ProceedingsoftheMembers’BusinessAssembly - IUCNcmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/wcc_4th_004.pdf ·...

Proceedings of the Members’ Business AssemblyWorld Conservation Congress, Barcelona, 5–14 October 2008

“The Congress surpassed all our expectations. In fact, it was areal turning point for us and we now talk of life before theCongress and life after the Congress”

MMaattííaass GGóómmeezz && MMaannuueell UUmmppííeerrrreezz,, yyoouunngg PPaarrkk RRaannggeerrss,, UUrruugguuaayy



Compiled and edited by Tim JonesChief Rapporteur to the Barcelona Congress

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not implythe expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of anycountry, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

Copyright: © 2009 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercialpurposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyrightholder provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes isprohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: IUCN (2009). Proceedings of the Members’ Business Assembly. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN. vi + 51 pp.

ISBN 978-2-8317-1099-0

Layout by: Tim Davis, DJEnvironmental, Berrynarbor, Devon, UK

Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)Publications ServicesRue Mauverney 28 1196 GlandSwitzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0020 [email protected] www.iucn.org/publications

A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available.

The text of this book is printed on paper made from wood fibre from well-managed forests certified in accordance with therules of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

The compiler would like to thank the many colleagues from the IUCN Commissions and Secretariat who providedinvaluable assistance with rapportage at the Congress and with the finalization of these Proceedings. Special thanks toDeborah Murith of IUCN’s Publications Services unit for proof-reading and editorial support.

Contents

Foreword ....................................................................................................................................1

Vote of thanks to the host country ..............................................................................................3

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................4

Minutes of the Members’ Business Assembly of the 4th IUCN World Conservation Congress ......5

Annex 1 – Conclusions from the World Conservation Forum, 6–9 October 2008.......................48

The greenhouse gas emissions arising from the IUCN World ConservationCongress in Barcelona were estimated at 7934 tons of CO2 equivalents. With the help of Congress participants and donors, IUCN was able to offset100% of these estimated emissions.

First and foremost, on behalf of all members and staffof IUCN, I wish to express our deepest gratitude to theRoyal Household of Spain, the Ministry of the Environ-ment and Rural and Marine Affairs of Spain, the Gener-alitat de Catalunya, the City Council of Barcelona and theDiputació de Barcelona for your generous and constantsupport to the World Conservation Congress. You werefundamental to the success of this event.

The World Conservation Forum involved more than7,000 participants in 972 activities: seven high-levelroundtable discussions, numerous workshops, receptionsand debates hosted in nine thematic pavilions, and 160exhibitions. There was an International Women Entre-preneurs’ Fair, the inspirational ‘Sailing to Barcelona’ ini-tiative, conservation cinema, dozens of learningopportunities, a book store and countless informalevents.

During the Members’ Assembly, 138 motions were de-liberated and voted on. These will significantly influenceinternational environmental policy in the short, mediumand long-term. The IUCN membership also electedAshok Khosla as the Union’s new President, togetherwith a new governing body, and approved the 2009–2012IUCN work programme.

The concrete commitments made during the Congressfrom various sectors are also impressive. Our Congresshelped to generate significant new funding for conserva-tion, amounting to some US$ 125 million. This includesUS$ 50 million from the MacArthur Foundation to workwith conservation groups to enable communities to adaptto climate change, the Mohammed Zayed ConservationFund with US$ 33 million for species conservation, US$10 million from the Global Environment Facility to helpgenerate at least matching funds from the private sectorto conserve species used in corporate branding, US$ 15million for the Water for Nature Initiative, and US$ 12million for IUCN’s Framework Agreement with the Gov-ernment of France. Of course, not all of this is forIUCN – our members and Commissions now have somenew funding opportunities.

Other high profile commitments that were made to sup-port our mission during the ten days of the Congress in-cluded:

� The Alcoa Foundation announcing a US$ 9 millionfive-year extension of its Sustainability FellowsProgramme;

� Nokia, WWF and IUCN committing to continuework on the social platform network,Connect2Earth, to engage youth in environmentalissues;

� The improvement of women’s access to electricityand reduced dependence on biofuels through EN-ERGIA;

� A commitment by Francophone governments to bet-ter integrate biodiversity issues into their develop-ment policy;

� A pledge by Russia to protect 80 million hectares; � An agreement by Sumatran provinces to stop clear-

ing old-growth forest; � Google launching an interactive map of marine pro-

tected areas; � The establishment by National Geographic and the

UN Foundation of the first long-term streaming sys-tem that connects anyone, anywhere, to a coral reefin Belize;

� The creation of the International Association ofWildlife Magazines to coordinate conservationcampaigns;

� The announcement by the Government of Paraguayto zero net deforestation by 2020; and

� An agreement by regional Heads of State to hold asummit at Manado, Sulawesi in May 2009 to launchthe Coral Triangle Initiative to protect the world’srichest coral reefs.

The World Conservation Congress marked the end ofmy term as President of IUCN. I leave with deep grati-tude for having had the opportunity to serve this mag-nificent Union and helping it move a step closer toaccomplishing its mission.

Valli Moosa

World Conservation Congress / Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain 5–14 October 2008

1

Foreword

by the President of IUCN, Valli Moosa

NOTING that the IUCN World Conservation Congressat its 4th Session has brought together close to 8,000 par-ticipants from 179 countries, more than ever before inthe history of IUCN;

MINDFUL of the importance of identifying appropriatefacilities and of ensuring the smooth logistical runningof such a large gathering;

AWARE that a number of new arrangements were in-troduced, such as the reduction in the use of paper, theconcept of ‘journeys’ to organize the Forum programme,Pavilions exhibition and Learning Opportunities, and thatthese and other innovations presented challenges for thevenue and local organizers;

RESPECTFUL of the fact that this gathering of closeto 8,000 participants could only occur with the supportof a large team of volunteers, workers and sponsors; and

GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGING that these con-ditions were fully met during the present meeting held inthe Centre de Convencions Internacional de Barcelona(CCIB);

The World Conservation Congress at its 4th Sessionin Barcelona, Spain, 5–14 October 2008:

1. EXPRESSES its deepest gratitude to His Majesty theKing, for presiding at the Committee of Honour ofthe World Conservation Congress;

2. CONVEYS its deepest thanks to His Royal HighnessPrince of Asturias for his presence and for officiallyopening the Congress;

3. ACKNOWLEDGES with gratitude the invaluablesupport of the Congress hosts: the Ministry of theEnvironment and Rural and Marine Affairs, the De-partment of Environment and Housing of the Gen-eralitat de Catalunya, Barcelona City Council andBarcelona Provincial Council for their institutionalsupport and generous financial contributions thatmade this Congress possible, and to the SpanishAgency for International Cooperation and Develop-ment for its financial support that allowed the par-ticipation of IUCN members from developingcountries;

4. APPLAUDS the hard work and efforts of the offi-cials and supporting staff of the host administra-tions, local sponsors, the staff of CCIB and the localvolunteers who gave so generously of their time tomake this Congress a success;

5. CONVEYS its thanks to the people of Barcelona,Catalonia and Spain for sharing the beauty of theirculture, customs and scenic sites, thus enriching theexperience of all Congress participants; and

6. DECLARES this 4th Session of the World Con-servation Congress in Barcelona to have been aresounding success and memorable event.


3

Resolution 4.106 Vote of thanks to the host country

HHOOSSTTSS

Proceedings of the Members’ Business Assembly

4

Acknowledgements

GGOOLLDD

SSIILLVVEERR

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, DenmarkShellSwedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) Toyota

BBRROONNZZEE

Department of State, United States of America MAVA Foundation Federal Office for Environment (FOEN), SwitzerlandIUCN National Committee of the Netherlands

FFRRIIEENNDDSS

Center for Ocean Solutions – Earth Day Network – Elypsos – Google Earth Outreach –International League of Conservation Photographers – IRUKA – Living Oceans Foundation –National Geographic – Philips – Renfe – Star Alliance – Total Foundation – US Fish and Wildlife Service –US Forest Service – TMB – Wildlife Conservation Society – World Bank

PPLLAATTIINNUUMM

OOppeenniinngg CCeerreemmoonnyy ffoorr tthhee 44tthh IIUUCCNN WWoorrllddCCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn CCoonnggrreessss ((22..11))

The Opening Ceremony took place in the presence ofHis Royal Highness the Prince of Asturias; His SereneHighness Prince Albert of Monaco; His Royal HighnessPrince Turki of Saudi Arabia; Her Royal HighnessPrincess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn of Thailand; MoltHble. Sr José Montilla i Aguilera, President de la Gener-alitat de Catalunya; Excma. Señora Doña Elena EspinosaMangana, Ministra de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural yMarino de España; Excm. Sr Jordi Hereu i Boher, Alcaldede Barcelona; His Excellency Joan Rangel, Delegado delGobierno de España en Cataluña; and Excm. Sr AntoniFogué i Moya, President de la Diputació de Barcelona.

Under the five themes of:

� Awareness� Equity� Sustainability� Biodiversity� Action

opening addresses were made by the President of IUCN,Mr Valli Moosa; Her Royal Highness Princess MahaChakri Sirindhorn of Thailand; Professor MohammadYunus, the Founder of Grameen Bank, and 2006 NobelPeace Prize Laureate; Ms Julia Marton-Lefèvre, DirectorGeneral of IUCN; Excm. Sr Antoni Fogué i Moya, Pres-ident de la Diputació de Barcelona; Excm. Sr Jordi Hereui Boher, Alcalde de Barcelona, Excma. Señora DoñaElena Espinosa Mangana, Ministra de Medio Ambientey Medio Rural y Marino de España, Molt Hble. Sr JoséMontilla i Aguilera, President de la Generalitat deCatalunya and His Royal Highness the Prince of Asturias,who declared the World Conservation Congress officiallyopen. Written texts, where provided, have been madeavailable on IUCN’s website (www.iucn.org).

The opening addresses were followed by a concert per-formance given by the Tekfen Philharmonic Orchestra,Turkey.


5

Minutes of the Members’ Business Assemblyof the 4th IUCN World Conservation Congress

Barcelona International Convention Centre (CCIB), Catalonia, Spain, 5–14 October 2008

AAppppooiinnttmmeenntt ooff CCrreeddeennttiiaallss CCoommmmiitttteeee ((11..11))

The President referred members to Congress PaperCGR/2008/3 Draft Terms of Reference for Congress Commit-tees, and specifically to Annex 1 Credentials Committee –Draft Terms of Reference, as well as to Rule 21 of the Rulesof Procedure. The Terms of Reference for the Creden-tials Committee, as proposed by Council, were approvedby consensus.

The President then introduced Council’s proposal formembership of the Congress Credentials Committee,which had been prepared taking into account the needfor balance in terms of geography, gender and expertise:

Mr Said Damhoureyeh (Jordan)Mr Jim Johnston (Canada)Ms Anna Kalinowska (Poland) Co-ChairMs Sônia Rigueira (Brazil) Co-ChairMs Susana Rivero (Spain) Host Country representativeMs Silvia Sánchez (Peru)Mr Kartikeya Sarabhai (India)Mr Zohir Sekkal (Algeria)Ms Diane Tarte (Australia)

There were no comments or questions from the floorand Congress approved by consensus the membershipof the Credentials Committee proposed by Council.

RReeppoorrtt ooff CCrreeddeennttiiaallss CCoommmmiitttteeee ((33..11,, 44..11,,77..11,, 88..11,, 1111..11))

The Credentials Committee met regularly between 5 and14 October 2008. A preliminary report and four furtherreports were presented to Congress during the 3rd, 4th,7th, 8th and 11th Sittings, respectively.

The number of potential votes held by IUCN activemembers were:

Category A (Government and Governmental Agencies): 280 votes

Category B (International and National NGOs): 992 votes

Of these potential votes, the voting power of membersrepresented at the 4th Session of the World ConservationCongress included:

Category A (Government and Governmental Agencies): 210 votesCategory B (International and National NGOs): 659 votes

The Credentials Committee noted that more than halfof the total potential votes held by IUCN active membersin both categories of membership was therefore repre-sented at the Congress.

The Committee noted that some members who were reg-istered to participate in the Congress did not have cre-dentials that were in order and were therefore not eligibleto exercise the right to vote. These included:

Category A (Government and Governmental Agencies): 23 votesCategory B (International and National NGOs: 31 votes

The Committee had also reviewed issues relating to non-payment of membership dues and suspension or rescis-sion of voting rights. The Committee noted that, thanksto diligence in collecting membership dues, exercisedprior to the Congress by the Secretariat and members ofNational Committees, the Credentials Committee hadneeded to expend much less effort on these matters thanat previous Congresses.

The Committee also noted a reduction in the number ofmembers in arrears compared with the two previousCongresses.

The following is a summary of the 115 members whosedues were two or more years in arrears at the time of theBarcelona Congress:

State Members (Category A) 14Government Agencies (Category A) 7International NGOs (Category B) 3National NGOs (Category B) 89Affiliates 2

The Committee advised that Congress might decide torescind the rights of these members, pursuant to theterms of Article 13(a) of the Statutes. The Committee

noted that if, within one year of a Congress decision torescind the rights of such members, any dues owed up tothe date of rescission remained outstanding, then thatmember would be deemed to have withdrawn fromIUCN, pursuant to the terms of Article 13(b) of theStatutes. The Committee recommended that Council andthe Secretariat should work closely with the membersconcerned to help resolve problems in meeting paymentof arrears, taking into consideration Articles 25 and 26 ofthe Statutes.

The Credentials Committee strongly recommended thatCouncil and the Secretariat needed to strengthen the re-lationship with members by facilitating a better under-standing of rights and responsibilities during meetingsof Congress. This relationship had to be part of a routineincorporated into Programme implementation.

The Committee noted great improvements to the IUCNMembership Database but also recognized the need toestablish better links with IUCN’s accounting system.

The Committee emphasized the importance of preparinga handbook covering the procedures for organizing meet-ings of the World Conservation Congress, as had beenrecommended in the final report of the CredentialsCommittee to the Bangkok Congress in 2004.

The Committee recommended that adequate additionalresources should be provided for constituency supportprocesses in advance of the next meeting of Congress.This should be done in order to facilitate and ensuremaximum membership participation and smooth imple-mentation of the many obligatory statutory processesrunning simultaneously during the lead-up to a Congress.

The Chair of the Credentials Committee concluded herfinal report by thanking her colleagues on the Commit-tee for their efforts, as well as members of RegionalCommittees and Secretariat staff, especially the Con-stituency Support Unit and Regional Membership focalpoints, for supporting the Committee’s work.

During the 11th Sitting, following presentation of theCredentials Committee’s final report, the RSPB (RoyalSociety for the Protection of Birds, UK) moved that allremaining rights of members who had not paid theirdues should be rescinded in line with Article 13(a) of theStatutes, as referenced in the Committee’s presentation.

There being no objection or other comment from thefloor, the President ruled that the RSPB’s proposal wasadopted by consensus. He thanked the Credentials


6

Committee and its Chair for the wonderful work done,noting that not one of the Committee’s reports or rec-ommendations had been challenged. Members showedtheir appreciation of the Committee’s work by warmapplause.

AAddooppttiioonn ooff AAggeennddaa ((33..22))

The President referred to Congress Paper CGR/2008/1rev.1 Provisional Agenda and to rules 45 and 47 of theRules of Procedure of the World Conservation Con-gress. There were no comments or questions from thefloor and the Agenda was duly approved by consensus.

DDiissccuussssiioonn aanndd AAddooppttiioonn ooff AAmmeennddmmeennttss ttooRRuulleess ooff PPrroocceedduurree ooff tthhee WWoorrlldd CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonnCCoonnggrreessss ((33..33))

The President referred members to Congress documentsCGR/2008/2 Proposed Amendment to the Rules of Procedureof the World Conservation Congress concerning the Submission ofMotions and CGR/2008/2.1 Proposed Amendment to theRules of Procedure of the World Conservation Congress concern-ing the Election of Commission Chairs.

(a) Amendments to the Rules of Procedureconcerning Congress motions

The President noted that the proposed amendments con-tained in document CGR/2008/2 would have the effectof:

� increasing from two to five the number of sponsorsrequired for motions submitted by the statutorydeadline (amendment to Rule 49);

� increasing from five to ten the number of sponsors(all of whom must be members eligible to vote) re-quired for motions newly submitted during the Con-gress (amendment to Rule 52);

� requiring that motions newly submitted during theCongress comply with “a minimum of three” of thecriteria listed, instead of “any” of the criteria listed,as at present (amendment to Rule 52).

The President invited members to approve the proposedamendments to Rules 49 and 52 of the Rules of Proce-dure of the World Conservation Congress to come intoeffect after the close of the 2008 Congress. The amend-ments were approved by consensus.

The International Council of Environmental Law notedthat it had voted in favour but highlighted that theseamendments could disadvantage small and/or develop-ing countries.

(b) Amendment to the Rules of Procedureconcerning the Election of Commission Chairs

The President noted that the proposed amendment con-tained in document CGR/2008/2.1 would have the ef-fect of adding a new Rule 79bis to deal with theeventuality that three candidates from the same Statemight receive the highest number of votes in the electionof the various Commission Chairs, even though Article40 of the Statutes stipulates that no more than two Com-mission Chairs may be from the same State. The draftingof Rule 79bis had been prompted by the fact that nomi-nees for three different Commission Chair positions tobe elected during the present Congress included threecandidates from one State. If approved, this amendmentwould come into immediate effect.

There being no comments from the floor, the Presidentinvited members to approve the proposed addition ofRule 79bis of the Rules of Procedure of the World Con-servation Congress to come into immediate effect. Theamendment was approved by consensus.

AAppppooiinnttmmeenntt ooff CCoonnggrreessss CCoommmmiitttteeeess ((33..44))

The President referred members to Congress PaperCGR/2008/3 Draft Terms of Reference for Congress Commit-tees, which contained:

� Annex 2 Resolutions Committee of Congress – Draft Termsof Reference

� Annex 3 Finance and Audit Committee of Congress –Draft Terms of Reference

� Annex 4 Programme Committee of Congress – Draft Termsof Reference

� Annex 5 Congress Steering Committee – Draft Terms ofReference

In addition, Congress Paper CGR/2008/3 rev. contained:

� Annex 6 Governance Committee of Congress – Draft Termsof Reference

The Draft Terms of Reference had been prepared byCouncil, which had also recommended names to go for-ward to Congress for membership of these Committees,


7

taking into account the balance of regions, gender andexpertise.

CCoonnggrreessss RReessoolluuttiioonnss CCoommmmiitttteeee

Congress approved the Terms of Reference for the Con-gress Resolutions Committee as contained in documentCGR/2008/3 Annex 2. The President recalled that a Res-olutions Working Group of Council, under the chair-manship of Pierre Hunkeler (Switzerland), had beenoperating since March 2008. He further recalled that, inaccordance with Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure, “TheResolutions Committee shall include the members of theResolutions Working Group appointed by Council”.Congress approved membership of the ResolutionsCommittee as follows:

Ms Carolina Caceres (Canada)Mr Ali Darwish (Lebanon)Ms Lynn Holowesko (Bahamas) Co-ChairMr Cláudio Maretti (Brazil)Ms Aroha Mead (New Zealand) Co-ChairMr Felix Monggae (Botswana)Mr Abdul-Muyeed Chowdhury (Bangladesh)Mr Kenty Richardson (Spain)Ms Marija Zupancic-Vicar (Slovenia)

The President noted that an open discussion on the Con-gress motions process would be held from 08.00 to 09.30on Friday 10 October.

