stood at just under 25 million km2.2

2 Source: IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2012) The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA): February 2012. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC

15

Extent of effective management3 Of protected areas surveyed (ca. 8000 assessments), 24% had sound management, 36% have basic management, 27% have basic management with major deficiencies and 13% have management which is clearly inadequate. Protected areas with effective management are assumed to be more effective for biodiversity conservation. IUCN aims, as a general goal, to ensure that all protected areas are effectively managed.

Representativeness and connectivity4 A recent study from Parks Canada and IUCN defined and provided a first measure of the concepts of representativeness and connectivity of protected areas. In layman’s terms, the concept and measurement of connectivity between protected areas aims to measure the proximity of protected areas that enables the movement of species, expanding species’ habitats in functional terms. The measure itself assumes that if two protected areas are separated by no more than 10 km and are not unduly interrupted by human footprint (e.g. roads, population density, urban centres, agricultural land uses) then the protected areas are considered “connected.” The results are summarized in Table 1 – Number and percentage of eco-regions falling in each class of connectivity between protected areas.

3 Leverington, et al, 2010. “A Global Analysis of Protected Areas Management Effectiveness” in Environmental Management. 4 Woodley, Stephen, John Middlemiss and Justin Quirouette, 2012. Levels of Connectivity for the World’s Protected Areas. Unpublished article.

0

2,500,000

5,000,000

7,500,000

10,000,000

12,500,000

15,000,000

17,500,000

20,000,000

22,500,000

25,000,000

1911 1916 1921 1926 1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Tota

l ar

ea p

rote

cted

(km

2 )

Year

Cumulative Terrestrial Area

Cumulative Marine Area

Cumulative Total Area

16

Number of Ecoregions Percentage

No data 65 6.2

No protected areas 160 15.3

Very low connectivity 207 19.8

Low connectivity 228 21.8

Fair Connectivity 194 18.5

Good Connectivity 101 9.6

Excellent Connectivity 93 8.9

Over 350 large-scale connectivity conservation initiatives are known to exist, including the European Green Belt, the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (North America), the Great Eastern Ranges (Australia), the Coral Reef Triangle (Southeast Asia) and the Regional Network of Marine Protected Areas (West Africa).5 Many more small-scale initiatives exist but have yet to be documented. 2. Proportion of identified key biodiversity areas within and outside protected

areas6 The Key Biodiversity Areas concept and measure is still under development, however Butchart et al measured the proportion of Important Bird Areas and Alliance for Zero Extinction Sites that overlap with protected areas. Globally, half of the important sites for biodiversity conservation remain unprotected (49% of IBAs, 51% of AZEs). While PA coverage of important sites has increased over time, the proportion of PA area covering important sites, as opposed to less important land, has declined (by 0.45–1.14% annually since 1950 for IBAs and 0.79–1.49% annually for AZEs). Thus, while appropriately located PAs may slow the rate at which species are driven towards extinction; recent PA network expansion has under-represented important sites. 3. Number of exports of data from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species In 2012, there were 6,814 non-spatial downloads from the IUCN (although in recent years, this number was as low as 3,266 and as high as 4,441). As of mid-2012, IUCN was able to measure spatial downloads, which numbered 3,901 for the second half of the year. The IUCN Red List website also had over 2.8 million unique visitors, 4.6 million unique visits and nearly 17 million page views. 4. Extent to which IUCN advice and positions are followed in CBD, CITES and

WHC Policy influencing is a key part of IUCN’s approach to scaling up, or ensuring that others protect the environment and undertake biodiversity conservation. IUCN measures the extent of its policy influencing. For the IUCN Programme 2013-16, IUCN has chosen three of its

5 Bertzky, Bastian, et al, 2012. Protected Planet Report 2012. IUCN and WCMC 6 Butchart, et al, 2012. “Protecting Important Site for Biodiversity Contributes to Meeting Global Conservation Targets” PLoS ONE 7:3.

17

most important policy targets to track the extent to which IUCN is effective in policy influence in the form of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on the International Trade on Endangered Species and the World Heritage Convention. All three conventions represent long-term policy engagements, in which IUCN has a formally identified role. In measurement terms, this involves comparing IUCN advice and positions with the eventual policy positions agreed by Parties to see the degree to which Parties have followed IUCN’s advice. Analysis of this data is necessarily qualitative, arriving at an overall rating and a sense of whether IUCN’s influence is increasing or declining. Convention on Biological Diversity7 IUCN is a key partner to the Convention on Biodiversity. The most recent analysis of IUCN’s policy influencing was at the Tenth Conference of the Parties, during which the Parties debated and adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and the Aichi Targets. The analysis compared IUCN’s position related to the 20 Aichi Targets, showing that in all cases, IUCN’s position was highly compatible with the final text adopted, and in some cases, the final text incorporated text proposed by IUCN. This is one specific and tangible example of how the CBD has taken up IUCN’s advice. Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species For each Conference of the Parties meeting IUCN produces an “Analyses of the Proposals to COP” which provides an objective scientific assessment of species proposed for enhanced or decreased protection under CITES. TRAFFIC, the joint programme of IUCN and WWF focusing on international wildlife trade then makes recommendations to the Parties based on what is suggested by the Analyses. IUCN and TRAFFIC track the extent to which Parties agree to each recommendation. Between COP 13 (2004) and COP 15 (2010) there was a decline in agreement by Parties to the recommendations of TRAFFIC from roughly 80% agreement to the recommendations to 60%. In 2010, TRAFFIC made 41 recommendations based on the Analyses, to which the Parties agreed to 25 (61%) of them. The number of recommendations varies from meeting to meeting, so IUCN tracks the percentage of recommendations agreed. There is a qualitative element to this as well: some recommendations, on productive species for example, generate much more political controversy and while the science itself is not questioned (the Analyses), the recommendation may be rejected for political reasons. World Heritage Convention IUCN has calculated an index of difference for the last decade of the Convention (27COM to 36COM), showing the degree to which Parties to the Convention followed IUCN’s advice regarding World Heritage nominations. This is calculated by counting each degree of difference as one point (i.e. one degree between referral and inscription, two degrees between deferral and inscription). The total degree of difference is then divided by the number of nominations concerned. The simple index of difference is the clearest measure presented, which relates to all nominations considered by the Committee. On the basis of this index it is clear that the last three years of the Convention have been the three highest years for disagreement during the period under consideration. The simple index of difference was previously at low levels but jumped at 34COM and has remained high for three sessions in a row.

7 IUCN Programme Cycle Management Unit, 2010. Analysis – Strategic Plan. Unpublished monitoring report.

18

Simple Index of Difference

Survey of IUCN’s policy influencing In addition to the indicators measured above, IUCN conducted a broader analysis of all of its policy influencing, collecting data from 89 examples of policy influencing activities or initiatives. The results here cross-cut the IUCN Programme, contributing mainly to the Programme Areas on Valuing and Conserving Biodiversity, but also to the other two areas. In classifying the level at which the policy influencing was happening, the results of the analysis shows that a significant percentage of IUCN’s policy influencing is happening at the national level (45%), followed by the sub-regional level (19%), the global and regional level (15% each) and finally, at the local level (8%). Most of the influence delivered was at the front end of the policy cycle, in typically what would be termed “sub-results”. Nearly 90% of all policy influencing reported delivery of one or more sub-results, which included advice (36%), background work (30%), consultation or improved stakeholder participation (25%) and policy or legal drafting (10%). However, only 22% of all policy influencing examples reported on delivery of results, split between establishing policies or laws or implementing legal mechanisms and none made a link between policy influencing and impact on either biodiversity or human wellbeing benefits. Effective and equitable governance of nature’s use Impact indicator: Increased contribution from sustainably managed natural resources to household members Forest Conservation: Of the 23 countries under the forest conservation project, Livelihoods and Landscapes, half showed tangible and measurable benefits to local livelihoods in terms of household income from non-timber forest products and in some cases, timber and tourism. The scale on which these benefits are delivered is representative of demonstration scale sized landscapes ranging from 6000 ha to 400,000 ha. Water: six demonstration watersheds measured improvements in income generating activities and in access to new assets for sustainable livelihoods.

