SOL-486-16-000007_-_Attachment_No._8.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR MISSION SUPPORT

PARTICIPATING AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT

NO. AID-486-T-13-00002

SURVEY OF COUNTER WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

INTERVENTIONS IN SOUTH EAST ASIA

Message at the community-based ecotourism site called Ugong Rock, Barangay Tagabenit, Puerto Princesa, Palawan, Philippines, September 2015. Credit: Carol L. Mitchell/DOI-ITAP

Cover: Traditional “snake wines” and other wildlife products in a market, Vietnam. Credit: Marc Weitzel, DOI-ITAP

Survey of

Counter Wildlife Trafficking Interventions in Southeast Asia

December 4, 2015

Prepared by:

U.S Department of the Interior’s International Technical Assistance Program Under Participating Agency Program Agreement AID-486-T-13-00002

(“DOI Mission Support”) on behalf of the U.S. Agency for International Development i

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Jeanne Van Lancker, USFWS Special Agent, for her assistance in the initial phases of this project, and George Phocas, USFWS Attachè, S.E. Asia (Bangkok), for critical review and comments on the final report. We would also like to thank the individuals who responded to the online questionnaire: we very much appreciate the time and effort put into sending us your information.

Please reference this report as follows:

DOI-ITAP 2015. Survey of Counter Wildlife Trafficking Interventions in Southeast Asia. Report prepared by the

Department of Interior’s International Technical Assistance Program, on behalf of the U.S. Agency for

International Development, Regional Development Mission Asia, under Project Number AID-486-T-13-00002

(“DOI Mission Support”) 76 pages.

ii

Contributing Authors

David Manski, Team Lead, Research, Author, Editor. Protected Area Specialist Emeritus, U.S. National Park Service, Retired, USA

Ma.Ronely D. Bisquera-Sheen, Research, Author. In-Country Coordinator for the Philippines, U.S.

Department of the Interior, International Technical Assistance Program, and Board Member, Tanggol Kalikasan, Philippines

Grizelda Mayo-Anda, Research, Author. Executive Director, Environmental Legal Assistance Center, Philippines

Carol Mitchell, Ph.D., Research, Author, Lead Editor. Deputy Director of the South Florida Natural Resources Center, U.S. National Park Service, Everglades National Park, USA

Marina Rabe-Manuel, Advisor. Executive Director, Tanggol Kalikasan, Philippines

Apichai Thirathon, Research, Author. Consultant, Tanggol Kalikasan, Thailand

Technical Support and Desktop Publishing

Olivia Anton, Technical Support. Program Assistant, U.S. Department of the Interior, International Technical Assistance Program, USA

Krystle Princess Galang, Technical Support. Program Assistant, Tanggol Kalikasan, Philippines

Sean Lawlor, Technical Support. Asia Program Assistant, U.S. Department of the Interior, International Technical Assistance Program, USA

Brandon Gamble, Desktop Publishing Support. Project Management Specialist, South Florida Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park, USA

Project Oversight

Marc Weitzel, Advisor and Project Coordinator. Senior Advisor and Asia Regional Program Manager, U.S.

Department of the Interior, International Technical Assistance Program, USA iii iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Project and to Wildlife Trafficking in the ASEAN Countries

Chapter 2. Methods and Limitations

Chapter 3. Counter Wildlife Trafficking Interventions in the ASEAN Region: Who is Doing What and Where

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS / DONORS

NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS AND INTER-GOVERNMENTAL REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS

Summary of Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

Chapter 4. Summary of Recommendations Gathered from the Survey and Document Review

Recommendations for USG Agencies to Consider for Increased Impact, Efficacy and Coordination

Recommendations on Interventions to Reduce Wildlife Trafficking

Consensus Recommendations of the Survey Team

APPENDICES

Appendix 1, Survey Questionnaire

Appendix 2, Invited Stakeholder Organizations to Complete Survey

Appendix 3, CWT Interventions Identified by Survey Respondents

Appendix 4, CWT Intervention Accomplishments Identified by Survey Respondents

Appendix 5, CWT Intervention Lessons Learned Identified by Survey Respondents

Appendix 6, Recommended Actions to Improve USG CWT Coordination

Appendix 7, Recommended CWT Interventions

Appendix 8, Additional Survey Comments by Respondents

Appendix 9, Literature Cited and List of CWT Documents Reviewed v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1. Number of valid survey respondents in each stakeholder category

Figure 3.2. Interventions reported by US Government and non-USG stakeholders. The pie graphs show the proportion of reported interventions that that fell into the three major objectives of the US National

Strategy for Counter Wildlife Trafficking

Figures 3.3, 3.4, 3.5. Proportion of online survey responses that fell into different sub-objectives from the US National CWT Strategy. USG agencies are in blue, non-USG actors in red

Figure 3.6. Types of partner support, as reported by USG and non-USG survey respondents combined.