CCoonnggrreessss FFiinnaannccee aanndd AAuuddiitt CCoommmmiitttteeee

Congress approved the Terms of Reference for the Con-gress Finance and Audit Committee as contained in doc-ument CGR/2008/3 Annex 3. Congress approvedmembership of the Committee as follows:

Mr Kurt Ramin (Germany) ChairMr Ernesto Enkerlin (Mexico)Ms Lynn Holowesko (Bahamas) ex officioMs Huguette Labelle (Canada)Mr Keping Ma (China)Mr Webster Masvikwa (South Africa)Mr Kinsuk Mitra (India)Mr Sven Sandström (Sweden) ex officioMs Rebecca Webber (USA)

CCoonnggrreessss PPrrooggrraammmmee CCoommmmiitttteeee

Congress approved the Terms of Reference for the Con-gress Programme Committee as contained in documentCGR/2008/3 Annex 4. The President recalled that a

Programme Working Group of Council had been operat-ing under the leadership of Mr Ton Boon von Ochssée(Netherlands) since March 2007. Council proposed thatthe Congress Programme Committee be formed by mem-bers of the Working Group. Congress approved member-ship of the Congress Programme Committee as follows:

Ms Sheila Abed (Paraguay)Mr Juan Marco Alvarez (El Salvador)Mr Amadou Ba (Senegal)Mr Ton Boon von Ochssée (Netherlands) ChairMr Lionel Gibson (Fiji)Mr Hillary Masundire (Zimbabwe)Mr Juan Mayr (Colombia)Ms Christine Milne (Australia) Co-ChairMr Kalev Sepp (Estonia)Mr Keith Wheeler (USA)

CCoonnggrreessss GGoovveerrnnaannccee CCoommmmiitttteeee

Congress approved the Terms of Reference for the Con-gress Governance Committee as contained in documentCGR/2008/3 rev. Annex 6. Congress approved mem-bership of the Committee as follows:

Mr Nobutoshi Akao (Japan)Mr Jorge Caillaux (Peru) ChairMr Carles Castell Puig (Spain)Mr Alistair Gammell (United Kingdom)Mr Wren Green (New Zealand)Mr George Greene (Canada)Mr Boyman V. Mancama (Zimbabwe)Mr Russ Mittermeier (USA)Ms Ana Puyol (Ecuador)Ms Diana Shand (New Zealand)

The President noted that two open discussion sessionson governance issues, including proposed revisions to theStatutes, would be held on Saturday 11 October, from08.00 to 09.30 and from 18.00 to 20.00, respectively.

PPrreesseennttaattiioonn bbyy CChhaaiirr ooff CCoonnggrreessssRReessoolluuttiioonnss CCoommmmiitttteeee:: tthhee rreessoolluuttiioonnsspprroocceessss aanndd tthhee ttaabblliinngg ooff mmoottiioonnss iinnaaccccoorrddaannccee wwiitthh tthhee RRuulleess ooff PPrroocceedduurree oofftthhee WWoorrlldd CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn CCoonnggrreessss ((44..22))

Ms Aroha Mead, Co-Chair of the Congress ResolutionsCommittee reported that, at 156, the number of motionsdealt with by the Resolutions Working Group prior to


8

Congress had been approximately 20% up on the num-ber dealt with in the run-up to the Bangkok Congressfour years earlier, which had in turn seen a 30% increaseover the Amman Congress. A total of 126 motions hadso far been forwarded for the consideration of membersin Barcelona, but this did not include a number subject toongoing appeals, or newly submitted motions. The finaldeadline for submission of new motions would be 14.00on Friday 10 October.

In total, some 80 members had submitted motions, with243 members acting as co-sponsors. The Committeenoted that the regional diversity of members submittingor co-sponsoring motions was not as high as it mighthave wished, with the great majority being from Europeand the Americas. Ninety-four motions had been sub-mitted in English, 55 in Spanish and seven in French. TheResolutions Committee had conducted an open hearingon the motions process immediately prior to the presentSitting of Congress (from 08.00 to 09.30 on Friday 10October).

Some motions had been referred to the Congress Pro-gramme and Governance Committees for advice, whileothers had been identified as ready for consideration byCongress. A number of contact groups had been estab-lished to facilitate discussion of individual motions. Con-tact group meetings had been scheduled to make the bestuse of the limited time available, taking into account thatsuch meetings could not take place when Congress wassitting in plenary session. This meant in practice that con-tact groups would need to meet early in the morning, dur-ing lunch breaks or in the evening. The schedule forcontact groups would be available from the ResolutionsHelpdesk and could also be downloaded from the web.The first contact group meetings would take place duringthe evening of 10 October.

In concluding her presentation, Ms Mead formally tabledthe 126 motions forwarded thus far by the ResolutionsCommittee for consideration by Congress.

The President noted that the Congress Steering Com-mittee was still considering a number of appeals frommembers concerning the decisions of the ResolutionsWorking Group on individual motions. The results of theappeals process would be made known as soon as possi-ble. The President also urged all members to contributeactively to the contact groups and reiterated the submis-sion deadline for new motions: 14.00 on 10 October.

The Centre for Sustainable Development (Bangladesh)and the Ecological Society of the Philippines enquired

about the implementation status of Resolutions adoptedby the Bangkok Congress. The Co-Chair of the CongressResolutions Committee, Ms Lynn Holowesko, noted thata report on implementation of Bangkok Resolutions hadbeen sent to all members in September 2008 and that thisissue would also be dealt with in the Director General’sreport.

In reply to questions from the Center for Environmen-tal Legal Studies (USA) and the Ministry of the Envi-ronment and Rural and Marine Affairs (Spain), JusticeAntonio Benjamin (procedural advisor) recalled that, inline with Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure, any mem-ber had the right to propose an amendment to a motion.Amendments took precedence in terms of voting, fol-lowed by voting on the motion as a whole. MsHolowesko advised that draft amendments could be sub-mitted to the Resolutions Committee either by email orin writing via the Resolutions Helpdesk.

Responding to concerns raised by the Commission in-ternationale pour la protection des Alpes, Ms Holoweskosaid that it was difficult to avoid overlaps in the schedul-ing of contact group meetings given the limited time slotsavailable, but that the Resolutions team would seek to re-solve problematic overlaps where possible.

Ms Holowesko advised the Association Ribat Al Fath(Morocco) that questions concerning the integration ofProgramme-related motions into the 2009–2012 Pro-gramme should be referred to the Programme Hearingsscheduled for 10 and 11 October.

PPrreesseennttaattiioonn bbyy CChhaaiirr ooff CCoonnggrreessssPPrrooggrraammmmee CCoommmmiitttteeee:: 22000099––22001122PPrrooggrraammmmee aanndd CCoommmmiissssiioonn MMaannddaatteess aannddtthhee pprroocceessss ffoorr tthheeiirr aaddooppttiioonn,, iinncclluuddiinnggrreellaatteedd MMoottiioonnss ((44..33))

The Chair of the Programme Committee (Ton Boon vonOchssée) presented an overview of the process that hadled to the preparation of Shaping a Sustainable Future – TheIUCN Programme 2009–2012, beginning with a situationanalysis developed by the Chief Scientist and the GlobalProgramme Team. There had been over one thousanddifferent consultations with members, meaning that thedevelopment of this Programme had been subject tomore consultation than any programme in IUCN’s his-tory. The result was a framework for all IUCN activities


9

to be undertaken by Commissions and the Secretariatwith and on behalf of members. IUCN would continueto focus on its Core Programme Area of conserving bio-diversity, but would also work in four other ThematicProgramme Areas: climate change, energy, ecosystemmanagement for human well-being, and greening theworld economy.

Development of the Programme had taken into accountProgramme-related Congress motions submitted bymembers and 84 such motions had been referred to theCommittee for review and assessment of their relevanceand impact. The Programme Committee had providedadvice to the Resolutions Committee concerning the con-sistency of motions with the Programme, whether or notit appeared a contact group would be required for dis-cussion of the issues raised by a given motion, and onthe grouping of motions dealing with similar program-matic themes. The schedule of contact group meetings todiscuss programme-related motions would be availablefrom the Resolutions Helpdesk. During the course of theCongress, the Programme Committee would be meetingdaily and two Programme Hearings, open to all members,had been scheduled: on Friday 10 October from 13.00 to15.00 and on Saturday 11 October from 13.00 to 15.00.The Programme would be before Congress for formaladoption during the 11th Sitting on Tuesday 14 October.

The Council for Environmental Law congratulated theChair of the Programme Committee, noting that for thefirst time in its history IUCN would have the possibilityto approve the Programme in conformity with theStatutes. The Nigerian Conservation Foundation and theSierra Club voiced concerns that the Programme ap-peared to treat energy and climate change as two differ-ent issues. The Nature Conservation Council of NewSouth Wales considered that climate change was an over-arching issue that mustn’t be put into a separate box. TheChair of the Programme Committee responded that anintegrated approach had been taken to climate and en-ergy and that all Programme Areas had been coordinatedduring development of the document. However, heagreed that the interlinkages should be made as clear aspossible for successful implementation; this and other is-sues raised by members would be dealt with during thediscussions over the coming days.

CCaannddiiddaatteess’’ pprreesseennttaattiioonnss ((44..44,, 55..11,, 66..11))

44tthh SSiittttiinngg

At the President’s request, Ms Christine Milne chairedthis agenda item during the 4th Sitting. She noted that fourindividuals had withdrawn their candidacies:

� Dr Peter Bridgewater, Australia/UK (withdrawal as acandidate for election as Chair of the Commissionon Ecosystem Management)

� Dr Gill Shepherd, UK (withdrawal as a candidate forelection as Chair of the Commission on EcosystemManagement)

� Richard Cellarius, USA (withdrawal as a candidate forelection as Chair of the Commission on Environ-mental, Economic and Social Policy)

� Timothy Snow, South Africa (withdrawal as a candi-date for election as Regional Councillor for Africa)

Brief presentations were made by the candidates for elec-tion as Chairs of the six IUCN Commissions and as Re-gional Councillors for four of the eight IUCN Regions,as follows:

Commission on Education andCommunication

Keith Wheeler, USA

Commission on Environmental, Economic andSocial Policy

Abdelhadi Bennis, MoroccoAroha Mead, New Zealand

World Commission on Protected Areas

Nikita Lopoukhine, Canada

Species Survival Commission

Holly Dublin, USASimon Stuart, UK

Commission on Environmental Law

Sheila Abed, Paraguay

Commission for Ecosystem Management

Piet Wit, NetherlandsAngela Andrade Pérez, ColombiaHein Rune Skjoldal, Norway


10

Africa Region

Yolan Friedman, South AfricaBrahim Haddane, MoroccoDavid Mabunda, South AfricaHillary Masundire, ZimbabweAccel Ndinga-Makanda, Congo

Meso and South America Region

Cláudio Maretti, BrazilMiguel Pellerano, ArgentinaZuleika S. Pinzón, Panama

North America and the Caribbean Region

Spencer Linus Thomas, GrenadaGeorge Greene, CanadaSixto Inchaustegui, Dominican RepublicRuss Mittermeier, USA

South and East Asia Region

Monthip Tabucanon, ThailandMahfuz Ullah, BangladeshArzu Rana Deuba, NepalHiroharu Koike, JapanTej Kumar Shrestha, Nepal


Brief presentations were made by the candidates for elec-tion as Regional Councillors for the remaining fourIUCN Regions:

Oceania Region

Lionel Gibson, FijiBrendan Mackey, AustraliaDiana Shand, New Zealand

West Asia Region

Saif Ali Al-Hajari, QatarAbdul Aziz Mohammad Al-Mohanna, Saudi ArabiaSamira Omar Asem, Kuwait (presented on her be-

half by outgoing Regional Councillor, Talal Al-Azimi, Kuwait; for family reasons the candidatehad been unable to travel to Barcelona)

Ali Darwish, LebanonJaved Jabbar, PakistanMohammad Shahbaz, Jordan

East Europe, North and Central Asia Region

Ivan Voloscuk, SlovakiaAmirkhan Amirkhanov, Russia

Vilmos Kiszel, HungaryKalev Sepp, Estonia

It was announced that Jasminka Milosevic (Serbia)had not able to attend the Congress and had notmade arrangements for her candidacy to be pre-sented on her behalf.

West Europe Region

Marina von Weissenberg, FinlandHans de Iongh, NetherlandsChristophe Lefebvre, France


The candidates for election as Treasurer and Presidentof IUCN made brief presentations as follows:

Treasurer

Kurt Ramin, Germany

President

Puri Canals, SpainAshok Khosla, IndiaCarlos Manuel Rodríguez, Costa Rica

The candidates’ presentations having been completed,the Elections Officer explained in detail the voting pro-cedure, as regulated by Rules 75 to 81 of the Rules ofProcedure. The ballot would begin at 14.30 on Saturday11 October and close at 19.30 on the same day. The re-sults would be announced at the beginning of the 8th Sit-ting on Monday 13 October.

PPrreessiiddeenntt’’ss RReeppoorrtt ((55..22))

This agenda item was chaired by Ms Huguette Labelle,Regional Councillor for North America.

Presenting his President’s report, Mr Valli Moosa recalledthat during his first speech as newly elected President, atthe closing of the 3rd IUCN World Conservation Con-gress in Bangkok, he had set out a series of key chal-lenges for the 2005–2008 intersessional period. Theseincluded:

� engaging with governments that had not yet joinedIUCN or whose membership had lapsed, in order topromote unity around a common message;


11

� being more assertive at the United Nations;� building on IUCN’s strengths as a user and generator

of knowledge;� greatly strengthening the Union’s communications

work;� ensuring that the Union was bold, assertive and

everywhere.

The President was proud to report that IUCN had madeconsiderable strides towards meeting these challengesover the past four years, including a net gain of 81 newmembers since Bangkok and the securing of PermanentObserver status at the United Nations.

One of the most important roles of IUCN’s Presidentwas to chair meetings of Council. There had been ninesuch meetings since the Bangkok Congress, all held atheadquarters in Gland, with the exception of the 68th

meeting which had been held in Kruger Park, SouthAfrica. In addition, there had been eight meetings of Bu-reau, as well as regular meetings of Council’s Member-ship Committee, Governance Committee, and Financeand Audit Committee. In the run-up to the present Con-gress, Council had also established a Congress Prepara-tory Committee, a Resolutions Working Group and aProgramme Working Group. Finally, a number of Coun-cil sub-groups and task forces had dealt with specific keyissues such as gender and biodiversity, the ‘One Pro-gramme’ concept, and genetically modified organisms.

During the 2005–2008 intersessional period Council hadbeen particularly involved in governance issues, includ-ing a review of regional boundaries and representationon Council, which resulted in a draft resolution being for-warded to the present Congress for discussion. Priorityhad also been given to identifying means of promotingseamless working together by the Membership, Com-missions and Secretariat; this had again resulted in thetabling of a motion for Congress.

The President highlighted Council’s role concerning threeproposed amendments to the Statutes which were cur-rently being examined by the Congress GovernanceCommittee and which would be presented for approvalby members during the 9th Sitting of Congress on 13 Oc-tober. These amendments all pertained to governance is-sues and two had been proposed by Council itself:

� amendment to Article 1 of the Statutes concerningthe name of IUCN (Congress document CGR/2008/4 sent to members in May 2008); and

� amendment to Article 71(c) of the Statutes concern-ing the territorial scope of National and RegionalCommittees (Congress document CGR/2008/5 sentto members in May 2008).

The third proposed amendment, to Article 68 of theStatutes, had been submitted by members and concernedcreation of a new Category ‘D’ of IUCN membershipfor Local and Regional Government Authorities (Con-gress document CGR/2008/6 sent to members in May2008).

The President urged members to consider these impor-tant amendments carefully and to be ready to express anopinion when they came up for vote.

Turning to the findings of the 2007 External Review ofIUCN, the President noted that, while the Union was ahighly-valued organization, there was also a need to clar-ify its role, purpose and objectives as a member-basedorganization; to improve its leadership and positioning;to strengthen its governance structures; to improvemember relations and accountability of the Secretariatto members; and to strengthen IUCN’s knowledge-management role to better connect members, Commis-sions and the broader constituency of the Union.

Council had also overseen the reviewing of the work ofthe IUCN Commissions (summarised in Congress paperCGR/2008/7 Report of Activities undertaken by Council toReview the Work of the Commissions) and a survey of themembership. The results of the latter showed that a sig-nificant number of members were not familiar withIUCN’s regional and thematic programmes. The surveyconcluded that members’ main areas of involvement (andhigher levels of satisfaction) were achieved in the ‘heart-land’ areas of IUCN’s work such as protected areas andspecies. The most significant finding was that the moremembers were involved in the work of IUCN, the moresatisfied they became.

Overall, members believed in the concept of IUCN as aUnion, found IUCN relevant to their work, and respectedand valued many aspects of the Union. Most, however,wanted significantly greater involvement than they cur-rently experienced and many were frustrated with their ef-forts to become more involved. For many, IUCN fellshort of fulfilling the promise of being a member-basedorganization. The results of the survey provided a com-pelling basis for improvements to the management andgovernance of the Union and the findings had been takenup by a special Task Force of Council and the Secretariat


12

and developed into a new Membership Strategy whichwould be at the heart of future work by the Secretariatand the new Council.

Other matters with which the President and Council hadbeen closely involved included the convening of a‘Renowned Thinkers’ discussion on the future of theconcept of sustainability, and the recruitment of a newDirector General.

Referring to examples of missions he had undertaken onbehalf of IUCN, the President spoke of visits to:

� Senegal and Mali (2005) for meetings with Heads ofState, governments and IUCN members;

� Costa Rica and Panama (2006), including participa-tion at the 7th Meeting of IUCN Members fromMeso-America;

� Botswana (2006) in order to witness at first handIUCN’s support for the development of the com-prehensive Okavango Delta Management Plan;

� Pakistan (2006) to discuss with high-level officialsIUCN’s post-earthquake support activities;

� the G8 meeting of Environment & DevelopmentMinisters (Derby, UK, 2005);

� the International Scientific Conference on Biodiver-sity: Science and Governance (held in Paris, France,2006);

� the first-ever meeting of Chairs of officially recog-nized IUCN Regional and National Committees(held in The Hague, Netherlands, 2006); and

� 13th session of the Commission on Sustainable De-velopment (New York, USA, 2005).

In addition, the President had met with representativesof the Clinton Global Initiative to discuss fundraisingand future collaboration on a post-tsunami mangrove re-habilitation programme in South-East Asia.

The President concluded by saying that IUCN truly wasan amazing Union, with all three of its component parts– the Members, the Commissions and the Secretariat –being equally important. He vowed to stay close to IUCNand urged members to keep their eyes on achievingIUCN’s Mission and to work together with the Union’sfriends and partners in governments, businesses andNGOs to make a change for the better for the futurewell-being of the planet and for future generations whowould live upon it. IUCN should offer vision and hope,and make its knowledge useful to other sectors of soci-ety, to offer concrete solutions in a common languagethat people can understand, absorb and use to drive

appropriate change from the ground up. IUCN had a sig-nificant and growing role on the international stage, andcould play a bolder and more prominent one. TheUnion’s spheres of influence were certainly widening andit was clear that a growing number of parties, from gov-ernment circles to the private sector, were looking toIUCN for leadership. Collaboration was the way forwardto ensuring that IUCN remained on top as a leader inconservation and sustainability.

The Chair urged members to attend the two open hear-ings organized by the Congress Governance Committeeto consider proposed amendments to the Statutes. Therewould also be an opportunity for further discussion inplenary during the 9th Sitting of Congress. She thenopened the floor to comments and questions concern-ing the President’s Report.

In concurring with views about the importance of mem-bership retention expressed by VITALIS – Hombre, Co-municación y Ambiente (Venezuela), the President notedthat securing the reinstatement of lapsed members wasoften a complex process, especially when it involved Statemembers. Regional and National Committees could play ahelpful role, particularly with regard to NGO members.

The Wildlife Society of Kenya had been pleased to hearthe President’s references to the IUCN Commissions andhoped there would be more support for Commissions infuture.

Fundación para la Defensa del Medio Ambiente Baja Ve-rapaz (Guatemala) urged Congress to think about meansof making the relationship between members and theCouncil, Secretariat and Commissions less distant. It wasalso important to look at mechanisms for strengtheningvery local IUCN members. The Union needed well-functioning National and Regional Committees, andheadquarters ought to be strengthening and building thecapacity of these committees.

Fundación para el Ecodesarrollo y la Conservación(Guatemala) posed the question of how IUCN couldmake the best use of its seat at the UN. The Presidentresponded that IUCN needed to intervene on matters ofconcern to the Union, where there was a clear policy orCongress decision to follow up. IUCN should be usingthe global media focus on the UN. However, it was alsoimportant that the IUCN New York office should havea relationship with members, since matters sometimesarose at the UN that were of concern to members, butnot necessarily directly connected to overall IUCN policy.