0.00

0.50

1.00

Simple Index of difference (divide degree of difference by number of nominations

considered by the Committee)

19

Result indicators 1. Enhancement of institutional and governance arrangements based on a new

IUCN natural resource governance framework Improving governance featured strongly in the reporting from 64 field projects surveyed. In addition to positive changes in management regimes reported above, results related to improved policies, laws, financing and regulations (11% each), strengthened institutions (9%) and improved tenure or right of access to natural resources (8%) were reported. IUCN is still in the process of developing the Natural Resource Governance Framework; however, this work is based on years of experience. Some examples of IUCN’s outcomes, which are highly compatible with the proposed NRGF include: Water: over the course of the IUCN Water and Nature Initiative, IUCN has worked in 23 river basins and watersheds covering more than 2.5 million km2 over the past twelve or so years and IUCN is still active in many. Governance and institutional enhancements have taken a variety of forms from local to basin scale to national and transboundary. As of 2012: water law in 4 countries had been influenced to include ecosystems services, development and implementation of national water policies in 8 countries, basin level water management in 11 basins in 30 countries, multi-stakeholder platforms in 7 basins, transboundary agreements in 6 basins, national institutions strengthened or established to implement water policy, law and strategies in 5 countries, changes in local community and municipal policies for water management in 10 countries. Governance work in all cases delivers a combination of activities – capacity building, dialogues, targeted stakeholder participation, community mobilization and empowerment – that results in decentralized decision making and legal structures, local water user associations, reduction in conflict and in transboundary situations, transboundary agreements. Forest Conservation: In almost all of the 23 countries under the forest conservation project, Livelihoods and Landscapes, local governance change were reported, emphasizing the rights of local stakeholder and creating local governance structures to devolve control to local communities. Livelihoods and Landscapes works on a demonstration scale in locally defined landscapes, but with potential for national level influencing. Gender: IUCN’s reach on gender issues and governance can be illustrated through policy influence, networks and extent of capacity building. All three Rio Conventions include strong provisions for addressing gender considerations and IUCN advised UNEP on the development of their gender strategy. As of 2012, eight countries and two regional processes have produced Climate Change Gender Action Plans (ccGAP) under the UNFCCC process. In addition, three countries have produced Gender and REDD+ roadmaps. IUCN helped develop the Global Gender and Climate Alliance that includes 13 UN agencies and more than 15 civil society organizations. IUCN’s reach in gender training includes more than 70 gender tools and over 15,000 trainees. Mesoamerica: IUCN’s regional programme in Mesoamerica represents an excellent example of engaging in governance work at multiple levels and scales. IUCN’s work on governance includes water governance indigenous peoples, forest management and access to markets, often in transboundary settings and typically resulting in a new or strengthened civil society network, new laws and governance arrangements, and in many cases, new access to markets.

20

2. Extent of protected areas managed in accordance with the IUCN’s natural resource governance framework

Effective management of protected areas is highly compatible with the proposed Natural Resource Governance Framework. The measure reported under extent of effective management (of protected areas) indicates that 27% of surveyed protected areas globally are considered well managed. In order for protected areas to be inscribed on under the World Heritage Convention, the protected area must have an adequate management plan and demonstrate an adequate degree of management effectiveness. As of 2012, there are 211 natural World Heritage Sites: 183 classified as natural sites, 28 mixed sites classified as both natural and cultural. World Heritage Sites protect over 266 million hectares (ha) of land and sea. 89 countries have an area designated as a natural or mixed World Heritage Site. 3. Area (in ha.) of agriculture, fisheries and forestry managed according to IUCN’s

natural resource governance framework IUCN’s field projects are highly compatible with the proposed Natural Resource Governance Framework and serve as good examples. Examples of IUCN’s influence in watershed management occur in 37 countries covering 23 watersheds covering 33 countries, forest landscape management in more than 25 countries and mangrove and coastal management in 8 countries. In all cases, IUCN has consistently included marginalized stakeholders in decision-making and supported dialogues and devolution of authority leading to improved rights over natural resources, new institutions and legal regimes and reduced conflict over resources. 4. Extent of high seas administered in accordance with the ecosystem approach

and IUCN’s natural resource governance framework The high seas are managed and protected through a patchwork of management and protection regimes, some highly effective and others, less so. Management regimes may be split between regimes related to shipping, which are under the legal authority countries and sectoral management regimes (e.g. for fisheries or seabed resources such as oil, gas and mining) which are formed by regional agreements between countries or at the international level under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Protection regimes and protected areas are fairly rare and exist only under regional agreements, which are enforceable only on the members to those agreements. Overall, there is no global standard for either management or protection and it would be optimistic to suggest that more than 10% of the high seas are managed effectively. Nature based solutions to global challenges Impact indicator: Trends in benefits that people derive from selected ecosystem services (e.g. gender-differentiated changes in security of water access and food The survey of 64 field projects revealed that over half of all projects were able to report on benefits to or impact on human wellbeing. Benefits reported included improved income and access to markets (30%), improved access to water (29%) and food security (16%). Some examples include: Forest Conservation: Of the 23 countries under the forest conservation project, Livelihoods and Landscapes, half showed tangible and measurable benefits to local livelihoods in terms

21

of household income from non-timber forest products and in some cases, timber and tourism. The scale of these benefits is representative of demonstration scale projects of landscapes ranging from 6000 ha to 400,000 ha. Water: six demonstration watersheds measured improvements in income generating activities and in access to new assets for sustainable livelihoods. 1. Extent of incorporation of nature-based solutions in policies on climate

change, food security and economic and social development at international, national and corporate level

At present, there is evidence to suggest that the concept of nature based solutions in terms of use of nature for economic and social development, disaster risk reduction, climate change mitigation and adaptation is well-integrated in international environmental policies such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, Aichi Targets) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (REDD+ mechanism, Ecosystem-based Adaptation). The idea of managing forests for poverty reduction and the concept of forest dependency has been picked up by policy bodies such as the UN Forum on Forests and organizations such at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Bank. IUCN’s approach to REDD+ (a nature based solution to climate change) has been adopted at the national level by the governments of Uganda, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Guatemala and Forest Landscape Restoration (a nature based solution to economic development and food security) by governments in Ghana, Guatemala and China. 2. Extent (in ha.) of resilient and diverse landscapes sustainably managed,

protected or restored for food, climate change or economic benefit Water: six demonstration watersheds measured improvements in income generating activities and in access to new assets for sustainable livelihoods. IUCN has also established dialogue and national level planning for climate change vulnerability and adaptation in 12 countries. Forest Conservation: as of 2012, 20 million hectares have been formally pledged for forest landscape restoration in five countries under the Bonn Challenge, and another 30 million are expected to be pledged shortly. IUCN was also able to document numerous examples of how locally managed forests contribute to developing country household benefits worth some USD 130 billion per year. The landscapes under the Livelihoods and Landscapes project documented improvements in income (and movement out of poverty) due to improved collection and marketing of non-timber (23 countries) and timber forest products and tourism. 3. Number of governments and public/private companies that have incorporated

biodiversity values into planning and/or accounting systems As of 2012, IUCN has established working relationships that are delivering results with ten partners, including Shell, Holcim, Rio Tinto and Nespresso. Solutions are tailored to the needs of the companies, drawing on IUCN expertise. To date, IUCN had documented changes at the policy level, undertaken assessments to gauge needs in operations, built or advised on specific tools and is supporting roll-out into operations.

