Species Survival Commission (SSC ) – Simon Stuart

2. Species Survival Commission (SSC) – Simon Stuart World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) – Stig Johansson Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) – Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend Commission on Education and Communication (CEC) – Katalin Czippán Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM) – Kalev Sepp National Committees (Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Israel, Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and German focal point)

3. General Comments • Good to use the Aichi targets, and the European Programme should follow this • The text is not inspirational. It lacks “the big idea”. IUCN should provide leadership in some of the major debates • Should IUCN formulate Change. Can we continue economic growth and still achieve our Programme objectives? • The programme should convince partners (and donors) and needs to be sharper. Communication is important • Insuring ecosystem health to improve food security and livelihood security • While it is OK not to focus on energy, the new programme has totally erased reference to the topic • Fundamental question of “values” of nature – not only the economic value

4. General Comments - continued • Fundamental question of “values” of nature – not only the economic value. How to re-connect to nature? Recognise local knowledge with regards to sustainable use of natural resources • Poverty-Nature is important, but equally important is Wealth-Nature • More emphasis on “restoration • Reflect on relationships with industry and business. Set standards and agree on expectations and deliverables of partnerships. Work with Governments to provide a institutional framework for work with private sector • Too much emphasis on Government role. More focus on civil society to help implement the Programme. IUCN NGO Members have a key role to play • Follow ecosystem approach, and do not forget coastal areas and mangroves

5. Europe Comments • Need to be clearer about National Committees role. Support is needed in some cases. • The focus should not be on European Union – Europe is larger • There is a lack of reference to Commissions and what role they can play. • How will the consultation process proceed? Involve National Committees and Commissions • Environment is losing political relevance in Europe. IUCN can help to get it back on the political agenda. Regional Office can provide a facilitation role between National Committees and lobby in Brussels • National Committees as not fully recognised, and not trusted by the Secretariat to represent IUCN in the country. We need to use them more effectively. • But – not all National Committees are the same

6. National Committees • We have 17 in Europe, but they are not all the same • France, Netherlands and Spain are legally registered in the country and have full-time staff, but this should not be the “blue-print” for all NCs – Some National Committees are happy to remain voluntary groups • We need National Committees in more countries and the Secretariat should help to create them • National Committees can provide a national platform, report how Members are implementing the IUCN programme and provide Secretariat with contacts of Members. Knowledge clearing-house function. • National committees should not be the filter between IUCN and the Members. It is important that information flows directly and that rights of Members are respected • National Committees currently have no rights or authority. IUCN Needs to review this, recognise them and use them where possible. • The link between National Committees and Commissions in-country is not clear