Combating Wildlife Trafficking: Agencies Are Taking Action to Reduce Demand but Could Improve Collaboration in Southeast Asia

Wildlife trafficking—illegal trade in wildlife—is estimated to be worth $7 billion to $23 billion annually and, according to State, continues to push some protected and endangered animal species to the brink of extinction. In 2013, President Obama issued an executive order that established an interagency Task Force charged with developing a strategy to guide U.S. efforts to combat wildlife trafficking.

GAO was asked to review U.S. agencies' CWT efforts. GAO's September 2016 report on wildlife trafficking focused on supply side activities ( GAO-16-717 ). This report focuses on demand side activities and examines, among other things, (1) what is known about the demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products in the United States and in Asia and (2) actions agencies are taking to reduce demand for illegal wildlife products in the United States and in Asia. GAO reviewed information from U.S. agencies and international and nongovernmental organizations and interviewed U.S. officials in Washington, D.C., and Miami, Florida, and U.S. and foreign government officials in China, Thailand, and Vietnam.

In the United States, China, and countries in Southeast Asia, there is diverse demand for illegally traded wildlife, according to data, reports, and various officials. The Department of the Interior's (Interior) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has seized a variety of wildlife at U.S. ports, such as coral for aquariums, conch meat for food, seahorses for medicinal purposes, and crocodile skin for fashion items. In China and Southeast Asian countries, reports and officials have identified seizures and consumption of illegally traded wildlife products such as rhino horn, elephant ivory, pangolins (shown below), turtles, and sharks, among others, used for purposes such as food, decoration, pets, or traditional medicine.

U.S. agencies are taking actions designed to reduce demand for illegal wildlife, including building law enforcement capacity and raising awareness, but disagreement on roles and responsibilities has hindered some combating wildlife trafficking (CWT) activities in Southeast Asia. FWS inspects shipments in the United States and facilitates law enforcement capacity building with partner nations overseas. The Department of State (State) conducts diplomatic efforts, some of which contributed to a joint announcement by China and the United States to implement restrictions on both countries' domestic ivory trade. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) works with local organizations abroad to support programs intended to reduce wildlife demand, strengthen regional cooperation, and increase law enforcement capacity. Several other agencies also contribute expertise or resources to support various demand reduction activities. Certain practices can enhance and sustain collaborative efforts, such as establishing joint strategies, defining a common outcome, and agreeing on roles and responsibilities. GAO found that agencies applied the first two practices but could improve with regard to agreement on roles and responsibilities in Southeast Asia. For example, although the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking Implementation Plan designates various Task Force agencies to lead or participate in achieving CWT strategic priorities, it does not define specific roles and responsibilities at the working level. Agencies have different views on roles and responsibilities in Southeast Asia. According to some officials, this disagreement resulted in inappropriate training activities and hindered U.S. cooperation with a host nation. More clearly defining roles and responsibilities would enhance agency collaboration.

GAO recommends that Interior, State, and USAID work to clarify roles and responsibilities for staff collaborating on combating wildlife trafficking efforts in Southeast Asia. Agencies agreed with GAO's recommendations.

According to the Department of State (State), wildlife trafficking is a  multibillion-dollar transnational criminal activity that is both a conservation  issue and a security threat. Conservative estimates place it among the  top-ranked illicit types of trade. Wildlife trafficking undermines  conservation efforts, can fuel corruption, and destabilizes communities  that depend on wildlife for biodiversity and ecotourism revenues.  Poaching and the illegal trade in wildlife—both of which are part of wildlife  trafficking—continue to push some protected and endangered species to  the brink of extinction. Wildlife trafficking is fueled by unchecked demand  for exotic pets, culinary delicacies, and traditional medicines. The capture  and slaughter of animals is devastating wild populations of elephants,  rhinoceroses, tigers, pangolins, turtles, exotic birds, and many other  species.

In 2013, President Obama issued an executive order that established an  interagency Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking (Task Force)  and charged it with developing a strategy to guide U.S. efforts to combat  wildlife trafficking. The Task Force is co-chaired by the Departments of the Interior (DOI), Justice (DOJ), and State, and the White House  released the Task Force’s National Strategy for Combating Wildlife  Trafficking (the National Strategy) in February 2014. In February 2015,  the Task Force released the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife  Trafficking Implementation Plan (Implementation Plan), which identifies  specific objectives and steps supported by programs overseen by Task  Force agencies.

You asked us to review U.S. efforts aimed at combating wildlife trafficking  (CWT). In September 2016, we issued a report focused on wildlife  trafficking in Africa and supply side CWT activities that addressed security  implications, agency actions, and effectiveness. We recommended that  agencies work with the Task Force to develop performance targets. The  agencies agreed and indicated in 2017 that they were working on  implementing the recommendation.

This report focuses on demand reduction efforts and examines (1) what is  known about the demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products in the  United States and in Asia; (2) actions agencies are taking to reduce  demand for illegal wildlife products in the United States and in Asia; and  (3) the extent to which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) within  DOI, State, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)  are assessing the effectiveness of their CWT activities.

We limited the scope of this review to the United States and Asia— identified as major markets for illegal wildlife demand—to complement our  2016 report and to provide geographic diversity in our work. We selected  these geographic areas based on our review of reports on demand for  illegally traded wildlife and discussions with U.S. government agencies.

To address our objectives, we analyzed agency documentation and met  with officials from DOI, DOJ, State, USAID, and the Department of  Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),  which have designated roles in the Implementation Plan to lead or  participate in efforts to reduce illegal wildlife demand; the Department of  Homeland Security (Homeland Security), which has a role in enforcement  and capacity-building efforts; and nongovernmental organizations (NGO)  that focus on combating wildlife trafficking. We conducted fieldwork in  Miami, Florida; China; Hong Kong; Thailand; and Vietnam. This sample is  not generalizable to all the countries or areas in which the United States  has CWT-related programs. While in each location in Asia, we  interviewed officials who played a role in CWT activities, which included  officials from DOI, State, USAID, and Homeland Security. We also  interviewed officials from host governments and representatives from  NGOs.

To describe what is known about the demand for illegal wildlife and  wildlife products in the United States and Asia, we reviewed reports on  wildlife trafficking, surveys about purchasing behaviors for wildlife  products, and other information from U.S. agencies. We reviewed the  methodologies described in the reports and surveys and determined they  were sufficiently reasonable for the findings we report. However, it was  beyond the scope of this review to determine the reliability of the  underlying data. We also analyzed national seizure data from the FWS’s  Law Enforcement Management Information System to report on wildlife  and wildlife products confiscated in the United States. To assess the  reliability of these data, we interviewed agency officials, reviewed  documentation about the data, and conducted basic logical tests. We  determined the data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of reporting  seizures of wildlife and wildlife products. To gather perspectives on  demand for illegally traded wildlife during our field visits to China, Hong  Kong, Vietnam, and Thailand, we interviewed U.S. government and  foreign government officials; representatives from NGOs that are  implementing partners for U.S. agencies or have cooperated with U.S.  agencies on CWT activities; and one company for illustrative purposes.

