INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE WCPA Pan-Europe Report from meeting 6.9.2011 IUCN Regional Conservation Forum, Bonn 6. – 9.9.2011 Stig Johansson.

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

WCPA Pan-Europe Report from meeting 6.9.2011

IUCN Regional Conservation Forum, Bonn 6. – 9.9.2011

S t i g J o h a n s s o n

2

WCPA discussions

• 16 WCPA members participated in the meeting and discussions• Glen Hyman and Boris Erg (rapporteurs)• Morning session on the IUCN Programme 2013 – 2016.

1. Does the proposed structure of the IUCN Programme 2013-2016 address key issues relevant to PAs?

2. How do PAs and the work of WCPA fit into and contribute to the proposed five core and thematic programme areas?

3. What are the priority issues, particularly in relation to PAs, IUCN and WCPA should focus on? (list 3-5 priorities and suggest the roadmap for each of them)

• Afternoon session on the European programme and WCPA in Europe:1. List 3-5 priorities for WCPA Europe per programme area

2. The niche of WCPA in Europe – strength, advantages, opportunities?

3. How can WCPA Europe translate its priorities and niche into action – what operational models are available given the voluntary nature of the commissions?

3

IUCN Programme

• Good process allowing time for consultations and comments• Regional Conservation Forums good way to engage the Union• Commissions and National Committees day in Europe excellent• Good – focus on the CBD Strategic Plan• Analysis captures much (much too much?) of what is impacting

biodiversity• Structured well:

– Situation Analysis (comprehensive but needs a better focus on DRIVERS, CTA,TPA and clearer statement of problems and what IUCN can do);

– Justification (links to resolutions and CBD SP targets); – IUCN Approach and Results with focus on:

IUCN strengths knowledge, standards and tools; Policy and best practice; but not very concrete providing clear direction

• But too vague and general

4

IUCN Programme

• Not particularly inspirational and exciting• There was some dissatisfaction with the structure. • Very general and text is convoluted, lacking focus and concrete

direction. Limpid in style, glossed over drivers and threats to biodiversity, while leaving out discussion of IUCNs strengths in responding to same.

• Communication challenge• Lots of text and references in situation analysis – rather short in

approach and results – more concrete and detail on IUCNs responses, capacity and added value.

• More clarity and focus in text: what is wrong; what have we done; what should/can IUCN do?

• More direct focus on what is the mandate, niche and capacity of IUCN

• Where are the explicit objectives of the programme?

5

IUCN Programme

• The CPA / TPA difference? Difficult to communicate.– The programme (approach, results) doesn’t reflect the difference

• There is very little on how the programme should be implemented by the UNION.

– There may be different emphasis in different programme areas. For example in the “Food Security” TPA members may have main role?

• The word “energy” is absent though it is central in climate change• Cities/urban areas are also absent. IUCN can strengthen many of its

activites, get better results and (probably) attract more funding by incorporating more urban dimensions in our work.

6

IUCN Programme Areas

CPA 1 “BD conservation”

• The WCPA initiated green list of PAs should be mentioned• Reference to strengthening the use of existing conventions (N2000,

HELCOM…) and mechanisms. (IUCN convening power and e.g. PoWPA “Regional Actions”)

• Advice on the 17/10% implementation• Focus on WH (IUCNs role and PA expertise)

7

IUCN Programme Areas

CPA 2 “Benefits”

• Implementation of CBD ABS decision esp. in PAs• Also very much a legal rights issue.• Access to resources is also crucial - guidance• IUCN-WCPA toolkit on PA Governance in the making• Stronger emphasis on members in implementation?