The number is expressed as a proportion of total responses

Figure 4.1. Distribution of the recommendations received, according to the major objective emphasized

Figures 4.2, 4.3, 4.4. Distribution of the recommendations received, sorted according to the sub-objectives of the US National CWT Strategy and Implementation Plan

ACRONYMS

ACB ASEAN Center for Biodiversity ADB Asian Development Bank APEC Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ARREST Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking ASEAN Association of South East Asian Nations ASEAN’s SOMTC ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting on Transnational Crime ASEAN-WEN ASEAN-Wildlife Enforcement Network B+WISER Biodiversity and Watersheds Improved for Stronger Economy and Ecosystem Resilience

Program BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (Philippines) BLO Border Liaison Office C4J Changes for Justice Project CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CI Conservation International CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna CWT Counter Wildlife Trafficking DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DETECT Detect Environmental Crime Training DHS United States Department of Homeland Security DOC United States Department of Commerce DOD United States Department of Defense DOI United States Department of the Interior DOI-ITAP US Department of the Interior- International Technical Assistance Program

DOJ United States Department of Justice DOS United States Department of State DOS/INL US Department of State International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau ECOFISH Ecosystems Improved for Sustainable Fisheries Project vi

Acronyms cont.

ENRD Environment and Natural Resources Division (DOJ) ESA Endangered Species Act ETIS Elephant Trade Information System EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/IA Fish and Wildlife Service/International Affairs FWS/OLE Fish and Wildlife Service/Office of Law Enforcement GEF Global Environment Facility GRASP Great Apes Survival Partnership HCMC Ho Chi Minh City HCVF High Conservation Value Forest HSI Homeland Security Investigations (DHS) IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICCWC International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office ICITAP International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (DOJ) IDA International Development Association ILEA International Law Enforcement Academies INTERPOL International Criminal Police Organization IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IUU Illegal Unreported Unregulated JIATF Joint Interagency Task Force West (DoD) JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency MIKE Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants Program MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEST National Environmental Security Task Forces NFWFL National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory NGO Non-Government Organization NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (DOC/NOAA) NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA/OLE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/ Office of Law Enforcement NPS National Park Service OES The Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (DOS) OPDAT Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training PATROL Partnership Against Transnational-Crime through Regional Organized Law Enforcement PBC III Partnership for Biodiversity Conservation III PDR Peoples’ Democratic Republic PEF Philippine Eagle Foundation RDMA Regional Development Mission Asia (USAID) TK Tanggol Kalikasan TPP Trans Pacific Partnership TRAPS Wildlife Trafficking Response, Assessment and Priority Setting UN United Nations UNCAC United Nations Convention Against Corruption UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCAP UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime UNTOC United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime vii

Acronyms cont.

USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USG US Government USGS United States Geological Survey USPACOM The United States Pacific Command USTR United States Trade Representative WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WWF World Wildlife Fund

Executive Summary

Wildlife trafficking is considered a significant threat to biodiversity. Wildlife trafficking also depletes an important source of natural capital for countries on the path to sustainable development. In the last 5-10 years an unprecedented spike in the illegal wildlife trade is threatening to overturn decades of conservation gains. Asia is a hotspot for the illegal wildlife trade, and Asian governments have responded with the Association of South East Asian Nations

(ASEAN) and East Asia Summit Declaration to combat wildlife trafficking in Asia

(www.cites.org/eng/east_asia_summit).The United States Government (USG) has responded to this issue through the issuance of a White House Executive Order on Combating Wildlife

Trafficking (Executive Order 13648, July 1, 2013), and with the US National Strategy for

Combating Wildlife Trafficking and corresponding Implementation Plan.

In Southeast Asia, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID, at both the

Regional (Regional Development Mission for Asia, RDMA) and bilateral levels) is enhancing development assistance to efforts to combat wildlife trafficking. There is general agreement among USG agencies in the region to work more closely together in a coordinated program that reflects the President's Counter Wildlife Trafficking Strategy in Asia and significantly increases the collective effectiveness of the United States to stem illegal wildlife trafficking. Short-term initiatives of ASEAN governments, other donors and development partners could also be enhanced by increasing coordination with the US and with each other.

USAID/RDMA requested the Department of the Interior-International Technical Assistance

Program (DOI-ITAP) to undertake this Southeast Asia CWT survey with the following goals:

(1) Identify the U.S. Government agencies (USG) involved in CWT in Southeast Asia and describe their CWT interventions;

(2) Identify the ongoing and planned CWT activities of other stakeholders:

intergovernmental organizations/donors, national governments and intergovernmental regional organizations, and civil society organizations in Southeast Asia;

(3) Develop preliminary recommendations for consideration by the USG to increase the impact and efficacy of CWT activities in Southeast Asia at the country and regional levels.

(4) Develop recommended prioritized areas of support for USAID/RDMA, to maximize the effectiveness of USG efforts to combat wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia.

