IUCN Contributions for Nature Platform – results of Union-wide survey, 24 Nov – 7 Dec 2025
Executive summary
The IUCN Contributions for Nature Platform has been running since October 2022, to allow IUCN constituents to document their contributions, through conservation and restoration actions, towards global goals for biodiversity and climate change. To date, 236 IUCN constituents have used the platform to document 10,394 contributions; this includes 21% of IUCN Members, exceeding the target of 20% of Members using the platform. Over 24 Nov – 7 Dec 2025, IUCN constituents were surveyed to seek insight into priorities for ongoing development of the platform. The survey received 417 responses, from Members (47%), Commission members (46%), and Secretariat staff (7%). Around a quarter of respondents had used the platform already.
Regarding benefits provided by the platform, at least half of respondents reported wanting to see the data being used to advance each of five pre-identified use cases: documenting implementation of the IUCN programme, guiding conservation investments, reporting IUCN’s aggregate contributions to global goals for nature, communicating and promoting specific actions, and understanding the contribution of specific actions towards global goals. Among respondents who reported having used the platform already, these latter two points were the most frequently reported benefits (65% and 51% respectively).
Regarding constraints to use of the platform, 141 respondents provided explanations as to why they had not yet used the platform. These included limitations of technology (33%), time (27%), awareness of the platform (17%), and use of alternative platforms (11%). About a fifth of respondents (18%) reported that the platform is not relevant to them, because they do not implement conservation on the ground. All 417 respondents provided answers regarding desired support, with the most frequent requests being training from the Secretariat (59%), coordination from National and Regional Committees (37%), and peer support from other Members (22%).
As to priorities for further development of the platform, the most frequent requests were the options to include PDF reports (55%), reporting by IUCN regions (53%), acknowledgement of partners outside IUCN (42%), and indicators for contributions in aquatic ecosystems (34%). A total of 233 respondents provided narrative suggestions for increasing uptake of the tool, with the strongest recommendations being for strengthening awareness, visibility, and communication; for capacity building and training; and for clear documentation of purpose and value.
At present, the platform is exclusively offered to IUCN constituents – IUCN credentials are required for log-in, and validation is provided through IUCN Regional Programme Membership Focal Points. The survey asked whether IUCN should consider opening the platform beyond the Union, with 63% of respondents supporting this and 18% opposing. Arguments in support include improving data coverage, enhancing learning and collaboration, reinforcing IUCN’s role as a global convenor, and attracting potential new Members. Arguments opposing focused on the role of the platform as a Union-specific tool to measure and showcase IUCN constituent contributions. Other concerns included dilution of purpose, complication of validation and quality control, and reputational and governance risks. Possible middle-ground approaches suggested include limiting non-member inputs to IUCN-led initiatives, or clear differentiation between IUCN and non-IUCN contributions, possibly through using a sister platform for the latter.
Background
IUCN’s Members have provided a mandate, dating from the establishment of the Union, to document and report on the contributions to nature conservation made by its components (Members including National, Regional, and Inter-regional Committees; Commissions; and Secretariat). At the IUCN World Conservation Congress in 2021, a mechanism to allow documentation of such contributions was unveiled as the IUCN Contributions for Nature Platform (https://www.iucncontributionsfornature.org/).
The platform provides a simple interface, accessed with IUCN credentials, for IUCN constituents to provide spatial data documenting the places where they are undertaking conservation or restoration actions, within the period 2021–2030. Associated data on threats being mitigated, specific types of actions, budgets, and numbers of staff and beneficiaries are recommended but not required documentation. Projects jointly executed between multiple IUCN constituents can be linked to reflect co-attribution. All documented contributions undergo validation by Membership Focal Points in the IUCN Regional Programmes, after which they are displayed on the public platform. The spatial data are overlaid onto global data on extinction risk (from the IUCN Red List) and on climate change mitigation (from carbon storage and sequestration), to quantify potential contributions to global goals for biodiversity and for climate change, respectively.
To date, 236 IUCN constituents have used the platform to document a total of 10,394 contributions. This includes documentation of at least one contribution by 21% of IUCN Members, passing the target of 20%. However, for the platform to continue attracting documentation of contributions from IUCN constituents, it must be demonstrably useful and responsive to constituent needs. IUCN therefore ran a Union-wide survey for two weeks, 24 Nov – 7 Dec 2025, to better understand current uses and benefits, limitations, and priorities for continuing development of the platform. The survey received 417 responses: 47% from IUCN Members, 46% from IUCN Commission members, and 6% from IUCN Secretariat staff (Questions 1 & 2). Around a quarter of respondents (109; 26%) had used the platform already; the remainer (308; 74%) had not yet used it (Question 3).
Uses and benefits of using the IUCN Contributions for Nature Platform
All 417 respondents addressed the question “How would you like to see this collective data being used?” (Question 7), with responses rather evenly spread across the five pre-identified use cases. These were “ensure conservation actions count towards the IUCN programme” (276; 66%), “inform future investments in conservation” (224; 54%), “report back on IUCN’s contributions to global targets on biodiversity and climate” (201; 48%), “communicate, promote and fundraise for your action” (198; 47%), and “understand the potential impact of my project towards global targets” (203; 49%).
