Transcript Slide 1

WCPA Pan-Europe
Report from meeting 6.9.2011
IUCN Regional Conservation Forum, Bonn 6. – 9.9.2011
Stig Johansson
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE
WCPA discussions
• 16 WCPA members participated in the meeting and discussions
• Glen Hyman and Boris Erg (rapporteurs)
• Morning session on the IUCN Programme 2013 – 2016.
1. Does the proposed structure of the IUCN Programme 2013-2016 address
key issues relevant to PAs?
2. How do PAs and the work of WCPA fit into and contribute to the proposed
five core and thematic programme areas?
3. What are the priority issues, particularly in relation to PAs, IUCN and
WCPA should focus on? (list 3-5 priorities and suggest the roadmap for
each of them)
• Afternoon session on the European programme and WCPA in Europe:
1. List 3-5 priorities for WCPA Europe per programme area
2. The niche of WCPA in Europe – strength, advantages, opportunities?
3. How can WCPA Europe translate its priorities and niche into action – what
operational models are available given the voluntary nature of the
commissions?
2
IUCN Programme
•
•
•
•
•
Good process allowing time for consultations and comments
Regional Conservation Forums good way to engage the Union
Commissions and National Committees day in Europe excellent
Good – focus on the CBD Strategic Plan
Analysis captures much (much too much?) of what is impacting
biodiversity
• Structured well:
– Situation Analysis (comprehensive but needs a better focus on DRIVERS,
CTA,TPA and clearer statement of problems and what IUCN can do);
– Justification (links to resolutions and CBD SP targets);
– IUCN Approach and Results with focus on:
 IUCN strengths knowledge, standards and tools;
 Policy and best practice; but not very concrete providing clear direction
• But too vague and general
3
IUCN Programme
• Not particularly inspirational and exciting
• There was some dissatisfaction with the structure.
• Very general and text is convoluted, lacking focus and concrete
direction. Limpid in style, glossed over drivers and threats to
biodiversity, while leaving out discussion of IUCNs strengths in
responding to same.
• Communication challenge
• Lots of text and references in situation analysis – rather short in
approach and results – more concrete and detail on IUCNs
responses, capacity and added value.
• More clarity and focus in text: what is wrong; what have we done;
what should/can IUCN do?
• More direct focus on what is the mandate, niche and capacity of
IUCN
• Where are the explicit objectives of the programme?
4
IUCN Programme
• The CPA / TPA difference? Difficult to communicate.
– The programme (approach, results) doesn’t reflect the difference
• There is very little on how the programme should be implemented by
the UNION.
– There may be different emphasis in different programme areas. For
example in the “Food Security” TPA members may have main role?
• The word “energy” is absent though it is central in climate change
• Cities/urban areas are also absent. IUCN can strengthen many of its
activites, get better results and (probably) attract more funding by
incorporating more urban dimensions in our work.
5
IUCN Programme Areas
CPA 1 “BD conservation”
• The WCPA initiated green list of PAs should be mentioned
• Reference to strengthening the use of existing conventions (N2000,
HELCOM…) and mechanisms. (IUCN convening power and e.g.
PoWPA “Regional Actions”)
• Advice on the 17/10% implementation
• Focus on WH (IUCNs role and PA expertise)
6
IUCN Programme Areas
CPA 2 “Benefits”
•
•
•
•
•
7
Implementation of CBD ABS decision esp. in PAs
Also very much a legal rights issue.
Access to resources is also crucial - guidance
IUCN-WCPA toolkit on PA Governance in the making
Stronger emphasis on members in implementation?
IUCN Programme Areas
TPA 3 “Climate change”
• The word energy does not appear in the whole programme
• IUCN should have a clear position also on emissions.
• Convergence of CC and BD must be stronger – still many conflict between
CC mitigation measures and BD conservation.