22

Annex 2 2012 Allocation of Framework Funds

Amounts in thousands Swiss francs 2012

Secretariat expenditure

2012FA core

allocation Central and West Africa Region - PACO 5,237 930 Eastern and Southern Africa Region - ESARO 3,586 799 Asia Region 7,196 1,010 Meso America and Caribbean 1,773 498 South America and Brazil 1,059 579 Europe 1,957 500 West Asia Region - ROWA 692 375 Mediterranean Cooperation Centre 1,318 - Oceania 856 337 Washington DC Office 734 232 Sub Total Regional Components 24,408 5,260 Director's Office, Biodiversity Conservation Group 282 614 Species Programme 3,016 583 Invasive Species Initiative 160 50 Protected Areas Programme 922 511 World Heritage Programme 801 193 Director's Office, Nature-based Solutions Group 448 442 Ecosystem Based Adaptation Programme 975 211 Forest & Climate Change Programme 1,153 309 Marine & Polar Programme 1,590 374 Social Policy Advisor 392 350 Gender Advisor 245 161 Water & Food Security Programme 1,038 311 Business & Biodiversity Programme 1,065 288 Economics Programme 414 289 Traffic International 489 300 Sub Total Global Thematic units 12,990 4,986 Director's Office, Policy, Programme & Capacity Development Group 375 398 Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation Unit 428 458 Science and Knowledge Unit 421 597 Global Policy Unit 601 543 Environmental Law 1,334 558 Capacity Development Unit 462 485 Sub Total PPG - Programme Policy Group 3,621 3,039 Commission on Education and Communication 200 184 Commission on Ecosystem Management 152 159 Commission on Environmental Law 238 249 World Commission on Protected Areas 210 228 Species Survival Commission 288 268 Commission on Environment, Economics and Social Policy 147 159 Sub Total Commissions 1,235 1,247 Director General's Office 834 - External Review 2012 - - Deputy Director General’s Office 410 400 Legal Counsel 433 - Oversight Unit 247 200 Corporate Communications 1,668 500 Union Development Group 1,594 400 World Conservation Congress V 256 - Sub Total Directorate and Corporate Units 5,442 1,500 Finance Group 2,190 - Human Resources Management Group 1,044 - Strategic Partnerships Unit 726 300 General Services Unit 3,138 - Information Systems 2,323 - ERP Process 1,450 300 Sub Total Services Units 10,871 600

OVERALL TOTAL 58,567 16,632 Non operating expenditure 1,238 Operating expenses as per the Income & Expenditure Statement 59,805

Reconciliation of Framework Income to the Financial StatementsOverall Total allocations as above 16,632 Realised foreign exchange on cash contributions (38) Total Funding under Joint Framework Agreements 16,594

23

Convenor and Facilitator

Institution and Capacity Builder

Coordinator and Joint

Implementer

Grant Maker and Fundraiser

Adviser and Expert

Annex 3 Overview of Cooperation between IUCN Regional Secretariat and IUCN Members This brief describes current ways of working between the IUCN Secretariat in the Regions and IUCN Members (totaling over 1,200 including States, Government Agencies, International and National Non-Governmental Organizations, and Research Institutions) across both the developing and developed world. This overview is not an exhaustive list of IUCN activities with Members but a focus on Region-based interactions. At the regional level the IUCN Secretariat operates with Members in five main ways: as an institution and capacity builder, a convenor and facilitator, a coordinator and joint implementer, a grant maker and fundraiser and as an adviser and expert. Below are examples of IUCN operating in each role: An Institution and Capacity Builder. IUCN develops institutions and organizations that hitherto did not exist, e.g. in West and Central Africa with the Volta River Basin Authority (across six states), a regional network of parliamentarians and councillors for environmental protection (across seven coastal countries), in Guinea Bissau (with the formation of the Institute of Biodiversity & Protected Areas and the Coastal Planning Bureau), in Mauritania (with the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development) and in Senegal. In East and Southern Africa IUCN has developed and strengthened the capacity of NGOs with Water Resource User Associations and of World Heritage Managers. In West Asia IUCN has worked to nurture NGO capacity for nature conservation in the Levant, and provided Red List Training with the Royal Botanical Garden in Jordan. In Asia IUCN works with State Members such as the Republic of Korea on management effectiveness in Protected Areas, and in Sri Lanka with the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources to establish and undertake Red Listing of endangered species.

A Convenor and Facilitator. IUCN draws on its convening power as a platform to bring different organisations together, not only through IUCN structures and events such as the World Conservation Congress, but in many other ways. For example in Oceania IUCN brought government ministries, the university and all NGOs together to implement the Fiji National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, and IUCN chairs and holds the secretariat for the Roundtable on Nature Conservation to deliver on the Pacific Islands Action Strategy on Nature Conservation for Protected Areas, Invasive Species and Oceans. In East and Southern Africa IUCN creates a safe space for civil society to engage in and influence State policy, e.g. Uganda’s REDD National Framework, around food security in Dryland areas, and opportunities to influence the private sector through the Fair Coasts Initiative around gas development in Mozambique. The IUCN Mangroves for the Future initiative brings governments, NGOs, academia and private sector together to decide on governance of coastal ecosystems both in Asia and East Africa. In Mesoamerica and the Caribbean six new cross-sector and cross-border consortia were set up across Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala by IUCN and Members as part of the Solidarity Alliance programme. The Covenant for Life work in this region has created the space for non-governmental, grassroots and indigenous peoples’ organizations to advocate on socio-environmental public policies.

A Coordinator and a Joint Implementer. IUCN works across countries and membership categories on transboundary projects. In East and Southern Africa IUCN coordinates the COBWEB Wetland Protected Areas – a group of implementers across Ugandan Governmental Ministries and NGOs. In Europe IUCN works with Albanian NGOs on

24

Protected Areas. In Asia the Ecosystems for Life: Bangladesh-India initiative has focused on implementing transboundary conservation projects through the IUCN Regional Office, Country Offices and Members. A Grant Maker and Fundraiser. IUCN administers small and large grant programmes and provides co-financing which Members (often NGOs) access – e.g. in Mesoamerica and the Caribbean with the Solidarity Alliance Fund and Advocacy Fund (28 Members are involved, 64 projects have been implemented). IUCN also works to leverage funds for Members e.g. in West and Central Africa with significant grants to States including Niger, Benin, Burkina Faso and Mali. Mangroves for the Future works across India, Indonesia, Maldives, Pakistan, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam delivering small grants that support NGOs and Community Based Organisations to better manage coastal resources. An Adviser and Expert. IUCN works with States and NGOs directly, especially where countries are developing their capacity. In Asia IUCN provides support to the Government of the Lao PDR on many issues including the Convention on Biological Diversity, accession of Lao PDR to the Ramsar Convention, and conservation of endangered species. In Oceania IUCN provided technical advice to inform policy and legal changes on Seabed mining in the Cook Islands. In the Mediterranean IUCN assists North African countries with advice on protected areas and ecotourism, e.g. support to Libya and Lebanon on marine protected areas and marine strategy. IUCN delegations comprised of staff from across the regions regularly provide expert advice on Multilateral Environmental Agreements (e.g. biodiversity, climate change) to Members and to the meetings of the Parties. The table below gives an impression of how the IUCN is working with different membership types. IUCN works with Members, through the Regions but also via National Committees, Commissions and Global Programmes managed from IUCN HQ (Nature-based solutions: Forest & Climate Change, Marine & Polar, Water, Ecosystem Management; Governance and Green Economy: Economics, Business & Biodiversity, Gender, Social Policy; Biodiversity Conservation: Species, TRAFFIC, Protected Areas, World Heritage; Policy, Capacity Development and Environmental Law). For example the Save Our Species programme is a global grant making facility operated by IUCN since 2011 and funded by donors including the World Bank and Global Environment Facility. SOS has delivered and planned grants of US$ 5.8 million to conservation activities globally, both to Members and the wider conservation community. IUCN National Committees in France and the Netherlands also operate grant making programmes for conservation work to local conservation organisations. Some of the challenges and opportunities raised included:

• Some regions have set ground rules via a Relationship Agreement as in South America specifying roles, communication, results, the requirement of involvement of more than one type of IUCN constituent and of more than one country - so as to reduce competition for funding and in order to harness the One Programme approach across a complex Union.