More specifically, the 109 respondents who had used the platform addressed the question of “What benefits did you gain from having your project on the IUCN Contribution for Nature platform” (Question 4). Approximately two-thirds reported benefitting from the platform’s value in “raising awareness about my projects” (71; 65%). About half (56; 51%) reported benefitting from the platform’s potential to “increase credibility and visibility of my projects due to “validation” by IUCN”. Around two-fifths of respondents reported that the platform helped them to “understand the potential impact of my project towards global targets thanks to STAR and carbon score” (45; 41%), and to “connect with other IUCN local actor which I haven’t identified before” (43; 40%). A few respondents (11; 10%) indicated various other benefits including environmental education, capacity-building, and networking. Just two respondents (2%) did not perceive that they had benefitted from using the platform.
Constraints to using the IUCN Contributions for Nature Platform
Overall, 141 respondents provided information regarding why they had not used the platform, “Why haven’t you used the IUCN Contribution for Nature platform yet?” (Question 5). Their most frequently reported explanations were the technical constraint that “I don’t know how to enter the polygon to define the intervention zone” (119; 33%) and the limitation of time in that “I don’t find the time to upload projects” (100; 27%). Constraints of scope (“My organisation does not implement conservation/restoration on the ground” 66; 18%) and ignorance of the existence of the platform, particularly for institutions having recently become IUCN Members (63; 17%) were also often reported. Less frequently reported constraints concerned perceived value (“I do not see the value of entering my projects on the IUCN Contributions for Nature Platform” 35; 10%) and use of alternative platforms (“I enter my projects on a different platform” 40; 11%). Alternative platforms reported included the EAZA Conservation Database (mentioned twice), plus platforms provided by the World Bank, the CBD, and by the Indian Government; MiradiShare; Restor; ArcGIS; GBIF; and the UN Partner Portal (all mentioned once each). Other explanations included IUCN credentials not working (3; 2%), rejection from the platform (1; 1%), and work only on LC species (1; 1%).
Desired support for use of the IUCN Contributions for Nature Platform
All 417 respondents addressed the question of “what support would your organisation like in using the IUCN Contributions for Nature Platform”? (Question 6). Much the most frequently reported support desired was “additional training and user-support from the IUCN Secretariat” (246; 59%). “Coordination from National and Regional Committees” (154; 37%) and “peer support from other Members” (90; 22%) were also frequently reported. Additional support was not reported as being necessary by a minority of respondents, either because “my organisation does not implement conservation on the ground” (54; 13%) or because the respondent simply has “no need for additional support” (64; 15%). A few respondents (31; 7%) included other narrative responses. Most of these restated the broad categories above in different ways, but a couple of additional themes were introduced including requests for increasing the user-friendliness of the interface (eg “it would be very helpful if the platform could support the inclusion of geographic coordinates”) and establishing a calendar of solicitations to IUCN constituents (“issuing a calendar showing when reports to the platform will be requested during the quadrennium so we can plan our reporting in advance; there are so many emails from IUCN”).
Priorities for future development of the IUCN Contributions for Nature Platform
All 417 respondents addressed the question of “what would be your priority for next/further development of the platform?” (Question 8). The most frequently requested innovation was to “include option to download platform report as PDF” (229; 55%). Other frequently requested developments were “include STAR and carbon indicators for marine and freshwater environment” (140; 34%), “include reporting by IUCN regions” (220; 53%), and “include option to acknowledge partners from outside IUCN” (177; 42%).
Overall, 71 respondents (17%) requested “include more indicators”, with additional indicators suggested including genetic diversity, plants, and validated outcomes, as well as some indicators already included within the platform (eg invasive alien species; pollution; education and awareness). Meanwhile, 26 respondents (6%) requested that it would be valuable to “change the format of the report”, with specific requests including improving searchability (“make the platform searchable by more filters”), alignment (“consider reporting aligned to IUCN Programme and/or KMGBF”), and networking (“more interaction amongst the specialist groups”). One respondent also noted that it would be valuable to “allow simpler mapping tools for users without GIS expertise (e.g., uploading a point location instead of drawing polygons).”
A few suggestions were based on misunderstandings of current functionality, eg “rejected projects should not be seen by all” (they cannot be), “at the moment anyone can edit anyone project” (they cannot – only the contributor can edit), and a request for a “message after uploading that your submission was successfully uploaded and will be reviewed” (functionality already exists).
Overall, 233 respondents addressed the question of “what would be your recommendation and suggestion for a greater uptake of the tool by IUCN constituents” (Question 9). These were provided as free text, and so we used ChatGPT to derive a synthesis of the main recommendations:
A. Awareness, visibility, and communication: make the platform visible, recognizable, and unavoidable within IUCN channels
• Strong calls for much wider promotion at global, regional, national, and local levels
• Repeated requests to embed promotion through: National and Regional Committees; Commission networks; IUCN Congresses, meetings, and partner events
• Preference for short, targeted, practical communications (brief videos, capsules, reminders) rather than long newsletters
• Suggestions to give the platform a prominent place on the IUCN website and include it in new-member welcome packages.