To examine actions agencies are taking to reduce demand for illegal  wildlife products in the United States and Asia, we interviewed relevant  officials and reviewed information, including agency and implementing  partner documentation of CWT-related projects, programs, and grants.  We also analyzed how agencies combating wildlife trafficking in  Southeast Asia are applying selected practices that can enhance and  sustain collaborative efforts. As we have previously reported, such  practices include establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies,  defining and articulating a common outcome, and agreeing on roles and  responsibilities. In addition, we conducted fieldwork at the Port of Miami, Florida, and interviewed U.S. government officials at this location to  obtain insights on U.S. government activities. We selected the Port of  Miami because it has been the site of large-scale CWT operations, and  agency officials identified Miami as a hub for wildlife trade and an  illustrative example of U.S. government CWT operations. We also  conducted fieldwork in Vietnam and China, where we visited animal  rescue centers and interviewed host government officials and NGO  representatives.

To examine the extent to which FWS, State, and USAID are assessing  the effectiveness of their CWT activities, we reviewed program  documentation and spoke with agency officials. To assess agency  monitoring practices, we analyzed agency guidance and examined  selected programs as illustrative examples of how agencies applied their  own guidance. We included programs that had started, finished, or been  ongoing from the beginning of fiscal year 2015 to the end of fiscal year  2016 and programs that are or were solely dedicated to CWT. To assess  evaluation practices, we assessed a USAID midterm evaluation against  key elements of quality. Appendix I provides a detailed discussion of our  objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to October 2017  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking and Reducing Demand

The 2014 National Strategy defines wildlife trafficking as including all  aspects of the trade, from poaching and transit through consumer use.  The National Strategy outlines the guiding principles and strategic  priorities for U.S. efforts to stem illegal trade in wildlife, and one of the top  three priorities identified is to “Reduce Demand for Illegally Traded  Wildlife.” Specifically, the National Strategy states that, as a strategic  priority, reducing demand for illegally traded wildlife calls for raising public  awareness of the harms done by wildlife trafficking through outreach in  the United States and public diplomacy abroad. The National Strategy  also states that the Task Force will seek to enlist individual consumers in  this fight through education and outreach to reduce demand for these  products and change consumption patterns that drive wildlife trafficking.

While the Implementation Plan outlines a unique set of activities to reduce  demand, other activities under the plan’s objectives may indirectly affect  demand. For example, one of the objectives under “Reduce Demand for  Illegally Traded Wildlife” is to raise public awareness and recognition of  wildlife trafficking and its negative impacts and associated risks of  prosecution (emphasis added) as a means to change harmful  consumption patterns. Implementing robust legal frameworks and  effective enforcement increases the risk of prosecution, which may deter  not only wildlife traffickers but also consumers, who may risk legal  penalties. For the purposes of this report, we consider efforts to reduce  consumption of wildlife and law enforcement efforts to prevent illegal use  of wildlife as demand reduction-related activities.

The Implementation Plan designates various U.S. agencies to lead or  participate in achieving the strategic priority of reducing demand for  illegally traded wildlife, which are outlined in table 1.

In fiscal years 2014 through 2017, Congress directed that not less than  certain specified amounts, totaling $271 million over the 4 fiscal years, be  made available to combat wildlife trafficking (see fig. 1).

Global Efforts to Reduce Wildlife Trafficking

Since September 2016, U.S. agencies and global stakeholders have  taken a range of actions to address CWT issues (see fig. 2). For example,  in October 2016, Congress passed the Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt  (END) Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016. Among other things, the act calls  for the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of the  Interior and Commerce, to submit an annual report that lists each country  determined by the Secretary of State to be a focus country and a country  of concern. The act also directs the Task Force to submit an annual  strategic assessment of its work and provide a briefing to Congress.  Additionally, the 17th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties for the  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna  and Flora (CITES) took place September 24, 2016, to October 5, 2016.  In December 2016, China announced that it would close its domestic  ivory market by the end of 2017, and in March 2017, China announced  closure of 67 ivory carving entities and retail outlets across the country.

As reported by the United Nations, the International Criminal Police  Organization (INTERPOL), and other sources, wildlife trafficking networks  span the globe. Although sources have attempted to measure trade flows,  there is no precise estimate of illegally traded wildlife, and available  estimates are subject to uncertainty. In 2014, the United Nations  Environment Programme (UNEP) reported that various sources estimate  the global scale of illegal wildlife trade is between $7 billion and $23  billion annually. In 2016, UNEP and INTERPOL estimated that the scale  of wildlife crime may have increased, based on a rise in environmental  crime. They estimate that environmental crime increased by 26 percent  since 2014 and continues to increase by 5 to 7 percent annually. Illegal,  unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing often are not included in these  estimates since discussion of wildlife trafficking, as it relates to marine  species, focuses on those species protected under CITES and under  statutes such as the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal  Protection Act, according to NOAA. While IUU fishing targets  commercially harvested marine species, as the Implementation Plan  outlines, the trafficking of fisheries products is a form of wildlife trafficking.  In 2016, UNEP and INTERPOL estimated that the global scale of IUU  fishing ranges from $11 billion to $24 billion annually.

Demand for Illegal Wildlife and Wildlife Products Is Difficult to Measure, but Data and Reports Indicate Range of Species and Products Is Diverse

The United States, China, and countries in Southeast Asia consume  many types of legal and illegal wildlife for diverse purposes. It is difficult  to measure demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife products due to the illicit  nature of the trade, but various data sources and reports provide  examples of the range of wildlife demand by illustrating types of wildlife  that are seized by governments and purchased by consumers.

Illegal Wildlife Demand and Trade Are Diverse in the United States

U.S. trade in wildlife and wildlife products includes a variety of wildlife  such as live reptiles, birds, mammals, and elephant ivory, according to  law enforcement information, reports, and government and NGO officials.  FWS and NOAA data on wildlife products seized at U.S. ports provide  examples of the diversity of illegally traded wildlife in the United States.  FWS and NOAA may seize wildlife products for a variety of reasons that include import, export, or sale of endangered or threatened species  protected under U.S. laws and regulations. For example, FWS may  seize a shipment due to invalid documentation needed to clear the  shipment. From 2007 to 2016, the top 10 wildlife shipments—by species  or species group—seized nationally by FWS were coral, crocodile, conch,  deer, python, sea turtle, mollusks, ginseng, clam, and seahorse. These  seized wildlife were in a variety of forms when confiscated, as shown in  table 2. For example, more than half of seized seahorse shipments were  dead whole animals, and a smaller percentage were medicinal parts or  products. During the past 10 years, more than one-third of the wildlife  shipments seized by FWS were confiscated while being imported from or  exported to Mexico (13.6 percent), China (13 percent), Canada (8.6  percent). Additional examples of wildlife seized by FWS are shown in  figure 3 and in appendix II.

Seizure data from NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Law Enforcement show that  it has also seized a variety of marine wildlife products. From 2007 to  2016, confiscated shipments have included whale teeth and meat, seal oil  pills, shark fins, and seal fur products like mittens and boots, according to  NOAA’s seizure data. Seizure data from FWS and NOAA provide a  helpful illustration of wildlife that has been confiscated at U.S. ports but  may not be fully reflective of the illegal wildlife trade and consumption.

Seizure data show the types of wildlife confiscated at ports of entry in a  country, but there are limits to what these data can tell us about the  demand for products like illegally traded wildlife. Various factors influence  the number of seizures at any given time or in any location such as the  level of illicit trade and the level and efficacy of enforcement efforts. For  example, as part of their enforcement, both NOAA and FWS conduct  inspections of shipments at U.S. ports. In some cases, they conduct  targeted inspections that may be based on information they have about a  particular species or market, which may influence detection and seizures  of illegal products. NOAA and FWS officials indicated that they can  increase their enforcement efforts by targeting investigations on specific  species or products. This additional effort may result in the seizure of  more shipments than would be made using routine inspection processes.

