USAID Southern Africa CWC RFP NO 72067424R00005 final.pdf

USAID/Southern Africa Countering Wildlife Crime (CWC) Activity- RFP NO: 72067424R00005

RFP Number: 72067424R00005

RFP Title: USAID/Southern Africa Countering Wildlife Crime (CWC) Activity

RFP Issuance Date: March 12, 2024

Questions Due Date and Time: March 19, 2024, 09:00am South African Standard Time (SAST)

Closing Date and Time for Receipt of Proposals: April 24, 2024, 09:00am South African Standard Time (SAST)

SUBJECT: Request for Proposal (RFP) USAID No. 72067424R00005, USAID/Southern Africa Countering Wildlife Crime Activity

Dear Prospective Offerors:

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is seeking proposals to provide delivery services and technical assistance to support USAID/Southern Africa’s Countering Wildlife Crime (CWC) activity (Activity) as described in the attached Request for Proposals (RFP).

USAID anticipates awarding one (1) cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) term type contract for five (5) years (Contract), to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation requirements and is the most advantageous to the US Government, price and other factors considered. The procurement will be conducted through full and open competition, under which any type of organization (large or small commercial [for profit] firms, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations) is eligible to compete. The procedures set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 apply.

Offerors should propose costs that are appropriate, realistic, and reasonable, and in accordance with the proposed approach for achieving results. Cost proposals will be evaluated as part of a best value determination.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring proposals are received at USAID by the closing date and time as specified at the top of this letter. Proposals submitted after the closing date will be considered late per FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)(ii)(A). USAID requires that offers remain valid for 180 days.

Section L of this RFP sets forth all instructions for the preparation and submission of required proposal content, including critical dates/times for the submission of questions, as well as the proposal submission closing date and time. Section M states the criteria by which proposals will be evaluated. Oral explanations or instructions given before award of the contract will not be binding.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-15 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-15 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.215-1

USAID/Southern Africa Countering Wildlife Crime (CWC) - RFP NO: 72067424R00005

The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this activity is 935.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this activity is 541620. Under 13 CFR 121.201, the U.S. Small Business size standard is $15M of annual receipts.

This RFP in no way obligates USAID to award a contract nor does it commit USAID to pay any cost incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal. Award of a contract under this RFP is subject to availability of funds and other internal USAID approvals.

This RFP can be viewed and downloaded from https://sam.gov/content/home. USAID bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes. Further, be aware that amendments to solicitations are occasionally issued and will be posted on the same website from which you downloaded the solicitation. USAID advises to regularly check the above website for amendments.

Sincerely, Vann Rolfson

Contracting Officer

USAID/Southern Africa https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/121.201 https://sam.gov/content/home

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND COSTS

B.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this Contract is to provide services that fall within the Statement of Work (SOW) specified in Section C for USAID/Southern Africa’s Countering Wildlife Crime Activity.

The purpose of the Activity is to reduce threats to and protect biodiversity from wildlife crimes in Southern Africa. The Activity will build on the long history of the USAID Southern Africa Regional Mission in countering wildlife crime (CWC) through partnerships with regional organizations, governments, the private sector, and civil society.

B.2 CONTRACT TYPE

This is a Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Term Type Contract. For the consideration set forth in this Contract, the Offeror will provide the deliverables or outputs described in Sections C and F and comply with all Contract requirements.

B.3 ESTIMATED COST, FIXED FEE AND OBLIGATED AMOUNT

(a) The Total Estimated Cost (TEC) for the performance of the work required hereunder, exclusive of fixed fee, if any, is $TBD. The fixed fee, if any, is $TBD. The estimated cost-plus fixed fee, if any, is $TBD.

(b) Within the total estimated cost-plus fixed fee (if any) specified in paragraph (a) above, the amount currently obligated and available for reimbursement of allowable costs incurred by the Contractor (and payment of fee, if any) for performance hereunder is $TBD. The Contractor must not exceed the aforesaid obligated amount in accordance with FAR 52.232-22, Limitation of Funds Clause.

(c) Funds obligated hereunder are anticipated to be sufficient through TBD.

B.4 BUDGET

The total cost (including all fees) stated below may not be adjusted without a written modification signed by the Contracting Officer. No amounts in excess of the amounts specified for each line item below may be billed against the Contract.

Line Item Description Total All Years

Salaries and Wages TBD

Fringe Benefits TBD

Travel, Transportation and Per Diem TBD https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.232-22 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.232-22

Equipment and Supplies TBD

Subcontracts TBD

Consultants TBD

Grants Under Contracts (GUC)* $5,500,000

Other Direct Costs TBD

Indirect Costs TBD

Total Estimated Cost TBD

Fixed Fee TBD

Total Estimated Cost Plus Fixed Fee TBD

* The amount of $5,500,000 is a lump sum exclusively reserved for GUCs. This amount does not include any relevant management or administrative expenses incurred by the Contractor.