• IUCN also works with those outside of its membership base e.g. NGOs best placed to deliver results on the ground or in West Asia with businesses such as Holcim and Shell.

• The type of Members found within regions matter. In Mesoamerica and the Caribbean there are many NGOs and so IUCN is operating as a grant maker. The level of economic development in regions matter, with more capacity and institutional building activities in lower and middle income countries than in high income ones.

• Capacity building based on joint implementation and learning-by-doing in the execution of internationally funded field projects works well, especially when specific funds to develop Member capacity are not available.

• The One Programme approach works in an integrated way across the IUCN Secretariat, Members and Commissions. For example work can be driven by the

25

Secretariat with Members and Commissions involved in the design phase, or can be promoted through Members and Commissions independently of the Secretariat.

IUCN Coordinator and Joint Implementer

Convenor and Facilitator

Grant Maker and Fundraiser

Adviser and Expert

Institution and Capacity Builder

IUCN Member

• Direct Implementation

• Partnership of implementation

• IUCN supports with monitoring, evaluation, quality control and financial management

• Coordination

• Space to connect, network and plan • NGOs and CSOs influence policy through groups - advocacy • Government consultations with relevant stakeholders • Views raised via Permanent Observer status at the UN General Assembly

• Members apply for and receive grants

• Members gain support on proposals to access funds at national and international level

• Technical advice on environmental conventions

• Policy support

• Training • Access to

and joint creation of research publications and datasets

• Creating and strengthening institutions

• Governance structures

• Project management

• Use of standards

• Technical skills • For example:

species conservation, climate change adaptation, water resources.

States

Government Agencies

INGOs

NGOs

Note: This table does not cover all of IUCN’s ways of working with Members. The analysis in this brief is not an exhaustive list of interactions and projects with Members. It focuses on the Regions, rather than on Headquarters, National Committee or Commission activity with Members. Headquarters-based Global Programmes will increasingly be implemented through the Regions and hence involve local Members as summarized in this brief.

26

Annex 4 IUCN Programme 2013-2016, Implementation through Capacity Development

DRAFT, May 2013 1. Background and focus IUCN’s Mission is “to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable”. In order to realize this Mission, IUCN must focus part of its efforts on capacity development, especially of its Members. As defined under the IUCN Statutes (Article 3), IUCN must (inter alia): (a) - mobilize its Members, components and partners to build alliances for conservation; (b) - strengthen the institutional capacity of its Members to conserve biological diversity and safeguard ecological life-support processes at global, regional, national and local levels; (c) - promote enhanced cooperation between its governmental and non-governmental Members to strengthen the capacity of its Members and partners. In support of the IUCN Programme 2013-2016, a set of priorities for implementation, fundraising and resource allocation has been developed (A Business Model for IUCN - final draft, March 2012). As part of this model, IUCN’s priorities are linked to four business lines. The focus of this paper is on capacity development8 (which has a home in the third business line: Strengthening Policy and Governance) for more effective development, implementation and delivery of the Programme as a whole. As indicated in the Statutes, IUCN Members are targeted for capacity development in the first place, but IUCN partners, international organisations and the private sector will also be prime beneficiaries of this effort. As new demands and opportunities emerge for the effective implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and of new conservation and sustainable development strategies, better capacity and expertise will need to be delivered in all countries and at all levels - a task which is at the heart of the IUCN Mission. Therefore, over the next four years and based on agreed Programme priorities, IUCN will focus on three focus areas for capacity development: biodiversity conservation, gender equality and equity, and ecosystem management and services. In each of these areas, IUCN can provide expert knowledge, leverage a wide-reaching global network and can play an effective role as capacity-builder on behalf of public and private funders. In addition to describing the three focus areas, the paper also aims at defining more precisely the technical inputs in support of these priorities; last but not least a number of assumptions and next steps are listed for further discussion and action. Niche and comparative advantage IUCN is the world’s authority on conserving nature and natural resources for people’s livelihoods, setting standards, fostering policies and bringing together a diverse membership of States, government agencies and civil society for nature-based solutions to global challenges and environmental governance, aimed at sustainable development and biodiversity conservation (niche). 8 The OECD (2006) defines capacity development as “the process whereby people organizations and societies as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time. UNDP (2009) defines capacity development as “the process through which individuals, organizations and societies obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time. For UNEP (2002) capacity development encompasses the acquisition of skills and knowledge for individuals, but also the improvements of institutional structures, mechanisms, procedures, and finally the strengthening of an enabling environment with adequate policies and laws.

27

IUCN will identify capacity development needs and funding sources in areas where IUCN’s knowledge and expertise, membership network and independence can give the organization a competitive edge. Knowledge and expertise - IUCN has a history of creating and providing credible and trusted knowledge on biodiversity. In the delivery of the new Programme, IUCN will leverage its knowledge, standards and tools for policy influence and to support action on the ground. Membership network - IUCN achieves a knowledge to policy to action link by engaging with its 1,200+ Members and National and Regional Committees across the globe. Governmental Members (States and Government Agencies) represent 17% of the IUCN membership, while non-governmental Members (NGOs and INGOs) account for 80%. Affiliates (Members with no voting rights) represent the remaining. Independence - IUCN using science to guide action is a more neutral broker than many institutions, hence its ability to convene and build partnerships for action across governments and civil society and to promote conservation dialogues within and across natural, institutional and political boundaries. 2. Suggested focus areas in 2013-2016 A set of programmatic priorities for implementation and delivery has been identified in the IUCN Programme 2013-2016. They reflect IUCN’s core competencies, in which the Union has a demonstrated and clear leadership, for effective achievement of the global results described in the Programme. The priorities are also linked to the four business lines for more effective resource mobilization. To foster effective implementation of the Programme and increase resource mobilisation, the focus areas selected for capacity development are biodiversity conservation, gender equality and equity, and ecosystem management and services. These are discussed in greater details below. 2.1. Biodiversity conservation Through the implementation of its Programme, IUCN seeks to address the direct pressures on biodiversity and to ensure that its use is sustainable in order to safeguard ecosystems, species and genetic diversity. One way to address these pressures is to support the establishment on land and sea of effective protected areas of all categories and governance types, and by ensuring that such areas protect the most important areas for biodiversity. Better knowledge about biodiversity, the threats it faces and the conservation measures that can be taken, will help drive action. By combining world-class knowledge, standards and tools with a mobilized network of Members and partners, real change in policies and action on the ground to conserve biodiversity is possible. IUCN will seek to continue existing (or launch new) programmes that focus on policy application and action on the ground through capacity development under the following international frameworks: • Implementation of selected parts of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, including the

achievement of the Aichi Targets; • Assistance to recipient countries in the preparation and implementation of GEF-financed

projects as a GEF Agency; • Advice and support on the World Heritage Convention. Table 1 below provides more details on particular areas (to be prioritized) where IUCN could offer significant capacity development.

