On behalf of the 183 Parties to CITES and the CITES Secretariat, I would like to congratulate everyone who contributed to the publication of this timely report, Analysis of International Funding to Tackle Illegal Wildlife Trade.
The inception of this analysis goes back to the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties held in Bangkok in 2013, where the Parties requested the CITES Secretariat to collaborate with the World Bank and other relevant financial institutions, cooperation agencies, and potential donors to organize a Wildlife Donor Roundtable in order to share information on existing funding programs on wildlife, to understand the long-term financial needs of developing countries, and to explore the potential for scaled-up financial resources.
Subsequently, and in line with CITES Decision 16.5, the first donor roundtable meeting was held in New York on 7 July 2015. The meeting was jointly organized by the CITES Secretariat, UNDP, UNEP, UNODC, and the World Bank on the sidelines of the United Nations High-Level Political Forum on sustainable development. At this meeting the World Bank Group (WBG) kindly agreed to lead the donor portfolio review.
The WBG has since fully used its global outreach and expertise in economic analysis, engaging a wide range of donor groups and developing the current report. We are all indebted to the WBG and the Global Wildlife Program team for their exemplary work.
On our part, CITES has actively engaged in the process over the last six years—not only because we are the co-convenor of this collective effort but because we strongly believe that the findings and recommendations of this report will make a vital contribution to CITES Parties, be they donors or beneficiaries or from range, transit, or destination states, in better connecting their efforts along the entire illicit trade chain in combating these serious and highly destructive crimes.
We remain committed to collaborating with our many wonderful partners in advancing our collective efforts to support CITES Parties as they combat illegal trade in wildlife and work to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of the world’s wildlife.
Ivonne Higuero
Secretary-General
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking are reaching unprecedented levels, robbing the livelihoods of local communities and eroding the global commons. In response, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has launched a major effort to help tackle the supply, trade, and demand for wildlife products. Importantly, the project is not only about stopping the slaughter of animals in the forests and savannas of Africa; it also aims at reducing the demand in Asia.
The $131 million GEF-funded program includes 19 countries in Africa and Asia. It is expected to leverage $704 million in additional financing over seven years. The national projects aim to promote wildlife conservation, wildlife crime prevention, and sustainable development in order to reduce adverse impacts to known threatened species. Additionally, a global coordination grant from the GEF will strengthen cooperation and facilitate knowledge exchange between national governments, development-agency partners, and leading practitioners.
This program is part of the wider effort by the international donor community to combat illegal wildlife trade. Numerous international financial institutions, governments, nongovernmental organizations, and foundations have launched strategies, programs, and projects to address this serious problem. But while there is a growing momentum from the international community to combat the problem, reliable information on donor funding has been lacking.
This important new report, Analysis of International Funding to Tackle Illegal Wildlife Trade, fills an important gap in our understanding of the collective response. The analysis will not only provide a better understanding and coordination of the contributions of the international community, it should ultimately assist those on the ground protecting the wildlife and the livelihoods of local communities. I want to congratulate the World Bank for leading this work, and all the partners who contributed to providing such a comprehensive overview of the investments of the international community to tackle this wildlife crisis.
Naoko Ishii, CEO and Chairperson for the GEF
The World Bank Group’s vision is a world free of poverty. We help countries achieve their poverty reduction and prosperity goals in part by helping them manage their natural resources more sustainably. Wildlife crime directly threatens our ability to do this.
Criminal activities that affect the environment and natural resources are on the rise and pose an increasingly serious threat to sustainable and inclusive development. Wildlife crime undermines efforts to reduce poverty, damages important tourist assets, further alienates and sometimes criminalizes already disadvantaged communities, breeds corruption and distrust in civil authorities, and pollutes the supply chains of legitimate natural resource-based businesses.
In Africa, for example, wildlife crime is growing and threatens significant ecological, cultural, and economic assets. The elephant population – a critical draw for the tourism sector – has declined by 30 percent since 2007. Two elephants are poached each and every hour, and over 1,000 rangers have been murdered in pursuit of poachers in the same time frame. This tragedy results in natural and human losses, instability and violence, but also in lost jobs and lost GDP. Wildlife crime undermines rural economies and privileges the pursuit of private, criminal profit at the expense of communities that rely on nature for their food, shelter, start-up capital, and safety net in a warming world.