[USAID will insert the final total estimates of each cost category provided by the Contractor in its budget at award]

(a) The inclusion of any costs in the above cost categories does not obviate the requirement for prior approval by the Contracting Officer of cost items designated as requiring prior approval by any of the terms and conditions of this Contract, including the applicable cost principles (see FAR 52.216-07 Allowable Cost and Payment); nor does it constitute a determination of allowability by the Contracting Officer of any item of cost, unless specifically stated elsewhere in this Contract.

(b) The Contractor agrees to furnish data that the Contracting Officer may request on costs expended or accrued under this Contract in support of the budget information provided herein.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.216-7

B.5 INDIRECT COSTS

The Contractor is authorized to recover applicable indirect costs, if it is part of the Contractor’s usual accounting procedures, consistent with FAR Part 31, and Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement

(NICRA).

Pending establishment of revised provisional or final indirect cost rates, allowable indirect costs will be reimbursed on the basis of the following negotiated provisional or predetermined rates and the appropriate bases as below:

[To be inserted at the time of Award]

Contractor Fringe Rate % Overhead Rate % G&A Rate

PRIME (insert)

Type of Rate (insert) TBD TBD TBD

Base of Application (insert) TBD TBD TBD

Source (insert) TBD TBD TBD

Period (insert) TBD TBD TBD

MAJOR SUBCONTRACTOR(S) (insert, if applicable)

Type of Rate TBD TBD TBD

Base of Application (insert) TBD TBD TBD

Source (insert) TBD TBD TBD

Period (insert) TBD TBD TBD

NOTE: Additional indirect rates as needed for prime and subcontractors will be inserted in the above table.

NOTE: Contractor are allowed to recoup indirect costs (OH, G&A, etc.) as other direct costs if it is https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-31 part of the Contractor’s usual accounting procedures, consistent with FAR Part 31 and the Contractor’s NICRA.

NOTE: “Major Subcontractors” are those subcontractors whose proposed costs exceed 20% of the Contractor’s proposed total cost or perform a key element of the RFP.

NOTE: The Contractor will make no change in its established method of classifying or allocating indirect costs without the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer. Reimbursement for indirect costs will be at final negotiated rates.

B.6 COSTS REIMBURSABLE

The U.S. dollar costs allowable will be limited to reasonable, allocable, and necessary costs determined in accordance with FAR Part 31 (Contract Cost Principles), 2 CFR Part 200 (Cost Principles), FAR 52.216- 7 (Allowable Cost and Payment), FAR 52.216-8 (Fixed Fee), FAR 52.232-20 (Limitation of Cost), and FAR 52-232-22 (Limitation of Funds) and AIDAR 752.7003 (Documentation for Payment).

B.7 PAYMENT OF FIXED FEE

Payment of fixed fee will be in accordance with FAR 52.216-8. Pursuant to FAR 16.306(d), the fixed fee payable under this Contract will be tied to the execution of tasks and achievement of results per objective outlined in Section C and the deliverables and outputs outlined in Section F, subject to inspection and acceptance by USAID and in compliance with the terms of this Contract. Upon acceptance by USAID and receipt of approval from the Contracting Officer, the Contractor must submit an invoice for the amount of the fee associated with the deliverable and approved fee schedule detailed below:

[To be inserted at the time of award. A fee schedule will be negotiated with the successful

Offeror at award.]

B.8 MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTING

The ceiling is considered non-severable, creating a multi-year contract as defined in FAR 17.103.

Therefore, this Contract is subject to the requirements of FAR 17.106.

Cancellation Dates:

Cancellation Year 2: 2025 Cancellation Year 3: 2026 Cancellation Year 4: 2027 Cancellation Year 5: 2028 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200?toc=1 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.216-7 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.216-7 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.216-8 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.232-20 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.232-22 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.232-22 https://www.acquisition.gov/aidar/752.7003-documentation-payment.

https://www.acquisition.gov/aidar/752.7003-documentation-payment.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.216-8 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/16.306 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/17.103 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/17.106

Cancellation Ceiling:

This is a Cost-Plus- Fixed- Fee Term Type Contract where the Contractor is authorized to be reimbursed for all costs which are allowable in accordance with FAR 52.216-7 Allowable Costs and Payment.

Therefore, the Contractor will not incur any costs which would have been amortized over the life of the Contract should the Contract be canceled in accordance with FAR 52.217-2. Therefore, the cancellation ceiling for each cancellation date is shown below.

[Amount and dates to be filled in at time of award.]