28

Table 1: Areas of focus for capacity development in biodiversity conservation

Sub-Area Examples for capacity development Beneficiaries Implementation of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and the achievement of the Aichi Targets

Develop programmes that aim to achieve (e.g.): • Target 2: Biodiversity values integrated

(into policy, national accounting plans) • Target 5: Habitat loss reduced • Target 9: Invasive alien species

combated • Target 10: Coral reefs maintained • Target 11: Protected areas increased • Target 12: Extinction prevented • Target 13: Genetic diversity maintained • Target 15: Ecosystems restored • Target 16: Nagoya Protocol for ABS

operational • Target 18: Indigenous and local

communities involved effectively

IUCN State Members

Protected Areas and World Heritage Sites

• Assist in developing tools and

implementing management effectiveness.

• Develop activities, projects and processes supporting the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

• Strengthen the technical networks to support the identification, evaluation and conservation of Protected Areas and World Heritage properties.

PA and WH site managers State Parties to the WH Convention All others involved in the management of PAs

GEF projects (as Project Agency)

Assist in the preparation and implementation of GEF-financed projects (aimed at CBD SP).

IUCN State Members and CSOs (IUCN NGOs)

2.2. Gender equality and equity The achievement of gender equality and equity is a development objective in its own right and it is also smart economics that leads to enhanced productivity and improvement of other development outcomes, including better prospects for the next generation and the quality of societal policies and institutions9. As a driver for transformational change and effective management of natural resources, gender equality is a pre-condition for sustainable development and the achievement of IUCN’s Mission. Gender equality and equity is supported through IUCN’s natural resource governance framework in the new Programme. This knowledge product will ensure that environmental decision-making considers the needs of men and women, and indigenous and local communities. In this regard, IUCN recognizes that women are agents of change - not just part of a vulnerable group – and capable of significantly strengthening our efforts. Capacity development on the following issues (to be prioritized) could be IUCN’s focus over the next 4 years: 9 World Bank, 2011, Gender Equality and the 2012 World Development Report

29

• Development of gender sensitive risk assessments and early warning systems related to natural disaster risk reduction;

• Implementation of the UNCCD’s Mandate on Gender and the CBD’s Gender Plan of Action including achievement of the Aichi targets;

• Inclusion of gender considerations in the framework of ongoing UNFCCC negotiations and national gender-responsive climate change policies and strategies;

• Promotion of gender equality to guarantee that women and men can have access to, participate in and benefit equally from nature-based solutions initiatives aimed at food security;

• Assistance to recipient countries in preparation and implementation of GEF-financed projects as a GEF Project Agency.

Table 2: Areas of focus for capacity development in gender equality and equity

Sub-Area Examples for capacity development Beneficiaries Disaster Risk Reduction

• Development of gender sensitive risk

assessments • Early warning systems related to natural

disaster risk reduction

IUCN State Members, National DRR Platforms

UNCCD and CBD’s Gender Plan of Action including the Aichi targets

• Mainstream gender in national reporting

systems (NBSAPs, PANAs). • Update & inform on methods, alliances,

experts, policy. • Develop accountability systems &

indicators.

IUCN State Members, Conventions

UNFCCC negotiations and national gender-responsive climate change policies and strategies

• Mainstream gender in national reporting

systems (NCR, NAPAs). • Develop gender-responsive climate change

strategies. • Incorporate gender criteria into financial

mechanisms.

IUCN State Members, Convention

Nature-based solutions initiatives aimed at food security

• Promote links between gender & food

security. • Provide access to innovative methods on

gender & food security. • Develop accountability systems &

indicators.

IUCN State Members, IUCN NGO Members

GEF projects as Project Agency

• Mainstream gender considerations in GEF-

financed projects.

IUCN State Members and CSOs (IUCN NGOs)

2.3. Ecosystem management and services Biological diversity underpins ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services, and is essential for human well-being. The maintenance of ecosystem services is therefore premised on the existence of capacity to manage ecosystems sustainably. As new demands and opportunities for ecosystem management emerge in international environmental governance, stronger capacity is needed in all countries wishing to benefit from effective environmental policies and regulations. Examples of ecosystem services

30

include e.g. water provision, food security, purification of air, crop pollination, climate control, energy. IUCN can leverage the skills, insights and expertise it has gained to mobilise capacity for the maintenance of healthy, diverse and well-managed ecosystems in a cost effective and sustainable manner. In terms of ecosystem management, capacity development could cover the following objectives (to be prioritised) in the next 4 years: • Develop capacity around ecosystem management (maintenance, enhancement,

restoration) that may (or may not) involve nature-based solutions to climate change, food security and development;

• Promote the results of the TEEB study (demonstrating the significant values that biodiversity and ecosystem services make to national and global economies) and develop and test the methodology for payments for ecosystem services;

• Significantly contribute standards to work of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Table 3: Areas of focus for capacity development in ecosystem management and services

Sub-Area Examples for capacity development Beneficiaries Ecosystem management and nature-based solutions to climate change, food security and development

• Provision of methodologies and lessons-

learned on ecosystem management and restoration at local, regional and global scales.

• Assist in preparing and implementing projects promoting nature-based solutions around: o Ecosystem-based adaptation o Disaster risk reduction (DRR) o Ecosystem-based mitigation (including

REDD+)

IUCN State Members & NGO Members, private sector

TEEB study and demonstration of value of biodiversity and ecosystem services

• Assist in development of accountability

systems & indicators. • Support and train stakeholders to engage

on PES, incl. on market transactions. • Aichi target 2 on biodiversity values

integrated into national strategies and accounting systems.

IUCN State Members, private sector

IPBES

• Support participation in decision-making for

IPBES and in implementing IPBES work programme.

• Deliver components of IPBES work program related to capacity-building with a mandate on its behalf.

IUCN State Members

IPBES Members

3. Instruments, platforms and constituencies for capacity development Conservation instruments and programmes for which Contracting Parties would require capacity development mainly include the CBD, UNFCCC, IPBES, the World Heritage Convention and other similar treaties, such as CITES and the Ramsar Convention. There

31

are also regional and thematic instruments (e.g. the Barcelona, Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions, or the Bern Convention) of great interest to many global thematic and regional programmes. The private sector is another constituency with a potential interest in capacity development, and therefore a target for capacity development that IUCN must explore. A brief overview of some important instruments (including descriptions of key themes, plans and programmes), platforms and constituencies, is provided below. 3.1. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Targets One of the main purposes of the IUCN Programme 2013-16 is to support and influence the implementation of the CBD Strategic Plan and use the Plan to advance development goals that apply nature-based solutions to enhance people’s livelihoods. This is also where IUCN has the biggest market potential for capacity development. The CBD COP have developed guidance on developing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) including a directive to include and implement national capacity-development plans for the implementation of national biodiversity strategies and action plans, making use of the outcomes of national capacity self-assessments in this process, as appropriate10. IUCN has supported the CBD since its inception and is well positioned to support the empowerment of relevant stakeholders, in particular the enhancement of regional and national capacities to participate in the CBD process and implement its provisions and provision of mechanisms for stakeholder participation. To date (September 2012), 176 Parties (91%)11 have developed NBSAPs but only a number of these have formally adopted national biodiversity targets in the framework of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets12. The fifth national reports are due by 31 March 2014 and will provide an important source of information for a mid-term review of progress towards implementation of the Strategic Plan and progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. The fifth national reports will also contribute to the development of the fourth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook. Funding is available from the GEF to support eligible countries in the development and updating of their national biodiversity strategies and action plans and the preparation of the fifth national report. IUCN is currently going through the accreditation process to become a GEF Project Agency which will enable IUCN to access resources from GEF-managed trust funds directly and to assist recipient countries in preparing and implementing GEF-financed projects. UNEP and UNDP are already project agencies13. This is another tremendous opportunity for IUCN to leverage its expertise using its wide-ranging global network in order to build capacity (through the framework of NBSAPs or else). IUCN should continue to market its biodiversity management skills and best practices developed over 60 years, and target nations that require help in further developing their biodiversity agenda and targets. 3.2. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) IUCN’s focus is to call on policy-makers to increase the amount of funding and promote the inclusion of nature-based solutions to climate change in the framework of ongoing UNFCCC negotiations. Among key issues for IUCN are ecosystem-based adaptation to harmful climate change impacts and global implementation of a mechanism for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). 10 COP Guidance on Developing NBSAPs: http://www.cbd.int/nbsap/guidance.shtml. 11 Latest NBSAPs: http://www.cbd.int/nbsap/about/latest/ 12 See http://www.cbd.int/nbsap/about/targets/. 13 For a list of current GEF agencies, see http://www.thegef.org/gef/gef_agencies.