In 2016, the NGO WildAid published a baseline survey conducted by  KRC Research to inform a public awareness campaign effort with FWS.  The survey reported that roughly 1 in 10 respondents in the United States  indicated that they had purchased or knew someone who had purchased  live animals such as iguanas, parrots, parakeets, or tortoises. A smaller  proportion of those that responded (roughly 1 in 20) reported that they  had purchased or knew someone who had purchased ivory. Reporting by  the International Fund for Animal Welfare in 2013 also identifies the  United States as a key end market for reptiles such as crocodiles,  pythons, and caimans and for wildlife products such as ivory.

Based on reporting and discussions with U.S. government officials, there  may be varying reasons for the demand for wildlife and wildlife products.  Potential drivers of demand in the United States—in particular demand for  illegal wildlife from Latin America— may include a desire for rare and  exotic plants and animals, according to reporting by Defenders of  Wildlife. FWS officials in Miami told us that some of the wildlife products  they confiscate—such as products from cruise passengers— were  purchased by travelers who were unaware of the restrictions on the  wildlife product. FWS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)  officials told us that consumers use wildlife for many different purposes,  including as pets, trophies, jewelry, food, religious items, and for  medicinal purposes. For example, FWS officials in Miami told us that  coral is often smuggled as part of the pet trade for use in aquariums. At  the Port of Miami, an FWS official told us that FWS has also seized  queen conch meat, which is exported from the Caribbean as a delicacy, according to FWS. During investigations, FWS has found wildlife  intended to be used as art or trophies. During the course of their  investigations, FWS officials in Miami have found a rhino bust being sold  for $80,000 and a giraffe bust being sold for $100,000. FWS has also  seized scarlet macaw feathers being used in jewelry, elephant ivory  carved as decorative pieces, and taxidermy big cats seized as hunting  trophies.

Illegal Wildlife Demand and Trade Are Diverse in China and Countries in Southeast Asia

Demand for illegally traded wildlife in China and countries in Southeast  Asia includes many wildlife species and end uses, according to reports  and government and NGO officials in the region. For example, iconic  wildlife such as elephants and rhinos are often cited in reports and by  officials in the field as examples of wildlife consumption in China and  Southeast Asia, but other wildlife, such as pangolins, bears, sharks, and  sea turtles are also named among the wildlife being consumed.

China is a consumption country for illegal wildlife, while Hong Kong,  Thailand, and Vietnam are consumption and transit locations, according  to officials we spoke with from the U.S. government, foreign governments,  international organizations, and NGOs in these locations. Thailand often  serves as a transshipment point for illegal wildlife due to its land borders  with China, Laos, and Cambodia, according to government of Thailand  officials. Government officials in Vietnam stated a similar claim, explaining  that the country is often a transshipment point due to its land borders with  China and Laos. Table 3 displays examples of wildlife consumed and  trafficked in China, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Vietnam, according to U.S.  government, foreign government, and NGO officials in-location and at  DOI Headquarters.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare has reported that China is the  world’s largest consumer of illegal wildlife products due to its demand for  ivory, rhino horn, pangolin scales, bear bile, tiger bone, and shark fin  soup. According to analysis by the United Nations Office on Drugs and  Crime (UNODC) of seizure data from the World Wildlife Seizure  database, China was the destination for about 40 percent of the ivory  shipments that had reported destinations from 2006 to 2015.

Reports also identify Thailand as a part of the illegal ivory trade.  INTERPOL’s 2015 investigation, Operation Worthy II, resulted in seizures  of several tons of elephant ivory in Thailand and Singapore. TRAFFIC,  the wildlife trade monitoring network, visited retail outlets in Bangkok,  Thailand, during certain periods in 2013 and 2014 and, through covert  surveys of vendors, found bangles, rings, toothpicks, hairpins, chopsticks,  sculptures, and other products made of ivory for sale. TRAFFIC reports  that for seven consecutive months, from November 2013 to May 2014,  their surveys found more than 10,000 ivory items openly on display for  sale in Bangkok.

An NGO official we spoke with in China told us that part of the NGO’s  efforts includes targeting Chinese tourists traveling to Africa and  Southeast Asia to prevent purchasing of ivory as well as rhino horn.  UNODC has reported that more than two-thirds of rhino horns seized  from 2006 to 2015 were destined for China or Vietnam.

Government officials in Hong Kong told us that they have also seized a  variety of wildlife products such as pangolin scales and turtles. Examples  of wildlife products seized by the government of Hong Kong are shown in  figure 4 and in appendix II. Hong Kong’s government has also seized  elephant ivory, though as of March 2017, certain registered ivory can be  legally traded in Hong Kong under a license.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports  that high economic growth may fuel consumer demand for status goods  such as art from elephant ivory and traditional medicine using rhino horn.  According to NGO officials we met with in Vietnam and China, consumers  purchase illegal wildlife products as a status symbol or to demonstrate  wealth. Wildlife is considered to be expensive and exotic in these  countries, and there is conspicuous consumption in some areas,  according to State officials in Vietnam and an FWS attaché. UNODC  reports that a survey of 18 restaurants— identified as high end by  UNODC— in Vietnam found that all of these restaurants sold pangolin  meat. UNEP and INTERPOL describe a similar phenomenon of a culture  of conspicuous consumption for wildlife products that indicate wealth.  These organizations report that buyers place higher value on illegal  wildlife products when they are considered rare and uncommon and thus  drive up prices for illegal wildlife. Higher prices and the perception of  luxury associated with products such as tiger pelts and shark fin soup  may attract consumers who want to display their wealth, according to  Global Financial Integrity.

Another end use of illegally traded wildlife is in traditional medicine in  China and Vietnam, according to State and NGO officials in these  countries. They stated that there are beliefs that certain wildlife provide  health benefits; for example, pangolin scales are believed to help  lactating mothers produce milk. State and NGO officials noted that  traditional Chinese medicine has a long history of using various wildlife  products. For example, American ginseng root is often consumed as a  medicinal ingredient in China, according to FWS. While export of  American ginseng is permitted, there are restrictions based on factors  such as the age of the root. FWS has seized American ginseng root being  exported from the United States to China, and the Hong Kong  government has seized American ginseng being smuggled into Hong  Kong. For additional examples of how wildlife is consumed, see the side  bar for results from surveys conducted by USAID’s Asia’s Regional  Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST) program.

Agencies Are Implementing Demand Reduction Efforts, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Collaboration in Southeast Asia FWS Raises Awareness and Enforces Laws in the United States and Builds Capacity Abroad

State Contributes to CWT- Related Diplomacy, Training, and Outreach

State has led diplomacy efforts and implemented training and outreach  programs in Southeast Asia and China.

Diplomacy: State’s diplomatic CWT efforts have included  coordinating discussions between the U.S. and Chinese presidents in  2015 that, according to State, contributed to China and the United  States jointly committing to further restrict ivory exports and imports.  In June 2016, State and China’s State Forestry Administration also  led the breakout session on wildlife trafficking during the eighth round  of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Beijing. In  December 2016, China announced that it would implement a  domestic ivory ban, and in March 2017, China announced the closure  of approximately one-third of the country’s licensed ivory stores and  carvers.

