• I sense that many IUCN member organizations are not aware of how they can use IUCN Commissions both to contribute to international conservation and to benefit from the exchange of information and ideas.
For IUCN, Commissions are still a greatly underutilized resource. On the other hand, IUCN member organizations could do a lot more to support them.
• We are very interested in the IUCN Commissions and have great respect for their experts, but we have no way of connecting their expertise with the work of our organizations. Our IUCN membership does not provide a way for us to benefit more from the Commissions and this is a disappointment to us.
• IUCN can improve my involvement in the work of Commissions by first telling me how to get involved.
• Commissions tend to be very centralized and it is really difficult to participate.
• I do not have a lot of hope for progress with global Commissions.
I think that they work at much too large a scale in an environment
5.8 Member’s Voices as Depicted in the Figure 95
Figure 5.6 Members’ involvement with the commissions in relation to regions.
Note: Data used with the permission of IUCN HQ (obtained on July 18, 2009): Likert scale 1–4; 4 = very involved, 3 = somewhat involved, 2 = slightly involved, and 1 = not at all involved [IUCN (2008:40)].
where real solutions are more local and regional. The function of these Commissions should be more relevant to members.
• We know very little about the various Commissions. Most of our partici- pants (of a member organization) are poorly informed about the work of Commissions, even the specialists in issues covered by Commissions.
96 Exploring IUCN’s Failings – Members Perspective
• Our weak involvement in the work of the Commissions is a result of our limited knowledge about how they function, and above all, what is expected of members.
• Keep members informed, stimulated, and energized. I have never received a single direct communication even though I am a member of a Commission and a member of IUCN. Be more proactive and transparent in communications and information distribution (IUCN 2009:43).
In fact, Figure 5.6 simply reflects the members’ precise reaction toward their involvement in the commissions. Furthermore, in terms of regional participation and familiarity with the commissions overall mean score is quite low: 1.77 (in the 1–4 scale). Individual regions had the following results: Africa 1.92; Meso and South America 1.86; North America and Caribbean1.62; South and East Asia 1.77; West Asia 1.57; Oceania 1.78;
East Europe, North and Central Asia 2.04; and 1.66 for West Europe. These results are troubling because one of the major strengths of IUCN is intend to be creating knowledge for use at various scales (local to international) and creating a platform for collaboration efforts with members. Whenever there is a major gap between the members and the commissions, national committees, and the secretariat, then a serious question arises – how do the members feel “about the value of the knowledge” itself? IUCN is a knowledge producing organization and a neutral forum for governments, NGOs, scientists, business, and local communities to find pragmatic solutions to conservation and development challenges. However, that is not all. IUCN also works on-the-ground with its members to influence, encourage, and assist them in their efforts throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature as well as to ensure that their use of natural resources is both equitable and ecologically sustainable. IUCN officials particularly from the memberships units have acknowledged this weakness and submitted these agendas for improvement. However, there is no record yet about any initiative to overcome this issue.
Figure 5.7 shows that most regional members have some level of famil- iarity with IUCN’s governance process. On a Likert scale of 1–4, the overall familiarity score is 2.5 (aggregate score of eight regions); whereas famil- iarity on Regional Conservation Forum scores 2.11; National Committee 2.91; Regional Councilors from region 2.50; IUCN Council 2.38; and the Members’ Assembly, WCC scores 2.82, respectively. Similarly, aggregate familiarity, North America and Caribbean score only 2.006; followed by West Europe 2.384; Africa 2.486; East Europe, North and Central Asia 2.6; South
5.8 Member’s Voices as Depicted in the Figure 97
Figure 5.7 Members’ awareness about IUCN’s governance structure/arrangements.
Note: Data used with the permission of IUCN HQ (obtained on July 18, 2009): Likert scale 1–4; where 4 = very involved, 3 = somewhat involved, 2 = slightly involved, and 1 = not at all involved [IUCN (2008:40)].
and East Asia 2.782; Meso and South America 2.81; Oceania 3.024, and the largest score holds the West Asia with 3.192 out of four highest scores. The familiarity score on governance is slightly better in comparison to awareness about the activities of IUCN programs and commissions.
As a membership organization, IUCN officials claim (during face to face interviews) that one of its roles is to empower the members and if the members are taking hold of special issues, it is a matter of satisfaction.
However, the members do not take this scenario easily. They say “IUCN is ignoring its members’ stake, favoring only those from which IUCN could get funding and other supports. IUCN is also not coordinating with members in preparing programs, implementation, and also not helping members to highlight their agendas, in which we hold the first hand information and knoweldge. We need to work together to address the local to national issues, with the combined efforts of the states and NGOs. IUCN as an umbrella organization holds the power for the colaborative work, but it competes with members for the same funding, which creates the unseen tension between us”
98 Exploring IUCN’s Failings – Members Perspective
(combined voice from the focus group discussion in Barcelona 2008). These statements are only from the members of the South Asian region. However, the voices of the members enlisted in the survey report with global covarage also reveals a similar perception of the role of IUCN.
Members are the strength, identity, and the public face of IUCN. However, either the secretariat is not well equipped to disseminate information to the members or members are not in a position to understand what has been communicated. This serious problem needs further research to unveil why IUCN and its members have these disconnects. This chapter explores a few of the blind spots of IUCN related to how familiar or unfamiliar its mem- bers were with IUCN, its themes, missions, and activities, which basically shows the members’ dissatisfaction with the working structure of IUCN. The chapter shows that the members value the IUCN; however, they are not fully satisfied with its working procedures. IUCN’s is a membership organization but it lacks coordination with its members. IUCN needs to better prepare its programs that have better coordination with its members. The following chapter further investigates the strengths and weaknesses of the IUCN.
6
The Strengths and Weaknesses of the IUCN