CONTRACT YEAR CANCELLATION DATE CANCELLATION CEILING AMOUNT (NOT TO EXCEED)

Contract Year 2 [TBD], 2025 TBD

Contract Year 3 [TBD], 2026 TBD

Contract Year 4 [TBD], 2027 TBD

Contract Year 5 [TBD], 2028 TBD

[END OF SECTION B]

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.216-7 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.217-2

SECTION C - STATEMENT OF WORK

This Statement of Work (SOW) identifies the top-level objectives and results of USAID/Southern Africa’s Countering Wildlife Crime Activity and is used as a focusing tool for both the U.S. Government (USG) and the Contractor. While the SOW includes some suggested activities and areas of work to achieve these objectives and results, wildlife crime is a dynamic and changing sector, and the Activity will need to include innovative approaches and cost-effective solutions that reflect local partner and stakeholder priorities and needs.

Throughout the SOW, the terms “Offeror” and “Contractor” are used purposefully to signify the status of an entity prior to and after award of the resulting Contract. Therefore, all content related to an “Offeror” should be considered by an entity in their proposal preparation; while content related to a “Contractor” is informational and refers to activities or responsibilities performed by the winning Offeror after award.

C.1 TITLE OF ACTIVITY

USAID/Southern Africa Countering Wildlife Crime

C.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of the new USAID/Southern Africa Countering Wildlife Crime activity will be to reduce threats to and protect biodiversity from wildlife crimes in Southern Africa. The Activity will build on the long history of the USAID Southern Africa Regional Mission in countering wildlife crime (CWC) through partnerships with regional organizations, governments, the private sector, and civil society.

While the primary focus of the activity will focus on wildlife crime, we would like to allow some flexibility for learning and sharing of other nature crimes like illegal logging and illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, if this is a priority for regional stakeholders and/or there are connections with wildlife crime.

The goals of the Activity are to:

● Improve coordination, collaboration, learning, and sharing among stakeholders and partners to counter wildlife crime through strengthening of existing or development of new learning platforms and networks designed to collate and share best practices and approaches across conservation and wildlife protection actors.

● Strengthen criminal justice sector capacity, collaboration, and commitment to counter wildlife crime by working with law enforcement, judicial, and policymaking professionals to further institutionalize the competencies necessary to decrease wildlife crime through support to the region’s criminal justice sector training institutes and their alumni associations to incentivize professional networks that can share best practices and increase conviction rates in wildlife prosecutions.

● Reduce and build resilience to corruption by strengthening law enforcement and judicial systems and policies, strengthening independent counter corruption bodies, and supporting watchdog and monitoring organizations and reporting mechanisms.

● Increase community support for and participation in efforts to counter wildlife crime in targeted areas and test, monitor, adapt and facilitate the sharing of effective community engagement approaches across the region.

C.3 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

The place of performance of this Activity includes all USAID-supported countries within Southern Africa, which includes Angola, Botswana, eSwatini, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The Activity is expected to be implemented primarily at the regional level - working to support countering wildlife crime efforts and convening partners throughout the full region. As a regional activity, the goal is to provide higher level learning and coordination among partners - government, NGO, donors, and others.

Offerors should note that USAID/Southern Africa has specific responsibilities in Southern African countries with limited or no in-country USAID presence. Any activities working on the ground in specific countries, will be prioritized in limited presence countries within the USAID/Southern Africa Mission which include South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, and Angola.

Activities planned in countries with full bilateral USAID missions, such as Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, must be closely coordinated with those missions. U.S. assistance to Zimbabwe is currently subject to several legal restrictions under U.S. law. Interventions in Zimbabwe may require advanced written approval by USAID.

USAID Missions in the Southern Africa region may also want to utilize this Activity for activities that are specific to their countries, for example to pilot activities or downscale regional activities to a country or local level. Though not the primary goal of this Activity, USAID bilateral missions outside of the responsibility of USAID/Southern Africa may buy in to potentially receive support under this Activity, to complement their own bilateral efforts. Buy-ins would fall under the $24 million ceiling for this Activity.

USAID estimates approximately $2 million to be set aside for potential buy-ins.

Offerors should plan to base their operations in Pretoria, South Africa to ensure close coordination with USAID/Southern Africa.

C.4 BACKGROUND

USAID/Southern Africa has made considerable investments to counter wildlife trafficking over the past 8 years in several transboundary landscapes in Southern Africa, including the Kavango-Zambezi Landscape and Northwest Namibia; the Malawi-Zambia Transfrontier landscape; and the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. USAID also supported region-wide learning and sharing for improved results to counter wildlife crime and increased collaborative action to reduce wildlife crime.

In 2022, USAID compiled lessons learned and feedback from stakeholders and partners to inform the design of this Activity. Although tangible progress has been made in protected area and transfrontier conservation area management and the ability of law enforcement to address wildlife crime, further work needs to be done to improve national and regional level capacity, coordination and commitment required to jointly and collaboratively address wildlife crime and trafficking in the region. The current operating context can be characterized as follows:

● Wildlife crime in the region is dynamic and changing rapidly. Unlike demand countries in Asia, Africa has been slow in recognizing wildlife crime and trafficking as a transnational organized crime rather than a conservation issue.