32

Nature provides a cost effective solution to climate change adaptation that governments should incorporate proactively into national policies. Improving the management of coastal ecosystems, river systems, coral reefs, mangroves and forests all tangibly improve the resilience of neighboring communities to deal with both the sudden and long-term consequences of climate change. In order to be effective, however, implementation needs to take place at national level, and include consideration of issues such as a fair distribution of benefits, and allowing equal participation of all stakeholders, including women and indigenous peoples. Within the framework of the UNFCCC, there exists a need for capacity development to assist Parties, especially developing countries, to respond to the challenges of climate change. IUCN is in a good position to provide such services as they relate to nature-based solutions. For example IUCN could develop cost-effective projects promoting nature-based solutions around adaptation and mitigation. • Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) Adaptation to climate change is increasingly being equated to issues such as Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), livelihood security, resilient development, and agriculture operations.

Ecosystem-based adaptation is the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of a strategy to help people overcome the adverse effects of climate change. Ecosystem-based adaptation uses the management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to enable people to adapt to the impacts of climate change. These strategies include, for example, sustainable water management; sustainable agricultural practices; and coastal ecosystem management. Ecosystem-based adaptation contributes to climate change mitigation, by conserving or enhancing carbon stocks and by reducing emissions from ecosystem degradation and loss. It can contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. In order to meet the demands of national governments (who are increasingly seeking integrated approaches amongst environment management, DRR and CCA) the Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction (PEDRR14) coordinated with the Ecosystems and Livelihoods Adaptation Network (ELAN15) to include ecosystem based adaptation modules in the training. These modules can be used for sub-national, national or regional trainings and capacity development programmes, and receive potential EU funding. • Disaster risk reduction (DRR) By disaster risk reduction we mean “sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems to provide services that reduce disaster risk by mitigating hazards and by increasing livelihood resilience.”16 Ecosystem-based DRR provides an invaluable opportunity to implement environment management tools such as integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and protected area management (and existing protected areas). These tools can serve as a means to addressing multiple challenges and leveraging limited resources to achieving a ‘win-win’ situation. Environment management tools are not only cost effective strategies when compared to hard infrastructure investment plans, they are also tried and tested, and offer lessons learnt, best practices and guidance material, which are widely available. Advocacy, capacity development and mobilizing resources are required in order to operationalise ecosystem-based DRR. The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) guides the work and is monitored by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), which is the focal point in the United Nations system for the coordination of disaster risk reduction and ensures synergies 14 http://pedrr.net/Training.aspx 15 http://www.elanadapt.net/ 16 PEDRR 2012

33

among disaster risk reduction activities. During the mid-term review (2011) of the implementation of HFA, priority 4, which includes ecosystem degradation as an underlying risk factor that exacerbates impacts of disasters, was found to be one of the lowest achieved goals by national governments. A contributing factor to this is the lack of coordination between environment managers, the conservation community and DRR community. Contributions to DRR also fall under CBD and UNCCD (droughts and desertification - slow onset disasters). Potential donors come from different sources including the World Bank, the Asia Development Bank, regional institutions such as SAARC and ASEAN, European Commission, and under development aid and food security related projects. • Ecosystem-based mitigation (including REDD+) REDD+ is high on the agenda of the international community, donors and businesses, given the global commitment to make funding available to address climate change. Bilateral and multilateral funding commitments are piling up in several mitigation funds, incl. the Forest Investment Programme (World Bank), NORAD Direct Funding Programme and BMU (Germany). However their relatively low disbursement rates might be an indication of the low level of quality initiatives seeking funding. Therefore, IUCN should leverage its leading position in the environmental community as a convening power and neutral broker, to tap into this stream of funding in order to advance its mission and goals. In terms of capacity development, IUCN’s added value for REDD+ resides in its capacity to share and communicate relevant knowledge, tools and best practices to enable Members to participate effectively in programme and project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and to raise awareness on the world’s environmental challenges, while catalyzing support and action. 3.3. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services (IPBES)

The mandate of IPBES is fourfold: (a) - to identify and prioritize key scientific information on biodiversity needed for policymakers and catalyse the production of new knowledge to fill gaps; (b) - to support policy formulation and implementation; (c) - to prioritize key capacity-building needs to enable decision-makers to access tools and methodologies more easily; and, (d) – to perform regular and timely assessments on BES, with scales ranging from global to sub-regional and possibly thematic focus.

Each of these mandates provides an opportunity for IUCN to provide capacity development. The IUCN networks of experts, organized in six Commissions, have developed tools and methodologies to develop capacity for incorporating biodiversity issues into the mainstream of development and resource management. Partnering with leading universities, IUCN already organizes numerous workshops and training courses throughout the world that link biodiversity and ecosystem science with development and conservation policy. 3.4. The World Heritage and other legally-binding instruments There are several other conventions, such as the World Heritage Convention or CITES, that provide frameworks from which IUCN can provide capacity development. Given IUCN’s long involvement, some regional treaties (thematic or not) should also be considered as interface for IUCN capacity building efforts. To strengthen implementation of these instruments, IUCN can leverage its knowledge, network and independence to train, provide advice, enhance collaboration and influence processes at every level.

34

3.5. Platforms and other networks There are probably many other agreements, platforms and networks of interest to IUCN’s capacity development effort, such as the platforms on water resources (e.g. the World Water Council and the Global Water Partnerships), river basin management coordination (e.g. River Basins Organizations, Regional Economic Commissions in Africa), oceans dialogues (e.g. the Global Ocean Forum or MEDPAN), sustainable forest management (e.g. the Forests Dialogue, the Collaborative Partnerships on Forests, the Commission des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale - COMIFAC), and mountains (e.g. the Mountain Partnership and the Mountain Forum). Although somewhat outside the strict conservation realm, some of these networks have offered IUCN important opportunities to influence global and regional processes. In the future, these platforms could also be used to secure opportunities for capacity development. 3.6. Private Sector IUCN will build on the recent work of TEEB, which demonstrates the recognized values that biodiversity makes to national and global economies. For example IUCN could work with governments, the private sector and civil society to identify opportunities and develop capacity to transform the practices of key economic sectors that negatively impact natural systems and the livelihoods of people who depend on them. This may include developing capacities in the following areas of work: • Based on sector-specific knowledge on the role and value of “natural capital”, train and

support governments and businesses to find ways of incorporating the maintenance (or enhancement) of these values in their operational plans and accounting systems;

• Train and support governments and businesses in assessing opportunities on how ecosystem-based interventions can contribute to national economic development and/or recovery programmes;

• Train and support governments and businesses in designing strategies, standards and protocols that encourage businesses to commit, pursue and verify a “no net loss” or a “net positive impact” commitment with respect to how their activities interface with the natural resource base and the livelihoods of people who depend on it.

A detailed assessment should also be made of the capacity development needs for the IUCN Business Engagement Strategy. 4. Assessment of niche, opportunities and targets As indicated in the Statutes, capacity development is primarily targeting IUCN Members, but IUCN partners, international organizations and the private sector should also be considered as prime beneficiaries of this effort. It is important to understand the needs of these beneficiaries and the potential for delivering capacity development services, from running training courses to organizing multi-stakeholder platforms. Therefore, an analysis should be conducted to describe how, where and to whom IUCN should deliver its products and services for capacity development. The analysis should also map the interest of the donor community and provide information on the requirements for accessing funding. The following are assumptions and areas that need further development in order to organize a successful capacity development strategy and plan for IUCN.

