And as demanded by its members, it also utilizes its secretariats and country and program offices to develop appropriate ways to implement the policy directives on the ground in developing countries around the world. In this book, I will explore IUCN and its efforts to promote conservation policy and practice globally as well as specifically in four South Asia countries, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan.
1.3 Academic Reasons for Choosing IUCN for My Research
It is well acknowledged that IUCN has been a major global player in pro- tecting nature and natural resources throughout the world for over 60 years.
Despite its critical work, there has been no serious scholarly examination of the organization or its activities. There are relatively few examples of research that examine the intervention of IOs in environmental conservation policy formation, or program planning and execution at the national and transnational levels. This research tries to fill this gap in knowledge by comparing four different South Asian nation states with varying bureaucratic capabilities.
From these comparisons, I seek to the answer the question – how does the same IO operate in different nation-states? I attempt to answer this by investigating the role that IOs play in country-level policy and programmatic efforts, specifically in biodiversity and environmental conservation. I find that IUCN plays a unique role in fostering global, transnational, and national con- servation goals by assisting, facilitating, and empowering its member states and NGOs. It does this by taking advantage of its reputation as a producer of knowledge, especially by supporting governments, NGOs, international con- ventions, UN organizations, companies, and communities in order to develop the most effective laws, policies, and practices for protecting biodiversity,
6 Introduction
locally to globally. IUCN not only helps to create conservation policies but also empowers its member states by providing them technical and financial support to implement those policies through its actions that mobilize other public and private organizations, providing resources and training required, as well as monitoring the results of its interventions. It may also play an active role as a program executer. As a neutral forum for governments, NGOs, scientists, businesses, and local communities, IUCN works collaboratively to find pragmatic solutions to conservation and developmental challenges for its member states and organizations.
IUCN has a very broad vision, “a just world that values and conserves nature,” (IUCN 2011) and a 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” (IUCN 2011, 2017). I found that IUCN tries to attend to this mission by building alliances and by strengthening the institutional capac- ity of its members in order for them to conserve biological diversity and safeguard ecological life-support processes at global, regional, national, and local levels. In addition, it tries to fulfill its mission by implementing five core themes: biodiversity, climate change, sustainable energy, human well- being, and a green economy (GE). It also oversees 12 substantive programs:
business, economics, ecosystem management, law, forests, gender, global policy, marine and polar life, protected areas, science and knowledge, social policy, species and water, and world heritage, respectively. IUCN makes its impact by empowering its members. It holds the strength of scientific knowledge, fueled by its six commissions, and its conservation projects are spread throughout more than 60 countries, whose collective membership ultimately increases the influence of IUCN. The values that this organization espouses are those of a provider of credible, trusted knowledge, of a convener and builder of partnerships for action, of a possessor of a global-to-local and local-to-global reach throughout its networks, and of a creator of standards and practices. I found that these values are created and maintained via its central assets; the member states, the network of experts that remain engaged through the commissions, and the staff within its worldwide Secretariat.
IUCN also acts as a demand-based organization that maintains the socio- political environment of the setting of the localized projects as well as of the larger institutional environment. In the country-specific cases, IUCN works collaboratively; however, it provides services or operates its programs by member governments’ invitation only. For example, IUCN has been a major
1.3 Academic Reasons for Choosing IUCN for My Research 7 institutional partner in executing conservation policies in Nepal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh for decades (IUCN 2011). In terms of policy intervention, Nepal was one of the first countries to invite IUCN to assist in environ- ment conservation policy formation around 1960, followed by Pakistan in 1982, Bangladesh in 1989, and India in 2007. However, in the global policy formation, India has been involved with IUCN since its inception in 1948 and Indians have been serving in the highest posts and have been helping IUCN to frame it as one of the largest, network and knowledge generating organizations through the involvement of Indian experts in its six commis- sions. However, IUCN itself has had only nominal influence in the building of India’s conservation policy infrastructure. This research shows that instead of utilizing services, India has been providing its knowledge as a means to influence IUCN’s global objectives.
In maintaining its global position as conservation policy formation global hybrid IO, IUCN is able to hold on to its identity. However, there are some shortfalls: it is unable to eliminate the view some developing world’s NGOs experts have that IUCN acts as western hegemonic organization and unable to show its efficiency in collaborating with the conservation organizations of global south. It is also unable to reduce the bureaucratic complexity regarding its efforts from policy framing to program planning and implementation.
Additionally, it has not been able to solve its problems with finding secure funding. This research clearly indicates that IUCN’s particular institutional niche is to empower a weak nation’s sovereignty through transnational policy intervention, whereas in the case of a strong nation, its niche is mutuality, which it obtains by facilitating nation-building activities focused around envi- ronmental conservation. Specifically, the cases of the four Asian countries will show that IUCN’s contribution to trans-boundary and national policies of sustainability depends upon the interests of the governments, which are in constant flux, given the differing views held by groups of stakeholders in that country and about their natural resources and how they are used. These demands also vary according to the scale – from local to global. IUCN is a global hybrid conservation IO in terms of its networks and membership. A hybrid IO is one that has both governments and NGOs as voting members.
As of November 17, 2017, IUCN has 1,300 members; 85 nations-states; 115 governmental agencies; 806 national NGOs; 96 international NGOs; and 33 affiliate members. It maintains its organizational and professional mission through empowering its networks which are coordinated from its Secretariat headquarters in Gland, Switzerland.
8 Introduction