Species Survival Commission (SSC) – Simon StuartWorld Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) – Stig JohanssonCommission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP) – Grazia Borrini-FeyerabendCommission on Education and Communication (CEC) – Katalin CzippánCommission on Ecosystem Management (CEM) – Kalev SeppNational Committees (Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Israel, Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and German focal point)

General Comments•Good to use the Aichi targets, and the European Programme should follow this•The text is not inspirational. It lacks “the big idea”. IUCN should provide leadership in some of the major debates•Should IUCN formulate Change. Can we continue economic growth and still achieve our Programme objectives?•The programme should convince partners (and donors) and needs to be sharper. Communication is important•Insuring ecosystem health to improve food security and livelihood security•While it is OK not to focus on energy, the new programme has totally erased reference to the topic•Fundamental question of “values” of nature – not only the economic value

General Comments - continued•Fundamental question of “values” of nature – not only the economic value. How to re-connect to nature? Recognise local knowledge with regards to sustainable use of natural resources•Poverty-Nature is important, but equally important is Wealth-Nature•More emphasis on “restoration•Reflect on relationships with industry and business. Set standards and agree on expectations and deliverables of partnerships. Work with Governments to provide a institutional framework for work with private sector •Too much emphasis on Government role. More focus on civil society to help implement the Programme. IUCN NGO Members have a key role to play•Follow ecosystem approach, and do not forget coastal areas and mangroves

Europe Comments•Need to be clearer about National Committees role. Support is needed in some cases.•The focus should not be on European Union – Europe is larger•There is a lack of reference to Commissions and what role they can play.•How will the consultation process proceed? Involve National Committees and Commissions•Environment is losing political relevance in Europe. IUCN can help to get it back on the political agenda. Regional Office can provide a facilitation role between National Committees and lobby in Brussels•National Committees as not fully recognised, and not trusted by the Secretariat to represent IUCN in the country. We need to use them more effectively.•But – not all National Committees are the same

National Committees•We have 17 in Europe, but they are not all the same•France, Netherlands and Spain are legally registered in the country and have full-time staff, but this should not be the “blue-print” for all NCs – Some National Committees are happy to remain voluntary groups•We need National Committees in more countries and the Secretariat should help to create them•National Committees can provide a national platform, report how Members are implementing the IUCN programme and provide Secretariat with contacts of Members. Knowledge clearing-house function.•National committees should not be the filter between IUCN and the Members. It is important that information flows directly and that rights of Members are respected•National Committees currently have no rights or authority. IUCN Needs to review this, recognise them and use them where possible.•The link between National Committees and Commissions in-country is not clear