6.4 The Members’ Views on the IUCN System
The members concerned are briefly explained in Chapter 5. It seems that members strongly value IUCN; however, their major dissatisfaction is the lack of specialized programs in the country-specific cases. Several members and the past councilors and chair of the commissions also repeatedly stated that the major weakness of IUCN is its unfocused programs. Here are few comments (based on the external reviews 2008 and research participants’
opinion):
• Work is mostly being done in a vacuum or in isolation of the members.
There is no room for duplication. Local programs should create oppor- tunities for members to engage with and implement the global program.
There is a large disconnect which is not addressed by regional offices.
• I never hear from any regional or country office people at all. All I get is a lot of four color publications which I have no time to read. . . .. Frankly, I resent the printing budget. I want leadership in data networking and in development.
• Local and regional offices provide no support. They simply compete for projects and funding. They do not address members concerns and have not direct impact on conservation issues locally. . . . Much more work is required to ensure that the offices address conservation and are not simply expensive administrative operations with no teeth.
• IUCN is too Secretariat-driven and should improve its mechanisms to involve members in the implementation of program as well as WCC decisions and resolutions. The process by which WCC decisions and res- olutions are translated into work priorities and actions is not transparent and is too subject to Secretariat discretion (also in IUCN 2008:30).
• Weaknesses of IUCN: It’s not focused on impact. They do all kinds of things, they’re spread very thin, and they don’t have real lasting results.
A weakness for me, the policy arena: they produced the drafts for the biodiversity convention that may have results for information, that those were instrumental for the scientists’ lists, that they are making this Red Book, but in terms that you can see IUCN really changed things? . . . That is all dollars driven; they’re all things that keep all these people happily
114 The Strengths and Weaknesses of the IUCN
in their salaries, but a real impact of a change nature for the better in a country? No, Not at all.
Similar concerns were raised by the research participants of India and Nepal. However, regarding the resolution process, IUCN officials have to say something like as democratic process and the strength. For example:
The way that we go about building that Program is we look at three or four things at once. One is we look at the body of IUCN policy that we have, which is generated by members through resolution process at Congress; there tends to be themes that emerge from that, that are relevant to nation-states, because nothing can get approved at Congress if nation-states don’t also go for it, so, for example, we have a lot of resolutions about protected areas, about species, about business, about forests and water and climate change, and all that sort of thing. So that’s one tool we use to make sure it’s relevant to nation-states. . . . And it still passes – a key sociological issue.
That also is strength, but it also is a weakness. I think the chair of the resolutions committee described it as “approval by neglect”
and said that because people don’t bother to vote and if only a few people vote but if it’s more than 50% that did vote say yes, then . . . by neglect, or sometimes people just vote yes because they don’t know what the issue is . . . there is a challenge there about how focused the program of work can be.
On the other side, NGOs’ leaders comment on the lack of the information regarding the resolution implementation process.
In connection with this, the external reviews of 2007, published in 2008, summarize the members concerned in the following order, which is similar with the research respondents.
• There is a gap between IUCN’s strategic intentions and member expec- tations on the one hand and secretariat capacities and priorities on the other.
• Members have different priorities from those reflected in the secretariat.
• Organizational systems and operational procedures within the Sec- retariat need to change if “membership engagement is everyone’s business.”
6.4 The Members’ Views on the IUCN System 115
• Members look to IUCN for networking so IUCN should strengthen its capacity to support members to work together and with the Commissions.
• IUCN publications are highly appreciated by members and their value could be further increased.
• Most members are only marginally involved in the IUCN Program, and do not see it as driven and “owned” by members.
• The gap between member profile and program is widening. The 2009–
2012 Program requires more expertise in areas that do not match the skill and interest profiles of the majority of members.
• Some members are critical of the way the secretariat delivers the Program citing competition with members and working outside of its technical expertise.
• Members want to be able to play a larger role in IUCN policy setting than they currently do.
• Members look to IUCN for support in policy work.
• The three core elements in IUCN’s value proposition to members are: networking, IUCN’s convening power, and governmental and non- governmental members sharing the same platforms from local to global levels.
• Many of IUCN’s strengths and weaknesses are the same in 2007 as in 1994 with organizational weaknesses deepening.
• IUCN can do better to support good management of its partnerships and alliances.
• The Membership Strategy 2005–2008 has not been made operational with specific objectives and performance measures. For the most part, it has not been implemented, and with the exception of the IUCN Member Survey, little effort has been made to measure results.
• The membership strategy and recruitment and retention guidelines need revision based on a rethinking of IUCN’s membership policy as an integral part of IUCN’s strategy for the future of the Union (External review 2007:vi–viii and also in 11).
One of the distinct opinions of members about their problems with IUCN was their change of working modality from policy formulator and also as a program implementer (a change to project driven organization). Some members also reported critically that in a number of countries, the IUCN Secretariat works with other organizations but not with members.
116 The Strengths and Weaknesses of the IUCN