Annual Programme Report Progress Report 2013

Contents Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Valuing and conserving nature ............................................................................................................. 4

Effective and equitable governance of nature’s use .......................................................................... 15

Deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges in climate, food, development .................... 19

Main findings ...................................................................................................................................... 21

Lessons Learned 2013 ......................................................................................................................... 22

Annex A: Intended impact, global results and results indicators, and common impact indicators ... 24

Annex B: Results of the data analysis exercise ................................................................................... 25

The IUCN Programme 2013-2016 includes a set of results and impact indicators to allow the measurement of Programme delivery and results over the intersessional period. Result indicators are reported on an annual basis while impact indicators will be only reported at the end of the intersessional period. In May 2013, IUCN produced a Programme Baseline Analysis as an Annex to the Annual Report to the IUCN Framework Partners. The analysis used 2012 as the baseline year for monitoring purposes (where data were available). This update constitutes the first progress report, based on 2013 results.

The purpose of this report is twofold: to document progress in implementing the IUCN Programme and to learn how IUCN tends to implement and deliver results and impacts as well as the means used to deliver them. This report will also be used as an input to the design of the IUCN Programme 2017-2020 which will launch as a process in early 2015.

1

Methodology

IUCN has assigned clear responsibilities and data sources for the whole set of results and impact indicators (See Annex A). For the Programme Area on Valuing and conserving nature, data is drawn primarily from scientific literature as IUCN does not monitor these trends itself.

The Programme Areas on Effective and equitable governance of nature’s use and Deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges in climate, food and development are tied to knowledge products under development: the Natural Resource Governance Framework and the Red List of Ecosystems. In both cases, a project sample has been used as the proxy to show Programme delivery, based on the assumption that IUCN’s field projects are consistent with the Natural Resource Governance Framework which will eventually be completed.

For the Baseline Analysis (2013), IUCN included a survey of 64 field projects and 89 examples of policy influencing from 14 Regions and Global Programmes reporting. This year’s assessment not only covers the original sample of 64 projects, but also expands it, considering a parallel assessment of the Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (PME) on a sample of all IUCN projects with a budget above CHF one million, compiled during the second half of 2013. The current project sample includes 105 projects, from which nine projects were not able to report on results at this stage because they recently started their implementation and 67 of them included a policy component. In addition, 32 examples of policy influencing and 7 of private sector engagement were collected to feed specific sections of the report. In 2014, 20 Regions and Global Programmes contributed to this exercise. The geographical distribution of the sample of projects is the following: 12% are Global, 30% are Regional, 19% are Sub-regional, 32% are National and 6% are local.

To collect data from Regions and Global Programmes two templates were distributed (in excel sheets): one for projects and one for policy and private sector engagement initiatives which are not necessarily linked to project implementation. The template for ‘projects’ requested each of the projects of the sample to report on the main biodiversity, governance and policy results, as well as benefits to local stakeholders. The template for policy and private sector requested programmes to report on the results delivered with an explanation on the means of achievement. Both templates included a lessons learned section.

For the baseline report in 2013 of project results, based on the data which was collected, a theory of change was developed to show the “typical” interventions. This Theory of Change outlined in Figure 1, was then used to code the data set. The process of developing the Theory of Change and coding the data was iterative, meaning that the dataset was coded and the Theory of Change was developed simultaneously. For this report, the Theory of Change was not updated, but was used to code the data collected from the project templates. IUCN’s Theory of Change could be conceptualized in the following way: IUCN works and reports on the delivery of sub-results related to the enabling conditions for conservation and also the governance changes that support results such as removal of threats, management regimes and livelihood benefits. Impact is measured through changes to species status,

2

ecosystem functions and human wellbeing. The results chain also indicates that governance changes occur throughout, as changes in the enabling environment and associated, as well as policy changes, leading to different management regimes which in turn, lead to a governance impact on equity and sustainable development. IUCN’s efforts in monitoring during the intersessional period will aim to reach the impact level. The results of policy influencing were analyzed separately, although many policy results are the consequence of project implementation. Data analysis and interpretation of the policy component of IUCN’s project portfolio used a different categorization scheme. IUCN’s traditional policy outputs sub-results were classified in the following categories: consultation / improved stakeholder participation; advisory; policy or law drafting; and background work. Sub-results led to two main types of results: a policy/law established or a legal mechanism implemented. Ultimately, policies need to contribute to biodiversity and human wellbeing impacts. The main findings of the policy components of the portfolio are presented in the section entitled ‘Survey of IUCN’s policy influencing’. The feedback received from the template on policy initiatives and private sector engagement outside the project portfolio was used to report on selected indicators of the results framework by providing examples for the narrative. However, it was not considered in the overall sample of projects. The feedback received for this specific section needs to be further analyzed to see how it can support monitoring and reporting purposes.

Figure 1: Conceptualizing IUCN delivery

Sub-results (“SR”) Results (“R”) Impacts (“I”)

3

Valuing and conserving nature

1. Extent, representativeness and connectivity of effectively managed protected areas

The first step to measure characteristics of protected areas is to mobilize high quality data on selected criteria for all protected areas. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) contains the most complete and accurate data for protected areas globally, and this is the basis for the indicator at this time. This indicator measures the coverage (distribution and size) of protected areas, and the extent to which these conserve representative ecosystems. It is also possible to calculate connectivity, which is a function of proximity and the nature of the intervening landscape or seascape, though a reliable analysis of connectivity has not yet been undertaken. The feature of representativeness is measured through the proportion of the most important areas for biodiversity that are protected, and is described in the next section on key biodiversity areas. The WDPA also incorporates information on management effectiveness, but as yet, only a small proportion of the world protected areas (7000 out of 200,000) have been assessed.

