Buenos Aires, Argentina - IUCN

focus for a lot of invaluable contact-building and
interchange. We have agreed on a Mission Statement,
a Strategy, and a way forward that can, should, must,
transform the nature of the Union and the way it
works.
Down-side?
I am deeply worried that just at a time when the
United Nations is beginning to realize that it cannot
go on in its accustomed mode, the UN virus is beginning
to infect IUCN. While it is inevitable—and
right—that decentralization to regional and country
level will stimulate regional meetings of members, I
believe that IUCN must be a Union of members from
regions and countries, not a collection of regional
caucuses. And each region must listen to other
regions, and recognize that culture, circumstance,
priority and approach must be different from region
to region, even if we share a common goal. To quote
Kipling: "The wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of
Khatmandu".
Second, the spirit of Union has in my view weakened
over the six years. Take the debate on Resolutions
and Recommendations. People have used phrases like
"the NGOs want...", "the State members from Europe
believe ..." and have often talked past one another
rather than joined to see how we can support one
another. If IUCN ever becomes primarily an NGO
forum—or primarily an intergovernmental forum—it
will, in my view, be time to order the coffin.
One particular example. Yesterday we spent a long
time on resolutions and recommendations. Excellent
work had been done in contact groups to bring delegations
together. Just as it should be in a Union. But
on the floor our convoy of ships scattered alarmingly
at the first rumble of distant gunfire. Many State delegations—to
continue the nautical metaphor—slowed
down, dropped anchor and hoisted signal flags saying
"Please note we are not in this convoy just now—we
abstain". Some NGOs, meanwhile, eager for a presumed
victory, hoisted the Jolly Roger (the pirate flag
for those not of anglo-culture) and made all possible
speed, guns blazing...
I really do think we must try to do better than that.
I entirely agree that we must value the diversity of
views in the Union, and respect the sincerity of those
that feel they must strike an independent note. But if
members truly believe in the Union, they must, in my
view, be willing to adjust their positions towards the
common good.
Deep within my concern is my third fear that this
session of the Assembly has been divisive and at times
inconsistent and retrograde. It is now nearly 15 years
since the World Conservation Strategy emphasized
that conservation can only be achieved within
pathways of development that meet human need, ease
poverty, and give hope. Equally, unless development
is grounded in conservation, guided by scientific
understanding of the properties of the biosphere, and
sensitive to social and cultural diversity, it will fail.
The time has come to end sterile, circular arguments
over the balance IUCN should seek between conservation
and development. We now have a balanced
Mission Statement: for heaven's sake let us now stick
to it, work for it, and stop arguing about it for at least
another 20 years. And let us tie our Programme tightly
to that Mission, focus it, and resist being pushed into
fields of operation—or of advocacy—that lie outside
IUCN's recognized international competence.
Fourth, the General Assembly is, in my view,
becoming unmanageable. Of course this is the price
paid for success. More members. More countries. A
wider spectrum of views. Fine. But the pattern of the
General Assembly has not changed since the easy days
when we had maybe 600 participants, 500 members, a
family atmosphere and perhaps 40 Resolutions.
It has almost broken down this time—and carried
several of my staff near to breakdown. There will have
to be a new pattern in future.
All that sounds negative. And I believe that indeed
this Assembly has brought us to a parting of the ways.
One way, "business as usual", will not, in my view,
get us very far. The other involves a new culture.
Looking ahead, I still feel the potential of IUCN is
immense. And this General Assembly has adopted
some positive, constructive, decisions:
We have a clear, balanced Mission Statement and
a strategy for the future.
We have a commitment to make the IUCN Secretariat
a decentralized, enabling, supporting
network linking closely to the membership and
building members much more strongly into policymaking,
programme development, and programme
execution.
We have re-emphasized the value of the voluntary
system, represented by the Commissions and
agreed they must be strengthened and their work
fully integrated in the programme of IUCN.
We have endorsed the need for a hard look at our
governance, making the General Assembly a more
effective business occasion as well as a World Conservation
Congress, making Council a more effective
instrument, and reviewing our Statutes to
adapt them to today's world.
We have had some excellent workshops: the main,
if not the only part of the Assembly visibly to
Annex 14 125
¤
¤
¤
¤
¤