The survey focused on national and regional CWT interventions in the period 2010-2020 in the

ASEAN countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Burma , Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. An intervention was defined as a program, project, or activity that was primarily focused on CWT; i.e. that it had a dedicated budget and/or a strategy

In 1989, the official name of the country was changed from the Union of Burma to the Union of Myanmar. In

2010, the country’s name became the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. In this report we use the country’s historical name, Burma, except in direct quotations or the names of government entities or documents.

http://www.cites.org/eng/east_asia_summit and activities focused on efforts to address illegal wildlife harvesting, distribution, and sale. The survey focused on animal species: terrestrial, freshwater aquatic and marine.

The primary source of data for this report was an online questionnaire, supplemented with documents and web research, and a limited number of informal interviews with key stakeholders.

To design the online questionnaire, and to organize the information from document review, we used the major objectives and sub-objectives of the implementation plan for the US National

Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking (strengthen enforcement, reduce demand, expand cooperation, etc.). We invited 75 USG and 108 non-USG entities, for a total of 183 online questionnaire contacts. Contacts were at the national and regional level, and did not include sub-national contacts such as provinces or municipalities. We received 41 responses with information about CWT interventions at the end of the 17-day open period, from a variety of stakeholders and from 9 of the 10 ASEAN countries (exception Singapore).

Respondents were asked to list and describe their interventions, to give the status (completed, ongoing or planned), and to provide information on the budget and the location (identifying the countries or an ASEAN-wide focus). Information on partner organizations was requested. We asked respondents to provide recommendations for interventions to reduce wildlife trafficking in

Southeast Asia, and recommendations to improve the efficacy and coordination of USG CWT efforts in the region. We also asked about accomplishments, and lessons learned.

Limitations of this Report

The overall goals of this report were to find information about USG and non-USG supported

CWT interventions in the ASEAN region, and to provide recommendations to USAID/RDMA regarding priorities for future CWT interventions and USG coordination in that region. This report does not evaluate or assess the effectiveness of CWT activities in ASEAN, nor is it intended to assess how the current suite of CWT activities may or may not be addressing actions identified in the US National CWT Strategy Implementation Plan.

The data gathered for this report presents a partial picture of the completed, ongoing and planned

CWT interventions occurring in the ASEAN region for the period 2010-2020. We realize that important stakeholders and likely many important documents will be missing from this report.

Due to the diversity of activities happening in the region and the time constraints placed on this project, it was not possible for this report to cover everything. Furthermore, the use of online survey data brings with it inherent biases of response, selectivity and recall of the respondents.

Regarding the recommendations: we present those recommendations received via the online questionnaire, and via document review. Additionally, we developed consensus team recommendations based on our data gathering and the collective knowledge and experience of our survey team. We know that the suite of individuals and organizations represented in the survey is only a small sample of those involved in CWT efforts in the region, and that additional high-quality recommendations could have been received with increased participation in the online questionnaire.

Lastly, while China and the United States are both important destinations for illegally harvested or traded wildlife, our study was focused solely on the ASEAN countries and did not directly gather information about CWT interventions in non-ASEAN countries.

Results

Over half of all interventions reported in the online questionnaire were focused on strengthening enforcement, within which capacity building activities were most frequently cited. Expand cooperation was cited as a major objective just under 20% of the time: within this major objective, activities that use diplomacy and international cooperation were most cited.

Demand reduction, with an emphasis on public awareness and behavior change, was the least cited major objective, especially among USG stakeholders, where it was cited as a sole objective in fewer than 5% of the interventions reported. Specific interventions are described in Chapter 3 and Appendix 3, organized by agency/stakeholder.

Regarding the country location of reported interventions, Singapore was the least cited among countries identified as the focus of interventions. Burma and Brunei were next, while Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia and Thailand were each cited between 20 and 30 times. The

Philippines and Vietnam were cited most often as focal countries, and ASEAN-wide interventions were also frequently cited. These patterns are highly influenced by who responded to the questionnaire, and thus may not be an adequate representation of the relative amounts of work going on in the different countries.

Responses to the request for recommendations for CWT interventions followed the same pattern as the reporting of interventions, with the most recommendations emphasizing law enforcement

(n=58), specifically capacity building activities, followed by development of tools and technologies and then by activities that support community-based conservation. Within the capacity building activities, recommendations for training were emphasized, followed by provision of logistics, facilities and funds, and by increases in numbers of on-the-ground personnel. Recommendations to expand cooperation (n=25) emphasized the US CWT Strategy sub-objectives of diplomacy, cooperation and effective partnerships, followed by strengthening of international agreements and arrangements that protect wildlife. Under the category of cooperation and partnerships, respondents highlighted the need for continued support to the

ASEAN-Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN), and increased inter-agency collaboration, intelligence information sharing and sharing of best practices among departments/ministries across the region. Recommendations for demand reduction were least frequently cited (n=12):

these emphasized first the raising of public awareness and behavior change, and second the building of partnerships to reduce domestic demand. Specific recommendations received via the online questionnaire are described in Chapter 4 and Appendices 6 and 7.

