A Review of the Composition of IUCN’s Statutory Regions and Regional Representation on Council Issues and possible options for change

A Members Consultation

Background

For a number of years, the IUCN Statutory regions have been criticized by some members. In the report of the Governance Committee to the Bangkok Congress, IUCN Council was asked to look into possible options for change to these boundaries.

Over the past years, the Governance Task Force of Council has been evaluating the boundaries of the IUCN’s statutory regions and the related issue of regional representation on Council.

One aim has been to modify a system based on geopolitical realities that no longer accurately reflect the world in which we operate, for example a regional boundary in based on an East-West divide that no longer exists.

More pronounced change scenarios have also been discussed. These scenarios re- examined boundaries and sought to ensure more equitable regional representation on Council broadly based on the level of regional biodiversity, the size of human- population and the number of IUCN members.

In this context, four options have been proposed by the Governance Task Force and your opinion on these is now sought.

Options

Scenario One: (Map 1) This is the status quo. That is we would maintain current boundaries and the current regional representation on Council (8 Regions represented by 3 Councillors each). This is the default scenario, since if no alternative scenario can be agreed, then the present boundaries will continue to exist.

Scenario Two: (Map 2) In this scenario the only change would be in Europe and North and Central Asia. The present 2 regions covering this area would be joined together and six (6) councillors elected. This is the same number of Councillors as presently are elected from this area

This proposal would remove an East-West historical border in Europe that reflects the situation in Europe when IUCN was established, but no longer exists. It makes Europe, North and Central Asia a single electoral retaining six Councillors. All the other IUCN Regions and their representation would remain unchanged. However to secure broad representation across this very large region, it would be necessary to ensure some geographic spread in the six Councillors It is therefore proposed that in electing the six Councillors at least one and no more than three, shall come from each of the three sub- regions of Europe, north and central Asia, as designated below:

Eastern sub-region; , , , , , Kyrgyzstan, Republic of , Russian Federation, Tajikistan, , , Uzbekistan.

Southern sub-region; , , , , , , , , Holy See, Israel, , the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, , , , Rumania, and , , , .

Northern sub-region: , , , , , , , , , , , Lichtenstein, , , , , , , , , .

Scenario Three; (Map 3) This scenario envisages more far reaching changes with the aim of establishing Council representation that better reflects the concentration of high biodiversity, the size of human population, and the number of IUCN Members, while still accounting as best as possible for cultural/social ties, donor interest and political realities. The regional boundaries proposed in this scenario fall largely along biogeographic lines.

In this scenario:

• would retain the same boundaries as at present but would elect four (4) Councillors rather than the current three. (Change proposed is to increase representation by 1 councillor).

• North America and the Caribbean would retain the same boundaries as at present and elect three (3) Councillors (no change proposed)

• Meso and South America would retain the same boundaries as at present but would elect four (4) Councillors rather than the current three. (Change proposed is to increase representation by 1 councillor).

• Oceania would retain the same boundaries as at present and elect three (3) Councillors (no change is proposed).

• South and East Asia would change its boundary to include Pakistan and elect five (5) Councillors rather than the current 3 (note though that Pakistan normally elects a Councillor in the West Asia region, so this may be a real increase of only 1 for this region). (Change proposed is to include Pakistan in the region and increase representation by 2 Councillors).

• West Asia would change its boundary to lose Pakistan and elect two (2) Councillors rather than the current 3 (note though that Pakistan normally elects a Councillor in this region, so this may be no real reduction for this region). (Change proposed is to lose Pakistan from this region and reduce representation by 1 Councillor).

• Europe, the , North and Central Asia would combine the current two regions (ie as proposed in Scenario 2 above) but reduce the number of Councillors from 6 at present to five (5). (Change proposed is to combine the two current regions of West Europe and East Europe, North and Central Asia and reduce their current representation by 1 Councillor).

Map 3 shows the proposed regional boundaries and Councillors per region, as well as the specific countries that would be included in each region.

Scenario Four; (Map 4) This scenario incorporates all changes in Scenario Three with the addition that Meso and South America would elect five (5) Councillors and Africa would elect five (5) Councillors.

Please note that Scenarios 3 and 4 entail a total increase in the number of elected Councillors. Council is expensive to run and donors have expressed concern that it is already large. Therefore, it is recommended that to keep Council at its current size, if either Option 3 or 4 is adopted, the increase in elected Councillors would be offset by decreasing the numbers of appointed Councillors, as there would be better representation geographically.

Request for review and comments:

Please send your comments using the attached form before 15 April 2008 to Véronique Zurcher ([email protected]).