Training programs: State’s INL works to build law enforcement  capacity abroad by supporting various trainings and workshops. For  example, in 2015, Thailand INL funded training in wildlife trafficking  and environmental crimes for 179 participants. In 2016, ILEA Bangkok  sponsored two FWS-led CWT training courses and one environmental  crimes course led by officials of the U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency. During our field visit to Bangkok, we observed an ILEA  course on combating wildlife trafficking for law enforcement officers,  which is shown in figure 7. Through the United Nations Office on  Drugs and Crime, INL funds Border Liaison Offices in Burma,  Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam, intended to enhance  interdiction and investigation capacity at land borders to prevent illicit  trafficking. At these offices, INL has supported training for officials on  wildlife trafficking detection and investigations.

Outreach efforts: State has supported and implemented activities to  raise awareness about wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia and China.

For example, State collaborated with USAID and the government of  Vietnam to implement Operation Game Change, a 2015 awareness- raising effort designed to inform the Vietnamese public about wildlife  trafficking issues such as the trade in rhino horn. In 2016, for World  Wildlife Day, State’s Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans  and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs published an  opinion editorial for the South China Post in Hong Kong to raise  awareness about the illegal trade in elephant ivory.

Four Major Initiatives Frame USAID CWT Efforts in Asia

USAID conducts a range of CWT activities that are part of biodiversity,  conservation, or other initiatives, but it has four major initiatives explicitly  dedicated to CWT in Asia.

Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking:  ARREST was a multiyear program completed in 2016. The program  was designed to curb wildlife trafficking by reducing consumer  demand, strengthening law enforcement capacity, and boosting  regional learning networks. As part of ARREST’s demand reduction  objective, the program implemented various awareness-raising efforts  such as the iThink campaign, which developed and displayed public  service announcements in airports and subways in China, Thailand,  and Vietnam and on television stations in China and Vietnam.  Through the initiative dubbed “Wildlife Friendly Skies,” the ARREST  program raised awareness among airline and airport staff in transport  hubs identified as hotspots for wildlife trafficking, which included  Bangkok, Thailand; Guangzhou, China; Hanoi, Vietnam; Nairobi,  Kenya; and Nanning, China. The ARREST program also held various  courses aimed at strengthening capacity across Asia. For example,  the program held 14 courses for 195 trainees who were from  Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Thailand,  and Vietnam to train participants on completing wildlife crime  investigations.

Saving Species: This USAID project began in 2016 and is a 5-year,  $9.9 million effort to combat wildlife trafficking in Vietnam. The project  specifically aims to reduce consumer demand for and consumption of  illegal wildlife and wildlife products, strengthen wildlife law  enforcement and prosecution, and improve and harmonize the legal  framework for prosecuting wildlife crimes in Vietnam. Some of the  project’s planned activities for the first year include market surveys  focused on demand for wildlife such as elephant ivory, rhinos,  pangolins, and tigers. The project plans to use the survey results to  inform its awareness campaign messaging. The project also plans to  conduct capacity assessments of enforcement agencies in Vietnam to  inform development of targeted training curricula, modules, and  materials.

Wildlife Asia: This USAID activity, in collaboration with the  Association of Southeast Asian Nations, aims to reduce the demand  for wildlife products and to improve regional action to end wildlife  crime in Southeast Asia and China. As of August 2016, USAID has  issued one contract, with an estimated value of $22.9 million, to  implement this activity.

Protect Wildlife: This USAID project began in 2016 and is a 5-year,  $24.5 million effort to reduce threats to biodiversity in the Philippines  such as poaching and the illegal trade of wildlife and wildlife products  as well as to sustain healthy ecosystems. USAID is working with  public and private partners in the Philippines to strengthen  conservation policies and improve habitat management and on-site  and off-site enforcement systems.

USAID also conducts biodiversity and conservation initiatives that have  CWT-related objectives but are not dedicated solely to CWT. For  example, USAID implemented the Ecosystems Improved for Sustainable  Fisheries project in the Philippines, designed to conserve marine  biodiversity, enhance ecosystem productivity, and improve law  enforcement at fisheries to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated  fishing.

DOJ, NOAA, and Homeland Security also support efforts to combat  wildlife trafficking in the United States and Asia. DOJ prosecutes criminals  and publicizes through press releases the results of criminal convictions  to encourage public awareness of this issue. DOJ also has participated in  capacity-building workshops in Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam and  CWT events such as the 2016 Hanoi Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade  and the annual U.S.–China Joint Liaison Group on law enforcement, in  which DOJ, State’s INL, and other agencies participate in the Anti- smuggling Working Group. According to DOJ officials, DOJ also regularly  advocates the use of the United Nations Transnational Organized Crime  Convention as a legal basis for international cooperation to combat  wildlife trafficking.

Domestically, NOAA inspects and seizes shipments at U.S. ports,  investigates cases of wildlife trafficking, and raises awareness about  wildlife crimes. NOAA has a liaison at Homeland Security’s CTAC and,  according to NOAA officials, the CTAC has allowed NOAA to more  proactively target shipments and improve coordination with FWS and  CBP through daily interaction and more information sharing. As part of  their efforts to raise awareness about wildlife trafficking, NOAA also works  with DOJ, FWS, and State’s Bureau of Public Affairs to publicly report  information on and raise awareness about law enforcement efforts such  as seizures. Internationally, NOAA provides technical assistance,  conducts capacity-building, and serves as a resource in international  policy discussions. For example, in collaboration with USAID, an analysis  unit from NOAA assisted the Philippines in developing an intelligence  assessment of illegal trade and trafficking in marine species. In November  2015, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement officers participated in the  Association of Southeast Asian Nations Trade and Environmental  Dialogue in Malaysia, providing presentations on illegal, unreported, and  unregulated (IUU) fishing and ways to combat the trade in IUU fish and  fish products.

DHS’s CBP supports and coordinates with FWS and NOAA to interdict  illegal wildlife shipments at U.S. ports. ICE HSI investigates wildlife crime  in the United States, and in Asia it supports foreign government CWT  efforts through capacity building and information sharing. For example, in  Vietnam, ICE HSI regularly shares information on wildlife seizures with  the host government to support investigations. In 2015, in Thailand, ICE  HSI conducted a 5-day workshop on advanced wildlife trafficking  investigations for officials across the government.

Disagreement on Roles and Responsibilities Hindered Some CWT Activities in Southeast Asia

Although agencies have worked together to combat wildlife trafficking,  disagreement on roles and responsibilities has hindered some CWT  activities in Southeast Asia, according to some officials. In prior work, we  defined collaboration broadly as any joint activity that is intended to  produce more public value than could be produced when the  organizations act alone. We also identified practices that can enhance  and sustain collaborative efforts, including establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies, defining and articulating a common outcome, and agreeing on roles and responsibilities.

We found that agencies applied some collaboration mechanisms but also  have an opportunity to improve on agreeing on roles and responsibilities.  For example, the White House established a joint strategy, the National  Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, in 2014. The strategy lays out  guiding principles and strategic priorities for U.S. efforts to stem illegal  trade in wildlife. In Southeast Asia, the U.S. embassy in Malaysia’s  Integrated Country Strategy articulates mission goals and objectives for a  coordinated effort among all U.S. agencies and includes prevention of  illegal wildlife trafficking as a key activity, according to officials. In  addition, U.S. missions in Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Laos, Nepal,  Thailand, and Vietnam are developing CWT-specific country strategies,  according to officials.