13

In response to the Nigerian Conservation Foundation’sconcern that IUCN had not spoken out on the damagecaused by the oil industry in the Niger Delta and in theArctic, the Director General assured members that IUCNwas continually working on both regions and pushing theoil companies to do better.

The Sierra Club (USA) enquired whether details of thatpushing were available publicly, especially with regard tothe Shell oil company. The Director General advised thatinformation on IUCN’s relations with Shell was pub-lished on the IUCN website and that she was available todiscuss further details.

The Centre d’Etudes pour le Développement Africain(Burkina Faso) felt it would be useful to have an overviewof the whole IUCN structure and in particular an evalu-ation of the functioning of National and Regional Com-mittees. How many times had the various committeesmet between Congresses and what difficulties had theyencountered?

The Chair recalled that this matter could be raised at oneof the open hearings arranged by the Congress Gover-nance Committee.

DDiirreeccttoorr GGeenneerraall’’ss RReeppoorrtt ((55..33))

The Director General (DG), Ms Julia Marton-Lefèvrepresented her report, noting that further details were con-tained in Congress paper CGR/2008/8 Report of the Di-rector General on the Work of the Union since the IUCN WorldConservation Congress, Bangkok, 2004. Drawing attention toIUCN’s unique strengths, derived from its diversity ofmembers and experts unified around a common mission,the DG also underlined the need for the Union to be-come more influential in order to generate the politicalwill needed to address the environmental challenges con-fronting the planet.

The recently concluded World Conservation Forum hadallowed those present in Barcelona to witness a truly in-spiring part of IUCN’s vision and mission in action. Withthe Members’ Business Assembly now getting under way,the DG urged Congress participants to maintain the levelof enthusiasm and dedication seen during the Forum:“Most of all, I want us to keep our eyes on our commongoal. We have important business to do. Some of it is re-lated to the way our Union works, some about what wewant the Union to do, and mostly it is about setting theworld’s conservation agenda.”

For 60 years, IUCN had provided credible, trustedknowledge, convened and built partnerships for action,developed a reach that was both local and global, and hadsucceeded in influencing standards and practices. Now,with environmental awareness higher than ever before,IUCN’s job would be to provide guidance and solutions,based on knowledge, on equity and justice, and on solidethical considerations.

Turning to the components of IUCN, Ms Marton-Lefèvrereflected on how the members, the Commissions and theSecretariat were commonly referred to as ‘three pillars’holding up the Union – strong, equal, but in fact quite sep-arate. The more scientific and friendlier metaphor of thetriple helix was preferable, since it conveyed so much bet-ter the inter-relationships that were essential for IUCN’smission. Maximizing the synergy of these inter-relation-ships remained a challenge and she called on all presentto help remove barriers between the ‘pillars’, so that IUCNcould become a true and living Union.

Membership currently stood at 1,148 members, includingthe newest group of 48 which joined with effect from 4October, among them IUCN’s newest State members,Mexico and Georgia. Since becoming DG, Ms Marton-Lefèvre had spent much of her time meeting and listen-ing to members’ concerns and recognized the strongdesire within the membership for reform and engage-ment. She said: “My predecessor, Achim Steiner, began aseries of management reforms which I am continuing,and we are now in the midst of a system-wide organiza-tional development and change process which will resultin a more effective and collaborative Union. We are em-phasizing in all this: our links with members and Com-missions; our ability to formulate policy with you and onyour behalf; and our goal to work effectively as a decen-tralized, distributed Secretariat, working seamlessly acrosscultures and time zones.”

An important task had been to work with Council in as-sessing the implementation status of Bangkok Resolu-tions. A report had been sent to members in September,showing that implementation of some 15% of Resolu-tions had been completed, with work on the great ma-jority still ongoing, since many could not be dealt with ina single intersessional period.

Referring to the 2009–2012 Programme, the DG ex-pressed her hope that the Programme would be adoptedby Congress in due course, and her conviction that theProgramme provided the right framework for all parts ofthe Union to act together to deliver concrete results.


14

In closing, she said: “I have come to realize that ourUnion is now at a crossroad and that we need to choosewhich path we want to follow. We can take the knownpath, a familiar and comforting one, where we discussand argue among ourselves, where we do interestingwork, raise red flags and have a moderate influence. Orwe can take the other road, the proverbial ‘less-travelled’one, where we embrace rather than resist change. It is aroad where we travel with new partners because they rep-resent our reality as parts of the society we were set up toinfluence, encourage and assist. It is a road where IUCNbuilds bridges – not necessarily consensus – between di-verging interests. It is one where IUCN leads a massivemovement, which is the only way to effect the kind ofchanges needed to save the only planet we have.

We don’t need to change our mission statement in orderto achieve this. We just need to realize that progress isnot always linear; that we have to be smart and strategicin the way we make the case for Nature to an ever-widen-ing audience; and that we are so much stronger when wework together.”

The President opened the floor to questions and com-ments.

The International Council of Environmental Law con-gratulated the DG on a comprehensive, holistic and elu-cidating report. In referring to the IUCN Commissions,the DG had quoted the 2007 external review, in whichonly 10% of members indicated that they were involvedwith CEESP, CEC or CEL. The DG ought to analyse themanifold reasons for this – perhaps including competi-tion between Commissions.

Referring to follow-up of Bangkok Congress decisionsand specifically Resolution 3.092, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatamiasked for IUCN to play a part in facilitating discussionbetween Inuit and countries that had introduced huntingbans.

Schutzgemeinschaft Deutsches Wild welcomed increasedcollaboration between the Secretariat and the member-ship but was concerned by the implication in the DG’s re-port that 85% of Bangkok decisions were either notimplemented or only partially implemented. A further130 motions were being considered by the present Con-gress and a degree of cynicism could be expected if im-plementation statistics showed no improvement by thetime of the next Congress. IUCN needed to take deci-sions that would work.

The International Council for Game & Wildlife Conser-vation was also concerned about the way in which prior-ities appeared to have been assigned in theimplementation of Bangkok decisions. With reference toResolution 3.074 concerning sustainable use of biodi-versity, did it really take four years to send a letter?

Also referring to Bangkok Resolutions in general and theResolution on genetically modified organisms in particu-lar, the Ecological Society of the Philippines urged theDirector General to take whatever action was needed toensure implementation.

Diana Shand, Regional Councillor for Oceania, congrat-ulated the DG for bringing in new State members andnew framework funders. However, one matter of con-cern went to the heart of the relationship between Coun-cil and the Secretariat. At its meeting in March 2008,Council decided that it would approve both nominationsfor the position of Chair of SSC on the condition thatone candidate tendered immediate resignation from theSecretariat staff. In fact, the staff member concerned didnot leave the Secretariat until the end of July 2008. Thiswas not in conformity with Council’s expectations andan explanation was needed.

The DG responded that the staff member had tenderedhis resignation immediately, but that IUCN had needed totake account of its legal obligations and the need to en-sure that vital conservation work was continued, in deter-mining when the resignation should take effect. The staffmember concerned had been asked not to undertake anycanvassing or campaigning until he had left the Secretariat.

Ali Darwish (Regional Councillor, West Asia) asked forclarification about the implementation status of recom-mendations arising from the various external evaluationsof IUCN that had been conducted.

The DG recalled that implementation of Bangkok Res-olutions had been summarised in a paper sent out in Sep-tember 2008. In fact, most were well on track; only onehad not been implemented at all. The Secretariat earnestlywished to do better, but of course responsibility for im-plementation of Congress decisions lay not only with theSecretariat, but also with Commissions and members.The first Council meeting after the Congress would re-view all motions adopted in Barcelona.

Ms Marton-Lefèvre invited those concerned about thestatus of individual Resolutions to speak with her per-sonally to see what could be done.


15

The Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment,Uganda, recommended that the DG and the Secretariatshould take up the issue of devising strategies for retain-ing members – especially State members. There had beensome complaints about competition within countries be-tween IUCN and its members and of the Secretariat notworking through State members.

The DG agreed that the type of competition outlinedwas indeed unhealthy and stressed that the Secretariat wasfully committed to working with members to overcomesuch problems.

RReeppoorrttss ooff CCoommmmiissssiioonn CChhaaiirrss ((55..44))

The Chairs of the six IUCN Commissions made briefpresentations highlighting key elements of the Commis-sions’ activities during the 2005–2008 intersessional pe-riod. Further details were contained in the six Annexesto Congress Paper CGR/2008/9 Reports from the Chairs ofCommissions.

Hillary Masundire, Chair of IUCN’s Commissionon Ecosystem Management (CEM), reminded mem-bers of the mission, vision and five focal areas of CEMand highlighted some of CEM’s major achievementssince the Bangkok Congress. CEM had opened up a newarea of work within IUCN with a workshop and result-ing publication on applying the Ecosystem Approach todisasters following the tsunami in South-East Asia. In2006, CEM convened a technical workshop in Jordan on‘Drylands’ Hidden Wealth’ as part of the InternationalYear on Deserts and Desertification, and it was CEM thathas initiated the focus of IUCN on drylands which coverover 40% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface. In 2007, inColombia, CEM provided a platform for Latin Americato share experiences in applying the Ecosystem Ap-proach, resulting in a publication.

Throughout the intersessional period, CEM had workedclosely with the UN Conventions – for instance, the 9th

Conference of Parties to the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD COP9) had made a specific request toIUCN with reference to the Ecosystem Approach. Not-ing that CEM now had between 400 and 500 activelyengaged members, Hillary Masundire ended his presen-tation by saying “I leave you a live, active and productiveCommission on Ecosystem Management”.

Keith Wheeler, Chair of IUCN’s Commission onEducation and Communication (CEC), introduced a

short video that showcased examples of some of CEC’smain activities and achievements over the preceding fouryears. These included working with the Sustainability In-stitute in South Africa as a space for learning and leadingtransformational changes at the provincial and nationallevel. CEC had also worked on strengthening the com-munication capacity of environmental Conventions andwas recognized as a global biodiversity knowledge net-work spanning the globe, but with solid connections atthe local level. CEC partnered with the CBD in develop-ing the Toolkit for the Convention’s Programme onCommunication, Education and Public Awareness(CEPA). In partnership with UNEP, CEC had helped tointroduce the concept of environmental citizenship tolocal authorities, politicians, community groups as well aschurches and schools in nine Latin American countries.The World Conservation Learning Network (WCLN) ofCEC was connecting IUCN with the world of universi-ties and supported innovative networks to multiply ef-forts for conservation and sustainable development.‘Business as usual’ would no longer be enough and theexamples shown demonstrated transformational change.Keith Wheeler concluded the CEC presentation by invit-ing IUCN’s membership as a whole to join CEC in pow-ering change for the Union.

Taghi Farvar, Chair of IUCN’s Commission on En-vironmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP),explained that CEESP contributes to delivering IUCN’smission by providing insights and expertise on means ofharmonizing biodiversity conservation with the crucialsocio-economic and cultural concerns of human com-munities. CEESP had a membership of over 1,000 mem-bers of which over 40% were female and more than 50%from the ‘South’. CEESP also ranked as one of theyoungest Commissions.

CEESP had pioneered work on human rights and gov-ernance within the Union and through its seven Themeshad addressed some of the most complex subjects thatconservation faced today. For instance TILCEPA, repre-senting the successful marriage between WCPA andCEESP, had helped the understanding, strengthening andpromotion of Indigenous and Community ConservedAreas in line with the CBD Programme of Work on Pro-tected Areas. The Theme on Sustainable Livelihoods hadworked on food sovereignty and pro-poor conservation.The Environment and Security Working Group hadworked on security aspects of climate change (e.g. at theBali Conference of the UN Framework Convention onClimate Change) and had supported a fact-finding mis-sion following a major oil spill in Lebanon. The Theme


16

on Environment, Macroeconomics, Trade and Invest-ment (TEMTI) was implementing an IUCN project onmonetary and fiscal policies for sustainability, with afocus on Latin America. The Theme on Culture andConservation (TCC) had developed, together with theIUCN member Terralingua, a source book on bioculturaldiversity.

CEESP was engaging the whole of society, particularlyindigenous peoples and local communities, in conserva-tion and was seeking environmental justice. CEESP wasfurther strengthening the multiplicity of values embed-ded in nature besides economic values and was linkingpolicy and practice. CEESP had produced a number ofgroundbreaking publications, such as Sharing Power or itsPolicy Matters series. Taghi Farvar concluded with threeparting messages:

� Social concerns were at the heart of the Union: whenwould we move from rhetoric to reality?

� IUCN should beware of ‘partnerships’ and ‘mar-riages’ that could knock the Union off balance andoff track; and

� A reminder that IUCN’s Vision – a just world thatvalues and conserves nature – sought conservationwith equity.

Sheila Abed de Zavala, Chair of IUCN’s Commis-sion on Environmental Law (CEL), recalled that fouryears ago CEL membership had been overwhelminglyfrom developed countries while today CEL had a largemembership from developing countries and was moreopen and culturally diverse. Modernization of commu-nication tools and addressing language barriers had im-proved interactions in CEL, allowing CEL to concentrateits efforts on strengthening its Specialist Groups; a co-chair had been assigned to each group and operationalresources were allowing them to cover basic functioningcosts and to develop annual work plans. A milestone hadbeen the first ever organization of an annual Chairs’meeting. CEL was also working with the IUCN Regionaland Country Offices to implement the Union’s ‘One Pro-gramme’ concept and was driving inter-Commissionwork, such as with WCPA.

Working on many themes, including sustainable energy, en-vironment and trade, indigenous peoples, armed conflictand environment, and water, CEL was dedicated exclu-sively to equity issues and was a champion of rights-basedapproaches. CEL had developed magnificent products,such as the Guide for Application of the Precautionary Principle.Another important venture had been the instigation of the

CEL Helpdesk to serve as an information and assistanceresource centre on environmental legislation and policy, tosupport IUCN institutional membership. To nurture thenext generation of environmental lawyers, CEL had es-tablished the Alexandre Kiss Prize that allowed young lawprofessionals to complete their training at the Environ-mental Law Centre in Bonn. In closing, Sheila Abed deZavala confirmed that CEL would hold true to its com-mitment to carry on the work started four years previously.

Holly Dublin, Chair of IUCN’s Species SurvivalCommission (SSC), told of the journey of SSC sinceBangkok – a Mission Possible. SSC could look back onsix decades of conservation achievements and nowadayshad over 7,600 individually registered members and over120 Specialist Groups. SSC gave high priority to aware-ness of member issues and the valuing of voluntarismand was very aware of IUCN’s policies and governance.

For the first time ever, SSC had brought together its Spe-cialist Group Chairs during the last intersessional period.SSC had been able to contribute to implementation of aconsiderable number of Bangkok Resolutions and Rec-ommendations. SSC was seen by many as IUCN’s hubof science, with a huge number of species assessmentscarried out each year. For instance, SSC had provided in-formation to decision makers through the Second GlobalMammal Assessment, new marine and freshwater speciesassessments, a regional assessment in Europe and theMediterranean and the development of indicators for theCBD 2010 Biodiversity Target, Millennium DevelopmentGoal number 7, the Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). SSChad been reviewing the Red List process to enhance rigorand to maintain its integrity.

SSC had helped to understand some of the threats aris-ing from the current pattern of consumption and pro-duction, such as overexploitation, climate change, miningor energy-sector impacts and the effects of invasivespecies. SSC had developed a considerable number ofnew guidelines and publications and fostered regional co-operation and action for species and the Global Strategyfor Plant Conservation. SSC fostered inter-Commissioncollaboration and worked, for instance, with CEL on thePrecautionary Principle and with WCPA on protectedarea guidelines. Priorities for 2009–2012 had been incor-porated into SSC’s Strategic Plan, which had delivery ofthe ‘One Programme’ approach at its centre, as well asthe need to secure the necessary support for SSC mem-bers and partners throughout the world.


17

Nikita Lopoukhine, Chair of IUCN’s World Com-mission on Protected Areas (WCPA), observed his sat-isfaction that the Union’s new logo showed IUCNembraced by a large letter ‘C’, which clearly stood forCommissions! He acknowledged the four sponsoringagencies that made WCPA meetings and work possibleand also acknowledged the work and support of WCPASteering Committee members and their institutions.

Marine Protected Areas had been one priority for WCPA,working with partners across the oceans of the world.Membership of marine-related organizations had ex-panded to cover more than 50 countries. Mountain Pro-tected Areas were especially vulnerable to the effects ofclimate change, making connectivity a critical issue.WCPA, together with its network of over 500 mountainbiome experts, had produced three important mountainpublications, among them Guidelines for Planning and Man-aging Mountain Protected Areas.

Addressing management effectiveness was becoming aWCPA ‘nugget’ – an example being the global study onmanagement effectiveness of protected areas with a sys-tem-level assessment of over 6,000 protected areas in 80countries. Similarly, recognition was growing for IUCN’stechnical advisory capacity on sites under the World Her-itage Convention.

Following up on Bangkok Resolution 3.048, the guide-lines for protected area management categories had beenreviewed and had been tabled at a workshop held a fewdays previously during the Barcelona World Conserva-tion Forum. WCPA had also launched the Protected AreaLearning Network, PALNet. This virtual platform al-lowed people working with protected area issues to ac-cess and share information. Another important focus ofWCPA was the CBD Programme of Work on ProtectedAreas.

An important regional highlight was the increasing ac-ceptance of WCPA as a source of verification and certi-fication for assessing protected area establishment andmanagement against the IUCN Categories. In concludinghis report, Nikita Lopoukhine provided an overview ofprominent international events at which WCPA hadplayed an active role during the past four years.

Remarking on the wealth of science that IUCN hadaround the world, the President congratulated the Com-mission Chairs, Vice-Chairs and Steering Groups, ac-knowledging that mobilizing people for products didn’tjust happen; it required a great deal of time and effort.He opened the floor for comments and questions.

Referring to armed conflicts in the Middle East and else-where, the Academy of Scientific Research and Technol-ogy (Egypt) was concerned that nobody appeared to belooking at the effects of war on ecosystems. IUCNneeded to do this. On another matter, the Chair of SSChad mentioned the meeting of Chairs of SSC SpecialistGroups but hadn’t clarified that the meeting had beenheld in the United Arab Emirates. It was important to ac-knowledge the contribution that Arab countries weremaking to the work of IUCN.

The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled thatJapan would be hosting the 10th Conference of Parties tothe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP10)and was requesting cooperation with IUCN in this en-deavour. Japan encouraged each Commission Chair andthe IUCN Director General to best utilize the opportu-nities offered by COP10.

The President thanked Japan for taking the initiative inbuilding these bridges.

The Arab Group for the Protection of Nature (Jordan)stated that it had helped with the establishment of anIUCN National Committee in Jordan and also with im-plementing Bangkok Resolution 3.006. However, whenthe Group had tried to establish contact with CEL toseek guidance on the major oil spill in Lebanon, they hadexperienced no success.

The Chair of CEC noted that CEC had a specialist groupon conflict and environment and that the focal point forthat specialist group was from Jordan.

The Ugandan Ministry of Water, Lands and Environ-ment questioned why restoration of degraded ecosys-tems had apparently received little attention from CEM.The Chair of CEM undertook to follow up this point di-rectly with the Ministry.

Association Ribat Al Fath (Morocco) called for a geo-graphical and thematic summary of Commission activi-ties to be made available in future to facilitate properanalysis of the Commissions’ work.

Concluding discussion under this Agenda item, the Pres-ident invited members with further questions to addressthem directly to the Commission Chairs.


18

RReeppoorrttss ffrroomm rreeccooggnniizzeedd RReeggiioonnaallCCoommmmiitttteeeess aanndd RReeggiioonnaall MMeemmbbeerrss’’MMeeeettiinnggss ((66..22))

The President noted that written reports had been re-ceived from the following three Regional Committees:

� West Africa� West Asia� MesoAmerica

Representatives of other Regional Committees or thosewishing to report on regional meetings of members wereinvited to take the floor. No requests to speak wereforthcoming.