Consensus Recommendations of the Survey Team

The survey team, after review and analysis of the online questionnaire and other materials, developed consensus recommendations for USAID/RDMA to consider in designing development assistance to bolster efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, as well as improving coordination with other USG agencies in the ASEAN region. Four key concepts underlie these consensus recommendations: a) Sustain and/or increase impacts resulting from the past 10 years’ investment of USAID/RDMA and other USG agencies in CWT in Southeast Asia, scaling up best practices at the local and regional levels; b) Promote real ownership, commitment and leadership in CWT by ASEAN governments; c) Couple sustained regional CWT initiatives such as ASEAN-WEN with country-specific or coordinated inter-country-specific efforts; and d)

Engage in direct species-protection actions to maintain these natural resources for sustainable development in range countries. Species-protection actions are needed now because species are disappearing faster than legal or cultural changes can be effected.

Strengthen Enforcement

(1) Continue to build the capacity of ASEAN-WEN and promote effective collaboration with existing initiatives such as those with CITES, INTERPOL, UNODC, ASEANAPOL, etc.

Emphasis should be given in promoting ownership and commitment of ASEAN-WEN by the ASEAN Secretariat and the 10 ASEAN Countries.

(2) Collaborate with CITES to standardize anti-illegal wildlife trade/trafficking laws.

(3) Find and replicate successful examples of interagency cooperation in law enforcement.

(4) Replicate and strengthen successful examples of on-the-ground, skilled species-protection teams.

Demand Reduction

(1) Work to dispel the misunderstanding of wildlife consumers on the nutritious and other values of wildlife consumption.

(2) Target the young generations to carry the right messages to the public and to their parents/relatives.

(3) Continue to use diplomatic and relevant international dialogues to raise awareness of governments in illegal wildlife consuming countries (including those outside ASEAN).

(4) Identify and empower groups who benefit from legal wildlife activities, and seek to provide opportunities for local people living in or near key biodiversity areas to earn a living other than through poaching or trading in illegally harvested wildlife.

Expand International Cooperation and Commitment

(1) Collaborate with key ASEAN trade partner countries (e.g. the EU) to establish/introduce trade sanction policy to the countries that are heavily involved in wildlife trafficking and do not show their full commitment in CWT. This recommendation differs from current efforts through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but would be synergistic.

(2) Support civil societies or recognized research agencies in regularly conducting wildlife trafficking situation assessments in ASEAN countries.

(3) Share and utilize the in-country assessments recently completed for Indonesia under the

Changes for Justice Project with other countries in the ASEAN region.

Address cross-cutting issues-- good governance, accountability and transparency

(1) Promote good governance, transparency and rule of law in ASEAN countries, starting at the level of local government units. The skills and knowledge of individuals along the entire spectrum of law enforcement – rangers/forestry police, customs officials, prosecutors, ombudsmen and judges – must be enhanced, and applied in a transparent way.

(2) Support strategies that advance the fight against corruption and money laundering.

Skilled investigators are needed to track financial flows, as are systems that include effective oversight and monitoring of law enforcement activities and performance evaluation of law enforcers.

Improving the Impact and Efficacy of CWT through USG Coordination

(1) Create a regional ASEAN CWT Task Force comprised of US Government agencies.

This task force would establish annual and five-year work plans with specific CWT goals, priorities and desired outcomes.

(2) Establish a lead coordinator for this ASEAN CWT Task Force.

(3) Coordinate annual CWT funding opportunities for US Government partners. Create one unified ASEAN region “call” for CWT intervention proposals to be considered for funding by the US Government.

Chapter 1. Introduction to the Project and to Wildlife Trafficking in the ASEAN Countries

Wildlife trafficking is considered a significant threat to biodiversity. In addition, the illegal wildlife trade has negative social and economic repercussions, and depletes an important source of natural capital for countries on the path to sustainable development. The world is dealing with an unprecedented spike in illegal wildlife trade, threatening to overturn decades of conservation gains

(WWF,http://www.worldwildlife.org/thre ats/illegal-wildlife-trade).

An illicit industry worth billions of dollars, the global illegal wildlife trade is well organized and on the rise –especially in Asia (Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce or TRAFFIC, 2011). The Asia region is an epicenter of biodiversity and a biodiversity hotspot; it is also the epicenter of illegal wildlife consumption. Drivers to biodiversity loss in Asia include massive economic development, land use conversion, increased wealth and enhanced purchasing power in Asia, unchecked population growth, climate change impacts, technological advancement, and expanded transcontinental networks and connectivity. Asian governments have responded to this threat with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and East Asia Summit

Declaration to combat wildlife trafficking in Asia (www.cites.org/eng/east_asia_summit).

The United States Government (USG) has responded to this issue through the issuance of a

White House Executive Order on Combating Wildlife Trafficking (Executive Order 13648, July

1, 2013). This Executive Order established the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking, and directed the executive departments and agencies to take all appropriate actions within their authority. Since 2013, the Task Force created an independent Advisory Council, and developed a US Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking and a corresponding Implementation Plan to guide and direct the efforts of Federal agencies in executing the Strategy (USAID RDMA, 2015).

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Regional Development

Mission Asia (RDMA) and other USAID bilateral missions are enhancing their development assistance to bolster efforts to combat wildlife trafficking (CWT) pursuant to the USAID

Biodiversity Policy (USAID RDMA, 2015).

