Association of Zoos and Aquariums

Full Participation in the Species Survival Plan® Partnership and Process
Adopted by the AZA Board of Directors
March 21, 2000

The Wildlife Conservation and Management Committee (WCMC) of the AZA held a meeting from August 15-17, 1999 to discuss strengthening AZA cooperative animal management programs. This meeting provided an opportune time to examine a number of internal and external policies and procedures that contribute to the success or failure of our Species Survival Plan or SSP programs. AZA’s entire system of cooperative animal management, ranging from record-keeping to data analysis to collection planning to SSP coordinator responsiveness to member’s needs to institutional compliance with SSP recommendations was considered.

Cooperative animal management and conservation are among AZA’s primary goals. These goals are best exemplified by our shared commitment to AZA’s cornerstone animal management/conservation program: The Species Survival Plan. The AZA Board of Directors recognizes that:

cooperative management is critical to the long term survival of professionally managed zoological parks and their valuable and often irreplaceable animal collections; and,
that all AZA-accredited institutions and related facilities should be fully committed to the goals and cooperative spirit of the SSP partnership.

Therefore, after March 2000, the Board will require full participation by all AZA member institutions in the SSP partnership and process. Full participation in the SSP partnership and process will be defined as follows:
All AZA Members owing or holding SSP taxa, or supporting a SSP program without holding animals must assign an institutional representative to the SSP. (The institutional representative (IR) will be the primary point of contact with participating institutions).
Institutions must provide all relevant data on their animal collections to the SSP Coordinator and studbook keeper.
All AZA Member owning, holding, and supporting institutions must state the level at which they can participate (breeding, holding, or support).
All AZA Member owning, holding, and supporting institutions will be required to participate in the SSP partnership process. Any disagreements, whether from the perspective of the SSP or the participating institutions, will be mediated by the Conflict Resolution Process (see below).
In order to ensure that the SSP process is thorough, efficient and equitable there needs to be refinements in both the master planning process and how conflicts are resolved. The coordinators and IR’s must have the opportunity to have input into the master planning process and have a fair chance to address any questions or conflicts over the recommendations. Towards those ends the master planning process will be more standardized and will require that:

A draft of the SSP master plan and recommendations is published on the AZA web site and open to comment for 30 days. [see Conservation Programs Database] in the Members Only section.

A standard master plan report format is used.
There must be a written record of recommendations.
As many IRs as possible participate in the master planning process to increase the likelihood of institutional support.
The best available method (electronic, hard copy, fax, website) be used for SSP communications with participating institutions.
SSP management groups must be responsible for representing the taxon and the association at large – not their individual institution.
Directors are notified (via the listserv and website) of master plan recommendations. Written recommendations will be provided at the request of the director.

These requirements will ensure that all institutions have input into the process and that the institutions have access to and fully comprehend the SSP’s recommendations. If all holding institutions have the chance to be active participants in the master planning process, then fewer conflicts should arise over the results.

However, if conflict does arise, participants are required to utilize the following Conflict Resolution Checklist to guide their actions. The checklist can be initiated either by the SSP Coordinator or the participating institution:

Attempt to resolve the conflict through a telephone conversation.
A professional and courteous telephone inquiry is often all that is necessary to clear up conflicts resulting from missed communications. Each party should keep notes on the conversation(s). If a resolution is reached over the telephone, the initiating party should confirm the decision in a letter that briefly details the problem and the agreed upon solution. This letter should refer to all previous communications on the subject.

Document the nature of the conflict in writing.
If the issue(s) cannot be resolved over the telephone, then the conflict must be documented in writing. The first step toward resolution of any conflict is to clearly identify and agree upon the problem. This documentation should be in the form of a letter, either from the Species Coordinator to the Institutional Representative or vice versa. The letter should clearly state the nature of the problem and any actions taken. If possible, the letter should pose reasonable alternatives or solutions to the conflict. A copy of this Conflict Resolution Process should be included with the documentation.

Refer the matter to the SSP Management Group.
If the initial exchange of letters does not produce a satisfactory resolution of the problems, the initiating party will refer this issue, in writing, to the Management Group for discussion and development of additional options and or actions. The management group will vote to determine if a resolution is possible or if the next step in the process should be taken, within 30 days of the dated referral. The management group has the option to consult the appropriate Taxon Advisory Group (TAG) for assistance in resolving the conflict. The Species Coordinator must accede to the management group's recommendation.

Communicate conflict to institutional director, TAG and WCMC Chair.
When a matter is referred to the Management Group, the Species Coordinator will provide copies of all documents to the institutional director, the relevant TAG Chair and the Chair of the WCMC. The Institutional Representative will copy his or her immediate supervisor and institutional director. The institution will make an effort to resolve the conflict with the SSP.

Refer the matter to WCMC.
If the conflict cannot be resolved at an institutional level within 30 days after being notified of the Management Group decision, then the matter will be arbitrated by a subgroup of WCMC. The WCMC Chair, two members of WCMC (one selected by each of the parties in conflict), the SSP Coordinator, and a representative designated by the institution should conduct a confidential review of the problem and formulate a final resolution. This may occur in person at a meeting, or via a conference call. Within five working days, the WCMC Chair will provide a written report communicating the decision to the WCMC, the TAG, the SSP Management Group, the SSP Coordinator, the institutional director, the Institutional Representative and the AZA Conservation and Science Office.

Note that this conflict resolution process is a two-way process.
The arbitrators may opt to suspend or expel an institution from the SSP. If the institution involved is an AZA member, a summary of the arbitration process and decision will be forwarded to the Accreditation Commission for inclusion the institution's accreditation file. The arbitrators may also determine that an SSP Coordinator is at fault. If that occurs the SSP Coordinator may be subject to sanction, including being placed on probation or being removed from the position.

Full Participation in the Species Survival Plan® Partnership and Process Adopted by the AZA Board of Directors March 21, 2000

Full Participation in the Species Survival Plan® Partnership and Process
Adopted by the AZA Board of Directors
March 21, 2000