DDiissccuussssiioonn ooff tthhee 22000099––22001122 PPrrooggrraammmmee aannddCCoommmmiissssiioonn MMaannddaatteess aanndd rreellaatteedd MMoottiioonnss,,aanndd RReeppoorrtt ooff CCoonnggrreessss PPrrooggrraammmmeeCCoommmmiitttteeee ((66..33))

Mr Manfred Niekisch, Chair of the Council’s ProgrammeCommittee, introduced the 2009–2012 Programme, un-derlining the fact that its preparation had been guided byIUCN’s Vision and Mission. It contained two goals whichhad been approved at the Bangkok Congress:

� Extinction crisis is alleviated: The extinction crisisand massive loss in biodiversity are universallyadopted as a shared responsibility, resulting in actionto reduce this loss of diversity within species, be-tween species and of ecosystems.

� Ecosystem integrity is maintained: Ecosystems aremaintained and where necessary restored and any useof natural resources is sustainable and equitable.

The Programme identified a set of ten global resultswithin a Core Programme Area and four Thematic Pro-gramme Areas:

Core Programme Area: Conserving biodiversity –Ensuring sustainable and equitable management of bio-diversity from local to global levels.

Global result 1.1: Biodiversity-related policies andgovernance systems enable action towards theachievement of biodiversity conservation. Global result 1.2: IUCN standards, tools and knowl-edge for sustainable natural resource management are

available and used for biodiversity conservation, in-cluding effective management of global and regionalcommon natural resources.

Thematic Programme Area 2: Changing the climateforecast – Integrating biodiversity considerations andopportunities into climate change policy and practice.

Global result 2.1: Climate change mitigation andadaptation policies and practice include biodiversityconcerns from local to global level. Global result 2.2: Natural resource management poli-cies and strategies to adapt to the impacts of climatechange are adopted and implemented.

Thematic Programme Area 3: Naturally energisingthe future – Implementing ecologically sustainable,equitable and efficient energy systems.

Global result 3.1: Energy policies and strategies mit-igate the impact of the growing energy demand onbiodiversity. Global result 3.2: Ecosystem services that underpinsustainable and equitable energy are incorporated inenergy policies and strategies.

Thematic Programme Area 4: Managing ecosys-tems for human well-being – Improving livelihoods,reducing poverty and vulnerability, and enhancing envi-ronmental and human security through sustainableecosystem management.

Global result 4.1: Development policies and strate-gies support vulnerable and poor stakeholders, espe-cially women, to sustainably manage ecosystems forimproved livelihoods. Global result 4.2: Sustainable environmental man-agement reduces vulnerability to natural hazards andconflicts.

Thematic Programme Area 5: Greening the worldeconomy – Integrating ecosystem conservation valuesin economic policy, finance and markets.

Global result 5.1: Economic, trade and investmentpolicies better integrate biodiversity values. Global result 5.2: Companies, industry associationsand consumer groups incorporate ecosystem valuesinto planning and action.

Manfred Niekisch explained that while the five Pro-gramme Areas and ten Global results provided the basis


19

for all IUCN activities across the world, this ‘One Pro-gramme’ approach did not mean that all components ofthe Union would be undertaking the same activities. Eachcomponent (e.g. Regional Programmes, Commissions,Global Thematic Programmes) would have its own in-tersessional work plan and set of activities that wouldcontribute to delivery of the global IUCN Programme.

The Chair of the Congress Programme Committee, MrTon Boon Von Ochssée, reviewed briefly the work ofthe Programme Working Group of Council in preparingfor the Barcelona Congress and reported on the role andactivities of the Congress Programme Committee. Theprincipal functions were to:

� review 84 Programme-related motions;� provide recommendations to the Resolutions Com-

mittee on those motions;� discuss motions with members during the Forum;� prepare and conduct the Programme Hearing ses-

sions for members;� provide advice on new motions submitted at Con-

gress; and� attend contact groups.

In reviewing Programme-related motions and makingrecommendations to the Resolutions Committee, theProgramme Working Group and Programme Commit-tee had sought to ensure that if adopted, motions orparts thereof, would not unintentionally:

� result in an amendment to the draft Programmeframework or proposed Commission mandates;

� result in duplicative efforts with other processes andorganizations; or

� propose actions that were already fully covered by theProgramme, particularly at Global result level.

DDiissccuussssiioonn aanndd AAddooppttiioonn ooff DDrraafftt RReessoolluuttiioonnssaanndd RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss ((66..44,, 77..44,, 88..99,, 99..22,,1100..11,, 1111..33,, 1122..11))

A total of 107 Resolutions and 29 Recommendationswere adopted by Congress (during the 6th to 12th Sittings,inclusive) as shown in the summary table below.

MMoottiioonnss ccoommbbiinneedd,, wwiitthhddrraawwnn oorr nnoott aapppprroovveedd

Of the motions tabled for consideration by Congress, thefollowing three motions were combined to form the mo-tion adopted as CGR4.MOT005 Rev.1 StrengtheningIUCN’s Regional and National Committees:

� CGR4.MOT003 Encouraging the participation ofUnion members

� CGR4.MOT004 Designation of a focal point forIUCN’s Regional and National Committees

� CGR4.MOT005 Strengthening IUCN’s Regional andNational Committees


20

Number of motions considered and adopted in Barcelona

Status of motions at stages in the process Number

Motions received by statutory deadline 156

Motions not accepted for lack of sufficient sponsors -6

Motions found to be redundant for other reasons -13

Adjustment for consolidated motions -12

Total motions forwarded to Congress 125

Motions introduced at Congress (including newly submitted and those tabled following successful appeals) +19

Adjustment for consolidation -3

Motions withdrawn -3

Total motions voted on 138

Motions not approved -2

Total adopted: 106 Resolutions and 30 Recommendations 136

The following two motions were combined to form themotion adopted as CGR4.MOT075 Rev.1 Implementingthe UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

� CGR4.MOT075 Implementing the UN Declaration onthe Rights of Indigenous Peoples

� CGR4.MOT076 Endorsement of the UN Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The following three motions were withdrawn by thesponsors:

� CGR4.MOT058 Protecting the World Heritage val-ues of Cape York Peninsula, Australia

� CGR4.MOT130 Support for IUCN’s Chief Scientist� CGR4.MOT138 The current global economic crisis

and the need for uninterrupted protection of the en-vironment and natural resources

The following two motions were not approved:

� CGR4.MOT107 Termination of the agreement be-tween IUCN and Shell

� CGR4.MOT143 Assessment and stock exchange list-ing of ecosystem services in protected natural areas

RReessuullttss ooff aappppeeaallss

During the 6th Sitting, the Co-Chair of the Congress Res-olutions Committee confirmed that appeals by the Niger-ian Conservation Foundation (concerning threemotions), the Sierra Club (four motions), the Interna-tional Council of Environmental Law (four motions) andthe International Commission for the Protection of theAlps (one motion) had been submitted to the CongressSteering Committee. All of the appeals had been resolvedsuccessfully in conjunction with the sponsors and themotions concerned were now being formally tabled forconsideration by the Congress. These were:

� CGR4.MOT002 Coordination of the IUCN Pro-gramme

� CGR4.MOT012 Transparency of the IUCN Council� CGR4.MOT108 Establishing the 1% Earth ProfitsFund and sustaining government conservation finance

� CGR4.MOT109 Guiding and improving IUCN’s in-volvement with the private sector

� CGR4.MOT112 Establishing the IUCN ExtractiveIndustry Responsibility Initiative

� CGR4.MOT114 Maintenance of ECOLEX – thegateway to environmental law

� CGR4.MOT122 Military activities detrimental to theenvironment

� CGR4.MOT127 Establishing citizens’ advisory coun-cils for large-scale extractive industry projects

� CGR4.MOT128 Implementation of CongressResolutions

� CGR4.MOT129 International Covenant on Envi-ronment and Development

� CGR4.MOT131 Sustainable mountain development

(Editorial note: CGR.MOT112 was the subject of ap-peals by two members, which is why 12 appeals werelodged, but only 11 motions are listed above.)

FFoorrmmaall ssttaatteemmeennttss ffoorr tthhee rreeccoorrdd pprroovviiddeedd bbyy mmeemmbbeerrss

The State member Canada wrote to the IUCN DirectorGeneral on 29 October 2008 providing the followingstatement to be included in the official record of themeeting:

“The Government of Canada takes this opportunity to restate itsposition on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of In-digenous Peoples (UN DRIP), which is referenced in motions 70through 75, which were adopted by the International Union for theConservation of Nature Congress in October 2008. [Editorialnote: these adopted motions were subsequently renum-bered as Resolutions 4.048, 4.049, 4.050, 4.051, 4.052 andRecommendation 4.127]

Canada was unable to support the UN DRIP because the textfails to adequately address Canada’s key concerns and lacks clear,practical guidance for States.

The UN DRIP is not a legally binding instrument. It has no legaleffect in Canada, and its provisions do not represent customary in-ternational law.

Canada will continue to take effective action, at home and abroad,to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples based onour existing human rights obligations and commitments.”

The following statement for the record, entitled U.S. Gen-eral Statement on the IUCN Resolutions Process was providedby the delegation of the State member United States dur-ing the 6th Sitting, on 11 October 2008:

“The United States welcomes the opportunity to renew our commit-ment to IUCN. The United States recognizes the importance andthe value of IUCN with its broad and determined membership ded-icated to protecting the natural world. Let me extend our congratu-lations to the IUCN secretariat and to all those many members who


21

made this Forum so valuable and successful. But our work as mem-bers of IUCN really begins now with the Assembly. As a memberof IUCN, it is our responsibility to engage fully and actively; be as-sured the United States takes this responsibility seriously.

We are very interested in learning more about the perspectives andpriorities of IUCN members, particularly the non-governmentalmembers, as reflected in the 125-plus motions put forward for con-sideration by this Congress. We recognize and believe that IUCNas an organization has an important contribution to make to theinternational environment dialogue.

This motions process remains a challenging one for us as a govern-ment. Building on our experience in Bangkok and in Amman, wehave continued to reflect on how best we, as a State member, canparticipate in the motions process. Because of the high priority weplace on IUCN’s programs which contribute significantly to the con-servation goals we share, we have concluded that, in keeping withour approach at the past two Congresses, we should focus our at-tention on those motions that deal with issues related to IUCN asan institution, its governance and its broad programmatic issues.

We greatly appreciate the outstanding efforts made by the Resolu-tions Committee to review and provide guidance on all motions andto identify their relevance to the proposed IUCN quadrennial Pro-gram and their cost implications. We found the procedures of screen-ing motions to avoid duplication and repetition to be a valuable andwelcome approach and applaud the Resolutions Committee, partic-ularly its Chair, and the IUCN secretariat for their efforts. Thereare, however, motions that we believe do in fact duplicate previousmotions and would ask that when it comes time to prepare for thenext Congress and Assembly, stricter attention might be paid tothis. In addition, we ask that greater efforts be made to reduce thenumber of motions. Further, we believe we should consider chang-ing the deadline for submission of motions to two weeks prior to thestart of the Assembly to allow members sufficient time for review.

We would note, however, that a number of motions reflect the strongviews of a small number of members on what actions State mem-bers should take nationally, regionally or internationally on complexand often controversial issues.

We remain convinced that there are some types of resolutions onwhich it may not be appropriate for us, as a government, to engageor negotiate.

Among these is a group of motions directed primarily to a singlegovernment or group of governments on national, bilateral or re-gional issues. We often lack sufficient factual information aboutsuch issues and believe that responses to these motions are best leftto the country, countries or regions affected. We will not take a po-sition as a government on such motions, except as they have direct

implications for the U.S. Government. In such instances, we mayprovide a statement for the record to help clarify the issues raised andprovide our perspective.

A second group of issues are those focused on global issues that weagree are important but that are topics of ongoing internationalpolicy debate in other fora, such as, for example, climate change orhuman rights. We respect the interest of members in issues of globalconcern and we share many of these interests. However, we do notintend to take national government positions on the particular viewspresented in motions here or to vote on the outcome.

We will provide you with a list for the record of those resolutionson which the U.S. Government will refrain from engaging.

We would request that this statement be entered in full for the recordin the report of this Congress.”

On 21 October 2008, the US Department of State pro-vided the Director General with a further written state-ment identifying the positions taken on each motion,dividing them into four categories:

“State and agency members of the United States refrained fromengaging in deliberations on the following motions and took no na-tional government position on the motions as adopted for reasonsgiven in the U.S. General Statement on the IUCN ResolutionsProcess:

006, 007, 016, 029, 030, 032, 033, 039, 056, 057, 060, 062,063, 064, 065, 066, 068, 069, 070, 071, 072, 073, 075, 078,080, 082, 083, 084, 085, 086, 089, 090, 091, 094, 095, 096,097, 098, 099, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 117, 119, 122,123, 126, 127, 132, 134, 135, 141, 142, 144

State and agency members of the United States abstained duringthe vote on the following motions:

001, 005, 009, 012, 013, 017, 019, 022, 024, 025, 027, 035,043, 044, 045, 053, 055, 092, 102, 111, 113, 114, 118, 120,121, 124, 131, 140

State and agency members of the United States voted against thefollowing motions:

107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 115, 116, 128, 129, 136

State and agency members of the United States voted in favor ofall other motions.”

(Editorial note: the motion numbers listed in the US Gov-ernment statement refer to the original motion numbers


22

as tabled at the Congress. This listing has been used toensure that the relevant US Government reservation hasbeen included in the summary of all adopted (and subse-quently renumbered) Resolutions and Recommendationsthat appears below.)

RReeccoorrdd ooff RReessoolluuttiioonnss aanndd RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss aaddoopptteedd

The following is a complete listing of the Resolutionsand Recommendations adopted by the Congress. Anyformal position statements that members specifically in-dicated should be included in the record of the meetingare given in full under the appropriate motion title. Allmotions were adopted by electronic voting, in accordancewith the Rules of Procedure, as amended by Congressduring the 3rd Sitting on 6 October 2008. The full andfinal texts of all Resolutions and Recommendations canbe found in the separate volume that accompanies theseProceedings.

RESOLUTIONS

4.001 Strengthening the links between IUCNmembers, Commissions and Secretariat(adopted as CGR4.MOT001 Rev.1)

State and agency members of the United States abstainedduring the vote on this motion.

4.002 Coordination of the IUCN Programme(adopted as CGR4.MOT002)

4.003 Strengthening IUCN’s National and Re-gional Committees (adopted as CGR4.MOT005Rev.1)

State member Switzerland abstained during the vote onthis motion. The Swiss Federal Office for the Environ-ment provided the following statement for the recordduring the 11th Plenary Session:

“Taking into account the large number of motions, which is grow-ing steadily from one Congress to the next and the difficulties inimplementing a certain number of motions; and noting that severalinterventions are heading in the direction of better governance con-cerning motions; the Swiss delegation recommends that Council dealswith this matter at three levels: 1. Find a mechanism to ensure thatmotions are truly operational, that they correspond to the generalthrust of the programme and available finances; 2. Improve thevoting system by introducing a rule that a motion is only acceptedif more than 50% of the votes cast are in favour in the two cate-gories of membership (States and NGOs). The votes cast to which

we refer include abstentions. 3. Set up monitoring of implementa-tion of the various motions that is regularly updated and trans-parent, in line with Motion 128 [editorial note: now Resolution4.010] already adopted.”


4.004 Strengthening IUCN’s institutional presencein South America (adopted as CGR4.MOT007)

State and agency members of the United States refrainedfrom engaging in deliberations on this motion and tookno national government position on the motion asadopted for reasons given in the U.S. General Statementon the IUCN Resolutions Process.

4.005 Mainstreaming gender equity and equalitywithin the Union (adopted as CGR4.MOT008Rev.1)

4.006 IUCN’s name (adopted as CGR4.MOT009 Rev.1)


4.007 Changing IUCN’s Statutory Regions (adopted as CGR4.MOT010 Rev.2)

4.008 Including local and regional governmentalauthorities in the structure of the Union(adopted as CGR4.MOT011 Rev.1)

4.009 Transparency of the IUCN Council (adopted as CGR4.MOT012 Rev.1)


4.010 Implementation of Congress Resolutions(adopted as CGR4.MOT128)

State and agency members of the United States votedagainst this motion.

4.011 Development of an automated system torecord members’ actions on Resolutions andRecommendations to improve reporting atand between World Conservation Con-gresses (adopted as CGR4.MOT136)



23

4.012 IUCN policy and strategy for the manage-ment of biodiversity data and information(adopted as CGR4.MOT015)

4.013 Sustainable use and accountability (adopted asCGR4.MOT016 Rev.1)

State and agency members of the United States refrainedfrom engaging in deliberations on this motion and tookno national government position on the motion asadopted for reasons given in the U.S. General Statementon the IUCN Resolution Process.

4.014 Conservation of global plant diversity(adopted as CGR4.MOT018 Rev.1)

4.015 Guidelines regarding research and scientificcollecting of threatened species (adopted asCGR4.MOT019)


4.016 Development of climate change guidelinesfor IIUUCCNN RReedd LLiiss tt assessments (adopted asCGR4.MOT020)

4.017 Stopping the amphibian crisis (adopted asCGR4.MOT021)

4.018 Increased participation of scientists fromrelevant countries in the preparation of theIIUUCCNN RReedd LLiisstt (adopted as CGR4.MOT022)


4.019 The World Species Congress (adopted asCGR4.MOT023 Rev.1)

4.020 Quantitative thresholds for categories andcriteria of threatened ecosystems (adopted asCGR4.MOT024)


4.021 Eradication of the illegal use of poisonedbait as a method for controlling predators inthe European Union (adopted as CGR4.MOT025Rev.1)


4.022 Promotion of Dugong DDuuggoonngg dduuggoonn duringthe UN 2010 International Year for Biodiver-sity (adopted as CGR4.MOT027 Rev.1)

State and Government Agency members from Japan indi-cated that they would abstain in the vote on this motion.


4.023 Conservation and recovery of the Mediter-ranean Monk Seal MMoonnaacchhuuss mmoonnaacchhuuss(adopted as CGR4.MOT029 Rev.1)


4.024 Conservation of the habitat of the IberianLynx LLyynnxx ppaarrddiinnuuss (adopted as CGR4.MOT030)


4.025 Avoiding extinction of the Vaquita PorpoisePPhhooccooeennaa ssiinnuuss (adopted as CGR4.MOT031 Rev.1)

4.026 Trust building for biodiversity conservationand sustainable use in line with the Euro-pean Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity(adopted as CGR4.MOT032)


4.027 Relationship between fisheries and greatwhales (adopted as CGR4.MOT037 Rev.1)

The State member Australia made the following state-ment for the record in proposing the adopted wordingfor operational paragraph 1:


24

It is correct that the contact group for this motion came to a some-what reluctant consensus. We would like to make it clear that, inthe spirit of cooperation, Australia did not block that consensus.However, we will be unable to support the motion as it stands. Withdue respect to all members of IUCN, Australia believes it is im-portant for the Union to be aware of the key area of disagreementwithin the contact group. In Australia’s view, the substantive issuecovered in operative paragraph 1 of Motion 37 should limit its ref-erence to the status of science and what science can say about inter-actions between two parts of the marine ecosystem (in this case whalenumbers and the amount of fish available to fishers). Australiawould support an amendment to the current operative paragraph 1that would capture this in a more accurate and succinct manner.Our suggestion is:

“ACKNOWLEDGES that the great whales play no significantrole in the current crisis affecting global fisheries.”

Such an amendment clearly reflects a consensus on what the scienceis telling us. Equally importantly, it avoids the highly contentiousand scientifically unsupportable notion that a management responsesuch as culling whales should be considered if there was a link be-tween whale numbers and fishing yields. Australia believes thisamendment clearly reflects the discussions and outcomes of the veryuseful ‘whales and fisheries interactions’ workshop that was heldduring the IUCN World Conservation Forum. Australia supportsthe conclusions that great whales are indeed not a threat to fisheriesand that more science to investigate this issue is a waste of valuableresearch finding and effort.

Australia requests that this statement be incorporated into the of-ficial record of this meeting.

The State member United Kingdom indicated that itwished its name to be appended to the statement for therecord made by Australia.

The State member Japan provided the following state-ment for the record:

The delegation of Japan expresses appreciation to the sponsors ofthis motion for their work to develop a text that could be adoptedby consensus. We participated in the contact group on this motionin good faith and indicated we could go along with the text agreedto in the contact group. It is in our view regrettable that, at the Ple-nary Session, the Government of Australia introduced an amend-ment to the agreed text particularly since they had participated inthe contact group and did not propose their change at that time. Forthis reason, Japan voted against the amended motion.

