In July this year a sub-set of the Sustainable Use Specialist Group (SUSG), together with the Chair of the Species Survival Commission and invitees from other parts of IUCN and beyond, gathered together with the generous support of the White Oak Conservation Center near Jacksonville in Florida, home of the conservation organisation Gilman International. The objectives of the meeting were to explore current issues surrounding facing sustainable use, develop ideas on the direction and priorities for action of the SUSG, and develop recommendations for its governance.

Anyone who has had the luck to attend a meeting at White Oak will know that it is an exceedingly charming and delightful place, with its forests, deer, canoeing, horse-riding and ten pin bowling, not to mention the rhinos and okapis that the casual jogger may stumble upon around any corner, or the extremely generous bar. Despite these diversions, some good work was accomplished.

The first part of the meeting consisted of sharing a wide variety of experiences and perspectives on sustainable use (SU) from around the world. To lay a basis for discussion a background paper was prepared by Rosie Cooney to canvas major issues (see the SUSG web site to download this paper). We began with an examination of the history of SU within IUCN, including major products such as the Analytic Framework and the current Strategic Focus. Regional experiences from the most active SUSG groups were shared - Southern Africa, Europe and South America (north and south groups). Experiences and activities within other IUCN bodies were outlined, including from the Species Programme, TRAFFIC, and other Specialist Groups for which SU is important, including Palms, Marine Turtles and Medicinal Plants. The conceptual basis underlying SU was probed, including harvesting theory, integrating SU and species, and links between SU and ecosystem conservation. Different concepts within SU were explored. The direction for SU within major environmental fora such as the CBD, GEF, and CITES was canvassed. The meeting also highlighted the implications and importance for SU of major areas of active thinking and research such as resilience, complex systems, and common property regime analysis.

This rich sharing of experiences and insight laid the basis for the next stage, the real point of the meeting – the way forward for the SUSG. Some key questions and issues addressed here included the following (for a more complete list, email Rosie for the workshop report).

On the communications front, there remained a great lack of understanding about the importance and potential benefits of SU in supporting conservation and livelihoods. There was a need to get this message out, probably through case studies highlighting successful examples. On the research and analysis side, several important questions raised concerned scale and sustainability, and the linkages between SU of species and SU of landscapes and ecosystems. How does management of species link to management of social-ecological systems at a broader scale? How can SU of wild species be integrated into the broader project of making biodiverse landscapes economically attractive? And in related issues – over what spatial and temporal scales should we make judgements on sustainability – do we assess a use as “sustainable” at the level of species, habitat, ecosystems, landscapes? What if use is sustainable at one scale but not another? Another focus of attention concerned SU, values and equity – given that many decisions about use are necessarily value-laden, such as judgements on which uses are sustainable, or whether use should be allowed, whose values are (or should be) reflected in decisions on use? How does international and national decision-making on use impact on local people and their values? SU and the Red List was also highlighted – some expressed the concern that Red List (or CITES) categorisations can be used to automatically dictate use/trade restrictions, which may not be appropriate and undermine conservation/livelihood efforts.
A strong priority for SUSG was seen to be further work on implementing sustainable use, including through further operationalising the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines and adaptive management. Throughout all of this, it was emphasised that the SUSG needs to develop ways to link better, share with, and learn from the many other parts of IUCN for whom sustainable use is part of their daily work.

This meeting was not primarily a decision-making meeting – rather, it provided a rich array of insights and advice to the SUSG and SSC Chairs in charting the future direction of the SUSG. It was an energetic and lively meeting, displaying great energy for the future of work on sustainable use in IUCN.

Dr Rosie Cooney is Visiting Fellow, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University. rosie.cooneygmail.com

Sustainable, December 2007, contents page