Agencies also defined and articulated a common outcome, outlined in the  National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking Implementation Plan  (Implementation Plan). The Implementation Plan states that success  relies on agencies working in concert to carry out the objectives, which  include strengthening enforcement, reducing demand for illegally traded  wildlife, and building international cooperation. Under three strategic  priorities, the Implementation Plan identifies 24 objectives and ways to  measure progress for each. In Southeast Asia, State and USAID officials  told us that they work toward those shared outcomes. In particular, they  stated that to achieve the shared outcome of reducing demand for wildlife  products, they cooperated on raising public awareness. For example,  State collaborated with USAID in Vietnam to implement Operation Game  Change, a 2015 awareness-raising effort designed to inform the  Vietnamese public about wildlife trafficking issues. In addition, to achieve  the common outcome of strengthening law enforcement capacity, USAID  is partnering with State, FWS, and DHS and other nongovernmental  actors to implement the Reducing Opportunities for Unlawful Transport of  Endangered Species program, which aims to increase enforcement  capacity at ports of entry in Vietnam and other countries.

The Implementation Plan designates various U.S. agencies to lead or  participate in achieving CWT strategic priorities, so it provides high-level  direction on agency roles. However, the Implementation Plan does not  define specific roles and responsibilities at the working level for mission  staff implementing programs and activities. Officials at some missions  reported that agreement on roles, responsibilities, and priorities facilitated  collaboration on CWT activities in some instances. For example, an FWS  attaché in the region told us that there has been effective collaboration  between FWS, State, and ICE HSI due to agreement on roles and a  shared understanding of key law enforcement terms and responsibilities.  In Thailand, FWS and ICE HSI officials told us that they share information  on cases, and FWS and State officials indicated that they have jointly  conducted a variety of capacity-building activities across the region. State  officials at ILEA in Bangkok attributed their successful regional  collaboration with FWS to a mutual understanding that CWT capacity  building is a responsibility that should be prioritized. State officials in  Cambodia indicated that their Embassy CWT Interagency Working Group  has been a forum for discussion among agencies in Cambodia to  collaborate on CWT roles and activities. The working group has a  designated lead agency and provides a forum to prevent or resolve  potential differences in points of view among the agencies.

However, some officials also reported instances of disagreement on roles  and responsibilities that they said led to bad outcomes. For example, at  the mission in Bangkok, Thailand, which coordinates CWT activities  across the Southeast Asia region, agencies’ disagreements on roles and  responsibilities have resulted in the delivery of inappropriate training  activities and interference with U.S. efforts to cooperate with a foreign  government, according to some officials. Specifically, FWS, State, and  ICE HSI have disagreed with USAID on the roles and responsibilities that  USAID implementing partners play with regard to law enforcement  activities. USAID officials stated that they entrust their implementing  partners to conduct law enforcement training and believe they sufficiently  involve their U.S. agency counterparts. However, FWS, State, and ICE  HSI officials believe that due to their law enforcement responsibilities  specifically related to strengthening host countries’ antiwildlife trafficking  enforcement efforts, they should be consulted and involved to a greater  degree on activities directly related to such efforts.

In Thailand, a USAID implementing partner’s lack of collaboration with  U.S. law enforcement entities resulted in inappropriate training activities,  according to some officials. Officials from FWS, ICE HSI, and an NGO  told us that a CWT course conducted by a USAID implementing partner in  Thailand was inappropriate due to a focus on ambush and military tactics,  which are not suitable for the park rangers that received the training. In  addition, another training course conducted in Thailand was not tailored  for that country’s landscape, according to a U.S. official, who explained  that the Thai officers receiving the training would be unable to apply its  lessons locally due to differences in terrain. FWS and ICE HSI officials  stated that they were not sufficiently consulted prior to the training and,  although they have provided feedback to USAID about these issues, they  expressed concern that USAID had not fully considered the feedback.  USAID officials indicated that training on ambush or military tactics would  not have been allowed, and they have no evidence it occurred. USAID  officials also stated that they were unaware of training that was not  properly tailored and that host countries generally praised training that  was provided by its implementing partner.

FWS and State officials in Thailand also told us that agencies’ and  implementing partners’ efforts to share information on wildlife crime with  foreign governments have been fragmented due to disagreements about  roles. For example, USAID’s implementing partners and FWS separately  approached foreign government entities to provide information or support  during a recent law enforcement seizure of wildlife products. According to  State and FWS officials in Thailand, while USAID’s implementing partner  has a role in providing information that can support CWT activities, U.S.  agencies in-country are responsible for official engagement on law  enforcement matters and, therefore, should take the lead in  communicating with host governments, particularly in criminal  investigations.

According to USAID officials, USAID and its implementing partners share  this responsibility and have a role to play. USAID officials told us that they  were aware of the difference in views and acknowledged that there may  have been instances in which an implementing partner overstepped.  USAID officials further explained that they have made an effort to address  this particular issue by changing its implementing partner as well as  changing their CWT program structure from a cooperative agreement to a  contract so that USAID has more oversight and control. The new  implementing partner also brought in a law enforcement expert to help  ensure that training and related activities will be appropriate, according to  USAID officials. In addition, the new USAID program specifies that  coordination with other agencies is required, and USAID conducted a  regional workshop in March 2017 to serve as a mechanism for  coordination.

However, even after this conference, officials indicated that some  agencies still had not agreed on the appropriate balance for how  implementing partners should collaborate with U.S. law enforcement on  criminal investigations. According to State and FWS officials, differences  in agency views of their roles have hindered U.S. efforts to cooperate with  a foreign government and confuse foreign government officials who may  not realize that an implementing partner is not a U.S. government agency  and thus does not have the same authority. USAID officials indicated that  they were unaware of instances where its implementing partner interfered  with U.S. efforts to cooperate with a foreign government.

Our work has shown that although collaborative mechanisms differ in  complexity and scope, they all benefit from certain key features, including  clarity of roles and responsibilities. For example, our work also notes that  agreement on roles and responsibilities helped agencies determine who  will lead a collaborative effort, clarify who will perform specific tasks,  organize joint and individual efforts, and facilitate decision making. In  addition, we have previously reported that key issues agencies should  consider whether participating agencies have clarified the roles and  responsibilities of participants in collaborative efforts and whether  participating agencies have agreed to a process for making and enforcing  decisions. Some U.S. missions in Southeast Asia are developing CWT- specific country strategies, which could provide a platform for the Task  Force to give additional guidance on roles and responsibilities of mission  staff engaged in CWT efforts in the region. Doing so would help clarify  which agency will do what and facilitate maximum use of resources.

FWS, State, and USAID Have Taken Steps to Assess CWT Activities

FWS, State, and USAID Monitor CWT Activities

FWS uses a range of measures to track the progress of its partners and  grantees. For example, FWS has established standard indicators for  CWT, which include the following:  the number of arrests of large-scale wildlife traffickers resulting from a  project’s investigations, operations support, or both; and  the number of wildlife traffickers who have been arrested who are  successfully prosecuted.

Specifically for public relations efforts, the guidance calls for applicants to  identify the desired behavior that the campaign is intended to encourage.  In addition, FWS required 2017 CWT project proposals to identify all  expected outputs or products of key project activities. This may include  management plans, brochures, posters, training manuals, number of  people trained, workshops held, hours of training provided, and  equipment purchased.