4.028 Action for recovery of the East Atlantic andMediterranean population of Atlantic Bluefin

Tuna TThhuunnnnuuss tthhyynnnnuuss (adopted as CGR4.MOT038Rev.1)

4.029 Conservation and sustainable use of fish inRío de la Plata Basin (adopted as CGR4.MOT039)


4.030 Promoting transparency to achieve sustain-able fisheries (adopted as CGR4.MOT042 Rev.1)

4.031 Achieving conservation of marine biodiver-sity in areas beyond national jurisdictions(adopted as CGR4.MOT043 Rev.1)


4.032 Coordination of the Pacific Ocean 2020Challenge (adopted as CGR4.MOT044 Rev.1)


4.033 Arctic legal regime for conservation (adoptedas CGR4.MOT046 Rev.1)

4.034 IUCN’s engagement on Antarctica and theSouthern Ocean (adopted as CGR4.MOT047Rev.1)

4.035 Strengthening IUCN’s work on protectedareas (adopted as CGR4.MOT049 Rev.1)

4.036 Best practice protected area guideline for eco-logical restoration (adopted as CGR4.MOT051)

4.037 Municipal Conservation Areas (adopted asCGR4.MOT052)

The California Institute for Public Affairs noted for therecord that this Resolution was drafted in Spanish andrefers to a level of government that may cover bothurban and rural areas in many countries, although in theEnglish language the word ‘municipal’ commonly refersto local government units that are mainly urban.


25

4.038 Recognition and conservation of sacred nat-ural sites in protected areas (adopted asCGR4.MOT053)


4.039 Cross-Commission collaboration on sustain-able use of biological resources (adopted asCGR4.MOT054 Rev.2)

4.040 Conservation of geodiversity and geologicalheritage (adopted as CGR4.MOT055)


4.041 Following up on actions called for by the 2nd

Latin American Congress on ProtectedAreas and Other Protected Areas (Bariloche,2007) (adopted as CGR4.MOT059)

4.042 Establishment of a transboundary PeacePark between Honduras and Nicaragua(adopted as CGR4.MOT060 Rev.1)


4.043 Environmental and social suitability of theInitiative for Integration of Regional Infra-structure in South America (IIRSA) (adoptedas CGR4.MOT064)


4.044 Actions to conserve the Pampas and Camposof South America (adopted as CGR4.MOT066)


4.045 Accelerating progress to establish marineprotected areas and creating marine pro-tected area networks (adopted as CGR4.MOT067Rev.1)

4.046 Artisanal fishing organizations active in thesustainable management of the Mediter-ranean (adopted as CGR4.MOT068)


4.047 Empowering local communities to conserveand manage natural resources in Africa(adopted as CGR4.MOT069)


4.048 Indigenous peoples protected areas and im-plementation of the DDuurrbbaann AAccccoorrdd (adoptedas CGR4.MOT070 Rev.1)


The State member Australia provided the following state-ment for the record:

Australia has not yet adopted the UN Declaration on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples. Australia has stated it intends to adopt theDeclaration after it has consulted with indigenous organizations,other jurisdictions in Australia and other players. This is consistentwith Australia’s national apology earlier this year, which began anew relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peo-ples based on respect, cooperation and mutual responsibility. Aus-tralia will abstain from this and subsequent Motions that call forthe adoption of measures in support of the Declaration until theseconsultations are completed.

The State member Canada provided the following state-ment for the record:


26

The Government of Canada takes this opportunity to restate itsposition on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of In-digenous Peoples (UN DRIP). Canada was unable to supportthe UN DRIP because the text fails to adequately addressCanada’s key concerns and lacks clear, practical guidance forStates. The UN DRIP is not a legally binding instrument. It hasno legal effect in Canada, and its provisions do not represent cus-tomary international law. Canada will continue to take effective ac-tion, at home and abroad, to protect and promote the rights ofindigenous peoples based on our existing human rights obligationsand commitments.

The State member New Zealand provided the followingstatement for the record:

While New Zealand fully supports the principles and aspirationsof the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples(DRIP), the Declaration does not enjoy universal support. On 13September 2007 New Zealand, along with a number of othercountries with significant indigenous populations, voted against theDeclaration when it was adopted by the UN General Assembly.Some of the Declaration’s key articles are fundamentally incom-patible with New Zealand’s legal, constitutional and democraticarrangements. Our explanation of vote is a matter of publicrecord.

For the reasons explained, New Zealand will not support thoseMotions containing references such as adopting, endorsing or im-plementing the Declaration.

New Zealand will continue to support efforts to promote and pro-tect the rights of indigenous peoples.

The State member United Kingdom provided the fol-lowing statement for the record:

The UK fully supports the provisions in this Declaration which rec-ognize that indigenous individuals are entitled to the full protectionof their human rights and fundamental freedoms in internationallaw, on an equal basis to all other individuals. Human rights areuniversal and equal to all.

We would like to recall here that, since equality and universality arethe fundamental principles underpinning human rights, we do notaccept that some groups in society should benefit from human rightsthat are not available to others. With the exception of the right toself-determination (Common Article 1 of the two InternationalHuman Rights Covenants), we therefore do not accept the conceptof collective human rights in international law. Of course certainindividual human rights can often be exercised collectively, in com-munity with others. Examples are freedom of association, freedomof religion or a collective title to property.

This remains a long-standing and well-established position of theUK. It is one we consider to be important in ensuring that indi-viduals within groups are not left vulnerable or unprotected by al-lowing rights of the group to supersede the human rights of theindividual. This is without prejudice to the UK’s recognition of thefact that the governments of many states with indigenous popula-tions have granted them various collective rights in their constitu-tions, national laws and agreements. Indeed, we warmly welcomethis fact, which has served to strengthen the political and economicposition of and protections for indigenous peoples in those states.

4.049 Supporting Indigenous Conservation Terri-tories and other Indigenous Peoples’ andCommunity Conserved Areas (adopted asCGR4.MOT071 Rev.1)


The statements for the record made by the State mem-bers Australia, Canada and New Zealand in relation toResolution 4.048 also apply to this Resolution.

The State member Norway indicated that it would voteagainst the motion.

4.050 Recognition of indigenous conservation ter-ritories (adopted as CGR4.MOT072 Rev.1)


The statements for the record made by the State mem-bers Australia, Canada and New Zealand in relation toResolution 4.048 also apply to this Resolution.

4.051 Indigenous peoples and protected areas ofla Mosquitia in Mesoamerica (adopted asCGR4.MOT074 Rev.1)

The statement for the record made by the State memberCanada in relation to Resolution 4.048 also applies to thisResolution.

4.052 Implementing the United Nations DDeeccllaarraa--tt ii oonn oonn tthh ee RRiigghh tt ss ooff IInnddiiggeennoouuss PPeeoopp ll ee ss(adopted as CGR4.MOT075 Rev.1)


27

The statements for the record made by the State mem-bers Australia, Canada, New Zealand and United King-dom in relation to Resolution 4.048 also applies to thisResolution.


4.053 Mobile Indigenous Peoples and biodiversityconservation (adopted as CGR4.MOT126 Rev.1)


4.054 The Yasuní-ITT Initiative (adopted asCGR4.MOT142)


4.055 Integrating culture and cultural diversity intoIUCN’s policy and Programme (adopted asCGR4.MOT077)

4.056 Rights-based approaches to conservation(adopted as CGR4.MOT078 Rev.1)


4.057 Conservation of Pakistan’s coastal resourcesfor future generations (adopted as CGR4.MOT080)


4.058 Conservation and poverty reduction (adoptedas CGR4.MOT081 Rev.1)

4.059 Promoting wildlife-based land uses in aridand semi-arid regions of Southern Africa(adopted as CGR4.MOT082)


4.060 The European Green Belt Initiative (adoptedas CGR4.MOT083 Rev.1)


4.061 The Great Ecological Connectivity Corridor:Cantabrian Range – Pyrenees – Massif Central– Western Alps (adopted as CGR4.MOT086)


4.062 Enhancing ecological networks and connectiv-ity conservation areas (adopted as CGR4.MOT087Rev.1)

4.063 The new water culture – integrated water re-sources management (adopted as CGR4.MOT088Rev.1)

4.064 Integrated coastal management in theMediterranean – the Barcelona Convention(adopted as CGR4.MOT089)


4.065 Freshwater biodiversity conservation, protectedareas and management of transboundarywaters (adopted as CGR4.MOT092 Rev.1)


28


4.066 Improving the governance of the Mediter-ranean Sea (adopted as CGR4.MOT144)


4.067 Advancing island conservation and sustain-able livelihoods (adopted as CGR4.MOT093Rev.1)

4.068 Reducing Emissions from Deforestation andforest Degradation (REDD) (adopted asCGR4.MOT094 Rev.1)


4.069 Mangrove conservation in Mesoamerica(adopted as CGR4.MOT096)


4.070 Sustainable mountain development (adoptedas CGR4.MOT131)


4.071 Forest fire recovery and national park pro-tection (adopted as CGR4.MOT132)


4.072 Private protected areas and nature steward-ship (adopted as CGR4.MOT133)

4.073 Support the building of an ecological visionfor the Amazon biome (adopted as CGR4.MOT134)


4.074 Climate change and overexploitation of nat-ural resources – inclusion in the IUCN Pro-gramme (adopted as CGR4.MOT097)

State member New Zealand indicated that it was unableto support this motion.


4.075 Climate change mitigation targets and ac-tions for biodiversity conservation (adopted asCGR4.MOT098 Rev.1)

State members Australia, Japan and New Zealand indi-cated that they were unable to support this motion.


4.076 Biodiversity conservation and climatechange mitigation and adaptation in nationalpolicies and strategies (adopted as CGR4.MOT099Rev.1)


4.077 Climate change and human rights (adopted asCGR4.MOT100 Rev.1)

State and agency members of the United States refrainedfrom engaging in deliberations on this motion and took


29

no national government position on the motion asadopted for reasons given in the U.S. General Statementon the IUCN Resolution Process.

4.078 Appeal for action to address global environ-mental change (adopted as CGR4.MOT101 Rev.1)


4.079 The European Union and its overseas enti-ties faced with climate change and biodiver-sity loss (adopted as CGR4.MOT135)


4.080 Mobilizing action to build resilience and as-sist adaptation to climate change of coralreefs and marine ecosystems and people thatdepend on them (adopted as CGR4.MOT137)

4.081 Equitable access to energy (adopted asCGR4.MOT102)


4.082 Sustainable biomass-based energy (adopted asCGR4.MOT104 Rev.1)


4.083 Industrial agrofuel production (adopted asCGR4.MOT105 Rev.1)


4.084 Mining exploration and exploitation in andnear Andean protected areas (adopted asCGR4.MOT106 Rev.1)


4.085 Establishing the 11%% EEaarr tthh PPrr ooff ii tt ss FFuunndd andsustaining government conservation finance(adopted as CGR4.MOT108 Rev.1)


4.086 Guiding and improving IUCN’s involvementwith the private sector (adopted as CGR4.MOT109Rev.1)

State member India indicated that it would vote againstthis motion.

State and agency members of the United States votedagainst this motion. The US Department of State pro-vided the following statement for the record during the9th Plenary Session when the original text of this motionwas discussed:

“It is the experience of the United States that constructive engage-ment of the private sector, industry and corporations is extremelyvaluable. We support increased transparency and review of agree-ments with corporations and businesses engaged in the areas of nat-ural resource extraction but not the review of the overallperformance of a company unless specified in agreements with suchentities. Mandating review of the overall performance of only onesector of IUCN membership is not appropriate and could weakenone of the strands of the triple helix.”

4.087 Impacts of infrastructure and extractive in-dustries on protected areas (adopted asCGR4.MOT111 Rev.1)


4.088 Establishing the IIUUCCNN EExxttrraacctt ii vvee IInndduuss tt rr yyRReessppoonnssiibbiilliittyy IInniittiiaattiivvee (adopted as CGR4.MOT112Rev)



30

4.089 Establishing citizens’ advisory councils forlarge-scale extractive industry projects(adopted as CGR4.MOT127)


4.090 Open-pit metal mining exploration andexploitation in Mesoamerica (adopted asCGR4.MOT141)


4.091 Strategic environmental assessment of pub-lic policies, plans and programmes as an in-strument for conserving biodiversity (adoptedas CGR4.MOT113)


4.092 Maintenance of ECOLEX: the gateway toenvironmental law (adopted as CGR4.MOT114Rev)


4.093 Legal aspects of the sustainable use of soils(adopted as CGR4.MOT115)


4.094 Impetus and support for local and regionalbiodiversity conservation policies (adopted asCGR4.MOT116)


4.095 African Convention on the Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources (adopted asCGR4.MOT117)


4.096 The International Academy of Environmen-tal Law (adopted as CGR4.MOT118)


4.097 Liability and compensation mechanisms forenvironmental crimes during armed con-flicts (adopted as CGR4.MOT119)


4.098 Intergenerational partnerships: fosteringethical leadership for a just, sustainable andpeaceful world (adopted as CGR4.MOT120)


4.099 Recognition of the diversity of concepts andvalues of nature (adopted as CGR4.MOT121)


4.100 Military activities detrimental to the envi-ronment (adopted as CGR4.MOT122 Rev.2)


4.101 International Covenant on Environment andDevelopment (adopted as CGR4.MOT129)


4.102 Advancing knowledge management in con-servation (adopted as CGR4.MOT013)


31


4.103 Acknowledging Spanish-language environ-mental education publications (adopted asCGR4.MOT123)


4.104 The World Conservation Learning Network:next steps (adopted as CGR4.MOT124)


4.105 Communication, education and publicawareness (CEPA) in conservation (adopted asCGR4.MOT125 Rev.1)

4.106 Vote of thanks to the host country (adopted asCGR4.MOT139)

RECOMMENDATIONS

4.107 Cooperation between members and com-mittees from Latin America and the Mediter-ranean (adopted as CGR4.MOT006)


4.108 Open access to biodiversity data and infor-mation (adopted as CGR4.MOT014)

4.109 Funding programmes for small-scale civilsociety projects for global biodiversity con-servation (adopted as CGR4.MOT017)


4.110 Controlling trade in wild caught Africancranes (adopted as CGR4.MOT026)

4.111 Conservation of Leatherback Turtles DDeerr --mmoocchh ee llyy ss ccoo rr ii aacc eeaa and hammerhead sharksSSpphhyyrrnnaa spp. in the Eastern Tropical PacificMarine Corridor (adopted as CGR4.MOT028Rev.1)

4.112 An effective European Union PPllaann oo ff AAcctt iioonnffoorr SShhaarrkkss (adopted as CGR4.MOT033 Rev.1)


4.113 Conserving migratory and oceanic sharks(adopted as CGR4.MOT034 Rev.1)

4.114 Global policy against shark finning (adoptedas CGR4.MOT035 Rev.1)

State members Australia, Japan and Spain indicated thatthey would abstain in the vote on this motion.

State and agency members of the United States abstainedduring the vote on this motion. The US Department ofState provided the following statement for the record:

“The United States supports strong and effective efforts to conserveand manage shark populations, including through bans on thewasteful practice of shark finning. We support the broad goals ofthis motion. Domestically, the United States does require thatsharks be landed with their fins naturally attached in our Atlanticand Gulf of Mexico Fisheries, and we plan to consider whethersuch a requirement is appropriate for our Pacific fisheries as well.Consistent with the direction provided by the 2007 United Na-tions General Assembly Sustainable Fisheries Resolution(62/177), we urge governments to take immediate action to im-prove compliance with shark finning bans, including, where neces-sary, to consider requiring that sharks be landed with fins naturallyattached.”

4.115 Non-lethal utilization of whales (adopted asCGR4.MOT036 Rev.1)

The Pew Charitable Trusts placed on record thanks to allparticipants in the two contact group sessions that haddealt with this motion, expressing particular gratitude forthe very constructive contributions of both the Japaneseand Norwegian Government delegations.


32

4.116 Fisheries management by Regional Fish-eries Management Organizations (RFMOs)(adopted as CGR4.MOT040 Rev.1)

4.117 Flag State responsibility regarding Illegal,Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing(adopted as CGR4.MOT041 Rev.1)

4.118 Antarctica and the Southern Ocean (adoptedas CGR4.MOT045 Rev.1)

The State member Japan provided the following state-ment for the record:

As was pointed out at the plenary when this Motion was tabled forthe first time, this Motion contains several errors, false and mis-leading information and unnecessary descriptions, and therefore itwas recommended that the Motion be withdrawn.

Although one of the sponsors mentioned about the distribution ofan amended text, the amended text has not been distributed untilthis morning. Furthermore, although you mentioned an organizedcontact group, different from other Motions, a contact group wasnot clearly called in order for members to correct those errors and re-move inappropriate descriptions for rectifying the situation.

Taking into account the considerable difficulties in properly ad-dressing this important issue at this late stage, I would sincerely re-quest through you Chair to sponsors to seriously examine awithdrawal of the Motion.

The State member Norway indicated that it would voteagainst this motion for the same reasons as given byJapan.


4.119 Protection of rangers within and in areasadjacent to protected areas (adopted asCGR4.MOT048)

4.120 Protected areas and biological diversitymanagement programmes: steps towardsensuring effective management (adopted asCGR4.MOT050)

4.121 Increasing the pace and scale of conserva-tion in the Mediterranean Biome (adopted asCGR4.MOT056)



4.122 World Heritage nomination for NingalooReef (adopted as CGR4.MOT057)


4.123 Promotion of Category V and VI ProtectedAreas for biodiversity conservation (adopted asCGR4.MOT061)

4.124 Forest conservation in Tasmania (adopted asCGR4.MOT062 Rev.2)


4.125 Protection of the peatlands of Tierra delFuego, Argentina (adopted as CGR4.MOT063)


4.126 Protection of Chilean Patagonia (adopted asCGR4.MOT065 Rev.1)


4.127 Indigenous peoples’ rights in the manage-ment of protected areas fully or partially inthe territories of indigenous peoples (adoptedas CGR4.MOT073 Rev.1)

State and agency members of the United States refrainedfrom engaging in deliberations on this motion and tookno national government position on the motion as


33

adopted for reasons given in the U.S. General Statementon the IUCN Resolution Process.

The statements for the record made by the State mem-bers Australia, Canada, New Zealand and United King-dom in relation to Resolution 4.048 also apply to thisRecommendation.

4.128 Setting up networks of protected urban andperiurban natural areas (adopted as CGR4.MOT140)


4.129 Strengthening the integrated managementof coastal areas (adopted as CGR4.MOT079)

4.130 Strengthening the Natura 2000 Network(adopted as CGR4.MOT084 Rev.1)


4.131 Conservation of the Western Iberian Penin-sula (adopted as CGR4.MOT085)


4.132 Conservation of the River Ebro (adopted asCGR4.MOT090)


4.133 World appeal to prevent the loss of LakeChapala and Lake Cocibolca, the largest wet-lands in Mesoamerica (adopted as CGR4.MOT091)



4.134 Responding to deforestation and land degra-dation related to climate change and deser-tification (adopted as CGR4.MOT095)


4.135 Environmental impact of wind-based powerproduction in Spanish and Portuguesemountain areas (adopted as CGR4.MOT103Rev.1)


4.136 Biodiversity, protected areas, indigenouspeoples and mining activities (adopted asCGR4.MOT110 Rev.1)


EElleeccttiioonnss ooff PPrreessiiddeenntt,, TTrreeaassuurreerr,, RReeggiioonnaallCCoouunncciilllloorrss aanndd CCoommmmiissssiioonn CChhaaiirrss ((77..22,, 88..22))


The President confirmed that the polls had opened at14.30 on Saturday 11 October and that voting would endat 19.30 that evening. Ballot boxes had been placed at ei-ther side of the podium in the plenary hall.


Mr Antonio Machado, Elections Officer, began by ex-tending his thanks to the Secretariat team for their sup-port in ensuring that members’ votes were countedaccurately.

The Congress warmly acknowledged the work of theelections team.