There is general agreement among USG agencies in the region to work more closely together in a coordinated program that reflects the President's Counter Wildlife Trafficking Strategy in Asia and significantly increases the collective effectiveness of the United States to stem illegal

Stuffed snakes for sale, Thailand. Credit: Marc Weitzel/DOI-ITAP http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/illegal-wildlife-trade http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/illegal-wildlife-trade http://www.cites.org/eng/east_asia_summit wildlife trafficking. It is also recognized that many of the short-term initiatives of ASEAN governments, other donors, and development partners could be enhanced by increasing coordination with the US and with each other.

To address these issues in the ASEAN region, USAID/RDMA initiated this Southeast Asia

Counter Wildlife Trafficking (CWT) survey with the following goals:

(1) Identify the U.S. Government agencies (USG) involved in CWT in Southeast Asia and describe their CWT interventions;

(2) Identify the ongoing and planned CWT activities of other governments, donors, nongovernmental organizations, and other international intergovernmental organizations in Southeast Asia;

(3) Develop preliminary recommendations for consideration by USG to increase the impact and efficacy of CWT activities in Southeast Asia at the country and regional levels.

(4) Develop a list of recommended prioritized areas of support for USAID/RDMA that could maximize the effectiveness of USG efforts to combat CWT in Southeast Asia.

The A

Th e

A

SE

A N r e gi o n , w it h t h e f o ca l c o u n tr ie s id e n ti fi e d a n d c la ss if ie d a cc o rd in g to t h ei r ro le s as s o u rc e , t ra n si t o r m ar ke t co u n tr ie s in t h e r e gi o n

Fo r d e fi n it io n o f th e r o le s, s e e t e xt o f th is c h ap te r.

Summary of Wildlife Trafficking in the ASEAN Region

As background and context to the results of this survey, we provide here a brief overview, by country, of the characteristics of wildlife trafficking, the legal framework being applied and the major challenges faced in enforcing laws to reduce illegal harvest and trade in wildlife.

All ASEAN countries can act as sources (where wildlife is removed from its habitat) and/or as transit areas (illegally captured wildlife and products move through the area) and/or as market countries (where the product is sold to the final consumer). However, the ASEAN countries vary in their roles, and we documented the following, as of December 2015. Note that countries can shift rapidly in the type of role they play, depending on external factors as well as internal ones (current shipping costs, recent enforcement actions, black market demand, among others).

Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Burma, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam are sources of illegally captured and/or harvested wildlife in the ASEAN region. Within this group, countries with large areas of remaining intact forest are important (i.e. Indonesia);

however, at this date other ASEAN countries are experiencing more intensive exploitation of their remaining rare wildlife, fish and flora (G. Phocas, pers.

comm.)

Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam and

Thailand are major transit countries for illegally trafficked wildlife in the ASEAN region.

Lao PDR and Burma are far into this category as well, due to their porous borders with China.

Nearly all of the 10 ASEAN countries are markets within the

ASEAN region for illegally acquired wildlife and wildlife products, with at least some internal consumer demand.

Vietnam is highlighted in this group as a country that ranks as a final market destination on a global scale, following after China and the United States, which rank as the top two consumer countries in more than one analysis (Hearn 2008; Nuwer 2015).

Brunei

Trading in illegal wildlife, particularly wild birds, is frequent in Brunei, and is a source of concern for both the government and the private sector. Brunei lists 622 species of birds - of which 49 are endemic. Most of these birds are not covered by the protection status of the country's Wildlife Protection Act (which lists only 34 species of birds), making Brunei’s remaining rainforests a hotspot for illegal wildlife trade (Brunei Times, November 2014).

Seized civet, Vietnam. Credit: Marc Weitzel/DOI-ITAP

Pangolins are also among the heavily traded wildlife in the country (1StopBruneiWildlife, May

2015).

The country recently moved to improve its main policy framework, its Wildlife Protection Act, to make it more responsive to Brunei’s commitment and obligations towards regional and international treaties and forums such as the Convention on International Trade of Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the International Union for Conservation of

Nature (Ibraham 2015).

Relevant government agencies conduct information campaigns as a strategy to curtail illegal wildlife trade and impose bans on harmful activities such as the catching and selling of sharks and their by-products.

Indonesia

Indonesia is one of the world’s top 10 ‘megadiverse’ countries and the largest supplier of wildlife products in Asia, both legal and illegal (USAID, March 2015). Indonesia remains a key source country because it retains more intact forests than its Southeast Asian neighbors (UNODC

TOCTA – EAP, no date). The Pramuka Market in Jakarta is one the largest trading sites of illegal wildlife from all over Asia and the world (Chng et al. 2015).

Indonesia is a signatory to CITES and a supporter of other international conventions relating to wildlife crime. Indonesia is generally seen as having a strong legislative framework for implementing CITES and other aspects of wildlife crime, although some see it as having too many laws (Mulqueeny and Cordon 2014). There are numerous loopholes related to wildlife and wildlife protection, and these remain a limiting factor in tackling the issue (USAID, Changes for

Justice Project, April 2015).