• The crucial role of the WCPA report “Natural Solutions” (Copenhagen 2009)
in promoting EBA should be recognized
• The role of protected areas in EBA should be reflected (17% / 10% by 2020)
• The importance of restoration in PAs but also in connectivity/green infra
• Role of PA system gap analysis and the impact of climate change on PAs
(e.g. Russian, BPAN)
8
IUCN Programme Areas
TPA 4 “Food security”
• Food security should not be the main priority – ecosystems and BD should
• More explicitly what is IUCNs niche and where can it add value
• Difficult to communicate with confidence - “nature-based solutions for food
security”
• Relationship between food supply – land clearance (poor mans productivity)
– climate change and loss of BD should be stronger
• Emphasis on healthy ecosystems as a basis for food security – management
of ecosystems to produce food, water - e.g. protected (often PAs) watersheds
securing water and food production
• Spatial planning is central to support a healthy green infrastructure, including
PA connectivity interfaces (good examples from Scandinavia, South Africa)
• Major differences between regions – in Europe the agricultural practices and
land use are major challenges to BD
9
IUCN Programme Areas
TPA 5 “Green economy”
• Should have focus more directly on the CBD SP target 2 and 3. Now very
convoluted, difficult to understand (results 5.1. sounds almost like a CBD
decision)
• Why is result 5.1. limited to “risk management”. More important is to integrate
into national accounting or instruments used in economic and political
decision-making
• IUCN strong role in TEEB is not reflected in the TPA.
• We need a lot of new standards, tools and knowledge on how to integrate
natural capital in SNA and create and use a broader set of indicators for
economic and political decision-making
• PAs, WHS and MABs often have good data and could be used in taking
TEEB into practice.
• Act (knowledge, policy guidance) on harmful subsidies (CBD SP target 3)
10
IUCN Programme
Take home messages:
• The group would support a more action driven programme, with
attention to “what is wrong, what IUCN does to remedy it, and
where IUCN will work better/differently in the next four years.”
11
IUCN Europe Programme
• What is the relationship between the IUCN programme and the regional
(e.g. Europe) and thematic (e.g. GPAP) programmes?
• A draft discussion paper – requires a broad-based process to finalise
• Structure must echo the global programme
• Must be relevant to the whole of Pan-Europe (Kamtchatka to Greenland)
• Decide on a process to develop the European programme further, which
reflects and is responsive to contributions from the commissions and
members (small core group supporting secretariat in finalising
programme?)
• Serious thinking about the niche of IUCN in Europe:
– Understaffed and under resoursed
– Strong national actors, strong organisations – competition?
complementarity?
• IUCN must take a policy advocacy role?
– Use IUCN’s convening power.
12
IUCN Europe Programme
Take home messages:
•
• If the Europe plan is meant to give life to the global program in a
European context – it will need much more work. If the global
program is to inspire meaningful regional action, it must be more
bold.
13
European Programme
PAs and WCPA in Europe
• WCPA Europe programme in the frame of the IUCN global and
Europe programme and the Global Protected Areas Programme
• Explicit PA / WCPA Focal Point required at RoFE
• Implement the IUCN categories in Europe
• Certification of categories and PA managment
• Feed in to WDPA and especially Protected Planet
• Roll out and capacity in MEA
• European inputs to WPC 2014
• Implementing 17 / 10 in Europe
14
European Programme
PAs and WCPA in Europe
• Impact of CAP, next EU financing period (2013-2020) on PAs and
N2000 in Europe
• IUCN to lead an analysis on perverse incentives in Europe.
• Stronger use of existing agreements and conventions in Europe, most
with PA components, to implement CBD PoWPA (EU, CoE,
HELCOM, Carpathian Conv.,
• Focus on capacity building – roll out of tools (IUCN PA categories,
categories certification, MEA etc.) and knowledge (BPGs etc.).
• Translation of the tools and standards (esp. Russian)
• Explicit PA / WCPA Focal Point required at RoFE (Boris Erg?)
• Systematic ways to engage WCPA (and other commission) members
in procedures and processes (e.g. WH) and secretariat developed
projects.
15