Overall statistics for targets on protected areas coverage as well as on management effectiveness are drawn from the WDPA and from the periodical reporting of Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). The latest reports from both sources that include 2013 data are currently under preparation, and information will only be available during the second half of 2014.1

Since 2012, IUCN and UNEP-WCMC have initiated a new strategy known as Protected Planet to upgrade the WDPA and to ensure that it can support reporting on all key parameters of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. This is in accordance with IUCN’s formal UN mandate to produce the UN List of Protected Areas, and the CBD’s request to IUCN to produce the biennial Protected Planet Report. This builds on several years’ work to improve data quality.

As Figure 2 shows, from 2003 to 2013 the WDPA has expanded its coverage from 84,577 to 205,882 sites and from 40% to 85% of sites including spatial data on their boundaries (Data source: UNEP-WCMC).2 Protected Planet is also concerned about the quality of protected areas and protected area systems, including their governance and management. In accordance with a resolution of the IUCN World Conservation Congress, IUCN is developing the IUCN Green List of Protected Areas to evaluate and recognize areas that meet their objectives, and

1 In decision X/10, the Conference of the Parties to the CBD requested Parties to submit their fifth national report by 31 March 2014. The fifth national reports will provide an important source of information for a mid-term review of progress towards the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets which will be undertaken by the Conference of the Parties at its twelfth meeting in the second half of 2014. The fifth national reports will also contribute to the development of the fourth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook. 2 The WDPA contains both spatial (i.e. boundaries) and attribute (i.e. information) data about protected areas. The spatial boundaries of protected areas in the WDPA are represented by ArcGIS shapefiles in polygon format. Where boundary data are unavailable, a geographic location (latitude and longitude) can be given as a reference point for the protected area. (Source: WDPA, Protected Planet 2010).

4

expect that this will increase action on the ground to improve protected areas and be an incentive for better quality reporting into the WDPA.

Figure 2: World Database on Protected Areas Coverage (an indicator of data quality and availability)

Source: UNEP-WCMC

2. Proportion of key biodiversity areas within and outside protected areas

A global standard for the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) knowledge product is under development through a joint task force convened by the World Commission of Protected Areas (WCPA) and the Species Survival Commission (SSC). KBAs are sites contributing significantly to global persistence of biodiversity. While this persistence does not necessarily require formal protected area designation, protected area coverage of KBAs is nevertheless a valuable indicator of conservation progress.

Two subsets of KBAs have been identified in almost all countries worldwide: Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs; i.e. KBAs identified for birds) and Alliance for Zero Extinction sites (AZEs; i.e. KBAs identified for Critically Endangered or Endangered vertebrates, conifers and corals). The latest available data from Butchart, et al., (2012) measured the mean percentage area of each site that overlaps with protected areas. Figure 3 shows that, on average, 38% of the area of IBAs and 35% of the area of AZEs is covered by protected areas.

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Prot

ecte

d Ar

eas

Points only (UNEP-WCMC) Boundaries (UNEP-WCMC)

5

Figure 3: Protected area coverage of Key Biodiversity Areas. Grey shading shows 95% confidence intervals

Source: Butchart, et al., 2012. “Protecting Important Sites for Biodiversity Contributes to Meeting Global Conservation Targets” PLoS ONE 7:3.

In support of this process nearly 100 global members of the Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) have generated an inventory of 587 sites which effectively hold the entire global population of at least one highly threatened species. The analysis includes taxonomic groups that have all been assessed globally by IUCN including mammals, birds, amphibians, some reptiles, conifers and reef-building corals, with a combined total of 920 highly threatened species (Critically Endangered or Endangered). IUCN has adopted a Resolution on AZE3 and is integrating AZE as a component of its Key Biodiversity Areas process.4

IUCN’s KBA standard builds off more than three decades of BirdLife International’s experience in identifying, monitoring and conserving Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBA), with over 12,000 sites identified to date. BirdlLfe International is an IUCN Member and Red List partner. Once the KBA standard is approved by IUCN Council, substantial efforts in data generation will be necessary to build from IBAs and AZE sites to identify KBAs for other taxonomic groups.

3 The Resolution was adopted in Jeju in 2012: WCC-2012-Res-015 Saving the world’s most threatened species. 4 Blog post on AZE: https://portals.iucn.org/blog/2014/03/16/protecting-the-irreplaceable/

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45 19

80

1981

19

82

1983

19

84

1985

19

86

1987

19

88

1989

19

90

1991

19

92

1993

19

94

1995

19

96

1997

19

98

1999

20

00

2001

20

02

2003

20

04

2005

20

06

2007

20

08

2009

20

10

2011

20

12

2013

Mea

n %

are

a pr

otec

ted

Protected area coverage of key biodiversity areas

Mean Important Bird Area protection (Butchart et al. 2012 PLoS ONE) Mean Alliance for Zero Extinction site protection (Butchart et al. 2012 PLoS One)

