The period since our last newsletter was flanked at either end by two international meetings - CITES (early March) and the World Indigenous Network (end May) (both reported on in this issue). For me, a striking contrast between them was the role and voice of indigenous and local communities in managing wild resources. In CITES, despite the good progress made on addressing local livelihoods in the implementation of CITES listing decisions, there is no formal recognition or role for indigenous/local communities as managers of wild resources, for indigenous/traditional knowledge in wild resource management, or for the views of or impacts on indigenous and local communities to be considered in CITES decisions (1). It is typical for no community level voices to be heard in CITES debates (with the notable exception this COP of the Inuit on polar bear). By contrast, the World Indigenous Network conference of land and sea managers showcased hundreds of successful initiatives where indigenous and local communities were managing or co-managing natural resources, exercising a greater or lesser level of sovereignty and control, and in the process breathing renewed life into traditional cultures and knowledge. The strong messages were the affirmation not only of rights to manage traditional resources and the cultural benefits of doing so, but also of the conservation effectiveness of these approaches.

What explains these worlds apart? Is the difference technical in nature - that CITES deals with individual threatened species in demand in global trade, for which indigenous and local perspectives and management are less important or relevant? Or is the difference an ideological one - does CITES simply reflect the worldview of the 1970s, where orthodox conservation thinking relied almost entirely on government intervention and control to manage and safeguard wildlife? Or is it pure politics - indigenous and community interests are affected only in a very scattered and variable way by CITES decisions, so in a climate of limited resources they have not developed any structure for organised representation at CITES, whereas conservation and animal protection interests have an extremely vocal and well-organised presence? I find it hard to see any compelling technical rationale why CITES should make decisions on wildlife trade without any recognition of the role of management by indigenous and local communities, in dramatic contrast to the Convention on Biological Diversity, its younger but larger sibling. I think this is an area where there is a need for IUCN to seek movement - I elaborate on this in the CITES in this issue.

Much else has been happening in the last few months. The Collaborative Partnership on Wildlife (CPW) has been launched - a new international network focused on sustainable wildlife (terrestrial animal) management. It comprises the CBD (Chair), CIC - The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (Deputy Chair), the FAO (Secretariat), IUCN, TRAFFIC, and six other international members. Priorities for the CPW are wildlife, food security and livelihoods; human-wildlife conflict; and illegal hunting. Two ideas that have had some discussion are the development of CPW position papers/policy briefs on bushmeat, and on wildlife and food security - I think both of these could make very important and influential contributions to current debates. At the FAO's "Forests for Food Security and Nutrition" conference in Rome in May, SULi was involved in supporting Ali Kaka (Director of IUCN East/Southern Africa) in presenting on and leading a side-event on the contribution of sustainable wildlife management to food security. Ali drew on examples from SULi members' work to highlight the important role wildlife management can make to food security - a contribution which is all too frequently overlooked. I attended the CIC General Assembly in Budapest (reported on in this issue), along with several other SULi members, where we were welcomed in impressive Hungarian style. I presented and discussed the SSC Guidelines on Trophy Hunting as a Tool for Creating Conservation Incentives. CIC has kindly translated these into many different languages, making them of considerably more practical help.

Finally, I'd like to welcome Sarah Doornbos, who joins Robin Sharp as Co-Editor of SULiNews this edition. Sarah works from Amsterdam one day a week as Program Officer for SULi and will be delighted to receive your ideas and contributions for future editions (at sarah.doornbos@gmail.com)!

References

(1) https://portals.iucn.org/blog/2013/03/12/cites-and-livelihoods-the-missing-voice-of-people-who-depend-on-species-trade/