Comments regarding the proposal prepared by the IUCN Advisory Group on Strengthening the
Motions Process
Prepared by the CC-IUCN Working Group on Governance on behalf of the Canadian Committee for
IUCN
The CC-IUCN understands the online consultation on the proposal has finished but hopes the following
comments will still be of use to the IUCN Council and the Advisory Group as they work towards
preparing a set of concrete proposals for approval by electronic ballot by IUCN Members.
1. Purpose of Motions : defining and influencing policy, as per IUCN’s Mission.
CC-IUCN would agree with the description of the purpose of the motions process. We further noted that
motions need to be practical and supportive of other IUCN motions as well as the programme and body
of work of the IUCN. As such, CC-IUCN agrees that IUCN should aim to be very strategic in the number
and reach of motions.
2. The Assembly’s time is focussed on debate of the IUCN Programme, debate on a limited number of
motions advancing global conservation and biodiversity issues, amendments to the Statues.
This idea was first proposed in the Advisory Group’s concept note. CC-IUCN generally supports this
approach but would advise the IUCN Council that it will be important to provide some sense of the
criteria that will be used to select the “limited number of motions”.
3. Other motions are debated and voted online.
CC-IUCN has also advocated for better use of electronic voting. In doing so however, it will be important
to establish a workable quorum to ensure that the vote would be meaningful. Other organizations use
e-voting successfully, and there are likely some good models out there.
In addition, we would ask the Advisory Group what steps they will take to seek higher engagement in
the on-line voting process. Establishing a quorum would be worth revisiting to also promote active
engagement.
4. The Council will establish the “key global conservation and biodiversity issues” that form the basis for
debate during the Assembly, following from input from Regional Conservation Forums. The proposal
indicates that 9month prior to Congress, Members will be invited to submit proposals to modify the
IUCN Programme, Statutory Motions and Motions related to conservation policy. After which, the
Council will identify those motions to be tabled for discussing during the Members Assembly.
As mentioned in number 2 above, Council will need to think very carefully and deliberately about how
they select the key issues for debate and, more importantly, criteria they will use to evaluate incoming
draft motions to determine whether or not they fit under the key issues for debate or are better suited
to the online discussion. Restrictive criteria might result in only motions submitted by those most
familiar with the process being debated at the Assembly; however to flexible criteria might not achieve
the intended aim of reducing the number of motions debated during the Assembly.
This section of the proposal gives some thought to the terms of reference of the Motions Working
Group to undertake the task of determining the admissibility of each motion. We understand this to be
the criteria for determining whether or not a motion will be considered (either during the Assembly
debate or via the on-line mechanism) and not as criteria to determine whether a motion should be
referred to the on-line debate or the Assembly debate. CC-IUCN agrees with the admissibility criteria
however. It will be important for the Motions Working Group to be diligent in their application.
The Motions Working Group will also be responsible for merging motions on the same topics.
Streamlining or merging motions coming forward to the Congress needs to be done with care and to be
respectful of the source and true to the intent of the motions; the merging process can have the effect
of 'submerging'. Ensuring ample time for circulation of and feedback on the final version of the motions
would be important.
As a corollary, while not about the process per se, CC-IUCN notes that we need good Indigenous Peoples
participation in the shaping of the motions. In particular, the Council may wish to consider how to
facilitate this participation.
5. Maximize coordination and consultation on the IUCN Programme. The Draft Programme will be
available to IUCN members at least one year before the Congress.
The proposals around consultation for the IUCN Programme are good. The challenge might be designing
a programme that is both high level and yet containing enough detail for members to be satisfied their
concerns or priorities were taken into appropriate consideration. However, that is more of an issue in
the design of the programme than in the consultation and modification process being discussed here.
6. Implementation and impact of Resolutions and Recommendations (i.e. adopted Motions). A template
for motions is proposed that requires some thought given to timeline and cots of implementation, as
well as the commitment of various actors to take on the actions, in the spirit of the “IUCN One
Programme Charter”.
Taking this thought one step further, there might be opportunities to consider how motions could be
structured to be more measurable (in terms of the results they aspire to achieve and indicators of
success – similar to a results-based management approach).
That said, we would also recognize that while it is important to encourage a sense of responsibility
among IUCN members for the adopted motions, it cannot be at the expense of the responsibility of the
Council set emphasis in direction, relative priority in policy, and budget allocation to deliver on the
commitments.
One suggestion to strengthen the commitment to motions is to require members (all, not just sponsors
of a motion) and Council to report back on actions they have taken on motions. For Council this will
involve being clear on which resolutions and motions were considered priorities and which not, and how
they responded to each. Members can then respond as they desire. For all members to report back on
action they have taken on motions once every four years is not an onerous request. It may also help
produce greater conservation results by focussing the efforts of members, improving our sense of
engagement within the Union, and help improve the ability of all of us to report conservation impacts.
7. An active role for Regional Conservation Forums and National Committees
CC-IUCN appreciates that the proposal does encourage an active role for national committees by
encouraging national or regional committees, or Regional Conservation Forums, to coordinate the
motions emanating from their region, as well as evaluating and providing a measure of support for
motions from their region.
CC-IUCN would be interested in understanding the views of the Advisory Group on why they stopped
short of providing a more formal role for these regional fora. Is it, for example, that not all regions or
countries have good coordinating mechanisms?
C. Caceres
Chair, CC-IUCN Working Group on IUCN Governance