6

3. Number of exports of data from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Four main variables are considered for this indicator: the number of downloads for individual species and taxonomic groups and the visitor statistics of the IUCN Red List Website (which serves as a proxy for use of the Red List); the total number of species assessed; and Red List capacity building. Number of downloads and visitor statistics In 2013, there were 6,707 non-spatial downloads from the IUCN Red List website (slightly down compared to 2012 figures: 6,814).5 However, download figures tend to vary considerably from year-to-year with surges whenever the Red List information on a completely assessed taxonomic group is added to the dataset. For the spatial data, there were 12,782 downloads of GIS spatial data files for individual species.6 The spatial data for some of the completely assessed taxonomic groups (mammals, amphibians, selected marine fish, etc.) are also made available for download. It is estimated that the number of downloads for these complete spatial datasets would have exceeded 8,580 in 2013, thus the total would exceed 21,000 downloads of spatial data.7 The increase in the spatial downloads from 2012 to 2013 is caused by the implementation of a mechanism for downloading maps individually only in July 2012.There is significant interest in the spatial data, and the number of downloads is steadily increasing as awareness grows about the availability of this resource. The users are from all sectors and for multiple uses: to guide scientific research; to inform policy (e.g. CITES, CBD, World Heritage Convention); to influence resource allocation (e.g. by the Global Environmental Facility, GEF, and by Save Our Species8 (SOS); to inform conservation planning (Red List data underpin the selection of Alliance for Zero Extinction sites and Key Biodiversity Areas). It is also used to improve decision making processes in which the private sector is also involved, e.g. to guide environmental impact assessments, develop restoration plans and land use planning. Finally, updates of The IUCN Red List generate significant media interest resulting is broad coverage on all media (see below for website visitor statistics), helping to increase public awareness.

5 Users in searching The IUCN Red List can export a tabular summary of their search results (in three different formats); at present this is essentially a simple spreadsheet with the full taxonomy for each species, their common names and synonyms, their Red List Status (Category and Criteria), the year the species was assessed and the current trend of the population of the species. 6 Most of the species assessments on The IUCN Red List include a map showing the range of the species, this is what IUCN terms the spatial data. These data are freely available for download provided they not used for commercial purposes. The spatial data are made available through an online request system and users are provided with electronic files containing the data in Geographical Information System (GIS) format. 7 2013 estimates are based on an interim system that enables to track all the downloads, created at the end of 2013 In the period December 2013 to March 2014 there were 2,860 downloads. The 2013 estimates are based on these figures. 8 A recent analysis of the SOS portfolio revealed that of a total of 206 species targeted, 23% are Vulnerable, 43% are Endangered and 33% are Critically Endangered according to the Red List. Figure 5 illustrates the distribution.

7

It should be noted that investment is needed to improve the download functions on the IUCN Red List website. Putting in place the necessary measures to better record and track all spatial and non-spatial downloads will improve the value of this indicator. The IUCN Red List website had over 3.4 million unique visitors, 5.5 million unique visits and 20.4 million page views in 2013. The IUCN Red List Discover sub-site (launched in May 2013 and aimed at the less technical user) had 59,664 unique visitors, almost 84,000 visits and 355,576 page views. This portal is not yet actively promoted as it is still under development. Total number of species assessed The number of species assessed for The IUCN Red List has increased steadily over time. As the end of 2013, 71,576 species were assessed of which 21,286 are threatened (assessed as Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered). The aim is to expand the number of species assessed with a target of 160,000 species by 2020, with a particular focus on plants, invertebrates and species from the freshwater and marine realms. Figure 4: IUCN Red List: Number of species assessed and number of threatened species

Source: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

1980

19

81

1982

19

83

1984

19

85

1986

19

87

1988

19

89

1990

19

91

1992

19

93

1994

19

95

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

20

01

2002

20

03

2004

20

05

2006

20

07

2008

20

09

2010

20

11

2012

20

13

Red List coverage

Total species assessed

Total threatened species

8

Red List Capacity Building This indicator shows the extent of capacity-building efforts delivered by the Secretariat on the Red List (numbers). Training workshops Twelve Red List Training workshops were held in 2013, which involved 242 people (i.e. 242 people were certified in 2013 as having participated in a training workshop). Online training Overall 346 people registered in 2013 for the online training course; the breakdown of the numbers (registered and completed) per Module or sets of Modules is as follows: Online Red List Training Course Registered Completed Module 1 (Introduction to the IUCN Red List) 346 269 Module 2 (IUCN Red List Assessments) 182 163 Module 3 (IUCN Red List Categories & Criteria) 54 44 Module 4 (Supporting Information for IUCN Red List Assessments) 60 50 Module 5 (Mapping Standards for IUCN Red List Assessments) 56 40 Module 6 (IUCN Species Information Service) 39 38 Module 7 (Regional IUCN Red List Assessments) 31 28

Summary

Completed all modules for Global Assessors Course (M1-6)

22

Completed all modules for Regional Assessors Course (M1-3 & 7)

19

Completed whole course 15

An exam was recently released to evaluate the knowledge of the trainees and they will receive a ‘Certificate of Achievement’. For the next reporting phase the Red List Unit will be able to report on the number of certificates awarded.

9

4. Extent to which IUCN advice and positions are followed in CBD, CITES and WHC

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) IUCN has been involved in the CBD since its drafting and through its further development. IUCN’s work with the CBD mainly consists of supporting the implementation of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Targets; providing support for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (Aichi Target 16); contributing and assisting parties in the revision, update and development of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) (Aichi Target 17); influencing the CBD negotiations by mobilising the Union; the empowerment of relevant stakeholders; and by providing technical support to different areas of the CBD work plan for example: Protected Areas, Species and Marine Biodiversity. In the run-up to COP12, the 17th meeting of SBSTTA (Montreal, Canada; October 2013) provided an opportunity for Parties to examine the tools and guidance available for supporting implementation of the Strategic Plan from a scientific and technical perspective. In the meeting Parties recommended COP 12 to, among others, “take note of key scientific and technical needs relating to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.”; and to facilitate collaboration with key partners in the international environmental field, including IUCN, to fulfill the gaps in coverage of indicators for all 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2014. During the meeting IUCN presented a series of papers to continue actively positioning itself as a “primary go-to” source of information and guidance for Parties as they look for targeted assistance and support in the implementation of the Strategic Plan and the Aichi Targets.9 The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits (ABS) is a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Many countries are currently in the process of developing new or revisiting their existing ABS instruments (policies, laws, administrative procedures, etc.) to be in line with the Nagoya Protocol. The Protocol currently has 92 signatures and 29 ratifications but needs 50 ratifications for entry into force.