● A wide array of government actors is supporting law enforcement and judicial authorities to counter wildlife trafficking and wildlife crime in diverse ways. However, there is a lack of coordination of these efforts at multiple scales and contexts, resulting in duplication of efforts and failure to leverage expertise strategically.

● Capacity building efforts have not been implemented strategically and have largely failed to institutionalize capacity within the organizations and agencies targeted.

● While high-tech solutions have been effective in certain circumstances, there is an over reliance on these types of solutions that are not necessarily demand driven and are frequently implemented with institutions that may not have the ability to fully make use of or sustain the tool, software or technical solution.

● Many countries in the region suffer from weak ecotourism models and have largely failed to capitalize on the benefits of community-based conservation. As a result, human wildlife conflict is increasing throughout the region.

● Regional organizations and regional networks are limited to the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and a few effective transboundary coordination and national level wildlife enforcement networks.

● Nascent efforts to address corruption related to wildlife crime and trafficking in the region have largely failed to transition from policy to execution of counter corruption measures. Few agencies in the region have undertaken formal corruption risk assessments resulting in ad hoc application of approaches throughout the region.

● Communities have a role to play in addressing wildlife crime, but this role may be different depending on the context. USAID and partners’ understanding of this role has evolved based on our learning in implementing CWC activities throughout the region, and continues to evolve as we continue to learn from these collaborations and partnerships.

C.5 DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE

Wildlife trafficking is a multi-billion dollar illicit business that is decimating Africa’s iconic animal populations. Wildlife crime undermines the economic prosperity of countries and communities, threatens their natural capital, and undermines sustainable economic development, including development benefits derived from legal nature-based enterprises like tourism. Wildlife crime threatens social stability and cohesion and impoverishes citizens as their cultural and natural heritage is robbed. Natural resource-dependent communities are exposed to security threats and erosion of their livelihoods. In the SADC region, people rely on natural resources for the region's economy and growth.

The decimation of wildlife species and destruction of natural ecosystems threatens development and livelihood security. Organized criminal networks also threaten the peace and security of the SADC region.

Over the last few years, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated a number of challenges facing effective CWC actions in the region as well as reducing a number of gains that had been made. The pandemic led to a complete halt in wildlife tourism in Southern Africa, leaving community conservation, a key element of wildlife crime mitigation, with little or no resources. In addition, the potential links between the coronavirus and consumption of wildlife, while resulting in increased awareness of illegal wildlife trade in general, resulted in a heavy shift of attention to demand hubs in China and Asian countries at the expense of supply side countries where local level snaring and poaching of animals for bushmeat increased. While tracking of wildlife crime during this period indicates a reduction in poaching incidents and seizures, law enforcement efforts were greatly curtailed as well, which may have undermined arrests and prosecutions for wildlife crimes that did occur during that time.

There is a growing consensus that the existing training models for law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities, while useful when first developed 17 years ago, would benefit from more systematic institutionalization in regional and national training institutions. The region’s approach to building the competency of law enforcement and judicial officials in countering wildlife trafficking has, in some ways, lagged behind similar efforts implemented in transit and destination countries in Southeast Asia and Asia. Similarly, the region has been slow to recognize that wildlife crime and trafficking is a transnational phenomenon perpetuated by organized criminal groups requiring a holistic criminal justice response as opposed to a specific geographically targeted conservation focused response.

Law enforcement alone, however, will not sufficiently or effectively address wildlife crime. Enforcement actions must be coupled carefully with actions that incentivize communities’ positive relationships with and benefits from wildlife resources. Collaboration with communities is critical to preventing poaching.

There is a need to increase the motivation and capacity of communities to work with (rather than against) law enforcement agencies.

C.6 THEORY OF CHANGE

USAID developed a Theory of Change based on a problem analysis for transnational wildlife crime in the region. The Theory of Change presents causal linkages and results expected within and among strategic approaches selected to address key drivers and threats to achieve the Activity Purpose.

A simplified logic model for the Activity depicting challenges, illustrative approaches, and potential results is shown below in Table 1. . In narrative form the Theory of Change can be stated as follows:

● IF coordination, collaboration, learning and sharing of best practices among regional stakeholders and partners are improved, and

● IF the law enforcement and judicial systems across the region operate with shared vision and institutionalize counter wildlife trafficking and wildlife crime within regional training institutes and their respective professional networks, and

● IF systems and approaches are established that reduce opportunities and build resiliency to the corruption that exists at all stages of the illegal wildlife trade chain, and

● IF communities and local civil organizations are empowered to engage and support counter wildlife crime efforts, THEN collective actions to counter wildlife trafficking and other wildlife crimes in Southern Africa will be increased and more effective, resulting in reduced wildlife crime and improved biodiversity conservation.