8

IUCN Programme Areas

TPA 3 “Climate change”

• The word energy does not appear in the whole programme• IUCN should have a clear position also on emissions.• Convergence of CC and BD must be stronger – still many conflict between

CC mitigation measures and BD conservation.• The crucial role of the WCPA report “Natural Solutions” (Copenhagen 2009)

in promoting EBA should be recognized• The role of protected areas in EBA should be reflected (17% / 10% by 2020)• The importance of restoration in PAs but also in connectivity/green infra• Role of PA system gap analysis and the impact of climate change on PAs

(e.g. Russian, BPAN)

9

IUCN Programme Areas

TPA 4 “Food security”

• Food security should not be the main priority – ecosystems and BD should• More explicitly what is IUCNs niche and where can it add value• Difficult to communicate with confidence - “nature-based solutions for food

security”• Relationship between food supply – land clearance (poor mans productivity)

– climate change and loss of BD should be stronger• Emphasis on healthy ecosystems as a basis for food security – management

of ecosystems to produce food, water - e.g. protected (often PAs) watersheds securing water and food production

• Spatial planning is central to support a healthy green infrastructure, including PA connectivity interfaces (good examples from Scandinavia, South Africa)

• Major differences between regions – in Europe the agricultural practices and land use are major challenges to BD

10

IUCN Programme Areas

TPA 5 “Green economy”

• Should have focus more directly on the CBD SP target 2 and 3. Now very convoluted, difficult to understand (results 5.1. sounds almost like a CBD decision)

• Why is result 5.1. limited to “risk management”. More important is to integrate into national accounting or instruments used in economic and political decision-making

• IUCN strong role in TEEB is not reflected in the TPA. • We need a lot of new standards, tools and knowledge on how to integrate

natural capital in SNA and create and use a broader set of indicators for economic and political decision-making

• PAs, WHS and MABs often have good data and could be used in taking TEEB into practice.

• Act (knowledge, policy guidance) on harmful subsidies (CBD SP target 3)

11

IUCN Programme

Take home messages:

• The group would support a more action driven programme, with attention to “what is wrong, what IUCN does to remedy it, and where IUCN will work better/differently in the next four years.”

12

IUCN Europe Programme

• What is the relationship between the IUCN programme and the regional (e.g. Europe) and thematic (e.g. GPAP) programmes?

• A draft discussion paper – requires a broad-based process to finalise• Structure must echo the global programme• Must be relevant to the whole of Pan-Europe (Kamtchatka to

Greenland)• Decide on a process to develop the European programme further, which

reflects and is responsive to contributions from the commissions and members (small core group supporting secretariat in finalising programme?)

• Serious thinking about the niche of IUCN in Europe:– Understaffed and under resoursed– Strong national actors, strong organisations – competition?

complementarity?

• IUCN must take a policy advocacy role?– Use IUCN’s convening power.

13

IUCN Europe Programme

Take home messages:

• If the Europe plan is meant to give life to the global program in a European context – it will need much more work. If the global program is to inspire meaningful regional action, it must be more bold.

14

European Programme

PAs and WCPA in Europe

• WCPA Europe programme in the frame of the IUCN global and Europe programme and the Global Protected Areas Programme

• Explicit PA / WCPA Focal Point required at RoFE• Implement the IUCN categories in Europe• Certification of categories and PA managment• Feed in to WDPA and especially Protected Planet• Roll out and capacity in MEA• European inputs to WPC 2014• Implementing 17 / 10 in Europe

15

European Programme

PAs and WCPA in Europe

• Impact of CAP, next EU financing period (2013-2020) on PAs and N2000 in Europe

• IUCN to lead an analysis on perverse incentives in Europe.• Stronger use of existing agreements and conventions in Europe,

most with PA components, to implement CBD PoWPA (EU, CoE, HELCOM, Carpathian Conv.,

• Focus on capacity building – roll out of tools (IUCN PA categories, categories certification, MEA etc.) and knowledge (BPGs etc.).

• Translation of the tools and standards (esp. Russian)• Explicit PA / WCPA Focal Point required at RoFE (Boris Erg?)• Systematic ways to engage WCPA (and other commission) members

in procedures and processes (e.g. WH) and secretariat developed projects.