9 IUCN’s position paper for this SBSTTA focused around the issues in Agenda item 3 and highlighted IUCN’s contributions to “key” targets for IUCN. The paper also contained two annexes, one table with “The contribution of IUCN area based knowledge products to the achievement of the Aichi Targets” and another one with “IUCN’s Policy Tools and Methodologies that support the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Targets”. The paper was posted online in its English version around three weeks before the meeting and the few hard copies we had onsite were all distributed. The position paper in English, French and Spanish can be found at: http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/events/cbd/ . An information paper entitled “Key Biodiversity Areas: Identifying Areas of Particular Importance for Biodiversity in Support of the Aichi Targets” (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/17/INF/10), jointly prepared by IUCN and BirdLife International, was made available for information to all participants with the aim of contributing to the work that the Secretariat is undertaking on the identification of scientific and technical needs related to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, in particular to Strategic Goal C. The paper can be found at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-17/information/sbstta-17-inf-10-en.pdf

10

In 2013 IUCN’s work on ABS focused on the development, publication and wide dissemination of the IUCN Explanatory Guide on ABS which is now available in English, French, Spanish and Chinese. In addition, targeted support has been provided for the revision of the draft National ABS Strategy for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. IUCN also provided expert advice on benefit-sharing options for marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction for a UN Working Group and is a key partner in two project research European consortia working on marine genetic resources. Field interventions were focused on promoting knowledge on legal frameworks and market opportunities with regard to ABS in South America. According to Aichi Target 17, Parties are due to revise their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) by 2015. Since COP10 in Nagoya, the CBD Secretariat has received and published 25 NBSAPs of which 18 are revised and 7 are the first ever NBSAP of a country. 16 take the Strategic Plan 2011-2020 into consideration. There are still 154 Parties to the CBD who have not yet submitted a post-2010 NBSAP. IUCN’s engagement strategy on NBSAPs identifies seven types of activities and possible entry points for IUCN: Biodiversity Assessment, Identifying and Engaging Stakeholders, Developing the Strategy, Developing the Action Plan, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation and Reporting. In 2013 IUCN has been particularly engaged in the development of the Strategy and Action Plans by reviewing early drafts or assisting in a stock taking exercise at the outset of the processes. IUCN has been actively contributing to the NBSAPs in the following countries: Brazil, Burkina Faso, Bhutan, Lao, Nepal, Vietnam, Cameroun, Pakistan, Fiji and Central African countries. As part of Identifying and Engaging Stakeholders, in 2013 IUCN also participated as a forum partner in the Global Workshop on Reviewing Progress and Building Capacity for the NBSAP Revision Process in Nairobi. In this event IUCN contributed to building the capacity of the participants concerning mainstreaming biodiversity through NBSAPs. In the follow up, IUCN reached out to approximately 50 participants to provide them with more information on different topics as requested. Finally, to stem further decline of species threatened with extinction, IUCN formed a partnership of organizations and institutions – Friends of Target 12 – which bring their forces together to support countries to achieve Biodiversity Target 12. In 2013, 24 partners made specific commitments as part of the initiative.10

10 The complete list of institutions and organizations supporting Target 12 are: Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE), Bern Convention, BirdLife International, Chico Mendes Institute for Conservation of Biodiversity /Ministry of Environment of Brazil (ICMBio), Conservation Evidence, Conservation International (CI), Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC). IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG), IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG), IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group (PSG), Island Conservation, Ramsar Conservation on

11

World Heritage Convention

As part of its role as an Advisory Body to the World Heritage Convention, IUCN provides evaluations of nominations for sites (both natural and mixed natural-cultural) proposed for inscription as a World Heritage site. The degree to which this advice is followed by the World Heritage Committee has been measured. IUCN has calculated an index of difference for the last decade of the Convention (27 Session of the Committee (COM) to 37 COM), showing the degree to which Parties to the Convention followed IUCN’s advice regarding World Heritage nominations.11 The simple index of difference relates to all nominations considered by the Committee. Figure 5 shows that in 2013 the degree of difference was 0.18; the second lowest in the last decade (in 2007 the level of difference was 0.1). This means that out of a total of 11 decisions, the Committee followed IUCN’s advice on nine, while for two IUCN’s advice for inscription was not considered by the Committee.

Wetlands (Ramsar), Save Our Species (SOS), The Wildlife Friendly Enterprise Network (WFEN), TRAFFIC International, United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), Zoo Outreach Organization (ZOO), Zoological Society of London (ZSL). 11 The IUCN WHP calculated the index of difference by, first, using the hierarchy of four WH Committee decisions possible and noting the level of difference between IUCN WHP advice and the WH Committee decisions. This is calculated by counting each degree of difference as one point (i.e. one degree between referral and inscription, two degrees between deferral and inscription). If the WH Committee follows the WHP advice, then there is no level of difference. The total number of degrees of difference is then divided by the total number of decisions taken. If none of the World Heritage Programme’s advice is taken by the WH Committee the index measures one. When all the advice is taken the index measures zero.