35

4.1. Analysis of existing capacity development programmes An analysis will be made of capacity development programmes (goals, approach, mechanisms and procedures) implemented by other institutions, such as UNEP, UNDP and GEF. The needs and strategies recommended by key global (such as CBD, UNFCCC, CCD, CITES and Ramsar) and regional agreements (such as the Barcelona, Abidjan or Nairobi conventions) will also be documented. 4.2. Analysis of the institutional / organizational dimension of capacity

development The analysis needs to examine how the institutional / organizational dimension of IUCN can best assist in developing the capacity of Members. Being an IUCN Member can assist in building capacity because of access to e.g. programmes, methodologies, standards, guidelines and tools, but it is also helpful in an institutional sense, because it gives access to networks and partnerships, to support mechanisms, to opportunities of sharing expertise and resources, etc. 4.3. Analysis of potential beneficiaries and target audiences IUCN Statutes clearly target Members (States, government agencies, NGOs, INGOs, civil society) as the sole beneficiaries of capacity development efforts, but the IUCN Programme relies for its implementation on many more constituencies, such as IUCN “partners” (a non-defined generic term that may include e.g. non-Member institutions, professional networks, university departments), international organizations with interest in the environment and the private sector (another non-defined generic term). It is therefore critical to identify which Members (especially States) and which partners could benefit from capacity development, and where IUCN’s support could provide the largest overall impact. 4.4. Assessment of focus areas & sub-areas for capacity building Initial priorities in terms of focus areas have been identified (biodiversity management, gender equality and equity, and ecosystem management, see paper entitled: IUCN Programme 2013-2016: Implementation through Capacity Development). These three areas cover a number of sub-areas (e.g. CBD strategic plan, PAs and World Heritage Convention, IPBES, nature-based solutions strategies), which seems adequate for the time being to rally the interest of most component programmes and of most potential donors. The analysis will need to confirm the rationale leading to the original list of focal areas, amend this list if necessary, and prioritize the technical sub-areas on which IUCN will focus its capacity development effort in 2013-2016. 4.5. Analysis of best methodologies and practices Since the early 1980s IUCN projects have included activities to build (formally or informally) the capacity of project beneficiaries. Capacity building activities are diverse, including e.g. training and workshops, data collection and research for natural resource management, assistance in project design and implementation, advocacy support, policy influence, establishing multi-stakeholder processes, and the definition of standards and tools. To support this work IUCN has produced hundreds of books, guides and check-lists describing standards and providing lessons-learned, but IUCN needs to be clear on what it considers as adequate standards and good practices. The analysis should also look at some of the innovative and creative work in capacity development among Members, especially best practices on the ground, and extract lessons to inform IUCN's approach. For example, how can Commissions, task forces and other

36

IUCN mechanisms draw lessons from experiences such as action learning groups, mentoring programmes and other capacity development approaches used by Members? Based on the priority areas and sub-areas, the analysis will assess past and current methodologies and capacity development techniques. In relation to more formal training, it will be important to assess the how of capacity building, especially the question of clearly documented “how-to” guides, training curriculum and specific technical modules. 4.6. Assessment of the supply side / IUCN expertise For each focus area, a comprehensive mapping of the knowledge and expertise available internally will be required. The roles and contributions from Commissions, in particular CEC, and the contributions from component programmes, including CDU, will need to be assessed. Identification of gaps in knowledge or expertise may require acquiring new capacity within the Secretariat and Commissions. 4.7. Capacity development and the One-Programme Approach To maximize impacts it will be necessary to work collaboratively across global and regional programmes and Commissions. For example, developing a climate-proof national protected areas system that delivers benefits for biodiversity and livelihoods requires that the Global Protected Areas Programme work with the relevant regional programme and Commissions experts in addition to other staff in the Global Thematic Programmes (e.g. species, law, forest, water). The analysis will seek to establish whether IUCN needs a new set of specific projects to support capacity building and whether this will require new systems, procedures and internal policies to ensure effective collaboration across the Secretariat and the wider Union (the “One-Programme Approach”). 4.8. Market assessment Last but not least, once above priorities have been agreed, an assessment of the market for capacity development in environmental governance should be carried out to map the interest of the donor community, and other potential funders, and provide information on the requirements for accessing funding and for fielding expertise. Currently, this function is mostly provided by public institutions, and IUCN will primarily seek public funding for capacity development through existing global mechanisms that are providing the framework for environmental governance across the world. The private sector is also a potential market for capacity development that the analysis must explore.

37

Annex 5 Framework of Action to Strengthen the Union

Purpose and Process (revised), 7 May 2013 BACKGROUND

At the 2012 IUCN World Conservation Congress (WCC), the newly-elected IUCN President suggested three priorities for IUCN, dealing with Enhanced Leadership, A Stronger Union, and Resource Mobilization. At its 81st meeting (January 2013), Council discussed the priorities and a draft note to plan actions around them. A Council decision was made17, officially launching the process. Since a separate Council decision called for a Resource Mobilization Plan, in response to the third priority, this Framework of Action to Strengthen the Union will focus on the other priorities mentioned in the Council decision. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of the Framework of Action is to undertake concrete, targeted, time-bound steps that will lead to 1) raising IUCN’s profile, leadership and influence, within and beyond the conservation community and to 2) strengthen IUCN as an effective Union, including its membership, governance and structure by proactively engaging its constituency towards the implementation of the Programme and the fulfilment of the IUCN mission. A broad consultation will serve as the baseline for developing concrete tools and mechanisms to strengthen the Union. These consultations will be undertaken as soon as possible, led by the Steering Committee, fully involving National Committees, Members and Commissions. The Framework aims at actions that can be fulfilled by the Union within the Statutes, the One Programme Charter and the IUCN Programme 2013-2016. Some of the actions recommended through the Framework might need to be considered by the 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress. In this case, Council will be tasked to prepare these recommendations for consideration by the Congress.

I. Union leadership and niche Key challenges: 1) IUCN’s competence, knowledge, networks and policy-making capacity can be used better in decision-making and implementation that affect biodiversity and sustainability. 2) There are significant gaps and weaknesses in the governance of biodiversity conservation and sustainability, which IUCN must help to address in order to conserve nature and to enhance sustainability. 3) IUCN’s niche must be more precise and fully exploited. 4) IUCN’s brand and visibility must be enhanced within targeted communities of policy-makers and practitioners within and beyond the conservation community. 5) IUCN’s Mission, Vision and Programme purpose are solid, but need to be communicated better with clear, simple, coherent and forceful messages to different audiences. 17 At its 81st Meeting, the IUCN Council adopted the following decision to: “Approve the proposed process to develop a Framework of Action to Strengthen the Union by:

1. Raising IUCN’s profile, leadership and influence, within and beyond the conservation community; 2. Strengthening IUCN as an effective Union, including its membership, governance and structure.