Table 1 - Simplified Logic Model for USAID Southern Africa Countering Wildlife Crime activity

Activity Goal: To reduce threats to and protect biodiversity from wildlife crimes in Southern Africa

Challenges Objectives Illustrative Activities Expected Results

Coordination and collective action is insufficient at multiple scales and contexts

Current systems for collection and sharing of information and best practices do not meet required needs

Improve Coordination, Collaboration, Learning, and Sharing among stakeholders and partners to counter wildlife crime

● Develop and strengthen communication and learning platforms for countering wildlife crime and related topics

● Provide logistical, facilitation and/or other support to the USG regional wildlife crime working group

● Implement exchange visits/study tours

● Set up and facilitate donor coordination platform

● Lead and coordinate private sector engagement in the region - such as tourism, financial and transport sectors

● Compile, curate, and/or share research to address knowledge gaps

● Existing platforms for collaboration and learning are strengthened

● Learning and best practices are broadly shared through existing networks and platforms, improving the ability of managers, decision makers, and practitioners to implement effective models and approaches

● Well-informed and coordinated USAID, USG, and donor efforts

● Improved collection and analysis of data on species, habitats, and threats resulting in improved management, development of strategic approaches and enforcement

● Businesses in relevant industries take agreed priority actions to detect, report and deter wildlife crime

Capacity building and incentives for law enforcement and judicial actors are not targeted nor sustainable

Collective action is insufficient to address wildlife crimes

Strengthen the Criminal Justice Sector Capacity, Collaboration, and Commitment to combat wildlife crime

● Build capacity and commitment across the entire prosecutorial and judicial chain

● Build capacity and collaboration at targeted nodes of the law enforcement chain

● Build capacity and motivation of law enforcement to share information and work effectively across borders

● Improve cross-border learning through existing networks and ability to coordinate regionally

● Strengthen regional institutions and existing law enforcement networks (i.e.

SADC, LATF, National WENs and TFCA task forces)

● Targeted law enforcement competencies are acquired and institutionalized within relevant law enforcement and judicial bodies

● Improved willingness of government to take action to address wildlife crime and prosecution resulting in improved enforcement and prosecutions

● Interagency and cross-border collaboration for addressing wildlife crime, trafficking and corruption is strengthened

● Increased capacity, coordination and commitment of enforcement and judicial systems results in higher success rates for wildlife crime prosecutions

● Strengthened national and cross-border law enforcement networks that can share and collaborate on transnational and transboundary issues

Corruption persists at all stages and for all players of the illegal wildlife supply chain

Reduce and Build Resilience to Corruption to improve biodiversity outcomes in the region

● Build capacity on integrity topics including investing in leadership programs

● Strengthen national and regional systems to reduce opportunities for corruption (digitizing case/court management and permitting systems)

● Establish or strengthen integrity plans/codes of ethics for national and regional institutions and businesses

● Implement corruption risk assessments

● Reduced tolerance for corruption in agencies and businesses responsible for wildlife management/trade

● Increased resilience against corruption -by rangers and others working to reduce wildlife crime

● Reduced opportunities for corruption across all nodes of the illegal wildlife supply chain

● Improved capacity of independent anti-corruption bodies reduces national level

C.7 OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED RESULTS

Addressing wildlife crime is necessary and relevant for generating prosperity and expanding development efforts within the SADC region. USAID will place emphasis on strengthening enforcement and promoting collaborative action and continuous learning to address wildlife crime. In particular, efforts to support regional coordination among enforcement agencies and to prioritize wildlife crime across enforcement, regulatory and intelligence agencies are needed. The reduction of corruption and improvement of transparency and accountability through the wildlife enforcement chain is also necessary. In addition, there is a need to support appropriate institutional capacities and share lessons across the region on detecting, deterring and apprehending would-be poachers and in dismantling criminal networks. There is also a need to strengthen capacities to prosecute and adjudicate crimes relating to wildlife crime. The promotion of effective deterrents must also be combined with initiatives that promote incentives for communities to protect and value their wild resources.

Objective 1: Coordination, collaboration, learning and sharing among stakeholders and partners to counter wildlife crime are improved

The Activity should facilitate collaborative learning and action to achieve lasting impact to counter wildlife crime in Southern Africa. Supporting relationship-building is key to strengthening networks and increasing coordination.