In 2014, Indonesia’s top Islamic clerical body took an unprecedented position by issuing a religious fatwa against illegal wildlife trade, declaring the practice as Haram. It was well received by conservation groups. For the world’s largest Islamic population, this was considered significant. A fatwa declares the act of violating illegal wildlife policy a sin (Parker, March

2014).

A recent assessment of the implementation of Indonesia’s legal framework on wildlife protection and trade have shown that while legal reform is needed to tackle the rapidly evolving and increasingly sophisticated form of wildlife crimes, there are a number of key opportunities that exist to reduce wildlife crimes and the illegal trade of wildlife in Indonesia (USAID, Changes for

Justice Project, March 2015). The success in the seizure of over 7,000 pig nosed turtles from

Indonesian ports destined for China was derived largely from improved relations and cooperation between Indonesian customs, police and civil investigators, with targeted support from the US

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) and the US Fish and Wildlife

Service Office of Law Enforcement (USAID, March 2015).

Malaysia

Malaysia's enforcement of anti-trafficking regulations has been criticized as weak and is attributed to the ineffectiveness of relevant agencies to curb trade. Most of the smuggled wildlife from India is shipped to Malaysia for local consumption and as a transshipment point for international consumption (Whyte 2015).

Malaysia has a comprehensive policy framework addressing illegal wildlife trade, which is its

Endangered Species Act of 2008 and the Wildlife Conservation Act of 2010. The State of Sabah has its Wildlife Conservation Enactment of 1997 and Sarawak has its Wildlife Protection

Ordinance of 1998.

Concerns have been raised on the efficacy of Malaysia’s varied legislation and mechanisms. For instance, inconsistencies do exist in the way penalties are dispensed for illegal wildlife crimes between peninsular Malaysia and the autonomous states of Sabah and Sarawak, as well as in their respective policies concerning issuance of licenses and permits that impact on illegal wildlife trade (DLA Piper 2015).

Philippines

The Philippines has a legal framework on wildlife protection and biodiversity conservation. Its policies are embodied in the Constitution and various laws and administrative orders, which include the Wildlife Resources and Conservation Act (Republic Act No. 9147) and National

Integrated Protected Areas System (RA 7586). The country is a signatory to various international agreements on wildlife protection and biodiversity conservation, such as CITES.

The number of wildlife confiscated from poachers in the Philippines shot up from 2010 to 2013, most sharply in terms of the number of seized mammals, which grew by over 1500% during that period (Panela 2014). Other species that are highly traded are marine and freshwater turtles and some highly sought endemic bird species. The Philippines is also an entry point for smuggled exotic animals from Australia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, among others (Fontanilla and

Sayson 2015). The Province of Palawan is considered a major source of illegally traded birds and freshwater turtles. The Cartimar Market in Manila is a significant trading site for illegal wildlife in the region.

Wildlife enforcement efforts as well as assessments have been undertaken by national and local government agencies including civil society groups and local community organizations.

According to the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), there have been improvements in their law enforcement efforts since they teamed up with the National Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine National Police and other local law enforcement agencies (Panela 2014). These concentrated and successful interdiction efforts are linked to the large increase in confiscations from 2010-2013.

Singapore

Singapore is considered one of the world’s top 10 major trading hubs of international wildlife trafficking, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature office located in that country

(www.wwf.sg/what_we_do/stop_illegal_wildlife_trade/). The trade is boosted by Singapore’s convenient transport systems and its access to major wildlife markets of China and Europe.

There is likewise a high local demand for pet, luxury items and food derived from wildlife.

The city state’s Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act is its main law that addresses illegal wildlife trafficking and manifests its compliance to the CITES, which it signed in 1986.

Singapore has been focusing its efforts on working with ASEAN to increase regional capacity in combating wildlife trade from the source, through multilateral and bilateral capacity building efforts (UNODC December 12 2014). In-country efforts to focus on reducing Singapore’s role as a transit country are still inadequate.

Cambodia

Cambodia became a Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1995 and to the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in

1997 (TRAFFIC, 2008). There are several pieces of legislation, Royal Decrees, Prime

Ministerial sub-decrees and Declarations in Cambodia that cover the investigation and prosecution of Wildlife and Forest Crimes (UNODC, 2015).

The main legislation used to investigate wildlife crime in Cambodia is the Law on Forestry, 2002 and the Protected Areas Law, 2008. The Protected Areas Law deals with offenses occurring within protected areas while the Law on Forestry deals with offenses occurring outside of protected areas.

In parts of Phnom Penh, endangered animals are still openly sold. Occasionally, shops have skins from tigers and clouded leopards (Hays, 2014). Phnom Penh's Central Market used to openly sell bear paws, bear skins and crucified monkeys. Many animal parts and products are sold at traditional medicine shops.

