CEESP is a largely a group of social scientists dedicated to the public aspect of conservation. This group is composed largely of university faculties of sociology, anthropology, economics, political science, and geography, as well
4.7 The Commissions 47 as people interested in global environmental policy, human rights, women’s rights, and the rights of indigenous people and ethnic groups. Its purpose is to provide an integrated approach to environmental, economic, social, and cultural policies. It has seven key themes: conservation and culture;
environment, conflict, and security; environment, macroeconomics, trade, and investment; indigenous peoples, local communities, equity, and protected areas; governance, equity, and rights; social and environmental accountability of the private sector; and sustainable livelihoods. They are coordinated by co-chairs of volunteer experts, as seen in Figure 4.4.
The members of CEESP include academics, indigenous and local com- munity researchers and leaders, government and UN agency policy and program staff, and interested global citizens. Similar to other commissions, it is a global, multi-disciplinary network with proven experience and expertise in utilizing its linkages to contribute to local, national, regional, global, and international processes (IUCN 2010).
CEESP has its own specific mission, “to contribute to IUCN’s mission by providing insights and expertise on ways to harmonize biodiversity con- servation with the crucial socioeconomic and cultural concerns of human
Figure 4.4 The thematic areas of the CEESP.
Source: IUCN-CEESP (2010).
48 The IUCN – An International Organization for Environment Conservation communities, such as livelihoods, poverty eradication, development, equity, human rights, cultural identity, security, and the fair and effective governance of natural resources” (IUCN-CEESP 2011:5). It has been collaborating with members through a major focus on the governance of natural resources, equity and human rights, economics, markets, trade and investment, sustain- able livelihoods, and pro-poor conservation, culture, and conservation.
In summary, each of the commissions of IUCN has specific groups and subgroups that are structured in such a way that they intertwine with each other through a network of networks. Among them, in terms of area coverage by nature, CEESP has the largest emphasis on policy directives. As seen in the cases of TGRE and SEAPRISE, they follow the themes of CEESP but also bound themselves through self-proposed and members-approved resolutions to try to fulfill the mandate. The overall function of all of the commissions is to help IUCN obtain its mission to influence, encourage, and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature, and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.
Along with the Secretariat, these commissions play vital roles in global policy formation through knowledge, action, and influence, and help con- cerned stakeholders including the governments build conservation efforts at various levels. These commissions use participatory approaches in program implementation and foster resources like funding and technical savvy. IUCN prepares its member-states for international agreements, negotiations, and bargaining. The whole of the IUCN system plays a neutral role, and therefore there is minimum tension between concern stakeholders.
In terms of administration, the commissions are not legally bound to IUCN. The scientists affiliated with IUCN are simply volunteers. They do, however, use the platform of IUCN’s trustworthiness and global reputation, which is mutually beneficial to the individuals as well as to IUCN. Each commission prepares the policy directives and tool kits which help build nation-states to improve the capacity for environmental protection. The reso- lutions are the policy directives of IUCN and to its all stakeholders which come into force with the efforts of the professionals who negotiate and influence to the member nations for the implementation. IUCN provides a platform for member countries to set priority for viable conservation policies and programs, as well as appropriate approaches to implement them. How- ever, they are not applicable to all member-nations because of the varying geographies, cultures, bureaucratic structures, power systems, and exper- tise. For example, the developed world largely focuses on policy directives
4.7 The Commissions 49 whereas the developing world requires programs related to the social well- being. While the four Asian countries of this study largely belong to the same cultural niche, the same problem sometimes occurs. India, for example, is capable of implementing the programs, policies, and tools of conservation;
therefore, in 62 years of belonging to IUCN, it was not invited to IUCN for the tools’ preparation. Nepal on the other hand sent a request to IUCN early as it began a five-year development plan in the 1960s, and was followed by Pakistan in the 1980s and Bangladesh in the 1990s.
Furthermore, IUCN is an organization of multiple stakeholders and is democratic in nature. It evaluates its own programs using two basic criteria:
first, how insiders such as the officials of IUCN see the ongoing efforts of conservation at the global, regional, and national levels and second, how the external evaluators observe its impacts in the global forum. In this context, it provides internal and external evaluation reports to the council and world congresses every two years. Although it has tried to maintain its original goals of conservation and information gathering, its efforts have been criticized by core conservation groups, and its worthiness questioned by a number of IOs as well as the research respondents of this report.
It is still unclear whether bringing businesses into the conservation arena is appropriate or not. There is a strong urgency for further research on the shifting role of IUCN as well as for other conservation organizations who are also giving priority to business communities.