Natural Resource Governance Framework

Geographical coverage

Geographical scale of the assessment Global
Country or countries covered
Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name

This assessment, led by IUCN, is currently under development

Conceptual framework, methodology and scope

Assessment objectives

The overarching goal of the IUCN Natural Resource Governance Framework is to arrive at a situation where decision-makers at all levels make better and more just decisions on nature and the use of natural resources as well as the distribution of nature’s benefits, thus enhancing the contributions of ecosystems and biodiversity to sustainable development.

The immediate purpose of the IUCN Natural Resource Governance Framework is to provide an independent, robust and credible approach to ascertaining the strengths and weaknesses of natural resource governance, including related decision-making and implementation processes.

Mandate for the assessment

This is one of the six priority IUCN Knowledge Products as identified in the 2013-2016 IUCN Programme which was adopted by IUCN members in the 2012 World Conservation Congress, and is available here:

Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment

Other (please specify)

Natural Resource Governance Framework

URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted

A key step in designing the Framework will be developing a shared understanding of what is being assessed. Part of the challenge in this will be developing consensus on what we believe good governance is. Existing IUCN work on governance provides a starting point. An IUCN definition of governance is relayed above. Regarding governance quality - or ‘good governance’ –while there is no global consensus, IUCN has identified the following as the core governance principles and related elements: 1. Inclusion (including Participation and Voice; and Respect and Trust) 2. Legitimacy (including Integrity and Commitment; and Authority and Representativity) 3. Direction (including Strategic vision; Interconnectedness, Coherence and Contextualization) 4. Performance (including Responsiveness; Effectiveness and efficiency; Subsidiarity; Capacities; and Financial Sustainability) 5. Accountability (including Transparency) 6. Fairness (including Equity; Rule of Law; Consensus orientation; Human rights and Cultural Practices; Do no harm; and Access to justice)

System(s) assessed

  • Marine
  • Coastal
  • Island
  • Inland water
  • Forest and woodland
  • Cultivated/Agricultural land
  • Grassland
  • Mountain
  • Dryland
  • Polar
  • Urban

Species groups assessed

Ecosystem services/functions assessed



Supporting Services/Functions

Cultural Services

Scope of assessment includes

Drivers of change in systems and services


Impacts of change in services on human well-being


Options for responding/interventions to the trends observed


Explicit consideration of the role of biodiversity in the systems and services covered by the assessment


Timing of the assessment

Year assessment started

Year assessment finished

If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish

Periodicity of assessment


Assessment outputs



Communication materials (e.g. brochure, presentations, posters, audio-visual media)

Journal publications

Training materials

Other documents/outputs

Tools and processes

Tools and approaches used in the assessment

Process used for stakeholder engagement in the assessment process and which component

Key stakeholder groups engaged

The number of people directly involved in the assessment process

Incorporation of scientific and other types of knowledge

Supporting documentation for specific approaches, methodology or criteria developed and/or used to integrate knowledge systems into the assessment

Assessment reports peer reviewed



Accessibility of data used in assessment

Policy impact

Impacts the assessment has had on policy and/or decision making, as evidenced through policy references and actions

Independent or other review on policy impact of the assessment


Lessons learnt for future assessments from these reviews

Capacity building

Capacity building needs identified during the assessment

Actions taken by the assessment to build capacity

How have gaps in capacity been communicated to the different stakeholders

Knowledge generation

Gaps in knowledge identified from the assessment

How gaps in knowledge have been communicated to the different stakeholders

Additional relevant information