12

Figure 5: Simple Index of Difference between World Heritage Programme advice and World Heritage Committee decisions

Source: World Heritage Programme 2014

Survey of IUCN’s policy influencing A majority of the 105 IUCN projects have a policy component (64%). IUCN supported policy-influencing processes through the provision of advisory services, including the use of IUCN Knowledge Products (13% of projects reported this sub-result); fostering consultation or improved stakeholder participation (11%); providing assistance in drafting of policies or laws (8%) or contributing to other background work (32%). These activities have contributed to results such as the establishment of laws or policies (12%) and the implementation of legal mechanisms (17%).None made a link between policy influencing and impact on either biodiversity or human wellbeing benefits. An analysis of the policy results revealed that the majority of them are in the area of agenda setting and to some extent in policy development. Some of the agenda setting results include: producing and disseminating policy briefs to policymakers; developing policy recommendations; convening workshops to develop policy options and providing governments with knowledge on and assessments of key conservation and environmental issues such as species, forests, climate change, marine, water and protected areas. Results in the area of policy development showed IUCN as a convener in facilitating consultations on draft policies and laws. It also included assessments of existing laws and policies that advise on updating and improving them in order to enhance protection of natural resources, improve management practices and improve tenure and access rights.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Inde

x of

diff

eren

ce

WH Committee session

13

Identifying policy results presents many challenges since it is hard to attribute activities to impact as well as drawing straight lines to results. However, there are good examples of projects that show IUCN contributions to the drafting and establishment of policies and laws and IUCN’s role in convening groups of people to achieve such results: Eastern and Southern Africa: In the project “Strengthening Natural Resource Governance in Pastoral Areas of East Africa”, IUCN convened stakeholders in the community of Garba Tula, Kenya to facilitate the translation of indigenous knowledge on rangeland planning and management into bylaws to be adopted by the county government.

Asia: In the project “Ecosystems for Life: A Bangladesh-India initiative”, as a result of the initiative’s policy recommendations put forward on inland navigation, the regional government of Assam in India put in place policies to prioritize river management and maintenance.

Central and West Africa: In the project “Cogestion des Pêches dans les Rivières in Guinea-Bissau”, IUCN contributed to implementing the General Law of fisheries and its regulations, including strengthening surveillance and control of fisheries to prohibit illegal fishing practices.

Gender: An independent assessment of the gender results revealed that results were achieved in the context of the UNFCCC climate negotiations, where IUCN provided technical support to the parties of the Convention on gender and climate change. IUCN has also provided technical assistance to a number of governments including Mexico, Costa Rica and Bangladesh in order to integrate gender into the countries’ climate change strategies, action plans and programmes.

14

Effective and equitable governance of nature’s use 1. Enhancement of institutional and governance arrangements based on a new IUCN natural resource governance framework IUCN is still in the process of developing the Natural Resource Governance Framework. However, improving governance is an essential component in the sample of 105 projects surveyed. In 2013, IUCN supported the formulation and/or establishment of policies, laws, regulations (64%); management plans (43%); strengthened institutions (24%); financing (10%); and tenure/right of access (5%). In addition, IUCN provided background support, including the delivery of knowledge products to support these processes (52%).12 In many cases, IUCN’s support has contributed to the establishment of management regimes: restoration (12%), protection (14%) and local management regimes (26%). All Regions (Asia, West Asia, Eastern and Southern Africa, West and Central Africa, Mesoamerica and the Caribbean, South America and Oceania) have supported these results. Work on local management regimes covers mangroves, wetlands, fisheries, water, natural resources, environmental sustainability, climate change and ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), among others. Some examples include: Mesoamerica: The Water Management for Climate Change Adaptation Project (BMU) supported the establishment of five local governance structures for natural resource management in Mexico, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panamá. The regimes were supported with protection and restoration activities for sustainable fishing in Mexico (5ha.); mangrove restoration in El Salvador (15ha.); and reforestation in Costa Rica (7ha.)

12 Background support, including the delivery of knowledge products was coded as SR9 in the current data analysis exercise. Considering it groups a wide-range of deliverables (mostly activities), the category is not included in IUCN’s Theory of Change.

Mangroves for the Future (MFF): For the last seven years MFF has established country structures, defined priorities for coastal management and funded projects in Asia. In 2013, MFF and the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, convened a Regional Fisheries Symposium in Kochi, India, in partnership with other national, regional and international organizations. The main result of regional partners was to recognize the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) as a practical way to address the twin objectives of fisheries sustainability and marine biodiversity conservation in coastal and offshore areas. They also agreed that EAFM should be a part of a holistic integrated coastal management approach. The symposium drafted thirteen recommendations that covered action points on sound management principles; economic justification; enabling policies and safeguards; research, communication, and information management; and regional cooperation. (IUCN Global Communications 2013)

15

Save Our Species: The SOS grant “Community based Conservation of Markhor in the Tribal Areas of Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistan” supported the establishment of 65 community resource committees and deployed 112 community wildlife rangers (rangers are responsible for monitoring and protecting markhor (Capra falconeri) and other wildlife and enforcing anti-pouching and tree-felling laws). The main result of the project is the creation of 14 “markhor conservancies” – which are the essentially the grouping of related valleys (and their community resource committees) into larger resource governance structures that closely match markhor habitat “units”. Markhor conservancies more accurately cover markhor herd distribution and thus comprehensively manage and protect these herds.