Lao PDR

The Government of Lao PDR acceded to the CBD in 1996 and has been a Party to CITES since

2004. Lao PDR does not yet have a CITES-enabling legislation in place. There are many pieces of legislation, Presidential and Prime Ministerial decrees in Lao PDR that cover the investigation and prosecution of Wildlife and Forest Crimes (UNODC, 2014).

Lao PDR is home to unique and rare species of flora and fauna; many of these species are listed under Appendices I, II and III of CITES. Some of the better known CITES listed fauna species found in Lao PDR include the tiger (CITES Appendix I), leopard (CITES Appendix I), clouded leopard (CITES Appendix I), Asian elephant (CITES Appendix I), Sun bear (CITES Appendix I), Asiatic black bear (CITES Appendix I), pangolin (CITES Appendix II) and several turtles including the Indochinese box turtle (CITES Appendix I).

Many of Lao PDR’s other species of fauna also continue to be subjected to illegal trafficking to feed markets in neighboring China and Vietnam (UNODC, 2014).

http://www.wwf.sg/what_we_do/stop_illegal_wildlife_trade/

Burma (Myanmar)

Burma’s northern forest complex is still reasonably intact and is home to elephants, bears, leopards and hundreds of species of birds. At the core of this forested area lies an 8,500 square mile tract – the Hukawng Valley Wildlife Sanctuary – which is considered as the world’s largest tiger reserve. Burma also has the most elephants in Southeast Asia (Mulqueeny and Schaedla, 2013).

Burma became a signatory to CITES in 1997. In 2010, Burma chaired the fifth annual meeting of ASEAN-Wildlife Enforcement Networks (ASEAN-WEN). In 2011, the country created a national inter-agency Wildlife Enforcement Law Enforcement Task Force (Mulqueeny and

Schaedla, 2013).

Despite these advances in legislation and international cooperation, reports suggest there has been significant recent trade in elephants, Asiatic black bears, Sun bears, tigers, leopards, snow leopards, clouded leopards, turtles, tortoises and pangolins from Burma to its neighbors

(Mulqueeny and Schaedla, 2013).

The factors that make Burma a potential hub for regional trade also make it an ideal transit point for the illegal wildlife trade because of the porous borders the country shares with China, Bangladesh, India, Lao PDR and Thailand.

Monitoring of legal and illegal trade through monthly patrols of markets, sale points and transport hubs. Photo credit: Wildlife Conservation Society. (Indonesia)

Thailand

In spite of being a long-standing signatory to CITES, Thailand is known as a major transit country, moving illegal wildlife products that originate both from Africa and regionally in south and southeast Asia, to final consumer destinations in East Asia and other ASEAN countries

(Visvajith, n.d. approx.2012). Thailand also has an in-country consumer market for food and pets. Increased consumer spending ability and the convenience provided by major international transport agencies are factors behind Thailand’s current role in the illegal wildlife trade.

Thailand has been classified an important country in Southeast Asia as a source, transit and destination (or consumption) of wildlife trafficking and products (Hays, 2014). It is a hub for illegal wildlife trafficking where authorities typically find rare turtles, tortoises, snakes and lizards that feed the demand in China and Vietnam.

Bangkok is regarded as one of the biggest wild animal smuggling centers in the world, with the

Chatuchak market one of the epicenters of the illegal wildlife trade in the city. Bangkok is a major gateway and transit area for animals on their way from source nations to buyer nations.

Live colugos, lorises, crocodiles, gibbons, orangutan babies, endangered cockatoos and other kinds of rare birds, bear paws, or tiger bones can be found in Bangkok with the right contacts

(Hays, 2014).

Located at a center of Southeast Asia mainland and with comparatively advanced transportation facilities, most trafficked animals arrive in Thailand from Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam, Lao PDR and other countries as far as Africa and are shipped or smuggled to China, South Korea, the United States, Europe and Japan (Hays, 2014).

CITES provisions have not yet been fully translated into Thai law, and gaping loopholes still exist.

Vietnam

Vietnam is both a major consumer country and main conduit to the China market. (UNODC

Chapter 7 EAP, no date). It is a developing nation with high biodiversity that has been implicated as a source, transit, and destination country for illegal wildlife and wildlife products

(Milliken and Shaw 2012, TRAFFIC report). Traffickers in Vietnam are typically rural poor and not necessarily organized crime syndicates. There is, however, reciprocity between these poor gatherers and the syndicates.

The government of Vietnam ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and became

Party to CITES in 1994 (TRAFFIC, 2008).

Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) is considered a “hotspot” for wildlife trafficking and consumption.

From a survey, species that are most widely consumed as food, and therefore are the most threatened species include snake, wild boar, stag, deer, wild fowl, porcupine, bear, civet/weasel, turtle, python, and monitor lizard (Caraza, 2011). Vietnam has many efforts to prevent illegal trade and consumption of wild animals. The legal system relating to wild animal protection in

Vietnam is adequate. On the enforcement efforts, within the broad criminal justice sector, a number of entities are responsible for responding to the illicit trade in wildlife including the

Forest Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Ministry of

Public Security and the Customs Department (UNODC, 2013).

