IUCN strives for a just world that values and conserves nature, and this is directly linked to the high level goal of the IUCN Green List to achieve fair and effective area based conservation. Governance provides the means in which to achieve this, and it holds enormous potential to sustain both precious biodiversity and livelihoods.
The IUCN definition takes a dynamic perspective: it’s the “interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken and how citizens and other stakeholders have their say”.[1] Simply put this means it is about who makes decisions, how the decisions are made and how appropriate, adaptive and fair those decisions are.
Governance is commonly discussed in two dimensions, governance diversity (or governance type) and governance quality.
The beauty and diversity of nature is matched only by the richness and variety of ways by which people collaborate to care for it. Governance diversity, addresses a few key concerns: Who has the main authority and responsibility for the area in question? Who should be held accountable for its conservation results? Who are best placed to make decisions for people and nature? The IUCN and the CBD recognises four broad governance types for protected areas:
Type A: Governance by government
Type B: Shared governance by diverse rights holders and stakeholders together
Type C: Governance by private entities
Type D: Governance by indigenous peoples and/or local communities (at times referred to as ICCAs or territories of life)
Soon, however, other concerns emerge: How are decisions taken? Which values, principles and approaches guide those decisions? Are all relevant rightsholders and stakeholders involved? With these questions, we begin to build a sense of “governance quality” — at times referred to as good governance”. This is when the decision makers act in an open, fair and transparent way, can be held accountable, and their decisions are inclusive, effective, efficient, participatory, consensus-oriented and follow the rule of law.
In the IUCN Green List, we examine three core areas: Legitimacy & Voice Accountability and Transparency; Governance Vitality.
The IUCN Green List of PCAs: The below tools can address the good governance component of the IUCN GL Standard. GAPA and SAGE are both based on the same framework of IUCN governance principles, and both use a multi-stakeholder process to ensure that the results capture different perspectives. Both require neutral and well-trained national facilitators. GAPA is focused solely on strengthening site-level governance while with SAGE there is an additional element of upward reporting. SAPA additionally can target certain aspects of the IUCN Green List, although not all. It may be used as evidence towards achieving different aspects of the GL Standard, across all four components. Read on to learn more, and for further info, please contact: Jennifer.kelleher@iucn.org
A rapid governance assessment.
Duration: 3 days fieldwork which engages 20-40 people from different stakeholder groups.
Requirement: One experienced lead facilitator with some understanding of governance and 2-4 (local) assistants. Well-trained facilitators by an IIED team.
Estimated cost: USD 2-8000 including facilitators (but excluding convenors time). Dual purpose – supporting the stakeholders to improve strengthen governance/equity at their site while also generating quantitative results for reporting to higher levels, and for measuring change over time.
Key roles in a SAGE assessment
SAGE is currently being piloted in several countries and regions around the world, to find out more about the tool or to get involved, please email: Jennifer.Kelleher@iucn.org
An in-depth governance assessment.
Duration: 10 days fieldwork which engages 50-150 people from different stakeholder groups.
Requirement: 3 facilitators with experience of qualitative methods (e.g. focus groups) and some understanding of governance.
Estimated cost: USD 5-15000 including facilitators but excluding convenors time). GAPA results are qualitative and the process is entirely focused on supporting the stakeholders to improve strengthen governance/equity at their site. The main disadvantage is that such a deep dive into governance can expose some difficult issues (corruption, serious elite capture, abuse of power by one or more actors) and so should not be used if it might cause conflict or rejection of the assessment process.
An in depth assessment of the positive and negative impacts of a PA on human well-being. SAPA addresses some governance issues mainly from the perspective of communities which is not adequate for the purposes of GL certification.
Duration: 20 days fieldwork over a period of 6-12 weeks which engages 50-150 people from different stakeholder groups in discussions at meetings, plus 100-500 through a household survey.
Requirements: 2-3 facilitators who can be staff of the stakeholders with little prior experience.
Estimated cost: $5-15000 including facilitators but excluding convenors time. SAPA is entirely focused on supporting the stakeholders to improve strengthen governance/equity at their site. The advantage is that it is easy to facilitate and less intrusive than governance assessment and so an easier entry point for PAs with very top down and/or problematic governance arrangements (that are unlikely to be applying for GL certification).
Desktop review: All assessment work is preceded by a desktop review phase where specific information is gathered which assists the assessment process. Guidelines are taken from the Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action – Volume 20 of the IUCN Best Practice in Protected Areas Guidelines Series.
Capacity building on governance/training of facilitators: 1-2 days depending on the tool and context.
In our series of short films, real life cases and innovative solutions, see how passionate governance advocates all over the world are driving change. These actions range from influencing global policy at major international events to respecting the rights and securing the livelihoods of indigenous people on the ground. These examples show that conserving precious biodiversity through the recognition of people as key governance actors is not only possible, but is very often the best recipe for long term conservation outcomes.
The IUCN Global Protected Area Programme with several partners and friends co-organised a main Stream of events at the World Parks Congress in Sydney Australia in November 2014. This was the Stream on Enhancing Diversity, Quality and Vitality of Governance—an endeavour that took years to prepare and pulled together the experience, knowledge, energy, engagement and creativity of several hundred people. Three short films take you on a journey of exploration of the governance of protected and conserved areas and territories.
Learn about ICCAs and conserving territories of life from our partners and friends at the ICCA Consortium.