One FWS-funded program designed to counter pangolin trafficking to  China by laying the foundations for reducing consumer demand provides  an illustrative example of how it applied FWS monitoring guidance.  Among other activities, the program proposed developing and piloting  strategies to change behavior, with the goal of eliminating the market for  illegally traded wildlife in key areas. The proposal identifies outputs, such  as reports on consumer demand, and states that key components of  developing a demand reduction strategy include identification of target  audiences and the specific behaviors that the campaign aims to change.  Quarterly reports as of April 2017 have described progress toward goals,  outlining methodological details on how motivation and potential barriers  for desired behavior will be measured. The program is scheduled to  conclude in September 2017.

The FWS Office of Law Enforcement Strategic Plan 2016 – 2020  identifies a set of CWT-related metrics for CWT, such as interdictions,  penalties, fines, and value of illegal activities. FWS reports this  information publicly. For example, Operation Crash, an ongoing  nationwide criminal investigation led by FWS that focuses on the illegal  trade in rhinoceros horn and elephant ivory, has resulted in 32 individuals  sentenced and approximately 34 years of total prison sentences, $2  million in fines, and $6 million in forfeitures as of February 2017.

Regarding U.S.-based partnerships, FWS monitored the U.S. Illegal  Wildlife Demand Reduction Campaign by tracking the estimated number  of people who see the ads (reach) and the number of times content is  displayed (impressions). From launch through the middle of the second  quarter of fiscal year 2017, FWS reported the following:

Billboards: Monthly, about 5 million travelers are estimated to pass by  the airport billboards at the international airports of Atlanta, Georgia;  Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; and Miami, Florida. To date,  an estimated total of about 45 million travelers have passed through  these airports and may have seen the messages.

Social media: On September 7, 2016, FWS and its implementing  partner, WildAid, launched the campaign with joint press conferences  held at the Atlanta International Airport and at the Los Angeles  International Airport. This resulted in more than 1 million impressions  on Twitter, engagement of more than 236,000 friends on Facebook,  and 5,000 new followers on Instagram.

In addition, at the beginning of the campaign, WildAid completed a public  survey to assess what percentage of the U.S. general public was aware  of wildlife trafficking. At the conclusion of the 3-year campaign, WildAid  intends to facilitate another public survey to evaluate the effectiveness of  the campaign, with results expected in late 2018.

INL’s Guide to Developing a Performance Measurement Plan states that  program teams are to monitor project activities and results in order to  identify project successes and challenges, guide resource allocations,  and facilitate improved performance. According to a State official, INL  requires every CWT program implementer to provide quarterly progress  and financial reports and final programmatic and financial reports.  Quarterly reports must provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of  work performed and include, among other things, results achieved,  challenges encountered, and action taken. At the end of a program, INL  extracts best practices and lessons learned for future planning, according  to a State official.

We examined monitoring documentation related to three INL CWT  programs as illustrative examples, described below.

From February to March 2016, State’s ILEA in Thailand provided a  Wildlife Trafficking Investigators course designed to cover a range of  topics, including case management, corruption, and wildlife  identification. The report covering the first quarter of calendar year  2016 for this program describes progress made toward objectives and  identifies challenges and corrective action. For example, the report  states that students participated in crime scene processing,  surveillance, undercover operations, interviewing, raid planning, and  case presentation exercises – all reflective of a specific performance  measurement objective. The report also identifies challenges such as  securing role players for exercises and proposes using FWS  instructors and ILEA staff as a solution.

State provided an approximately $2 million grant, running from  September 2015 to September 2017, to the Wildlife Conservation  Society (WCS) aimed at strengthening the capacity of government  and law enforcement officials on wildlife trafficking across key  countries in Latin America and Asia. The report covering the first  quarter of calendar year 2017 for this program describes progress and  activities related to objectives. For example, one activity is intended to  strengthen legislative frameworks to combat wildlife trafficking, and  the report states that in Vietnam, WCS has been providing inputs to  articles of the penal code relevant to wildlife protection.

State provided approximately $400,000 to UNODC and the University  of Washington for a program running from September 2015 to  September 2017 to facilitate forensic DNA analysis of ivory seizures in  Africa and Asia. The most recent quarterly report for the program  provides information on results associated with objectives. For  example, one objective is to conduct DNA analysis on 175 African  elephant reference samples, and the report indicates that over 100  samples had been analyzed from countries in Africa.

USAID’s Evaluation Policy states that performance monitoring reveals  whether implementation is on track and that project managers will ensure  that implementing partners collect relevant monitoring data. To monitor  ARREST, USAID’s implementing partner collected and self-reported data  on activities and progress against main goals. For example, the  implementing partner reported in 2016 that to strengthen law  enforcement, ARREST trained approximately 2,300 people. To reduce  consumption of endangered species, ARREST’s iThink campaign at its  peak reached more than 40 million people per day, according to the  partner’s report. In addition, a contractor analyzed ARREST’s iThink  demand reduction campaign results. According to its report, 62 percent of  the audience in China had received the message after 6 months. In  Thailand, 63 percent of the audience had received the message, while in  Vietnam, 75 percent of the audience had received the message. The  report also provided suggestions for future work based on lessons  learned, such as segmenting the market, incorporating social norms, and  increasing the emphasis on social media.

USAID designed monitoring elements into and developed plans for its  recently initiated programs in Southeast Asia. For example, USAID’s  request for proposal (RFP) for Saving Species Vietnam, issued in  January 2016 prior to the contract award, identifies key results and  illustrative indicators for the main tasks. Specifically, the RFP suggests  metrics for reducing consumer demand, such as percentage of target  audience that receives the intended message and percentage change in  purchases of targeted illegal wildlife products. In addition, the RFP calls  for quarterly reports that must include, among other things, performance  indicator results against targets. USAID’s RFP for Wildlife Asia also  designed monitoring into the program from the start by including similar  elements.

In May 2017, USAID produced an Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and  Learning Plan for Saving Species (MEL Plan), which includes a Results  Framework that identifies the purpose of the program and details  associated tasks and key results. According to the MEL Plan, the Results  Framework was developed based on a range of inputs, including USAID’s  Measuring Efforts to Combating Wildlife Crime – A Toolkit for Improving  Action and Accountability. The MEL Plan also provides a mix of output  and outcome performance indicators with baselines and targets, to be  used for communication and decision making. In addition, the MEL Plan  calls for Pause and Reflect Sessions, Annual Strategic Reviews, work  planning sessions, and other key learning events to reflect on progress  and use that knowledge to adapt accordingly. In May 2017, USAID also  produced a draft MEL Plan for Wildlife Asia, which provides performance  indicators with baselines and targets. In addition, the April 2017 draft MEL  Plan for the Philippines Protect Wildlife program contains similar  information and, according to USAID officials, the MEL Plan used the  action and accountability toolkit to inform the development of CWT  metrics.

One Evaluation of CWT Activities Has Been Conducted by USAID

One USAID CWT program in Asia conducted a midterm evaluation, but  State and FWS have not conducted any evaluations. State has not  conducted any evaluations of INL CWT activities because none meet  State’s criteria for completing an evaluation, including funding and  duration thresholds, according to a State official. FWS has not conducted  any evaluations of its CWT activities in Asia but has established a new  CWT-focused branch, which is developing a strategic plan, a framework,  and indicators to measure progress and success for CWT efforts. In  March 2016, the Task Force released an annual progress report that  describes U.S. government accomplishments; however, according to an  official, the Task Force does not plan to issue a progress report in 2017  due to vacancies in leadership and because agencies are working on a  similar report planned for completion sometime in 2017, in response to  the Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016.