2. Extent of protected areas managed in accordance with the IUCN’s natural resource governance framework (area of well-managed protected areas)

As explained in the previous indicator, the natural resource governance framework is under development and data on the effective management of protected areas will only be available at the end of 2014. However, IUCN’s approach to Protected Areas Management Effectiveness is soundly based on principles of good governance, so a protected area exhibiting good management effectiveness can be a good proxy measure for this indicator. Supporting this result, the Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management Programme (BIOPAMA) aims to address threats to protected areas’ biodiversity in African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries (which host nearly half our planet’s biological and cultural diversity), while reducing poverty in communities in and around protected areas.

BIOPAMA is a four year (2012–2016) initiative of the ACP Secretariat funded by the European Union and jointly implemented by IUCN and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. It aims to build capacity for technical managers through the establishment of regional observatories and information systems to improve decision making. BIOPAMA will enhance existing institutions and networks by making the best science and knowledge available for building capacity to improve policies and better decision making on biodiversity conservation and protected area management. To that end, BIOPAMA stakeholders gained traction and momentum at several meetings across all three regions in 2013, which highlighted the need for improved access to, availability of, and capacity to use biodiversity data. Nations with biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) explored through BIOPAMA how best to address priority capacity challenges for protected areas and how to mainstream biodiversity development into other sectors. In parallel, big steps have been made this year with several countries and partners to initiate a global ‘Green List of Protected Areas’. Some highlights of collaborations in 2013 are:

Eastern and Southern Africa: In 2013, IUCN provided technical support to the Government of Mozambique to evaluate and revise the National Human Wildlife Conflict Strategy (HWC). This process will form a learning platform for the regions in terms of the development of integrated HWC strategies and will be scaled up through the BIOPAMA Observatories.

16

Mesoamerica and the Caribbean: IUCN also supported the Bahamas National Parks System to review the protected areas management categories. 3. Area (in ha.) of agriculture, fisheries and forestry managed according to IUCN’s natural resource governance framework In 2013, 9% of the project portfolio reported sustainable use of resources in agriculture, fisheries, forestry, rangelands, etc. This figure reflects that reporting on this indicator remains weak. Further analysis is needed to understand why projects are struggling to report on changes on the ground. Some examples that evidence the sustainable use of resources are: Eastern Europe: The second phase of European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument -Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Programme (ENPI-FLEG) revealed that at least 20 communities across the East Region (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Russia and the Ukraine) issued policies and/or directives that used FLEG studies demonstrating the economic benefit from using forest resources in a sustainable way such as bee keeping, fuel wood and timber production, ecotourism, and local community grazing , among others. West and Central Africa: The project “Cogestion de Pêches dans les Rivières du Sud de la Guinée Bissau” supported the organization of fishermen into associations and confederations; and undertook negotiations for zoning, the establishment of fishing regulations and access conditions for natural resources, and the use of sustainable fishing techniques. As part of the implementation of activities, women were trained in fish processing (115) and solar-based salt production (60); and they also benefited from funds for fish processing and marketing. As for fishermen, they were trained on sea safety and sustainable fishery management (110). The results of these activities will be reported next year. 4. Extent of high seas administered in accordance with the ecosystem approach and IUCN’s natural resource governance framework High seas are managed through a broad range of management and protection regimes. There is no global standard for either management or protection. An undoubted major highlight of 2013 was IMPAC 3, the 3rd International Marine Protected Area Congress. This was led by the French MPA Agency in partnership with IUCN and with major ocean partners. Over five days, around 1,700 MPA practitioners attended the congress in Marseille.

Immediately after the Congress, political leaders gathered for the Ministerial Conference for Ocean Conservation in Ajaccio, Corsica. As a result, Ministers from 19 countries signed a declaration, based on the outcomes delivered by the experts in Marseille.13 Its signatories

13 Aside from France, French Polynesia and New Caledonia, the ministers in attendance in Ajaccio represented the following countries: Albania, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, the Comoros, Bahrain, Cyprus, Dominica, Guinea, Italy, India, Monaco, Nicaragua, the Samoa, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo and Tunisia.

17

reaffirmed their determination to reach the target of covering 10 percent of the oceans with marine protected areas by 2020 (Aichi 11). Today, only 3 percent are protected. They committed to leveraging the means necessary to do so.

The Ajaccio Ministerial message underscores the urgency of conserving and managing the high seas sustainably. It calls for the international community to adopt before the end of 2014 the decision of the General Assembly of the United Nations allowing for the launch of negotiations on an implementing agreement of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the conservation and sustainable management of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdictions (ABNJs).

18

Deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges in climate, food, development 1. Extent of incorporation of nature-based solutions in policies on climate change, food security and economic and social development at international, national and corporate levels The concept of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) has been incorporated in various multilateral agreements and processes such as Ramsar and the World Water Forum to influence the water agenda. NBS has also been picked up in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change through IUCN’s work in Ecosystem based Adaptation (EbA) and REDD+. During its first year of implementation (2013), countries and communities under the Bonn Challenge pledged 50 million hectares committed and registered for landscape restoration. IUCN has supported these efforts with analysis, tools and capacity building to support credible implementation. The NBS concept has been also integrated in the United Nations Framework to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) through work in land restoration, adaptation to climate change, Rights-based approaches and Disaster Risk Reduction. The European Union Representative Office in Brussels, Belgium also reported on the incorporation of the concept into the work of the European Commission. It is likely that NBS will also be reflected in the programming of the Directorate-General of Development and Cooperation and the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of the EU. Although this concept is widely used in IUCN’s work, a more systematic approach to document its use will be developed throughout the rest of the quadrennial period. 2. Extent (in ha.) of resilient and diverse landscapes sustainably managed, protected or restored for food, climate change or economic benefit Data for this indicator that would provide a picture of the spatial extent of progress is eventually expected from FAO, the World Bank and the Red List of Ecosystems. However, at this point it is necessary to use the frequency that projects reported results for livelihood benefits. Projects report on benefits in terms of improved income or market access (27%), improved food security (13%), other non-cash benefits including resilience of communities and ecosystems and reduced vulnerability (8%) or access to water (6%). Some examples include:

West and Central Africa: In Nigeria, the project to rehabilitate degraded ecosystems in the inner Niger Delta (“Réhabilitation des ecosystems degrades du Delta interieur du Niger”) has contributed to several mayors of local communes establishing three local agreements for forest management. There are also now nine rural municipalities’ local committees that demonstrate competency for climate change adaptation planning,

The global project on Ecosystem based Adaptation in Mountain Ecosystems in Nepal, Uganda and Peru, reported on 17 Village Development Committees employing ecosystem based approaches in three districts of Nepal. In Uganda the integrated water resource management in three villages has resulted in sustained potable water supply for 3600 formerly water-stressed people.

19

implementation and monitoring. As a result, the project has measured a 7% increase in income for 338 women and households, and four villages improved their food security by storing 50.5 tons of cereals.

Eastern and Southern Africa: The Project “Community Based Conservation of Wetlands Biodiversity in Uganda” (COBWEB) has helped bring a total of more than 13,000Ha under the Community Conservation Area model, with six areas being recognized as protected areas by Uganda. Each of these are implementing management plans leading to increased local benefits, such as a four-fold increase of income per acre from bananas and fisheries.

3. Number of governments and public/private companies that have incorporated biodiversity values into planning and/or accounting systems IUCN is working with the private sector to influence change in local practices and the companies’ policies. In 2013, with a more focused implementation of the new business engagement strategy, IUCN began to focus on a new type of engagement, involving cross-sectoral collaborations around a common topic or objective. Engagements in 2013 include:14

1) Aluminium Stewardship Initiative – IUCN 2) Cemex – IUCN Water Collaboration 3) DANONE Group - Evian – Ramsar Secretariat: the Long Story 4) DANONE Waters – Ramsar Secretariat – IUCN Collaboration 5) Electricité de France (EDF) and IUCN France 6) Holcim – IUCN Global Phase II 7) International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM) – IUCN Collaboration 8) Kuoni - IUCN Business skills transfer programme 9) Kuoni – IUCN Marine 10) Leaders for Nature – IUCN 11) Nespresso – IUCN Ecosystem Services Review 12) Rio Tinto – IUCN Collaboration 13) Shell – IUCN Collaboration 14) TATA Steel – IUCN Engagement 15) TATA Steel – IUCN Dhamra Port Engagement 16) TATA Chemichals – IUCN Mangrove Restoration 17) UPM – IUCN UPM’s Global Biodioversity Programme 18) World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) – IUCN Collaboration

14 Further information for each of these initiatives can be found at: http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/business/

20

The sample of projects and policy influencing initiatives revealed additional examples of collaboration with the private sector. A more systematic approach to collect this information will be developed through the rest of the quadrennial period. Some examples of work with the private sector include:

Business and Biodiversity: IUCN collaborated with Holcim to review its environmental policy and adopt a new biodiversity directive. As a result, all Holcim extraction sites are required to report on the biodiversity (within their sites) as well as on the biodiversity management practices being undertaken. At the sector level, four cement and aggregate associations have endorsed the integrated biodiversity management system and agreed to support its dissemination and use in the sector.

Global Water: IUCN has been supporting the development of a corporate water policy for CEMEX by providing expert advice on corporate water risk management. IUCN also provided an advisory role on the revision of the corporate water policy for the Danone Group by convening a set of experts.

Asia: IUCN has been working with Dharma Port Company Limited (India) to develop new port lighting systems which would have minimal impacts on local wildlife, specifically Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) turtles nesting nearby. This has led the Government of Odisha to consider the introduction of new lighting standards for all major ports along its coastline.

Main findings The following overall conclusions may be drawn from the data analysis:

1. Programmes and projects still tend to report on processes and sub-results. At present, IUCN lacks a project database which can more easily capture monitoring data as it is recorded and information on when the project started/ended is difficult to obtain, so the data set contains projects which are at the start of their implementation cycle as well as those which are completed.

2. There is still a lack of data on biodiversity results and impacts. One possible explanation lies in the projects budget and activities which to not emphasize biological monitoring. Another explanation may be that there is an assumed, but unmeasured relationship between policy or governance change and changes in biodiversity. Certainly measuring changes in biodiversity is really only possible over a medium to long term (7 to 20 years) and that the capacities and governance changes established today will yield changes in biodiversity in the future. IUCN will emphasize in its Project Guidelines and Standards the need to plan for biodiversity results and impact and the need for monitoring activities supported by adequate resources.

3. Capacity building on planning and monitoring is urgently needed. The

interpretation of what constitutes an adequately planned project and varying interpretations of the results chain has lead to uneven quality in project design and

21

monitoring data. The proposed capacity building for Project Guidelines and Standards in 2014-15 should help correct this tendency.