B. Capacity building and training: ongoing, localized, multilingual capacity building is essential for confidence and adoption
• Demand for: regular webinars and online orientation sessions; step-by-step guides and short “how-to” videos; hands-on, practical demonstrations using real cases
• Strong emphasis on: multilingual training and materials; regional and country-level trainings, including via National Committees; capacity building for small NGOs, Global South actors, and new Members
• Suggestions for train-the-trainer models and peer mentoring.
C. Clarity of purpose and value proposition: demonstrate tangible benefits and decision-making value, not just data collection
• Many respondents asked for clearer answers to: what is the platform for? why should I use it? how does it benefit my organization, project, or reporting obligations?
• Clear explanation of how the platform: adds value beyond existing reporting tools; supports conservation outcomes, policy influence, fundraising, and visibility; contributes to IUCN Programme delivery and global targets (SDGs, GBF, NBSAPs)
• Regular analyses, summaries, and reports showing what the data is used for.
D. Usability, accessibility, and technical design: simplicity and practicality will determine uptake
Many users see ease of use as a critical barrier.
• Calls for: simpler interfaces and workflows; reduced reporting burden and duplication; quick indexing and streamlined data entry
• Strong need for: support for low-GIS-capacity organizations; mobile-friendly, low-bandwidth functionality; clear guidance on what data can be shared and how it will be used
• Requests for improvements such as: additional data layers, indicators and metrics; inclusion of social, governance, and community dimensions
E. Integration with existing IUCN processes and external frameworks: embed the platform into existing workflows so its use becomes routine
• Respondents consistently stressed that the platform should not feel like an extra, standalone obligation
• Strong support for integration with: Red List, Green List, KBAs, NbS, governance frameworks; national reporting, donor reporting, and policy processes
• Concerns about double-counting and duplication need to be addressed transparently
F. Incentives, recognition, and mandates: recognition, incentives, and clear expectations drive participation
• Public recognition of contributors (newsletters, website features, case-study spotlights)
• Awards, incentives, or symbolic rewards
• Preferential access to funding, grants, or visibility
• Making use of the platform: mandatory for new Members; expected for Members requesting IUCN financial support; embedded in Commission and Committee expectations
G. Collaboration, co-design, and feedback loops: shared ownership and responsiveness will build trust and sustained use
• Requests for: co-design with Members, NGOs, governments, and communities; continuous feedback mechanisms and peer review; greater collaboration among Members and with donors, academia, and governments
• Desire for peer-to-peer learning, mentoring, and sharing of experiences
H. Resource and institutional support: uptake depends on sustained institutional backing, not just technology
• Need for: dedicated financial and human resources for outreach and support; Secretariat engagement in follow-up, feedback, and coordination; support to scale field implementation, not only reporting tools
Should the IUCN Contributions for Nature Platform be offered exclusively to IUCN constituents?
Regarding the question of “should the IUCN Contributions for nature platform be open to receive non IUCN Member contributions?” (Question 10), 263 respondents (63%) answered yes, and 76 (18%) no, with 197 (47%) providing narrative to explain their answers. Again, we used ChatGPT to summarise these explanations:
A majority of respondents support opening the platform beyond IUCN membership. They argue that significant conservation action occurs outside the Union and that restricting contributions risks presenting an incomplete picture of global efforts. Supporters emphasise inclusivity, improved data coverage, enhanced learning and collaboration, and increased visibility of nature-positive action. Many also view openness as reinforcing IUCN’s role as a global convenor and as a potential pathway for future membership. This support is largely conditional on safeguards to ensure quality, transparency, and clear differentiation between IUCN and non-IUCN contributions.
Opposing respondents emphasise that the platform is fundamentally a Union tool designed to measure, showcase, and assess IUCN Member contributions. From this perspective, opening the platform could dilute its purpose, complicate impact assessment, weaken quality control, and increase reputational and governance risks. Several respondents stress that exclusivity preserves the value of IUCN membership and safeguards the organisation’s credibility as a science-based authority. Alternatives proposed include limiting non-member inputs to IUCN-led initiatives or capturing external actions through separate mechanisms.
Undecided respondents generally frame the issue as one of design rather than principle. Their uncertainty centres on a lack of clarity regarding the platform’s primary objective—whether it is intended primarily for Union accountability or broader public information. Many indicate that either approach could be acceptable if the platform’s purpose, governance arrangements, and safeguards are clearly defined and well communicated.
Overall, the consultation highlights a core strategic choice between positioning the platform as a focused Union accountability tool or as a broader convening mechanism reflecting conservation action at scale under IUCN stewardship. Across all viewpoints, respondents consistently underline the importance of clarity of purpose, robust quality assurance, transparent differentiation of contributions, and adequate governance capacity, regardless of the option selected.