USAID’s Evaluation Policy states that for each project, consideration will  be given during the design phase to the performance evaluation that will  be undertaken. The ARREST program conducted a midterm evaluation,  and we assessed it against key elements to determine the quality of the  evaluation. We have previously reported that addressing or requiring  certain elements provides the basis for a high-quality evaluation. For  this analysis, we considered a range of criteria, including the following:

Evaluation questions align with program goals.

Target population and sampling method are appropriate, given the  scope and nature of the evaluation questions.

Data collection is appropriate for answering the evaluation questions.

Data analysis is appropriate to answer the evaluation questions.

We found that overall, the midterm evaluation was acceptable in quality,  although it fell short of fully addressing all the key elements. For example,  the evaluation generally met the first two elements above. However, the  evaluation only partially met the element for data collection and data  analysis. For example, the evaluation did not clearly specify how survey  recipients had been selected and did not provide precise details about  how qualitative data from in-person interviews had been analyzed. USAID  did not conduct a final evaluation of ARREST because, according to  officials, the timing of a late midterm evaluation was such that its findings  were used in the development of the new Wildlife Asia program, and it  would not have been cost-effective to conduct a final evaluation, among  other reasons.

The draft Wildlife Asia MEL Plan identifies plans to prepare for a midterm  and final performance evaluation at the middle and end of the program  time line, and USAID officials confirmed that they intend to conduct  evaluations of the program. The Saving Species MEL Plan indicates that  program officials will work in collaboration with USAID to conduct a  midterm evaluation and that one objective will be to provide  recommendations in order to improve effectiveness and evaluate factors  that help or hinder the achievement of expected outcomes and objectives.  The MEL Plan also calls for a third-party firm, identified by USAID through  a competitive process, to conduct the evaluation in the third year of the  program. The draft Philippines Protect Wildlife MEL Plan indicates that  the program will conduct a midterm and final evaluation.

FWS, State, and USAID Have Identified and Applied Some Lessons Learned

FWS, State, and USAID guidance states that agencies should learn from  monitoring and evaluation efforts so they can identify what works, what  does not work, and why. For example, from monitoring the first year of  implementation, FWS learned from its domestic campaign that most  Americans consider themselves wildlife lovers, but most know little about  wildlife trafficking, indicating the need for outreach and education efforts.

State officials told us that they took stock of regional CWT activities in  Asia to improve program planning. As a result, before launching the next  set of CWT courses, INL is conducting a needs assessment to clarify skill  gaps, impact potential, and alignment with other activities. In addition, INL  is examining approaches to strengthen sustainability such as adding  train-the-trainer courses.

USAID and implementing partner officials told us that they learned  lessons during the implementation of ARREST and applied or plan to  apply them to new programs. For example, in response to ARREST’s  midterm evaluation recommendation to focus demand reduction efforts  increasingly on behavior change communication, officials stated that they  adjusted the message of their campaign advertisements to target  behavior change and worked to recruit a range of key opinion leaders to  maximize reach and impact. USAID intends to carry this lesson over to its  new regional program, according to 2016 plans that call for the use of  behavior change communication methodologies, as opposed to one-off  public relations campaigns, in demand reduction activities. Officials told  us that in practice this means future campaigns will focus on specific  species, such as pangolins, and target Chinese and Vietnamese  consumers who believe pangolin scales can help with lactation. USAID’s  implementing partner for Saving Species also identified possible ways to  improve the impact and sustainability of CWT training. For example,  instead of providing traditional, onetime classroom training, officials plan  to establish mentoring and on-the-job training programs in which officials  in similar roles teach one another. This facilitates learning and may help  identify CWT champions, enhancing sustainability and effectiveness,  according to program officials.

Wildlife trafficking, worth at least an estimated $7 billion annually,  continues to push some protected and endangered animal species to the  brink of extinction. Although agencies have worked together to combat  wildlife trafficking, as outlined in the National Strategy for Combating  Wildlife Trafficking Implementation Plan, disagreement on roles and  responsibilities has hindered some CWT activities in Southeast Asia. We  have previously reported that key issues agencies should consider  include whether participating agencies have clarified the roles and  responsibilities of participants in collaborative efforts and whether  participating agencies have agreed to a process for making and enforcing  decisions. Agencies have collaborated on a range of CWT activities,  including building law enforcement capacity, raising awareness, and  helping spur partner-nation action on CWT. While agencies have applied  some practices that can enhance and sustain collaborative efforts, such  as establishing joint strategies and defining a common outcome, some  officials in Southeast Asia reported a level of disagreement on roles and  responsibilities, resulting in the delivery of inappropriate training activities  and in the hindering of U.S. efforts to cooperate with a foreign  government. DOI, State, and USAID are members of the Presidential  Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking that is charged with coordinating  among agencies combating wildlife trafficking efforts. By ensuring that all  relevant member agencies have agreed on and clearly defined roles and  responsibilities, agencies will have more reasonable assurance that they  can effectively marshal the contributions of all agencies to take full  advantage of their expertise and resources in addressing CWT issues.  Taking steps to clarify specific roles and responsibilities, for example by  including them in a CWT country strategy or other document, could help  improve coordination, help ensure activities are mutually reinforcing,  reduce the risk of fragmented efforts, and maximize the impact of CWT  activities in Southeast Asia.

GAO is making the following three recommendations:

The Secretary of the Interior should work with the Task Force to clarify  roles and responsibilities of mission staff engaged in collaborative  efforts on combating wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia.  (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of State should work with the Task Force to clarify roles  and responsibilities of mission staff engaged in collaborative efforts on  combating wildlife trafficking in Southeast Asia. (Recommendation 2)

The Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development  should work with the Task Force to clarify roles and responsibilities of  mission staff engaged in collaborative efforts on combating wildlife  trafficking in Southeast Asia. (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the  Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, the Interior, Justice,  State, and the Treasury, and USAID. The Departments of the Interior and  State and USAID agreed with our recommendations, and their comments  are reproduced in appendixes III, IV, and V, respectively. The  Departments of Commerce, the Interior, Justice, and State and USAID  provided us with technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.

In its comments, USAID indicated that it objects to the phrase “bad  outcomes”, the word “inappropriate,” and the description related to an  implementing partner that may have “overstepped” as used in our  discussion of agency collaboration. We attribute that language specifically  to certain agency officials, acknowledge differences in agency views, and  include perspectives from USAID officials for balance.

In its comments, DOI notes that that the content in the report that most  directly substantiates the recommendations occasionally reads as  disagreements involving a few specific activities among a small number of  U. S. government personnel. Our findings focus on a limited set of people  and activities but reflect a clear opportunity to clarify roles and  responsibilities. Moreover, as we mention, the mission in Bangkok  coordinates CWT activities across the Southeast Asia region, so efforts to  improve collaboration potentially would have a broad effect and benefit.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and to the Secretaries of Commerce, Homeland Security, the  Interior, State, and the Treasury; the Attorney General of the United  States; the Administrator of USAID. In addition, the report is available at  no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-8612, or gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and of Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) what is known about the demand for illegal  wildlife and wildlife products in the United States and in Asia, (2) actions  agencies are taking to reduce demand for illegal wildlife products in the  United States and Asia, and (3) the extent to which the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service (FWS) within the Department of the Interior (DOI), the  U.S. Department of State (State), and the U.S. Agency for International  Development (USAID) are assessing the effectiveness of their combating  wildlife trafficking (CWT) activities.