34

Mr Machado reported as follows concerning the votescast:

� Total valid votes cast: government house 3,312;NGO house 9,568

� Total invalid votes cast: government house 8; NGOhouse 117

� Total blank votes: government house 40; NGOhouse 251

� Total Ballot packs used: government house 210;NGO house 621

This meant that 621 of the 650 accredited NGO mem-bers had voted and all of the 210 accredited governmentmembers had voted.

The following had been elected:

Regional Councillors for Africa

Yolan Friedman, South AfricaBrahim Haddane, MoroccoHillary Masundire, Zimbabwe

Regional Councillors for Meso and SouthAmerica

Cláudio Maretti, BrazilMiguel Pellerano, ArgentinaZuleika S. Pinzón, Panama

Regional Councillors for North America andthe Caribbean

George Greene, CanadaRuss Mittermeier, USASpencer Linus Thomas, Grenada

Regional Councillors for South and East Asia

Arzu Rana Deuba, NepalHiroharu Koike, JapanMahfuz Ullah, Bangladesh

Regional Councillors for Oceania Region

Lionel Gibson, FijiBrendan Mackey, AustraliaDiana Shand, New Zealand

Regional Councillors for West Asia Region

Ali Darwish, LebanonJaved Jabbar, PakistanMohammad Shahbaz, Jordan

Regional Councillors for East Europe, Northand Central Asia Region

Amirkhan Amirkhanov, RussiaVilmos Kiszel, HungaryKalev Sepp, Estonia

Regional Councillors for West Europe Region

Hans de Iongh, NetherlandsChristophe Lefebvre, FranceMarina von Weissenberg, Finland

Chair of Commission on Education andCommunication

Keith Wheeler, USA

Chair of Commission on Environmental,Economic and Social Policy

Aroha Mead, New Zealand

Chair of World Commission on ProtectedAreas

Nikita Lopoukhine, Canada

Chair of Species Survival Commission

Simon Stuart, UK

Chair of Commission on Environmental Law

Sheila Abed, Paraguay

Chair of Commission on EcosystemManagement

Piet Wit, Netherlands

Treasurer

Kurt Ramin

President

Ashok Khosla

The Congress greeted the election results by acclamation.

The President invited Ashok Khosla, President Elect, tothe podium.

Ashok Khosla expressed his thanks to everyone who hadvoted for him and his fellow candidates; it had been awonderful election. He expressed the great pride he felt


35

“to stand on the shoulders of giants; people who havebuilt up the Union over the last 60 years, especially thelast President and Council”. The President Elect and thenew Council would now strive to take IUCN on to thenext step.

The President thanked Antonio Machado for his work asElections Officer and invited members to show their ap-preciation.

PPrreesseennttaattiioonn ooff JJoohhnn CC.. PPhhiilllliippss MMeemmoorriiaall aannddHHaarroolldd JJeeffffeerrssoonn CCoooolliiddggee MMeeddaallss,, HHoonnoorraarryyMMeemmbbeerrsshhiipp aanndd CCoommmmiissssiioonn AAwwaarrddss ((77..33))

(a) John C. Phillips Memorial Medal

The President recalled that the John C. Phillips MemorialMedal had been awarded at each IUCN General Assem-bly and Congress since 1963 and is the Union’s highesthonour, recognizing distinguished service to internationalconservation. He was delighted to present the award, onbehalf of IUCN’s Council, to Dr José Aristeo SarukhánKermez in recognition of a distinguished scientific ca-reer dedicated to furthering knowledge of biodiversityand the importance of its conservation at national, re-gional and international levels.

Accepting the John C. Phillips Medal Dr Sarukhánthanked IUCN and expressed his wish to share the awardwith the Mexican scientific community. He was proud tojoin the distinguished names that have received the awardin the past, especially Dr Enrique Beltrán, from Mexico,who received the award in 1966, and Edward O. Wilson.He said: “I take this as motivation to keep working forthe future and for a better planet – a fair and equitableplanet for everyone.”

(b) The Harold Jefferson Coolidge Medal

The President recalled that the Harold Jefferson CoolidgeMedal had been established by Bangkok Congress Reso-lution 3.024 in honour of IUCN’s President from 1966 to1972. He called upon Dr Lee Talbot as a pioneer of theconservation movement and another former IUCN Di-rector General, to present the medal.

Dr Talbot spoke of his pleasure in presenting the firstaward of its kind, given that Dr Harold Coolidge had in-troduced him to IUCN 55 years ago. Dr Coolidge hadbeen a distinguished taxonomist and biologist who be-came widely known as the ‘father of IUCN’. Furthermore,

Dr Coolidge had been the architect of the IUCN Com-mission structure and had exerted greater influence onthe development of IUCN than any other single individ-ual. It was a law of nature that conservationists tended toforget that they were building on the accomplishmentsof their predecessors. The establishment of this Medalwould help to ensure that Dr Coolidge’s role and ac-complishments for IUCN were not forgotten. Dr Talbotannounced the award of the first Harold JeffersonCoolidge Medal to Dr Robert Goodland in recognitionof his outstanding international conservation initiativesand for providing inspiration, encouragement and sup-port to numerous individuals, especially young people, toenable them to pursue careers in conservation.

Accepting the award, Dr Goodland said he was thrilledthat IUCN was taking climate change so seriously. How-ever, the world at large was focusing too much on coaland transport that contributed relatively modestly toglobal greenhouse gas emissions and for which it wouldtake a long time and a great deal of effort to switch tomore sustainable options. As recognized by the Chair ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change andNobel Peace Prize Laureate Rajendra Pachauri, and bythe Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change Yvo de Boer, if people stoppedeating livestock products it would make a significant dif-ference within weeks or months at low cost.

(c) Honorary Membership

The President announced that Honorary Membershipwas being granted to Dr Larry Hamilton in recognitionof his outstanding service to the conservation of natureand natural resources. He invited Dr Graeme Worboys,Vice Chair of IUCN’s World Commission on ProtectedAreas for the mountain biome, to receive the award onDr Hamilton’s behalf and to read the following statementfrom him:

“To be given the award of Honorary Member of IUCNis both a joyful and very humbling experience. I am mind-ful of the prestigious nature of the honour being be-stowed, as I join a gallery of luminary IUCN personalitieswho are previous awardees. Being of a certain age I re-member when these great leaders were active in IUCN.IUCN has been a major channel through which to fun-nel my passion for international conservation, namelythrough the IUCN World Commission on ProtectedAreas. The purpose of IUCN is worthy, and I am proudto have played a small part in it. In accepting this award,I feel I share it with all of the other wonderful volunteers


36

in the IUCN family, who work with passion and dedica-tion on behalf of nature.”

(d) Commission Awards

The Director General presented the 2008 CommissionAwards as follows:

Commission for Education and Communication(CEC)

Frits Hesselink was presented with the CEC Chair’s Dis-tinguished Leadership Award in recognition of his en-during commitment to the Commission and his passionfor learning-centred leadership.

The Brandwein Medal was presented to Katalin Czippánawarded jointly by the Paul F-Brandwein Institute andCEC, in recognition of her lifetime commitment to ed-ucating children about nature.

Species Survival Commission (SSC)

SSC’s premier award, the Sir Peter Scott Award for Con-servation Merit, was presented to:

� Prof. Mick Clout in recognition of his unflagging andsuccessful efforts to bring invasive alien species is-sues to the forefront of IUCN’s work and his dedi-cated leadership of the SSC Invasive SpeciesSpecialist Group for 15 years;

� Dr Christoph Imboden in recognition of his endur-ing commitment to SSC and his unparalleled contri-bution to its vision, strategic thinking and planning;and

� Dr Russ Mittermeier in recognition of his lastingcontribution to the conservation of species acrossthe globe, his leadership of the SSC Primate Special-ist Group, and his dedication to SSC for more thanthree decades.

World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA)

The Chair of WCPA, Nik Lopoukhine announced thatthe recipient of the 2008 Kenton Miller Award for In-novation in National Parks and Protected Area Sustain-ability was Dr Marc Hockings. Unfortunately, DrHockings could not be present, so a short film wasscreened to show his accomplishments in developing theWCPA manual for assessing the management of pro-tected areas as a practical and effective conservation tool.

Commission on Environmental Law (CEL)

The Director General presented the Wolfgang E.Burhenne Environmental Law Award to Dr Parvez Has-san in recognition of his everyday commitment to theconservation of nature and the development of envi-ronmental law and policies and his many efforts on be-half of CEL over the years.

PPrreesseennttaattiioonn ooff rreessuullttss ooff 22000088 IIUUCCNN WWoorrllddCCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn FFoorruumm ((88..33))

A report summarizing the huge diversity of events underthe umbrella of the Forum, held from 6 to 9 October,was presented by IUCN’s Chief Scientist, Dr Jeffrey Mc-Neely. The full text of Dr McNeely’s presentation can befound in Annex 1.

The President thanked and congratulated Dr McNeely,saying: “you have done us proud in capturing all of thisinformation”. He recalled that Jeff McNeely, who hadannounced his forthcoming retirement from the Secre-tariat, had worked for IUCN for 32 years in varied rolesand as Chief Scientist since 1996, adding, “When a manof his stature says it was the best Forum that IUCN hasheld, it means something. Please join me in thanking himfor his services to IUCN.” Congress showed its appreci-ation with warm applause.

RReeppoorrtt bbyy tthhee DDiirreeccttoorr GGeenneerraall aanndd tthheeTTrreeaassuurreerr oonn tthhee FFiinnaanncceess ooff IIUUCCNN iinn tthheeIInntteerrsseessssiioonnaall PPeerriioodd 22000044––22000088 ((88..44))

At the President’s request, Agenda items 8.4 to 8.7, deal-ing with financial matters, were chaired by Mr Javed Jab-bar, Regional Councillor for West Asia.

The Director General introduced IUCN’s Treasurer, MrSven Sandström, who presented his report, based onCongress Paper CGR/2008/16 rev. Finances of IUCN inthe Intersessional Period 2004–2007. He noted that over thelast four years efforts had been made to:

� build on and implement the financial policies andprocedures developed during the 2000–2004 inters-essional period;

� reinforce better financial and operational practicesthroughout the Secretariat; and

� strengthen the focus on strategic challenges.


37

A review of expenditure per Cost Centre group showedthat overhead costs were low (at 12% in 2007) and thatthose overhead costs have declined over the years (from16% in 1999).

Liquidity was healthy and had been strengthened in re-cent years. The proportion of reserves compared to ex-penditure had doubled since 2000, representing 15% ofannual expenditure, or CHF 18 million in 2007. The mainchallenge was to examine more closely the level of re-serves required to minimize risk and maximize stability.IUCN had not been adversely affected by the currentglobal financial crisis, thanks mainly to a rather conser-vative investment policy. No more then 35% of liquiditycould be invested in equities and since the beginning of2008 none of IUCN’s funds had been tied up in equities.

The IUCN Fund (use of which is highly restricted) stoodat around 7 million CHF, while Secretariat ContingencyFunds and Cost Centre Reserves (with fewer restrictionson their use) totalled approximately CHF 10 million. Asharp fall in the Contingency Fund from 2004 to 2005had been due to an overly optimistic income projection,and the funding gap had to be covered from reserves; thiswas a good lesson for the future.

Future challenges included:

� increasing unrestricted income to support a growingProgramme and to enable IUCN to fulfil its mission;

� increasing core (unrestricted) income as a share oftotal income;

� increasing financial reserves;� improving currency management in order to reduce

mismatches and the impact of foreign exchange fluc-tuations; and

� upgrading information technology and informationmanagement systems.

In conclusion Mr Sandström said that he firmly believedIUCN’s finances to be in very good shape and extendedhis thanks to Ms Lynn Holowesko, Chair of Council’s Fi-nance and Audit Committee, to the President, and to theDirector General and rest of the Secretariat team. Hewished good luck to his successor, Mr Kurt Ramin.

The Chair thanked the Treasurer for his competent fi-nancial leadership and invited the Director General topresent the Financial Plan for the next intersessionalperiod.

Governance and risk management

An Oversight Unit had been established in 2007, an In-ternal Control System had been implemented to ensurecompliance with international standards, and policies fora Code of Conduct and anti-fraud measures had been de-veloped and implemented. Work had begun to upgradeinformation management systems.

Budget and forecasting

A Finance and Budget Monitoring Committee had beenestablished and better information was being providedto Council on the risks inherent in the annual budgetspresented for their approval. Measures had been taken toimprove the linkages between Programme objectives andbudgets to ensure more effective allocation of resources.

Treasury management

Improved liquidity had resulted from centralized liquid-ity management and work was under way to ensure thatIUCN used a common bank throughout the world to re-duce fragmentation and risk. Steps were also being takento derive a better return on liquidity.

Financial results

These were in line with the 2005–2008 Financial Plan ap-proved by the Bangkok Congress. Overall income had in-creased. Restricted funding from donors representedaround 70% of total income, while core income (unre-stricted funding from framework agreements withdonors and membership dues) made up the remaining30%. The goal was to move towards a much higher pro-portion of unrestricted funding.

The sources of donor income had been significantly di-versified, which both reduced the risk to IUCN anddemonstrated broad support for the Union’s activities. In1996, five donors provided 80% of IUCN’s income,whereas by 2007, 16 donors provided 72% of income. Asingle long-term supporter to IUCN – The Netherlands– had been responsible for 46% of donor income in1996, whereas the proportion had fallen to 14% in 2007.

Membership amounted to approximately CHF 10 mil-lion per year. However it was currently taking IUCN upto two years to collect 90% of dues. The main challenge,therefore, was to speed up payments.


38

PPrreesseennttaattiioonn oonn tthhee FFiinnaanncciiaall PPllaann ffoorr nneewwIInntteerrsseessssiioonnaall PPeerriioodd 22000099––22001122 ((88..55))

The Director General’s presentation was based on Con-gress Paper CGR/2008/17 Financial Plan for the Period2009–2012. By way of overview she noted that the Fi-nancial Plan:

� supported IUCN’s Programme 2009–2012;� took into consideration the recommendations of the

2007 External Review;� was built on a funding and budget model that would

allow for more efficient allocation of resources;� emphasized the need for continuing to build IUCN’s

reserves and minimize exposure to financial risk; and� took into account trends observed during the 2005–

2008 intersessional period.

Income

Core income was what allowed IUCN be a Union, a net-work, a ‘triple helix’. The Financial Plan was based on aforecast growth of core income from CHF 47 million in2009 to CHF 55.3 million in 2012. Total income wasforecast to grow from CHF 131.8 million in 2009 to CHF153.6 million by 2012. To achieve these fundraising ob-jectives a number of ambitious initiatives were in thepipeline. These included developing more frameworkagreements, focusing more on private philanthropy, andfurther expanding the membership base, especially (froma financial perspective) in terms of State membership,with a minimum target of two new State members peryear. Annual growth in income from membership dueswas forecast at 3%.

The DG recalled that membership dues were spent ex-clusively on providing constituency support. As part ofthe revised budgeting process, efforts were being made toensure that offices in the regions were provided withmore unrestricted income from membership dues so thatthey could deliver better constituency support.

Framework Agreements significantly strengthenedIUCN’s capacity to deliver its Programme and allowedfor decentralization, innovation and improvements to sci-ence and policy networks. There were now 10 Frame-work Agreements in place with donors, with a target ofthree new agreements per year during the forthcomingintersessional period. The definition of a Frameworkdonor was one that provided a minimum of CHF 1 mil-lion per year for a four-year period.

Expenditure

Over the intersessional period 2009–2012 as a whole,79% of expenditure would be dedicated to the deliveryof Programme Results and 21% to delivering Opera-tional Results. 60% would be spent via Regional Pro-grammes, 21 % by Global Thematic Programmes and19% by other Global Units.

Implementation challenges and organizationalcontext

Challenges that needed to be managed in implementingthe Financial Plan included:

� possible shifts in core donor interests;� the pressing need to upgrade the Union’s financial in-

formation management systems;� foreign exchange fluctuations; and� the overall global financial/political climate.

The Financial Plan would be implemented in the contextof the Union’s Organizational Development and ChangeManagement Process, which sought to achieve bettersynergies between the Secretariat, Commissions andmembers; to increase the involvement of members in theProgramme; to improve IUCN’s role as an influentialglobal and local actor; to improve knowledge manage-ment systems; to implement recommendations of re-views and surveys; and to ensure IUCN was trulyinternational and multicultural, as well as gender and agebalanced.

The Chair thanked the Director General for her presen-tation and noted that the Financial Plan would be beforeCongress for adoption during the 11th Sitting on 14 Oc-tober. He then opened the floor for questions and com-ments on either the Treasurer’s report or the DG’spresentation.

In response to concerns raised by Inuit Tapriit Manatami(Canada) concerning the closure of IUCN’s office inMontreal the DG stressed that the Secretariat was tryingto cut back on administrative costs as far as possible andin fact did not have offices in any of its Frameworkdonor countries. It had been decided that IUCN couldwork in Canada directly with its members rather thanthrough its own office. The DG said that she would relyon the wisdom of Council in making such decisions, butexternal reviews had consistently advised the reductionof expenditure on administration and this is what hadbeen done.


39

Associación Peruana para la Conservación de la Natu-raleza (Perú) questioned whether the Union would havea clear strategy in place whereby all components couldwork together in delivering the One Programme concept.The global financial context had been discussed duringCongress; how was the Union preparing strategically tokeep its reserves safe? With regard to support for the re-gions, how was this going to be achieved? Were regionalbudgets going to be beefed up? Are we going to beef upthe budget? How are we going to do it? Were plans inplace for retaining existing members as well as recruitingnew ones?

The DG responded that the One Programme strategywas reflected in the IUCN Programme 2009–2012, whichwould be implemented collaboratively by the Secretariat,Commissions and members. The DG also stressed thathigh priority would indeed be given to retaining existingmembers and that she viewed membership retention asequally important to recruitment.

Replying to the point on the Union’s investment strategy,the Treasurer underlined that IUCN was completely outof the equity market, had reviewed the strength of thebanks it worked with, and had shifted funds around to‘safe harbours’. The future strategy was up to the newTreasurer and Council, but the aim had to be to maintainthe very good current situation, perhaps returning to eq-uities over time.

The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society noted that ithad hoped to see greater resources going to IUCN’sCommissions as part of the overall budget growth andcommitment to decentralization.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development(IISD) thanked the DG for the presentation of a trans-parent Financial Plan. Expenditure line for constituencymobilization seemed to be flat or not increasing. For thisreason IISD requested the incoming Council of IUCN toaddress in its annual budget approvals the recommenda-tions of the previous Council’s report to Congress on thework of IUCN Council’s One Programme WorkingGroup contained in Congress Paper CGR/2008/20, inparticular: (a) paragraph 3 recommending changes inbudget process to make delivery of the One Programmework; (b) paragraph 9 recommending priority be given inthe 2009 budget to the involvement of members andCommissions in operationalizing the Programme.

In closing this agenda item the Chair reminded membersthat the Financial Plan would be tabled for adoption dur-ing the 11th Sitting on 14 October.

RReeppoorrtt ooff tthhee FFiinnaannccee aanndd AAuuddiitt CCoommmmiitttteeee ooffCCoonnggrreessss,, iinncclluuddiinngg AAccccoouunnttss aanndd AAuuddiittoorrss’’RReeppoorrttss ffoorr 22000044––22000077 aannddrreeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss wwiitthh rreeggaarrddss ttoo tthheeFFiinnaanncciiaall PPllaann 22000099––22001122 ((88..66))

The Chair of the Congress Finance and Audit Commit-tee, Mr Kurt Ramin, reported that the Committee hadcompleted its mandate in line with the Terms of Refer-ence approved by the 3rd Sitting of Congress on Monday6 October.

Report on the financial affairs of IUCN

(a) Review of the 2004–2007 Finances

The Committee had reviewed the evolution of IUCN’sfinances for the last four years and noted the followinghighlights:

� overall income growth of 16 % between 2004–2007;� four new Framework donors between 2004–2008;� continued donor diversification; and � increased financial reserves.

The Committee also noted the financial challenges thathad been encountered:

� relatively flat unrestricted core income;� relatively low levels of financial reserves, despite in-

creases; � insufficient Management Information System (MIS);

and� concern over volatility of foreign exchange fluctua-

tions.