Approve the composition of the Steering Committee for this process, finalized after consultations by the President with Councillors as follows:

• Marina von Weissenberg (Regional Councillor, IUCN Vice-President), Chair • Patrick de Heney (Treasurer) – as advisor • Aroha Mead (Chair, IUCN CEESP) • Ramón Perez Gil (Regional Councillor) • Mohammad Shahbaz (Chair, Governance and Constituency Committee) • Julia Marton-Lefèvre (Director General) • Poul Engberg-Pedersen (Deputy Director General / Managing Director)”

38

Proposed priority actions:

1. Identify critical gaps in effective and equitable governance18 of biodiversity conservation and sustainability from local to global levels; assess IUCN’s current niche in international environmental governance; and explore the current and potential roles for stronger IUCN leadership, influence and relevance in helping to close implementation gaps between global commitments and results on the ground. The outcome must be tangible improvements in IUCN leadership in governance of nature’s use from local to global levels, based on a clearer definition of IUCN roles and niche.

a. Actions by the Secretariat: i. Analyze critical and recurrent gaps in global and national environmental

governance for biodiversity conservation and sustainability. ii. Analyze IUCN’s strengths and weaknesses vis-à-vis relevant competitors

and partners (including Member INGOs), with a view to defining more clearly and precisely a specific niche and medium-term outcomes.

b. Actions by the “Framework of Action” Steering Committee: i. Consult with National Committees, Members and Commissions to solicit

views on appropriate and feasible roles for IUCN to show leadership and fill gaps in governance.

ii. Engage Members and partners in a dialogue to validate a more precise role for IUCN in environmental governance, including through a possible redefinition of IUCN’s niche for consideration by Council and eventually the 2016 WCC.

2. In parallel with the above gap analysis, update, simplify and prioritize IUCN’s key

messages in the coming years for the IUCN Programme 2013-2016 and for the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2010-2020. Identify the most relevant international, regional and, as appropriate, national platforms through which IUCN can achieve its medium-term outcomes and processes for effective policy influencing, and use the full potential of the Union to deliver these messages. The outcome must be IUCN-supported change in the most important decision-making processes for conservation and sustainability.

a. Actions by the Secretariat: i. Compile IUCN’s existing key messages and make them easier to

communicate, in line with the IUCN Programme 2013-2016. ii. Assess the fit between IUCN’s messages and the existing international

institutional platforms and processes for policy formulation and implementation. Identify national opportunities where support for early action could generate significant global impact.

b. Actions by the “Framework of Action” Steering Committee: i. Review and prioritize the key messages and the policy influencing

platforms and processes (governmental and non-governmental), submitting a paper to Council for consideration and decision. Facilitate the delivery of key messages, using the full potential and diversity of the Union, into those national situations where there is a likely prospect of global leadership.

18 As found in the IUCN Programme 2013-2016

39

3. Promote the active application by relevant multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) at global and regional levels, of nature-based solutions to conservation and other global challenges. The outcome must be reduced policy implementation gaps between global commitments and results on the ground, using nature-based solutions, as a part of conservation, particularly to address climate change, food insecurity and economic and social development19.

a. Actions by the Secretariat:

i. Compile and communicate experience with policy influencing through programmes (e.g. land restoration, integrated water management, etc.) to fill policy implementation gaps related to climate change and food security commitments.

ii. Identify and promote initiatives by Members and Commissions employing nature-based solutions, to build a robust and credible argument for their effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability.

iii. Work with Commissions to produce case-studies, pamphlets and a peer-reviewed publication on nature-based solutions to selected global challenges.

b. Actions by the “Framework of Action” Steering Committee: i. Work with National Committees, Members and Commissions to promote

and apply nature-based solutions, as part of conservation, wherever appropriate.

II. Union roles and structures

Key challenges: 1) Ensure continued engagement of State Members, so that they see the purpose and value-added in IUCN membership among the increasing number of international and regional organizations and policy processes, in which States have to be engaged. 2) Ensure continued engagement of NGO Members, so that they are fully involved in Programme formulation and implementation, developing their own capacity and getting access to knowledge and resources. 3) Increase the clarity of mutual expectations of membership in the Union. 4) Improve the recognition and involvement of the members of IUCN Commissions in Programme implementation, clarifying their added value to the Union. 5) Continue to upgrade The World Conservation Congresses to maintain their prestige and mobilizing power and enhance their effectiveness in providing solutions for the wider communities engaged in biodiversity conservation and sustainability. Proposed priority actions:

4. Engage all of the Union’s constituency in a dialogue on Union roles and mutual expectations between the Union’s constituents. The outcome must be consensus on realistic, mutual expectations around Union membership, including among other things, a reflexion on the need for new Members and new Member categories.

a. Actions by the Secretariat: i. Summarize the Union’s key roles, based on the Statutes, the One

Programme Charter and the Programme 2013-2016, and assess the involvement and ownership of these roles by all Union components and groups of Members.

ii. Identify external and internal factors that constrain the Secretariat’s support for wide Union involvement and ownership of Programme implementation.

19 As found in the IUCN Programme 2013-2016.

40

b. Actions by the “Framework of Action” Steering Committee:

i. Engage in an IUCN-wide dialogue with the Union’sconstituency and partners on realistic expectations towards and from the Union, including on the need for new Members to deliver the Union’s vision and mission.

ii. Draft a Council document on Union roles and realistic expectations from Union and Commission membership.

5. On the basis of the One Programme Charter, identify risks, gaps and inefficiencies in the

operations of IUCN as a Union, covering revenue sources and allocations, the execution of IUCN programmes, knowledge generation and governance, and the collaboration among IUCN components for Programme implementation and policy-influencing. The outcome must be the implementation of operational reforms to improve IUCN’s performance as a membership- and science-based conservation Union. This work must be coordinated with similar analyses undertaken by the Finance and Audit Committee (FAC) of Council.

a. Actions by the Secretariat: i. Summarize strengths and weaknesses in the current Programme delivery

models applied across the Union. ii. Examine the high-level risks facing the Union and develop risk

management scenarios and protocols accordingly. b. Actions by the “Framework of Actions” Steering Committee:

i. Assess the questions raised by current and past external reviews of IUCN about the effectiveness of the governance of the Union.

ii. Draft a Council paper with options for Programme delivery models and governance improvements.

6. Evaluate the role of the Secretariat in strengthening the Union, by ensuring collaboration

across and among the Union’s constituency for the effective delivery of the IUCN Programme 2013-2016 and beyond. The outcome must be a professional Secretariat, with a cost-effective structure..This work must be coordinated with similar analyses undertaken by the Council’s Finance and Audit Committee.

a. Actions by the Secretariat: i. Assess the real value contributions (in monetary and in-kind terms) of of

IUCN’s constituency towards the implementation of the IUCN Programme. ii. Assess the cost-structure of the Secretariat in its different functions and

locations. iii. Assess how IUCN activities are designed and implemented to add strategic

value to the work of IUCN Members, including as direct participants in, or beneficiaries from, programme execution, within the framework of the 2013–2016 IUCN Programme.

iv. Explore options for financial flows and other incentives among Union constituents to enhance overall effectiveness in Programme implementation.

b. Actions by the “Framework of Action” Steering Committee: i. Prepare options and scenarios for the structure and mode of operation of

the Union.

41

ORGANIZATION AND TIMETABLE

The Framework of Action does not aim to produce a single plan, but rather a series of actions and recommendations for the Secretariat, Council, Commissions and Members on the two Council priorities of raising IUCN’s profile, and strengthening IUCN as an effective Union. All actions will be identified as “immediate”, “short-term”, “medium-term” and “long-term” priorities, and will be implemented accordingly throughout the 2014-2016 period, and beyond for those recommendations needing Congress approval. The table below suggests a timetable for the actions proposed for the Secretariat and the Steering Committee, respectively, in each of the six fields covered above. The role of the Steering Committee will be to: • Oversee the development of the Framework of Actions and provide strategic guidance; • Execute the actions outlined above as Steering Group responsibility; and • Review and approve the different steps and documents before submission to Council. The process will be managed by a small team within the Secretariat. Sebastià Semene Guitart will serve as project manager, reporting to the Deputy Director General / Managing Director and to the Global Director, Union Development Group. The process will, at all times, maintain the highest transparency and consultation standards. Under the Steering Group’s leadership, all constituent parts of the Union will be involved in the process, through electronic means, personal interviews, face-to-face meetings and others.