Lessons Learned 2013 As part of the monitoring exercise, IUCN’s programmes were asked to identify lessons learned during implementation. Some of these lessons may seem obvious; however, the sheer number of times the lesson was identified warranted inclusion in this list. Some lessons, speak to the uniqueness of IUCN as a Union of Members, both governmental and civil society. Participation

• Participation of all segments of society is preferable in the governance of natural resource management – extra effort is required to support the participation of the most marginalized

• The capacity of those participating is as important as participation itself and often capacity must be improved to create good participation

IUCN as a Union

• Relationships with IUCN Members can be leveraged for a range of strategies, including policy, cross-sectoral approaches and scaling up

• Long term policy “partnerships”, such as with the CBD, UNCCD or UNEP can be key to introducing and mainstreaming new concepts (e.g. gender and environment)

• IUCN is uniquely placed between governments, civil society and often, private sector and scientists, to convene credible multi-stakeholder dialogues and platforms

The role of science • Interim reports and knowledge can be helpful to countries for accessing funding • Scientific and traditional/local knowledge are often complementary in the design of

governance systems

Implementing with local communities • Immediate return to local communities on livelihoods can generate support for longer

term planning, policy and action • Implementation, including policy and governance design must be flexible to account for

local conditions • Climate change is not the only issue local communities face and must be addressed

alongside environmental degradation, poor infrastructure, overpopulation and poverty • Interventions must be transparently accountable to local communities • Awareness, pilot actions and documented learning is key to scaling up

22

Working with other sectors • In working with other sectors, successful influencing is often based on the ability to

communicate in their own language • The private sector needs practical tools, but also support to use those tools successfully

23

Annex A: Intended impact, global results and results indicators, and common impact indicators Impact Global results and results indicators Common impact

indicators The proportion of the most important areas for biodiversity effectively managed for the conservation of species, ecosystems and genetic diversity Increased contribution from sustainably managed natural resources to household members Trends in benefits that people derive from selected ecosystem services (e.g. gender-differentiated changes in security of water access and food security)

Valuing and conserving nature The conservation status of species and ecosystems is improved

Credible and trusted knowledge for valuing and conserving biodiversity leads to better policy and action on the ground Indicators: 1. Extent, representativeness and connectivity of effectively

managed protected areas 2. Proportion of identified key biodiversity areas within and

outside protected areas 3. Number of exports of data from the IUCN Red List 4. Extent to which IUCN advice and positions are followed in

CBD, CITES and WHC Effective and equitable governance of nature’s use Effective, just, gender-responsive and equitable conservation yields tangible livelihoods benefits

Improved governance arrangements over natural resource management deliver rights-based and equitable conservation with tangible livelihoods benefits Indicators: 1. Enhancement of institutional and governance

arrangements based on a new IUCN natural resource governance framework

2. Extent of protected areas managed in accordance with the IUCN’s natural resource governance framework

3. Area (in ha.) of agriculture, fisheries and forestry managed according to IUCN’s natural resource governance framework

4. Extent of high seas administered in accordance with the ecosystem approach and IUCN’s natural resource governance framework

Deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges in climate, food, development Global challenges (climate, food, development) are addressed through the use of nature based solutions

Healthy and restored ecosystems make cost-effective contributions to meeting global challenges of climate change, food security and economic and social development Indicators: 1. Extent of incorporation of nature-based solutions in policies

on climate change, food security and economic and social development at international, national and corporate levels

2. Extent (in ha.) of resilient and diverse landscapes sustainably managed, protected or restored for food, climate change or economic benefit

3. Number of governments and public/private companies that have incorporated biodiversity values into planning and/or accounting systems

24

Annex B: Results of the data analysis exercise Consolidated results of the project sample data analysis exercise15

Results type Number % Sub-results

SR1: Participation 30 29% SR2: capacity 31 30% SR3: formalized structures 28 27% SR4: management plans 45 43% SR5: policies, laws, regulations 67 64% SR6: financing 10 10% SR7: strengthened institutions 25 24% SR8: tenure/right of access 5 5% SR9: Background work (incl. KP) 55 52% Results R1: Enforcement of laws 2 2% R2: Sustainable use 9 9% R3: Other 0 0% R4: Restoration 13 12% R5: Protection 15 14% R6: Local management regime 27 26% R7: Income, market access 28 27% R8: water 6 6% R9: Food security16 14 13% R10: Other non-cash benefits 8 8% Impact

I1: Species (population, range) 5 5% I2: ecosystem functions 2 2% I3: Human wellbeing (e.g. Human development index 0 0% I4: Equality and sustainability 0 0%

Source: PME Data analysis exercise 2014

15This assessment cannot produce aggregated numbers for each of the results categories: Sub-results (SR), Results (R) and Impact (I) because each project (in total 105) has been matched against more than one result type rendering the aggregation of total results inapplicable. 16 Background support, including the delivery of knowledge products was coded as SR9 in the current data analysis exercise. Considering it groups a wide-range of deliverables (mostly activities), the category is not included in IUCN’s Theory of Change.

25

Geographical coverage Geographical coverage Number % Global 13 12% Regional 32 30% Sub-regional 20 19% National 34 32% Local 6 6% Total 105 100%

Source: PME Data analysis exercise 2014 Consolidated results for the policy component of the project sample17

Results type Number % Sub-results

SR1: consultation/improved stakeholder participation 12 11%

SR2: advisory (can include the use of IUCN KPs) 14 13% SR3: Policy/law drafting 8 8% SR4: background work 34 32% Results R1: Policy / law established 13 12% R2: legal mechanisms implemented 18 17% Impact

I1: Species (extent, discovery) 0 0% I2: ecosystem functions 0 0% I3: Human well being 0 0%

Source: PME Data analysis exercise 2014

17 Same consideration as above

26