The Activity should strengthen existing learning platform(s) (or develop new platforms, only when necessary) that act as a repository for learning and best practices across a wide variety of countering wildlife crime and related topics. In addition to facilitating the collection and dissemination of learning and best practices, the learning platform could compile, curate and make existing research available to to understand scope and drivers and determine best methods to address

● Build capacity of watchdog organizations and media to expose corruption and ensure accountability

● Establish or strengthen whistleblower mechanisms and protections wildlife crime related to corruption

Community engagement is insufficient to address drivers of wildlife crime and enlist support of communities

Increase Community Support for and Participation in efforts to counter wildlife crime in the region

● Support piloting community engagement activities in targeted areas to test, monitor, adapt and share effective approaches

● Facilitate exchange programs from across the region to learn from successful models/approaches

● Support community-level dialogue platforms/forums on human-wildlife conflict

● Community engagement activities are tested and results are shared

● Empowered communities are engaged and benefiting from improved approaches

● Human/Wildlife Conflict is reduced and better managed through active and passive measures address knowledge gaps. The Activity should support technical exchanges and study tours to increase knowledge and skills and broadly share effective approaches and methods.

The USAID-funded VukaNow project developed and implemented a series of learning events known as SPARCCs (for Special Platforms for Action, Reflection, Collaboration in Combating Wildlife Crime) that were praised by multi-stakeholder groups as effective demand-driven mechanisms for coordinated learning and sharing among landscape partners. The SPARCCs covered various topics including new approaches to integrate practice guidelines for wildlife enforcement in protected areas, the fundamentals of human-rights based approaches in conservation law enforcement, best practices for increasing the effectiveness of wildlife crime units, and how to facilitate and support meaningful community engagement processes in counter wildlife crime. The SPARCC series generated good ideas around lessons learned and best practices in specific topics that should be continued in future programming.

To enhance transboundary and regional actions, the Activity should promote information sharing and collaborative learning across a wide variety of actors, including law enforcement, protected area managers and community focused organizations, to strengthen cross-border partnerships among relevant role players in areas under threat from wildlife crime. The Activity should also consider the sensitivity of such issues and strengthen existing systems, including existing formal and informal law enforcement networks, where appropriate, rather than creating new systems. In addition, the Activity should support ways to package, disseminate, and use information gathered to promote positive actions that deter wildlife crime.

The Activity is expected to support the USG interagency regional wildlife crime working group, by providing logistical, facilitation and other support to USAID and U.S. Government partners to enable effective dialogue and coordination. In addition, the Activity will support USAID and U.S. Government partners, by providing information, data and analysis on trends and hotspots, best practices, tools and other assistance as may be specifically requested by the group. The Activity could also facilitate coordination and collaboration with USAID and USG activities in East Africa and Asia that are working to counter wildlife crime and identify opportunities to coordinate and collaborate across regions.

The Activity could also support learning and sharing related to outcomes-based financing for biodiversity and wildlife, based on the model established by the Rhino Bond in South Africa. There is increased investor appetite for these types of biodiversity bonds and biodiversity credits in Southern Africa, which could provide more funding for countering wildlife crime and transparency into the impact of protecting wildlife. The Activity could help support networking of relevant investors and project sponsors and other organizations involved with biodiversity finance, in collaboration with USAID and other partners.

Finally, the Activity could also provide support for coordination across the various donors and stakeholders addressing wildlife crime and trafficking in the region. For example, the Activity could host and facilitate an annual Regional Counter Wildlife Trafficking Partnership Forum bringing together key counter wildlife trafficking partners and stakeholders in the region to provide a forum for partners to present program and funding priorities, provide a mechanism to broadly share lessons learned and best practices, and continue collaboration and coordination. In addition to donors and partners, the platform could also include private sector players, including the tourism, financial and transport sectors, to encourage broader engagement and collective action. Private reserves and conservancies also play an increasing and critical role in coordinating and collaborating on counter wildlife crime issues, considering much of the wildlife in the region is under private management, and should be included as well.

The following are expected results under Objective 1:

1. Existing platforms and networks for collaboration and learning are built upon and strengthened.

2. Learning and best practices are broadly shared through existing networks and platforms, improving the ability of managers, decision makers, and practitioners to implement effective models and approaches.

3. USAID, USG, and donor efforts are well-informed and coordinated.

4. Data on species, habitats, and threats is better shared, resulting in improved management, development of strategic approaches and enforcement.

5. Private sector players in relevant industries are engaged in efforts to counter wildlife crime.

Objective 2: Law enforcement and judicial systems across the region have improved capacity, a shared vision for collaboration, and strengthened commitment to counter wildlife crime

Discrete, donor-funded law enforcement, judicial, policymaking training and workshops only meet short-term capacity needs. Halting wildlife crime in Southern Africa will require a sustained effort and the full array of competencies along the lines of those developed for other categories of organized transnational crime, such as drugs, arms, and human trafficking. There is a need to go beyond the prior focus on traditional wildlife enforcement partners (rangers, environment police, departments of natural resources, etc.) and to mainstream wildlife crime into the responsibilities and capacities of the region’s police, intelligence, and security forces. Nascent efforts to build capacity in the region to “follow-the-money” and recover assets and proceeds of crime through application of financial crimes and anti-money laundering legislation need to be coordinated and supported throughout the region.