We limited the scope of this review to the United States and Asia— identified as major markets for the illegal wildlife demand—to complement  our 2016 report and to provide geographical diversity in our work. We  selected these geographic areas based on our review of reports on  demand for illegally traded wildlife and discussions with U.S. government  agencies.

To address our objectives, we analyzed agency documentation and met  with officials from DOI, State, USAID, the Department of Justice, and the  Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration, which have designated roles in the National Strategy for  Combating Wildlife Trafficking Implementation Plan to lead or participate  in efforts to reduce illegal wildlife demand; the Department of Homeland  Security, which has a role in enforcement and capacity-building efforts;  and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) that focus on combating  wildlife trafficking. We conducted fieldwork in Miami, Florida; China; Hong  Kong; Thailand; and Vietnam. We selected these locations using a  combination of criteria: (1) Since fiscal year 2014, the location has  received at least $1 million in U.S. government funding for efforts related  to CWT; (2) CWT activities are under way in the location; and (3) the  location has the presence of at least two U.S. government agencies  conducting CWT work. This sample is not generalizable to all the  locations in which the United States has CWT-related programs.

While in each location in Asia, we interviewed officials who played a role  in CWT activities, which included officials from State, USAID, and the  Departments of Homeland Security and the Interior. We also interviewed  officials from host governments responsible for the management of  natural resources and parks and representatives from NGOs, some of  which were involved in implementing U.S. government programs related  to awareness raising, law enforcement, and other CWT objectives.

To describe what is known about the demand for illegal wildlife and  wildlife products in the United States and in Asia, we reviewed reports on  wildlife trafficking produced by United Nations organizations, the  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and NGOs  about the demand for these products in our locations of interest. We also  reviewed surveys conducted for programs partially or fully funded by U.S.  agencies that asked questions about purchasing behaviors for these  products in the United States, China, Vietnam, and Thailand. These  reports were either recommended to us by officials we interviewed or had  been identified during our prior work on the supply of wildlife products.  We reviewed the methodologies described in the reports and surveys and  determined they were sufficiently reasonable for providing examples of  wildlife and wildlife products traded and consumed and drivers for  consumption in China and countries in Southeast Asia. However, it was  beyond the scope of this review to determine the reliability of the  underlying data. Many of these reports depend heavily on seizure data,  which have limitations. The amount and location of seizures depend on  law enforcement efforts, efficacy of law enforcement efforts, presence of  illicit trade, and other factors, which are difficult to isolate.

Additionally, we analyzed national seizure data from the FWS’s Law  Enforcement Management Information System to report on wildlife  confiscated in the United States. To assess the reliability of these data,  we interviewed agency officials, reviewed documentation about the data,  and conducted basic logical tests. We reviewed the 42,100 seizure  records that FWS provided for logical consistency and removed a few  hundred records for which we found duplicative, unknown, or blank  values. Overall, we determined the data are sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of identifying wildlife products seized between fiscal years 2007  and 2016. Data on seizures may not be indicative of underlying trends in  trade and consumption, as they are dependent upon factors such as  enforcement and techniques used by those importing the goods. To  gather perspectives on demand for illegally traded wildlife in China and  Southeast Asia, during our field visits to China, Hong Kong, Thailand, and  Vietnam, we interviewed officials from DOI, State, USAID, the  Department of Homeland Security, and officials at foreign ministries,  NGOs that are implementing partners for U.S. agencies or have  cooperated with U.S. agencies on CWT activities, and one company. We  interviewed the company for illustrative purposes.

To examine actions agencies are taking to reduce demand for illegal  wildlife products in the United States and Asia, we interviewed relevant  officials and reviewed information, including agency and implementing  partner documentation of CWT-related projects, programs, and grants.  We also analyzed how agencies combating wildlife trafficking in  Southeast Asia are applying selected practices that can enhance and  sustain collaborative efforts. As we have previously reported, such  practices include establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies,  defining and articulating a common outcome, and agreeing on roles and  responsibilities. In addition, we conducted fieldwork at the Port of Miami  and interviewed U.S. government officials at this location to obtain  insights on U.S. government activities. We selected the Port of Miami  because it has been the site of large-scale CWT operations, and agency  officials identified Miami as a hub for wildlife trade and an illustrative  example of U.S. government CWT operations. We also conducted  fieldwork in China and Vietnam, where we visited rescue centers and  interviewed host government officials and NGO representatives.

To examine the extent to which FWS, State, and USAID are assessing  the effectiveness of their CWT activities, we selected programs to  analyze, spoke with agency officials, and reviewed documentation from  the programs selected. We included programs that had started, finished,  or been ongoing from the beginning of fiscal year 2015 to the end of fiscal  year 2016 and that are or were solely dedicated to CWT. Specifically for  State, programs must have been identified by its Bureau of International  Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs as a discrete activity that  contributed to CWT and must have been at least 3 months into  implementation. Specifically for USAID, programs must have (or have  had) funding greater than $1 million. To assess agency monitoring  practices, we analyzed agency guidance on monitoring and examined  selected programs as illustrative examples of how agencies applied their  own guidance. To assess evaluation practices, we assessed a USAID  midterm evaluation against key elements to determine quality. Two  social science analysts independently assessed this evaluation using the  same criteria, methods, and procedures that we developed for  GAO-17-316. The analysts met and reconciled any initial differences in  their assessments.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to October 2017  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Photographs Related to Combating Wildlife Trafficking in the United States and Asia

The following photographs (see fig. 8-26) were taken by GAO staff during  field visits to Miami, Florida; Beijing, China; Hong Kong; Bangkok,  Thailand; and Hanoi, Vietnam. GAO observed and photographed the  following:  shipment inspections conducted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  inspectors at the Port of Miami; examples of wildlife that are traded in the United States; examples of wildlife and wildlife products that have been seized by the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; examples of wildlife and wildlife products that have been seized in antiwildlife trafficking awareness campaigns at the Hartsfield–Jackson  Atlanta International Airport; Beijing Capital International Airport; Hong  Kong International Airport; Suvarnabhumi Airport, Bangkok, Thailand;  Chatuchak Market in Bangkok, Thailand; and a highway in Hanoi,  Vietnam; wildlife at the Beijing Rescue and Rehabilitation Center; the  Endangered Primate Rescue Center, Cuc Phuong National Park,  Vietnam; and the Carnivore and Pangolin Rescue Center, Cuc  Phuong National Park, Vietnam; and  shops that sell ivory products in Hong Kong.

To view these photographs online, please click on this hyperlink.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of State

Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International Development

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Kimberly M. Gianopoulos, (202) 512-8612, or gianopoulosk@gao.gov.

In addition to the individual named above, Judith Williams (Assistant  Director), Marc Castellano (Analyst-in-Charge), David Dayton, Martin De  Alteriis, Neil Doherty, Mark Dowling, Michael Hoffman, and Jasmine  Senior made key contributions to this report.

What do elephants, pangolins, and tigers have in common?

The illegal wildlife trade—estimated to be worth at least $7 billion annually—is pushing these and other species to the brink of extinction. The United States and Asia are key sources of demand for a variety of wildlife.

U.S. agencies are taking steps, such as raising awareness and training local authorities, to reduce demand and improve law enforcement, but disagreements over roles and responsibilities in Southeast Asia have hindered some efforts.

We recommended that USAID and the Departments of State and Interior clarify roles and responsibilities of staff in the region.