The Committee had been especially pleased to see thecontinued diversification of donor income, and encour-aged the Secretariat to ensure that this trend is contin-ued. In addition, it noted the importance of buildingreserves for use both as a risk management tool and as atool to enable strategic investments.

The Committee had reviewed the annual audited financialstatements for the period 2004–2007 and was pleased tonote that the accompanying audit opinions had all beenissued without qualification.

The Committee had therefore drafted the following de-cision for consideration by Congress:


40

The World Conservation Congress TAKES NOTE of the Evo-lution of the Financial Situation of the Union and APPROVESthe audited Financial Statements for the years 2004, 2005, 2006and 2007.

(b) Update on IUCN’s financial position in 2008

The Committee noted that both income and expenditurewere in line with forecasts and that there was no causefor concern. The Committee had also received a financialupdate on the World Conservation Congress. The costof the event was to be funded by a grant from the hostcountry, core funding from IUCN, and by earmarkedfundraising. A final report was expected by the end of2008.

Report of the Internal Auditor and Legal Adviser

(a) Report of the Internal Auditor

The Committee was satisfied with the progress made bythe internal audit function and noted:

� the extensive coverage of the internal audit functionin coordination with the External Auditors and withsupportive collaboration from IUCN management;

� the significant governance reforms that had been im-plemented, such as through the Code of Conductand anti-fraud policies; and

� the degree of follow-up to implement recommenda-tions from both External and Internal audits.

The Committee was pleased to see the increased oversightcapacity within IUCN notably through establishment ofan Oversight Unit. The Committee recommended con-tinued progress in the following areas:

� comprehensive assessment of financial governanceand the organization-wide Risk Register;

� risk-based internal audit plans that focused on highrisks; and

� assessment of policy gaps and business controlprocesses.

(b) Report of the Legal Adviser

The Committee notes the progress of the Office of theLegal Adviser but also notes the limited resources underwhich this office is operating. Since the creation of thepost of Legal Adviser, the scope of work undertaken bythe office has increased and substantial time and efforthas been dedicated to changing or clarifying IUCN status

in a number of jurisdictions. The Committee also notesthe work done with regards to risk management andavoidance on a number of issues. The Committee rec-ommends closer interaction between the Office of theLegal Adviser and the Finance and Audit Committee ofCouncil.

Appointment of External Auditors

The Committee considered the recommendation fromCouncil to re-appoint Deloitte, as external auditors forthe 2009–2012 intersessional period. Having considerednew financial requirements applicable to IUCN, as well assignificant internal control initiatives, the Committee de-cided that it would be preferable to re-appoint Deloitte asexternal auditors rather than to seek a new appointment.


The World Conservation Congress APPROVES the appointmentof Deloitte Switzerland as external auditors for the 2009–2012intersessional period.

Financial Plan 2009–2012

The Committee reviewed the Financial Plan 2009–2012which was due to be adopted by Congress during the 11th

Sitting. Overall growth projections of 6.9% appeared re-alistic; however, the Committee noted the sharp increasein projected core income and recommended that the Sec-retariat and Council be prepared to prioritize given com-peting demands for scarce resources. The Secretariat andCouncil ought to look closely at the financial implicationsof the motions approved by Congress as these couldhave a significant impact on future planning. It was alsorecommended that the Secretariat proceed with cautionon expenditures in light of the global financial crisis. Aresults-based budgeting system linked to incentives andperformance would be implemented during the interses-sional period. The Committee supported this initiativeand noted the expectation that it will have a significantimpact on resource allocation.

The Committee noted that the Council decision tochange the accounting currency of IUCN from CHF toEUR had been delayed until 2010. The Committee ad-vised proceeding with caution on any change in ac-counting currency and recommended that the Secretariatshould perform a thorough cost/benefit analysis of sucha move to be reported to the Finance and Audit Com-mittee of Council before implementation.


41

With regard to membership dues, growth projectionsseemed realistic and achievable keeping in mind that thisrepresented recruitment of new members; the annualstatutory increase remained linked to the Swiss ConsumerPrice Index.


The World Conservation Congress APPROVES the FinancialPlan for the period 2009–2012.

AAppppooiinnttmmeenntt ooff AAuuddiittoorrss ((88..77))

In accordance with the recommendation of the CongressFinance and Audit Committee, Congress approved theappointment of Deloitte Switzerland as IUCN’s ExternalAuditors for the 2009–2012 intersessional period.

RReeppoorrtt ooff tthhee CChhaaiirr ooff tthhee GGoovveerrnnaanncceeCCoommmmiitttteeee ooff CCoonnggrreessss ((88..88))

The Chair of the Congress Governance Committee, MrJorge Caillaux, presented his report as follows:

“Before making a brief presentation on the work carriedout by the Governance Committee at this Congress, Iwould like to share some thoughts about IUCN and itscommitment to incorporating best governance practicesinto its day-to-day work. As I am sure many of you al-ready know, being in Barcelona, both the design and con-struction of Gaudí’s works were based on an extremelyclose study of nature. He learnt from the latter, and fromits fascinating systemic organization in particular. Gaudíthus sensed that his work would last, insofar as its archi-tecture was based on the same design as that of formsfound in nature.

Although IUCN works for nature, in the way it and manyof its members are organized, the Union has not yetmanaged to incorporate into its work nature’s organizingprinciples – those that define it as a system of systems. Inour work, the particular characteristic of being an or-ganization made up of different orders of society –states, government institutions and NGOs – forces us touse the principles that guarantee a strong system: trans-parency, connectivity, interaction between the compo-nents of IUCN and moreover, since we are humanbeings, the acknowledgement of and respect for others.

This is a great challenge for IUCN – and for any humanorganization – and I believe that we can continue tomove towards this goal if we recognize that there is a lotto be done and that governance requires a commitmentby all the components of IUCN.

After 60 years of work, we should increasingly invest inpromoting a governance culture – the only way to makesociety respect the rules of nature.

The work of the Governance Committee

The work of the Governance Committee was carried outon two levels:

� Supporting the Resolutions Committee in consultingmembers on the motions related to the governanceof the institution; and

� Facilitating broad discussion among members aboutproposals to revise IUCN’s Statutes.

In order to achieve this objective, we focused our timeand energy on dealing with those important issues iden-tified by members and Council. However, it was hard tosee the wood for the trees. We trust that in future con-gresses the Governance Committee will be able tobroaden its vision, assess the management of its compo-nents and help members to become involved in theseother aspects of governance, which constitute a systemicview.

The Governance Committee worked with members onseveral key issues, including:

� the relations between the components of IUCN andthe Programme. In other words, the relations be-tween: the World Conservation Congress, the Coun-cil, the National and Regional Committees, theRegional Members’ Fora, the Commissions and theSecretariat (Art. 15); and

� the revision of the Statutes and Regulations with re-gard to the name of the institution, the proposal fora new membership category, the revision of geo-graphical representation on Council, and the work ofIUCN National and Regional Committees beyondtheir territorial scope.

In the hearings and contact groups promoted by theGovernance Committee, an interesting diversity of mem-bers participated and gave their opinions on matters ofgreat importance – issues directly linked to the identityand governance of the Union.


42

An Agenda for the new Council and the nextIUCN World Conservation Congress

Since governance practices constitute a continuous learn-ing process, we believe that it is important to put forwardseveral approaches based on the experience gained inBarcelona.

In our opinion, the revision of the Statutes in Montreal,Bangkok and Barcelona is helping us to create a solidbasis for best practice governance for IUCN. However,good governance requires far more than a legal structure.

We should recognize and welcome the commitment andeffort shown by all the members at this Congress throughtheir active and constructive participation in outlining therules and instruments for improving IUCN’s governance.This has been shown in many aspects of the Assemblyand in the intensity of the work in contact groups, in-cluding both conversations held in corridors and partic-ipation in the decision-making process.

However, it is clear that we have still not created a suffi-ciently solid governance culture within IUCN.

The Committee noted with concern several incidents dur-ing the present Congress, and in particular the following:

� Motions being changed without prior consultationwith the sponsoring member(s);

� Lack of transparency for sharing crucial informationamong components of IUCN;

� Unrealistic demands by members; and among otherthings

� An unacceptable campaign to discredit and insult onecandidate for election, which made the atmosphereof the Congress rather strained.

Unfortunately, these are the signs or symptoms of a frag-ile governance that could potentially have serious impli-cations for the future of IUCN, although we shall nodoubt be able to overcome them.

Recommendations

The Governance Committee would like the new Councilto consider the following recommendations:

1. At this Congress we noted that, for the first time, se-rious efforts were made to link the Programme Com-mittee’s work with that of the GovernanceCommittee. We recommend that the new IUCNCouncil implements a Joint Intersessional Working

Group to guarantee a strong link between Council’swork on the One Programme and governance, inorder to supervise the relevant Congress decisionsand to strengthen and maintain this connection.

2. Recognizing that transparency, constructive workingrelationships and acknowledgement of and respectfor others constitute the mainstays of good gover-nance, we recommend that IUCN’s Council investsin the creation and consolidation of a pro-governanceculture and takes action in cases of inappropriate gov-ernance practice. For example, we could create anOmbudsman Office, and could also use more effectivecommunications tools to facilitate ease of access andto achieve greater transparency among all componentsof IUCN.

3. Attention should be given to identifying candidatesfor Council who have good knowledge of and expe-rience in governance practices and who are able tocontribute this to Council’s deliberations.

Finally, I would like to end this report by underlining animportant fact that we have said very little about. Manyof IUCN’s leaders belong to my generation or are older.We need to work constantly with future generations ofconservationists, not only to inspire them by example,but also to pass on to them the common heritage sharedby IUCN members. This is something that is not alwaysvisible and cannot be stored in a data centre.

It is our obligation to keep IUCN’s democratic, partici-patory nature alive and to transfer to new generations thegood governance practices that we have learnt, ratherthan the bad ones.”

DDiissccuussssiioonn aanndd aaddooppttiioonn ooff cchhaannggeess ttoo tthheeSSttaattuutteess ((99..11,, 1111..22))


Jorge Caillaux, Chair of the Congress Governance Com-mittee reported that Congress Paper CGR/2008/4 Pro-posed Amendment to Article 1 of the IUCN Statutes had beenconsidered and assessed at two open hearings organizedby the Governance Committee and that no furtheramendments had been made. The original text of theproposed amendment stood.

The President therefore called for a vote on the follow-ing motion:


43

The World Conservation Congress:

(a) TAKES NOTE of Council’s adoption of the new logo ofIUCN; and

(b) ADOPTS the proposed amendment to Art. 1 of the Statutesas set forth in Congress Paper CGR/2008/4.

The motion was approved.

Referring to Congress Paper CGR/2008/5 rev.1 ProposedAmendment to Art. 71( c) of the IUCN Statutes the Presidentcalled for a vote on the following motion:

The World Conservation Congress ADOPTS the proposedamendment to Art. 71(c) of the Statutes.

The motion was approved.

The President referred to Congress Paper CGR/2008/6Proposed Amendments to IUCN Statutes, Rules of Procedure ofthe World Conservation Congress and Regulations Concerning theCreation of a New Membership Category for Local and RegionalGovernment Authorities. He noted that there had been anumber of requests on this matter and that the Chair ofthe Congress Governance Committee had indicated thatCongress should deal with it further on 14 October. Arevised document would be ready for members at 16.00on 13 October. There being no intervention from thefloor, the President ruled that the Governance Commit-tee Chair’s recommendation was approved and furtherdiscussion was therefore postponed until the followingday.

Fundación Naturaleza y Hombre (Spain) deplored thelack of interpretation during the various contact groupsand hearings on governance issues. The Fundación con-sidered that this ran counter to the Statutes and placed alarge number of members at a disadvantage.

The President concurred that this certainly seemed to bea valid complaint.


Jorge Caillaux introduced paper CGR/2008/6 Rev.1 Pro-posed Amendments to IUCN Statutes, Rules of Procedure of theWorld Conservation Congress and Regulations Concerning the Cre-ation of a New Membership Category for Local and RegionalGovernment Authorities.

He noted that voting on amendments to the Statutes andvoting on amendments to the Regulations would have to

be carried out separately, since amendments to theStatutes required a two-thirds majority, while amend-ments to the Regulations only needed a simple majority(i.e. 50% plus one).

Modifications to the Statutes would be voted on first and,if these were approved, amendments to the Regulationswould be dealt with. It was important to keep the twophases clearly separate.

The New Zealand Ecological Society congratulated thesponsors on bringing their proposals to members well inadvance of the Congress. Nevertheless, the Society hadsome fundamental concerns about the consistency andcoherence of legal details in the current text. It would bebetter to step back and consider in detail the implicationsof the proposed amendments.

Project Jonah (New Zealand) also appreciated the effortsof sponsors to understand and respond to concernsraised, but it wasn’t possible to write Statutes ‘on the run’.There had not been time in the Governance hearings orcontact groups, nor had the proposed changes beenthrough a proper legal review process or adequate con-sultation with the membership. Project Jonah was there-fore suggesting that instead of a premature vote now, thenew Council should be asked to constitute a thoroughprocess involving full involvement of members andproper legal advice.

State member Norway supported the position of Proj-ect Jonah and was doubtful of the desirability of localand regional authorities becoming members of IUCN.Norway had a single foreign policy and this new categoryof membership could be confusing. Would this new cat-egory of membership be eligible to vote?

The Chair of the Governance Committee confirmed thatthe new membership category would indeed have votingrights.

The President recalled that this matter had been before acontact group and that there had been a great deal of dis-cussion. The reports he had received indicated that thekind of view expressed by Project Jonah seemed to be thedirection in which things were going, namely that manypeople were of the view that the full legal implicationshad not been thoroughly explored or understood. Itwould therefore be wise to complete everything properlybefore continuing the process and he had already askedthe Governance Committee to begin preparing a docu-ment along the lines of what Project Jonah had requested.


44

Nevertheless, it was the President’s duty to put the motionto Congress. There was a very long list of speakers re-questing the floor, but delegates were urged to avoid re-peating all of the points already made.

The Generalitat de Catalunya, speaking as a co-sponsorof the motion, stressed the importance of understandingthe significance of the proposed amendments. The worldwas increasingly complex with more and more actors onthe ground. In order to involve the whole range of ex-pertise available and to confront environmental chal-lenges, it was important to involve all of these actors.Maybe some of the preparatory work had not been car-ried out in sufficient depth from a legal perspective byCouncil, but the principle was still valid. Furthermore,the proposal as presented gave a very modest role to thenew category of member. In spite of these reservations,the Generalitat would support a process for the newCouncil to work properly on this.

The President requested the Chair of the Congress Gov-ernance Committee to interact with the sponsors andothers to come up with a proposal on how the mattershould be taken forward.

Following these consultations, the Generalitat deCatalunya indicated that it would withdraw the motionso that the issues raised in recent days could be discussedin further detail and a constructive process put in place totake matters forward.

The President expressed his sincere appreciation to theGeneralitat de Catalunya for its understanding.

The Conservatoire de l’espace littoral (France) recalledthat France had been closely involved with this issue sincethe Bangkok Congress and, while supporting withdrawalfor the moment as the best way forward, regretted thisoutcome.

The Chair of the Governance Committee reported thatall parties involved in the informal consultations re-quested by the President had been able to reach agree-ment on the text of the closely related motionCGR4.MOT011 Rev1 Including local and regional governmen-tal authorities in the structure of the Union and that it wouldbe appropriate to consider that motion now.

The President called for a vote on the motion asamended through the discussions facilitated by the Chairof the Governance Committee.

Motion CGR4.MOT011 Rev.1 was approved.

In concluding this agenda item, the President expressedhis thanks to Jorge Caillaux and the other members ofthe Congress Governance Committee.

AAddooppttiioonn ooff PPrrooggrraammmmee,, CCoommmmiissssiioonnMMaannddaatteess aanndd FFiinnaanncciiaall PPllaann ((1122..22))

The Programme and Commission Mandates were brieflyintroduced by Mr Ton Boon von Ochssée, Chair of theCongress Programme Committee.

The President called for a vote on adoption of CongressPaper CGR/2008/11 Proposed Mandates for IUCN Com-missions.

The Commission mandates were approved.

The President called for a vote on adoption of CongressPaper CGR/2008/10 The IUCN Programme 2009–2012.

The IUCN Programme 2009–2012 was approved.

The President called for a vote on adoption of CongressPaper CGR/2008/17 Financial Plan for the Period 2009–2012.

The Financial Plan 2009–2012 was approved.

The President recorded his thanks to Ton Boon vonOchssée and to Kurt Ramin, Chair of the Congress Fi-nance and Audit Committee, for the tremendous workthey had accomplished to bring these documents to thepoint of adoption.

CClloossuurree ooff tthhee 44tthh IIUUCCNN WWoorrlldd CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonnCCoonnggrreessss ((1122..33))

Welcoming members to the final Sitting of the 4th IUCNWorld Conservation Congress the outgoing President,Mr Valli Moosa, invited the President Elect, Dr AshokKhosla, to join him on stage.

Mr Moosa reflected that with over 7,000 participantsfrom 179 countries the Forum had been the biggest, bestand most exiting event in IUCN’s history. The Members’Business Assembly had been highly significant and re-vealed the effectiveness of the Union’s environmentaldemocracy. He commended the work of the outgoing


45

Councillors who had served during the 2004–2008 inter-sessional period; certificates would be presented to eachone of them in recognition of their contribution to thecauses of the environment, people and species.

The Director General presented the outgoing Presidentwith a gift to signify IUCN’s admiration, affection andgratitude. She then introduced a video marking theUnion’s 60th anniversary and looking back over some ofits history. Ms Marton-Lefèvre spoke of the pride thatthe Union could feel over how much had been accom-plished to date, but also of the need to be prepared forthe challenges that lay ahead. To explore these themesfurther she was delighted to introduce addresses by oneof IUCN’s longest-standing Commission members, DrWolfgang Burhenne and from one of the Union’s newestmembers, Ms Leana Corea, representing the Committeefor the Protection and Development of the Flora andFauna of the Gulf of Fonseca, Honduras.

Dr Wolfgang Burhenne described how IUCN hadevolved over its 60 years from an organization directedtowards protection of nature to become a modern move-ment for the conservation of nature and sustainable de-velopment. He looked back over the Congress that wasnow ending and reflected on the successes and challengesit had brought, saying: “I heard several times that peoplehave admitted their shortcomings – this is a sign of ma-turity, perhaps even improvement! And I also heard thatthere is no lack of knowledge, but that more action forimplementation is needed. Accepting this should notcondemn us to pessimism.” Turning to the challengesthat IUCN had to grapple with in the near future he high-lighted the need to reform some elements of the Con-gress process to accommodate the Union’s growingmembership. In particular, he called for a new approachto the ever-increasing number of motions, both in theprocess leading up to adoption and in implementation,identifying a number of specific reforms that could beintroduced. In closing, Dr Burhenne adapted the wordsof the eighteenth-century German writer FriederichSchiller in his dramatic poem Don Carlos, saying: “Thewonderful and busy days of Barcelona are over, but theserious task of action, implementation and enforcementbegins.”

Ms Leana Corea made an impassioned plea for under-standing that “the future is here, now, today” and that“nature shows us we have to work hard today to makethe changes we want to see tomorrow.” Taking an ethicalapproach to working for the environment was not some-thing for dreamers, but for realists, with their feet on the

ground, who understood that achieving sustainable de-velopment and ultimately our own survival was more aquestion of day-to-day action than of easy words. Shecalled for civil society, governments and the corporatesector to join together for the environment, sustainabil-ity and social equity, based on ethics and respect, and foryoung people to become more and more involved inbuilding on the efforts of their predecessors. The Con-gress had allowed her to glimpse the full potential ofIUCN’s members; potential that should be treasured andnurtured by the Union’s elected officials and regional di-rectors to generate new ideas and activities. The mem-bers of IUCN were not just a list of organizations or asimple statistic, but the very roots of a great tree that hadbeen growing for 60 years. Strengthening the role ofmembers in implementing the new Programme wouldhelp the tree to bear more and larger fruit. Members alsohad a great responsibility to spread the message of IUCNregionally and locally. The Honduran National Commit-tee was grateful for the privilege of sharing new experi-ences, many challenges and great achievements. Congressparticipants would return home feeling motivation, en-thusiasm and hoping for real changes in the light of dis-cussions in Barcelona.