This would include engaging adult education specialists and subject matter experts to develop a comprehensive set of curricula—embedded in existing courses—that provides training for entry-level law enforcement cadets, judicial specialists, and policy makers in addition to mid-career professionals and leaders. Wildlife crime prosecutions and counter wildlife trafficking efforts would then be more easily recognized as an important and needed discipline within the law enforcement and adjudication systems.

Partnerships with national academies and regional training institutions responsible for training law enforcement and judicial officers in the region should be sought to standardize and institutionalize capacity within national and regional training institutions. Examples include the Judicial Institute for Africa, the Southern Africa Wildlife College in South Africa, South African Judicial Education Institute, African Wildlife Forensics Network, Legal and Judicial Training Center and Gorongosa Wildlife Training Institute in Mozambique, Zambia Institute of Advanced Legal Education, Chunga Wildlife Training College in Zambia, Legal Assistance Centre in Namibia, and College of African Wildlife Management (Mweka) in Tanzania. This Activity should develop and foster the implementation of an approach whereby networks or associations of professionals in wildlife crime, with in-depth training and continuing education, are strengthened (or created if they do not already exist), operational, and informing policymaking. Capacity building interventions under this Activity should be designed and delivered with this in mind. Curricula that encourage multinational and multi agency approaches, such as the Counter Transnational Organized Crime course developed by USAID Wildlife Asia, could be used to guide and inform the development of similar courses tailored to the Southern Africa regional context.

Prior USAID projects and on-going capacity-building efforts of other development partners provide a strong set of relationships, best practices, and a unique understanding of the capacity needs in the region that can be built upon under this Activity. Efforts will need to go beyond training alone to encompass the removal of communication and collaboration barriers among actors and the fostering of more inclusive approaches to establish the structure and conditions that will foster the institutionalization of capacity building efforts in the region’s governance structures for long-term sustainability, including with robust financing from local sources (i.e., national governments). This could include developing stronger alumni cohorts from these institutions to document long-term impacts of training, provide feedback to improve training programs, and to help alumni collaborate more effectively in their local contexts to improve the interdiction and prosecution of wildlife crimes through their criminal justice systems as well as enhancing coordination between law enforcement, judicial, and policymaking officials.

Capacity building needs to shift from siloed workshops for one or two agencies to multinational and multi-agency events that not only impart new skills and techniques, but build robust networks of officers needed to address the activities of transnational organized crime groups. There is a capacity and knowledge gap among law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges on application of financial crimes and money laundering statutes to wildlife crime cases, and a need to strengthen cooperation between the judicial sectors, financial intelligence units, and the banking sector. Foundational work by the Royal Foundation’s United for Wildlife Transport and Financial Task Forces may provide a starting point and coordination mechanism for standardization and application of these techniques throughout the region.

The following are expected results under Objective 2:

1. Targeted law enforcement competencies are acquired and institutionalized within relevant law enforcement and judicial bodies.

2. Governments have improved willingness to take action to address wildlife crime and prosecution, resulting in improved enforcement and prosecutions.

3. Increased capacity, coordination, and commitment of enforcement and judicial systems result in higher success rates for wildlife crime prosecutions.

4. Strengthened national and cross-border law enforcement networks that can share and collaborate on transnational and transboundary issues.

Objective 3: Opportunities for corruption are reduced and resiliency to corruption is improved

Corruption is understood to be one of the most critical factors enabling wildlife crime and trafficking.

Research has shown that corruption, along with financial crimes and money laundering, exists at every stage of the wildlife trafficking supply chain for every actor involved from facilitating poaching (e.g.

illegal payments to facilitate hunting licenses, or bribery of rangers and patrol officers) to trafficking (e.g. bribery of customs officials, illegal payments to issue export permits) to law enforcement and judicial processes (e.g. bribery of police officer and prosecutors to avoid investigations or illegal payments to manipulate court decisions).

The Activity requires a wide variety of innovative approaches and tools to address context-specific corruption in the region, keeping in mind and addressing the socio-economic realities driving these activities. Potential components of a holistic approach include:

● Corruption Risk Assessments - to date, only a handful of countries have conducted corruption risk assessments. Corruption risk assessments can identify system weaknesses that may represent opportunities for corruption and the situational context within which corruption occurs to better inform project planning and adaptive strategies for counter corruption efforts.

● Establishing or Strengthening Counter Corruption Policies - USAID recognizes the need to establish or strengthen counter corruption policies and the importance of a top-down approach for addressing corruption, particularly within wildlife law enforcement authorities. USAID has previously supported and encouraged governments to develop high-level policy documents that convey the commitment of the director and senior management to address corruption within the agencies they lead.