Chapter 2. Methods and Limitations

Methods

The team assembled to conduct this survey included DOI staff and representatives of a regional nongovernmental organization based in the Philippines, Tanggol Kalikasan. DOI’s role was to coordinate the overall inventory, provide oversight on data analysis and report writing, serve as the primary point of contact with US Government agencies during the process, and write the sections on USG interventions. TK participated fully in the study design, and was in charge of data collection, analysis and report writing for non-USG CWT efforts over the entire ASEAN region.

Data Gathering

Our survey of CWT interventions was targeted at activities occurring during the period 2010 through 2020, and at a broad range of stakeholders, which we classified into four categories for purposes of comparison: US Government agencies, International Governmental

Organizations/Donors, In-Region National Governments and Regional Intergovernmental

Organizations, and Civil Society Organizations (Table 2.1). The focus of our data gathering was on national and regional CWT interventions and not those of sub-national or local efforts.

Table 2.1. Stakeholders who were targeted in our Southeast Asia CWT survey.

US Government Includes US Government agencies who have past, ongoing, or planned CWT activities in Southeast Asia.

International Governmental Organizations/Donors

Includes other entities external to the region such as WCO, CITES, UNEP, UNODC, INTERPOL, other foreign development agencies GiZ, JICA; ADB, World Bank, EU, AusAID and Embassies of European countries that may have CWT activities.

National Governments and Intergovernmental Regional Organizations

Includes individual governments of ASEAN countries, and intergovernmental regional organizations such as ASEAN, Coral Triangle Initiative, & ACB.

Civil Society Organizations

Includes civil society organizations within Southeast Asian countries, or civil organizations that work on a multi-country or regional level: regional and in-country NGOs such as TRAFFIC, WCS, WWF, Freeland, & CI.

We defined an “intervention” as a program, project, or activity that was primarily focused on

CWT; i.e. that it had a dedicated budget and/or a strategy and activities focused on efforts to address illegal wildlife harvesting, distribution, and sale. There are many activities that are related to CWT such as habitat conservation; however, unless these projects were accompanied by activities addressing illegal wildlife harvest, distribution or sale, they were not included in the current survey. We recognized that some CWT activities are done as a component of other broader activities; for example, funding of park rangers may not be focused exclusively on CWT but these rangers have a definite role in CWT in the course of their work. We incorporated these activities in our survey.

The word “wildlife” requires some definition as well. The illegal wildlife trade is connected to illegal logging on many levels. Our survey was intended to be focused on animal species:

terrestrial, freshwater aquatic and marine, and was not intended to be focused on illegal logging.

We did not define “wildlife” beyond this in the title of the survey; however, some organizations interpret wildlife as all wild species, including timber and non-timber plants. Responses to the electronic survey were generally focused on animal species, with an occasional reference to timber and non-timber exploited species.

We used three sources of data to identify and describe CWT interventions occurring in the

ASEAN region. The two primary sources were an online questionnaire (using Qualtrics, http://www.qualtrics.com, see Appendix 1 for a paper version of the online questionnaire).

documents (e.g., plans, reports, publications – both published and unpublished), acquired from stakeholders or through online research

Due to the short timeline for this project, and as a result of guidance provided early in the process from USAID/RDMA, we conducted minimal interviews with key stakeholders.

Online Questionnaire and Document Review

To design the online questionnaire, and to organize the information from document review, we used the components of the implementation plan for the US National Strategy on Combating

Wildlife Trafficking. Respondents were asked a series of questions regarding their CWT activities, and were asked to categorize their interventions into the 3 major objectives

(Strengthen Enforcement, Reduce Demand, and Expand Cooperation) as well as the sub-objectives of the implementation plan. The status of the intervention (completed, ongoing or planned) was requested, as well as information on the budget and the location (identifying the countries or an ASEAN-wide focus). Information on partner organizations was requested, as was information on the type of support those partners provided.

We asked respondents to provide 3 recommendations for interventions to reduce wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia, and 3 recommendations on what the US Government can do to improve the efficacy and coordination of its CWT effort in the region. We also asked for 3 lessons learned, as well as highlights of accomplishments. We provided an open-ended question at the end of the survey, requesting any additional pertinent information that the respondent might have.

Documents received, and online sources were mined for additional information on CWT interventions, and for recommendations that could be applied in this report.

http://www.qualtrics.com/

Stakeholders Contacted through the Online Survey

Our intent was to contact individuals with direct responsibility in designing, managing or implementing their organization’s CWT interventions. Introductory letters with links to the electronic questionnaire were also sent to senior or upper managers of the targeted organizations to inform them of this CWT survey, but they were not the individuals we sought to complete the survey, and we expected that they would assign completion of the survey to a staff member.

The survey contact list for USG agencies and offices was developed by starting with the member agencies of the National Counter Wildlife Trafficking Task Force, as these agencies are officially identified as having roles in the implementation plan. This initial list was modified through input from USAID/RDMA and from the State Department in Washington DC. USG contacts included offices in Washington, D.C. and offices in the region, such as at the ASEAN level and country level. TK determined the contact list for the other three stakeholder groups.