Submitted by
sandwitht
on Mon, 11/18/2019 - 09:38
General Information
Resolution
46519
Period covered
Activities to implement this Resolution from Activity Reports
| Relevant operative para(s) of Res/Rec | Activities Overview | Description | Status | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Education/Communication/Raising awareness | ECO has used not only formal mechanisms but also a variety of communication and awareness raising mechanisms to allow civil society and the public and scientific community to present the case for the achieving the operative paragraphs of WCC-2016-Rec-102-EN. | On-going | Full activity report | |
| Policy influencing/advocacy | ECO, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Organisation of NZ, and numerous other groups have worked together to achieve a policy announced in late 2017 and reaffirmed in 2019 by the New Zealand government of "no new mines on Conservation land". This has yet to be implemented. There is a stalemate with the Minister of Conservation wanting the policy implemented, and the Minister of Energy and Resources and her industry lobbyists opposed. Instead they want to re-classify much of the conservation land out of that status, and to allow new industrial mining on conservation land and to allow mining where the permit holders already hold exploration permits or have an expectation of renewal of permits. We have pressed for the policy to be implemented, and we have submitted against the stalling of the policy implementation and its undermining with delays, suggestions that you can mining under but not on conservation land, and other devices. We have also filed objections to coal and other mining on conservation land. On infrastructure, we are contesting policy and draft law that would exempt national infrastructure projects from rules for water and aquatic ecosystem protections. We have also objected to proposals for industrial scale recreation and tourism facilities on protected areas. In the marine realm, we have few protected areas so we press instead for the creation of these and the exclusion of incompatible activities in areas of significant biodiversity. These include industrial fishing and seabed mining. | On-going | Full activity report | |
| Policy influencing/advocacy | Evaluating natural heritage areas to determine if they are protected areas or OECMS | On-going | Full activity report |
Actors involved from Activity Reports
| IUCN Members | IUCN Commissions | IUCN Secretariat | Other non-IUCN related organisations |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Challenges / lessons learned from Activity Reports
Report status
Published
I. IUCN Constituencies implementing this Resolution
IUCN Members
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand ( New Zealand )
Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand ( New Zealand )
Department of Conservation ( New Zealand )
IUCN Commissions
7014B187-9867-E711-B126-005056BA6623
IUCN Secretariat
Yes
II. Implementation
Activities carried out to implement this Resolution
Education/Communication/Raising awareness
Policy influencing/advocacy
Describe the results/achievements of the activities
The IUCN Secretariat proposed further guidance on the interpretation of Recc 102, and submitted this to Council, which referred it back for further development, so no general guidance was adopted in 2019. There have been several requests for interpretation when activities have been proposed that would invoke the provisions of this recommendation.
The IUCN Secretariat has also advocated for the inclusion of a requirement for no go in all protected areas in the following process:
a. Responsible Steel (outcome: version 1 of the standard is out and the Standard will not certify any steel making site in any protected area, Ramsar site, World Heritage site or KBA)
b. Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (outcome: the revision that will start in 2020 now includes the proposal of a no go in all protected areas with few exceptions)
IUCN Secretariat and partners have successfully applied for a WCC Forum event on the success and remaining challenges of setting a No Go in protected areas, and has initiated discussion about no-go with energy utilities engaged with IUCN in developing Guidelines for solar and wind developments.
In New Zealand, IUCN NGO and State members have used the recommendation as a basis for discussion controversial decisions to designate protected areas that m may not accord with the recommendation, or when activities have been proposed in protected areas that would be in conflict. In some cases this has resulted in further discussion and deliberation.
The IUCN Secretariat has also advocated for the inclusion of a requirement for no go in all protected areas in the following process:
a. Responsible Steel (outcome: version 1 of the standard is out and the Standard will not certify any steel making site in any protected area, Ramsar site, World Heritage site or KBA)
b. Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (outcome: the revision that will start in 2020 now includes the proposal of a no go in all protected areas with few exceptions)
IUCN Secretariat and partners have successfully applied for a WCC Forum event on the success and remaining challenges of setting a No Go in protected areas, and has initiated discussion about no-go with energy utilities engaged with IUCN in developing Guidelines for solar and wind developments.
In New Zealand, IUCN NGO and State members have used the recommendation as a basis for discussion controversial decisions to designate protected areas that m may not accord with the recommendation, or when activities have been proposed in protected areas that would be in conflict. In some cases this has resulted in further discussion and deliberation.
Challenges/obstacles encountered in the implementation of this Resolution and measures taken
The recommendation has clearly stated a set of principles that is becoming a reference point for discussions on related activities. There is a need for further guidance for members, other organisations and the secretariat to fully implement the resolution. A start has been made on this.
Future actions / activities needed for the implementation of this Resolution
Elaborate further guidance on the implementation of the resolutions
Are these actions/activities planned?
Yes
III. Status of implementation
Implementation status of this Resolution
On-going: implementation consisting of repetitive, recurrent action (attending meetings, reporting, etc.)