Making her closing remarks, the Director General re-flected that this had been her first experience of anIUCN Congress from the ‘inside’ and she had found theexperience profoundly energizing. Watching all of thecomponents gradually coming together she had realizedthe truly extraordinary reach of the Union. The Congresshad succeeded in matching words with real and tangibleresources for action and, in doing so, had energizedIUCN’s work, anchored its mission and fuelled its mo-mentum. However, in addition to positive reviews andcommitments, she had also heard – and welcomed – crit-ical advice. Most feedback concerned how and where therelationship between the Secretariat, the Commissionsand members could be improved. Based on the guidanceof Congress, the February 2009 meeting of Councilwould discuss development and implementation of amore effective membership and governance strategy forthe next four years. The Congress could be compared toa drama production on a global stage, but as we preparedto take down the set, it was important to thank all thosewho had made the past ten days possible. On behalf ofIUCN, the Director General expressed deepest gratitudeto his Majesty the King and to His Royal Highness Princeof Asturias. Special thanks were due to the Congresshosts – the Ministry for Environment, Rural and MarineAffairs, the Department of Environment and Housingof the Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona City Council


46

and Barcelona Provincial Council. The Union was alsograteful to all of its sponsors, especially the six ‘platinum’sponsors of the Congress: the Spanish Agency for In-ternational Cooperation and Development, the EuropeanCommission, Cooperazione Italiana – under the ItalianMinistero degli Affari Esteri, the Environment Agencyfor Abu Dhabi, the French Ministère de l’Écologie, del’Energie, du Développement durable et de l’Aménage-ment du Territoire, and the World Business Council forSustainable Development. Many others had worked tire-lessly behind the scenes, including staff of the host ad-ministrations, Barcelona International Congress Centre(CCIB), local sponsors, volunteers and the IUCN Secre-tariat. “We should feel proud of the resounding successof this memorable event. As we prepare to sail homefrom this world class city, I look forward to seeing all ofyou at the next Congress in 2012.”

The outgoing President, Mr Valli Moosa, said of his in-volvement with IUCN that “My life has changed in waysthat I don’t yet know. Decades ago my generation was in-spired by John Lennon’s song ‘Imagine’, about endinghunger, war, pollution and prejudice. A song that youmight say envisioned ‘a just world that valued and con-served people and nature’. It included the chorus: You maysay I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one; I hope someday you’lljoin us, and the world will live as one. Back then of course,cynics dismissed those words as hopelessly naïve. Yet mytenure at IUCN has convinced me that these lyrics in factcapture not only our vision and our mission; they anchorour practical efforts on the reefs and in the forests andthrough the rivers, day after day.

We may have come here as dreamers, but we are not blindoptimists or naïve idealists. Though we dare to imagine abetter world, we are visionary activists. We are incorrigi-ble realists. We are economic pragmatists. We are scien-tific empiricists. And with the backing of 7,000participants representing hundreds of millions of peo-ple around this small, fragile, and beautiful world... we arenot the only ones. I hand over an IUCN that is bigger,that is stronger, that is better.

The incoming President of IUCN, Dr Ashok Khoslaoutlined his view of the immediate and strategic prioritiesfor the new Council to address. These included:

� bringing biodiversity into the centre stage of publicawareness, media concern and decision making atlocal, national and global levels;

� establishing the strongest, most incontrovertible ev-idence of the value of conserving biodiversity andof the costs of losing it;

� mobilizing the resources needed to send out to theworld clear and unambiguous messages through anaggressive and effective outreach strategy;

� bringing clarity into the basis for establishing ap-propriate relationships between IUCN and busi-ness through the setting up a small Council TaskForce to define the ‘terms of engagement’ for suchrelationships;

� achieving a better balance between the three legs ofthe ‘biodiversity tripod’ by raising the Union’s workon ecosystems to the same level of achievement asthat for species and habitats;

� nurturing the Union’s work on sustainable livelihoodsand the relationship between biodiversity and jobs;

� building IUCN’s capacity in the science of bio-mimicry;

� setting the highest benchmarks for personal, scien-tific and ethical commitment and integrity; and

� mobilizing resources for the work of the Union.

Dr Khosla considered that it was the job of the Presi-dent and Council first and foremost to listen to members– both State and civil society, the Commissions and ex-ternal partners. He was committed to acting as a facilita-tor for the work and interaction of all parts of the Unionso that they mutually supported one another and had aclear understanding of their roles to enable the entireUnion to act in unison, as a result-oriented single organ-ism. Analysis of the voting pattern during Congress sug-gested a degree of unease regarding the relationshipbetween members and the Secretariat. Clearly the Unionneeded to remove any impediments – real or perceived –to the sense of ownership and participation by memberswithout which it could never hope to fulfil its mission.He planned to make IUCN more responsive to members’needs and to enable members’ concerns to be heard,dealt with and responded to expeditiously. He would alsoensure that there was a proper arm’s length relationshipbetween the President and Council and the DirectorGeneral.

Overall he believed the Union to be in pretty good healthsave for a slight temperature here or a little blood pres-sure there. He had great admiration for the work of ValliMoosa and could only hope to build on the successes ofthe outgoing President and Council. Finally he expressedhis sincere thanks to Spain, Catalunya and the City ofBarcelona for the excellent arrangements made for theCongress and to the Director General for the work ofthe Secretariat.


47

Our World Conservation Forum had over 7,000 partic-ipants, 972 events, 7 Sustainability Dialogues, 9 Pavil-ions, 160 exhibitions, 13 journeys, 3 streams, anInternational Women Entrepreneurs Fair, a Conserva-tion Cinema with some of the world’s best wildlife films,dozens of Learning Opportunities, enough booklaunches to stock a library, and countless informalevents. It was a dramatic illustration of the merging ofmembers, Commissions, the Secretariat, and partners,truly a celebration of the ‘One Programme Approach’that we have all been advocating.

Many of you may have also noticed that the variousstreams, journeys and other events flowed together in aseamless collection of ideas, demonstrating yet again theessential unity of conservation action and the challengeof drawing boundaries around sections of our work. Wehave again seen that conservation is a unifying force, nota collection of silos standing in lonely splendour.

With this unprecedented series of events, we lived theOne Programme for four days, demonstrating the powerof diverse interests working together toward our com-mon goal of saving life on Earth. Our discussions at-tracted some 400 media people who filed over 5,000stories in all parts of the world, demonstrating that wehave reached the hearts and minds of millions of peoplewho gained new understanding about how important na-ture is to their own concerns.

Out of this great diversity, how are we going to capturethe key messages? The Sustainability Dialogues were allcaptured on video, and many events will be generatingbooks, projects and other products. And indeed, someeven released new publications, websites or conservationvideo games. We will post the results of each event onthe Congress website, where anyone with access to theInternet will be able to learn the details of what we dis-cussed. And for the first time, we assigned specific staffto capture the key messages of the over 120 posters, andgave awards to the three best (Sahara Conservation Fund,USA, Fundación Pro-Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta,Colombia, and Fundación Andaluza, Spain).

In addition, a small group of us will be drawing on theBarcelona results and other information over the coming

months to produce a synthesis volume about the statusof conservation in the year 2008 – a volume we hope willstand with the 1980 World Conservation Strategy and the1992 Caring for the Earth as a statement that will inspire andguide action in all parts of our planet. We welcome yourthoughts on what we should include in this synthesis.

We have had an Evaluation Team working to assess theeffectiveness of various aspects of the Forum, and theywill continue working over the coming year to produce anin-depth report, in addition to the more succinct reportthey will be producing in the next few weeks.

It is also worth noting how strongly the Forum activitiessupported the new IUCN Programme that we are sub-mitting for adoption here at the Members’ Assembly. Fol-lowing a unique process of review through detailedconsultation with members, Commissions and partners,the new Programme has been profoundly enriched by thediscussions we have held over the four Forum days.These helped mould the future of IUCN’s action de-signed to conserve the diversity of life, change the cli-mate forecast, naturally energize the future, manageecosystems for human well-being, and green the worldeconomy.

Like the new Programme, the Forum was results ori-ented. The Secretariat sought to support the variousevents through professional and experienced facilitation,and some 40 percent of the workshops requested and re-ceived such support.

While the launch of the latest Red List demonstrated,with powerful detail and authority, how dire is the statusof species, it also demonstrated that action can work: al-most 40 species once threatened with extinction are nowbeing saved due to action on the ground and in the cor-ridors of power by IUCN member organizations andCommission members. We developed much better indi-cators of the status of species and ecosystems, giving usnew tools for anticipating threats and addressing themearly enough to prevent emerging problems from be-coming crises.

We also have demonstrated the value of reaching out tonew partners if we want to influence what is happening


48

Annex 1 – Conclusions from the World Conservation Forum,6–9 October 2008Reported by Jeffrey A. McNeely, IUCN Chief Scientist

on the ground. Following calls from members to workwith the Private Sector, the Forum attracted the expert-ise, resources and perspectives from numerous parts ofthe private sector to enrich our discussions. I’m sure thatwe were all happy to see the new partnership betweenGoogle and IUCN, linking information technology withprotected area experts to include marine protected areasas part of Google Earth. This will provide a powerfulplatform for promoting further marine protected areasand identifying the highest priority areas for action.

Increasing numbers of companies, from small andmedium enterprises to large multinationals, are now rec-ognizing their responsibility to contribute to conservingbiodiversity. IUCN, working with many of its membersand Commissions, has been a major force in this changein corporate behaviour. While we may continue to havedisagreements with some of the actions of certain partsof the private sector, we have found that open dialoguecan find common interests and ways to build a strongerconstituency for conservation.

Energy has become increasingly important as we startcontemplating a post-petroleum future. Of course manyof us – and three-quarters of participants – paid for ourcarbon offsets, and we had many workshops about alter-native sources of energy, especially biofuel. But of coursesustainable energy will require innovation, and that oftencomes from the private sector. We need to find produc-tive ways to work with them to ensure that biodiversityconservation is enhanced by new forms of energy, notfurther degraded.

Let us be very coldly realistic about our challenge: wemust influence the political process if we want to changepublic behaviour, and the broader is our constituency, themore powerful will be our voice. We have learned thatseeking common ground is far more productive than di-verting our energy into pointless controversies. But ofcourse, we also continue to reserve the right, even the re-sponsibility, to be critical of the private sector when con-servation is being undermined.

The agricultural sector also gained new prominence atthe Forum. We now have many members who look atconservation through an agricultural lens, and SSC’s Spe-cialist Group on Wild Relatives of Domestic Plants haslinked our heartland to agriculture. In preparing for theCBD meeting in 2010, the government of Japan haslaunched the Satoyama Initiative, focusing on traditionalagricultural systems that conserve biodiversity and deliverhuman welfare benefits as well – what some of us call

‘ecoagriculture’. The many events on water also had di-rect relevance to agriculture, given that 70 percent of thefresh water we use is devoted to this sector. The stronglinks that were made between water and arid lands alsohelped to define how IUCN should be approaching themany challenges in this biome.

CEESP also helped open the door to what many willconsider a surprising new constituency: the military. In aworkshop, they brought security experts, high-rankingmilitary officers and conservationists together to seekcommon ground. The military controls considerable ter-ritory that contains valuable biodiversity. They have adeep interest in issues like climate change, from a nationalsecurity perspective. The workshop concluded that by en-gaging in open dialogue with the military, we can identifycommon ground for conservation and, one hopes, re-duce the damage that violent conflict so often inflicts onbiodiversity.

On quite a different front, we also had many sessions deal-ing with biodiversity and health, of both humans andwildlife – both plants and animals. The details will be inthe various reports, but the key point is that a link tohuman health gives us yet another important constituencyfor conservation. The slogan, “One World – One Health”opens the conservation community to productive dia-logue with the health sector, one with universal public in-terest.

The link to health workers also gives us a better founda-tion for dealing with emerging infectious diseases, in-cluding those that may arise from wild species. Avianinfluenza is only the most dramatic recent example, butchanging climates promise to promote even more speciesinvasions.

The link to health issues has another strand as well, thisone to invasive alien species. Many of these invasivespecies are either hosts of infectious viruses and bacteria,or are themselves disease organisms.

It is impossible in the brief time available today to coverin detail the great wealth of what happened in the Forum,and indeed, we may not realize the full impact for manyyears. But I would like to highlight a few of the most out-standing actions and insights.

It has become even more apparent that climate changeand biodiversity are part of the same issue, and we mustfind ways to ensure that they remain part of the sameconversation. After all, the impacts of climate change on


49

people are felt through climate’s impacts on ecosystems.Changing rainfall patterns will change the distribution ofcrop production, thereby changing economies, and inturn changing the distribution of plants and animals, andthe measures taken to conserve them. We also learnedthat adapting to climate change will depend on biodiver-sity, especially in terms of the genetic diversity that willenable species to evolve with the changing climate.

Healthy ecosystems are the best defence against climatechange, and the extreme climatic events that already areaffecting many parts of the world. The protected areascommunity focused attention on the importance of pro-tected areas in helping society adapt to climate change,and ensuring that these healthy and diverse ecosystemsare central to the climate change discussion.

Climate change is linked to water too, through such ob-servable trends as increasing droughts, floods, glacier re-treat, storms and sea level rise. The second phase ofIUCN’s Water and Nature Initiative, launched on 6 Oc-tober, will certainly have a climate dimension.

Climate change also gave us a new focus for our work inforests. We now have broad agreement that conservingold-growth forest is the best way to store carbon. Wehave helped to enrich the discussion on REDD (Reduc-ing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degrada-tion), using our Forest Dialogue’s Initiative on Forestsand Climate Change to bring diverse groups together toagree key principles for forests and climate change.

We discussed issues of equity, land tenure and benefitsharing, and sought ways to ensure that the funds gener-ated actually reach the forest-dwelling peoples. The de-bate about how to make market-based approaches likeREDD work for forest conservation and rural develop-ment will surely continue.

The stimulating discussions here at the Forum mean thatwe will all be going to the negotiations at the climatechange convention better prepared to insist on the criti-cal role of biological diversity and cultural diversity. Wemust continue to make the points that the only way totake carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is biological,and that cultural diversity will provide much of theknowledge we need to adapt to change.

This Forum also made us even better aware of whose in-terests are involved in our conservation actions. We heardmany, many examples of local and indigenous commu-nities who are demonstrating how to adapt to climate

change, and how much they have to contribute to con-servation, if only we can join with them in seeking solu-tions to our common interests. The many workshopsdealing with sacred sites and ethical dimensions of con-servation, and the spiritual importance of a link to thewild, have given us a new way of approaching partner-ships with people who have much to teach us about prac-tical resource management.

Local communities have called for an opportunity towork with IUCN to organize a dedicated forum aimed atcreating the mechanisms for true knowledge sharing be-tween government, international agencies and commu-nity practitioners – a very helpful innovation.

The Equator Initiative, a joint activity of many IUCNmembers and partners, led by UNDP, was especially elo-quent in calling for more opportunities for the voices oflocal communities to be heard, and listened to. TheUNDP Poble provided a venue where these issues couldbe discussed in more detail, and generated new sourcesof inspiration from communities that have succeeded inadapting to changing conditions for many generations.

Our heartland work in species, protected areas andecosystems was further strengthened at the Forum. Forthose who were concerned that IUCN was letting theheartland slip out to the periphery, the dozens of work-shops, pavilion events, Commission events, and so forth,should provide reassurance that our heartland still pro-vides the very blood flow that circulates throughout ourwork.

When we talk about “ecosystem services”, we are notthinking only about the benefits to people, but also thebenefits to ecosystems themselves, and the componentsof ecosystems. At the same time, we have repeatedly, andconvincingly, shown that species, protected areas andecosystems are relevant to human interests in many ways,from material benefits to spiritual ones. We heard aboutthe new efforts to develop a “Stern-like” report for bio-diversity, called The Economics of Ecosystems and Bio-diversity, and how important it is to continue the workstarted by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

As just one highlight among many that could be men-tioned, our Forest Conservation Programme reported im-portant new initiatives in the Congo Basin, with theChinese State Forest Administration announcing measuresto minimize negative environmental and social impacts ofChinese investments in the Congo Basin. And the gover-nor of the Indonesian Province of Papua presented his


50

vision of a sustainable, just and peaceful Papua where nat-ural areas would be safeguarded. Based on these and othercommitments, IUCN members and partners agreed to re-double their efforts to collaborate in resolving the com-plex environmental and developmental problemsconfronting these two critical regions. More broadly, newITTO Guidelines on forest biodiversity were launched atthe Forest Pavilion, again showing the value of partner-ships beyond our usual family.

We were heartened by the release of the first exhaustivestudy of the status of marine protected areas in theMediterranean by IUCN and WWF, and the manypledges to create new marine protected areas, and to im-prove the management of existing ones.

We served as neutral convenors of a dialogue on gov-erning the high seas, beyond national jurisdiction. Themany discussions focused on the set of ten principlesfloated here at the Forum, designed to help governmentsreach consensus on this complex issue.

Yet we have also learned that on-the-ground or in-the-water demonstrations, however effective they may be, willnever be enough. We also need to multiply our impactsfrom practice into policies, at local, national and interna-tional levels. Your Secretariat, with its Observer Status atthe UN and its active role in many international conven-tions, gives IUCN the world’s most powerful policy voicein conservation. The wisdom gained from the Forum willhelp ensure that IUCN’s policy positions will continue tobe informed by our members, Commissions and Coun-cillors. In participating in these global policy fora, the Sec-retariat is able to bring the knowledge of our memberstogether, and sometimes even challenge conventionalthinking.

So was the Forum a success? It certainly succeeded ingiving us all an opportunity to exchange information,meet old friends and make new ones, and develop newapproaches to conservation. But the real test is what hap-pens next.

We should all be excited that the Forum has helped togenerate significant new funding for conservation,amounting to some US$125 million. This includes the$50 million from the MacArthur Foundation to workwith conservation groups to enable communities to adaptto climate change, the Mohamed bin Zayed Conserva-tion Fund with $33 million for species conservation, $10million from the GEF to help generate at least matchingfunds from the private sector to “save our logo,” $15 million

for the Water for Nature Initiative, and $12 million forIUCN’s Framework Agreement with the Government ofFrance. Of course, not all of this is for IUCN, but ourmembers and Commissions now have some new eco-nomic opportunities.

I think that we should leave Barcelona with sufficientconfidence to think some big new thoughts.

While we were here, the global economy has crumbled.Some have worried that this will weaken the conserva-tion movement, making people focus on narrow eco-nomic self-interest and cutting off funding forconservation. We might look at the current collapse ofthe world’s banking system as symptomatic of the mar-ket failures that also threaten our biological assets.

But let us also look at this economic turmoil as an op-portunity. Governments will be injecting new capital intoeconomies in all parts of the world. We must ensure thatthese “quick fixes” are not long-term disasters in themaking. Instead, we must show the world’s leaders thatbuilding economies on the sustainability concepts of bi-ological systems will make sound economic, social, ethi-cal and ecological sense.

The Working for Water Programme in South Africa isone example of the kinds of investments that make so-cial, environmental and economic sense. Similar invest-ments in conservation should be encouraged in allcountries whose governments are trying to resuscitatetheir economies. As Pavan Sukhdev put it, “To makepoverty history, make biodiversity the future”.

In short, we need to help people live lightly and equitablyon our planet. As the Sustainability Dialogues showed,conservation is part of everyday living, affecting ourhealth, our buildings, the way we design things and maketomorrow’s world, our development models, and our eth-ical, spiritual and aesthetic sensibilities. We need to makethis the biological century, drawing on the inherent wis-dom of nature to develop sustainable ways of living.

The ideas that we generated in the Forum; the on-the-ground demonstrations of those ideas; and the strongand broad constituency of governments, NGOs, the pri-vate sector, health, science, climate, energy, agricultureand many others, should give us the confidence we needto plan, inspire and build the diverse and sustainableworld we all want to see.


51

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

WORLD HEADQUARTERSRue Mauverney 281196 Gland, [email protected] +41 22 999 0000Fax +41 22 999 0002www.iucn.org

Date post:	21-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangtuyen
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

ProceedingsoftheMembers’BusinessAssembly - IUCNcmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/wcc_4th_004.pdf ·...

Documents