● Integrity Management and Resilience to Corruption- USAID has worked to develop or strengthen integrity, code of conduct and other formal counter corruption policies at the organizational and field level. For example, the USAID-funded Khetha activity utilized a collaborative approach with field rangers and managers in Kruger National Park to develop an integrity management plan that was well received and adopted by SANParks. This process and resulting management plan should be expanded and duplicated in other protected areas in the region.

● Leadership and Wellness Programs - USAID recognizes the importance of leadership and wellness programs for frontline rangers and under the USAID-funded Khetha activity developed the “Braveheart” training program to develop skills in holistic leadership, conflict resolution, community engagement, negotiation and mediation, law enforcement ethics and corruption mitigation.

Developed with the Southern African Wildlife College, the curriculum, in part, aims to support rangers to meet changing demands and build resiliency to increasing corruption pressure from sophisticated criminal groups.

● Optimizing the Use of Technology - USAID recognizes the importance of optimizing the use of technology to address wildlife crime related corruption and encourages identification and use of new and emerging technologies to address illegal wildlife trade related corruption. For example, where implemented, eCITES permitting has been shown to significantly reduce wildlife trafficking and the incidents of related corruption within that country.1 Similarly, USAID encourages supporting efforts to digitize intelligence, investigative and court management systems, all of which increase transparency and make corruption associated with mishandling of these cases more difficult.

● Whistle-blower Mechanisms – USAID recognizes that whistle-blowers and whistle-blower protections have long been recognized as powerful tools for detecting and prosecuting environmental crimes and corruption. Projects should look for opportunities to expand safe and effective whistle-blower reporting programs combined with enhanced protection for those willing to step forward.

● Establishing or Strengthening Counter Corruption Bodies – USAID recognizes the importance of strengthening the capacity of independent anti-corruption bodies and support of media and watchdog agencies. Few independent anti-corruption bodies consider wildlife crime and trafficking as a serious crime and a priority for their engagement. Projects should consider awareness training for these institutions regarding the links between these types of transnational organized crimes and corruption. USAID will be supporting investigative journalism networks in Southern Africa through a separate new activity, which will include wildlife crime. This Activity is expected to coordinate with that activity and support its efforts where feasible and appropriate.

● Court monitoring programs – Where implemented, court monitoring programs have shown to significantly improve prosecutorial effectiveness and conviction rates. Designed to identify and document the outcomes of wildlife court trials, assess the effectiveness of court trials on deterrence, identify loopholes and challenges (including corruption) and recommend reform interventions. The Activity is expected to strengthen or expand court monitoring systems throughout the region.

The following are expected results under Objective 3:

1. Reduced opportunities and tolerance for corruption across all nodes of the enforcement and prosecutorial chains including agencies and institutions responsible for wildlife management/trade.

2. Increased resilience against corruption - by rangers and others working on the frontline to reduce wildlife crime.

3. Reduced opportunities for corruption across all nodes of the illegal wildlife supply chain.

1 United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (n.d.). eCITES: Information management and automated processes to strengthen the implementation of the Convention. ESACP. https://tinyurl.com/4fh6wcnw

4. Improved capacity of independent anti-corruption bodies to reduce national level wildlife crime related to corruption.

Objective 4: Community support for and participation in efforts to counter wildlife crime are increased

Local community support is critical to countering wildlife crime in and around protected areas and Transfrontier Conservation Areas and is fundamental in reducing wildlife crime outside protected areas where wildlife is found. If local people are supportive of wildlife, then it becomes significantly harder for criminals to poach – both because of a lack of local support and because they stand the chance of being turned in to the authorities. However, local residents typically bear the costs of living with or near wildlife, either through direct conflict (e.g., crop-raiding, livestock depredation or fears of personal safety) or opportunity costs (i.e., loss of access to land or a specific resource). Thus, local residents need to see wildlife and protected areas as a source of economic and livelihood benefit to become supportive.

Human-wildlife conflict refers to the struggles that arise when the presence or behavior of wildlife poses actual or perceived direct, or recurring threats to human interests or needs, often leading to disagreements between groups of people and negative impacts on people and/or wildlife. For example, in the Greater Kruger, communities increasingly cite human-wildlife conflict as a major issue that affects their tolerance of wildlife – especially elephants - and their relationship with protected areas. Some of the challenges in managing human-wildlife conflict include poor fencing, slow responses to incidents by authorities, poor communication between communities, protected areas, and local government regarding the compensation scheme, and a limited understanding of the compensation scheme process and requirements.

The Activity is expected to support piloting community engagement activities in targeted areas to test, monitor, adapt and share effective approaches, facilitate exchange programs from across the region to learn from successful models/approaches, and support community-level dialogue platforms/forums on human-wildlife conflict and compatible livelihoods.

The primary goal is not to conduct extensive community-level work, but to support local institutions -whether regional institutions, governments, NGOs, or others, to effectively engage communities, through piloting, testing, and support learning efforts.