The good news is that wildlife crime can be stopped or significantly reduced. But to do that, effective national efforts to tackle growing criminality will need to be backed by international cooperation and collective action. Too many countries that suffer from wildlife crime are underserved by existing international and domestic law enforcement institutions. Recent experiences show that collaborative multi-agency efforts in specific countries and regions, and global delivery models such as the International Consortium on Combatting Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), can provide critical services to support national governments in their efforts to dismantle illicit wildlife trafficking operations.
Partnership matters. Financing does too. With support from the GEF-funded Global Wildlife Program, we have run the numbers to understand exactly how much support is already being provided to this fight. As this report shows, a great deal of resources are already being invested: 24 international donors committed over US$2.35 billion to combat international wildlife trafficking in 2010–2018. This analysis is the first step to help the donor community identify gaps and potential economies of scale, and to enhance knowledge related to the efficiency and effectiveness of specific interventions. Having a better understanding of current financing flows and what other investments they can mobilize, will allow us to build stronger collaboration, avoid wasted effort and learn lessons that together will help us a mount a more effective response to this global and national issue.
Laura Tuck
Vice President, Sustainable Development World Bank Group
This report was prepared under the guidance of Benoit Blarel, Practice Manager. Claudia Sobrevila, Garo Batmanian, and Jaime Cavelier (GEF SEC) provided advice during the implementation of this analysis. The Global Wildlife Program (GWP) steering committee and International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) partners helped inform the portfolio review. The GWP team at the World Bank Group (WBG), consisting of Elisson Wright, Mark Flugge, and Hasita Bhammar updated the data collection, analysis, and report. The GWP team particularly thanks all participating donors for providing access to their project-level data and additional information on their agency investments.
This report could not have been completed without the input of numerous individuals who responded to the questionnaire and provided the required data for the analysis. We thank the following for their efforts and valuable input: Bruce Dunn, Arun Abraham, and Charina Cabrido (ADB); Kathy Graham, Isabelle Ouellet, and Salma Antonious (Canada); Haruko Osuku, Edward Van-Asch, and Julian Blanc (CITES Secretariat); Philippe Mayaux (European Commission - DEVCO); Rebecca Drury (FFI); Elise Rebut, Chiron Guillaume (France); Dr. Rudolf Specht, Stefan Sckell, Naomi Lorentz, and Wiebke Peters, (Germany); Tracy Bain, Pauline Verheij (IFAW); Richard Jenkins, Patricia Cremona (IUCN); Wahito Yamada, Maekawa Hidenobu (Japan); Marijke Langeveld (Netherlands); Trond Rudi (Norway); Christopher Parker, Alexandra Kennaugh (Oak Foundation); Diana Perez-Aranda Serrano, Jaime Munoz Igualada (Spain), Kare Johard (Sweden); Penny Wallace (TRAFFIC); Ani Kanji (UK DEFRA); Lisa Farroway (UNDP); Johan Robinson, Bianca Notarbartolo (UN Environment); Jorge Rios, Manuela Matzinger (UNODC); Andrew Tobiason, Mary Rowen, and Elizabeth Daut (USAID); Brandon Neukam, Rowena Watson, and Lucy Gillers (US DOS); Daphne Carlson Bremer, Tatiana Hendrix, and Yula Kapetanakos (US FWS); James Deutsch, Shana Tischler (Vulcan Philanthropy); Elizabeth McDonald, Ishaani Sen (WCS); John Baker (WILDAID); Rodger Schlickeisen, Jackson Miller (Wildcat Foundation); Renae Stenhouse, Lisa Steel (WWF); and Katherine Secoy, David Wallis (ZSL).
The updated analysis also includes case studies developed by a donor working group with generous support from the German Government (BMU). Working group members included: Haruko Okusu, Thea Carroll (CITES); Sebastien Chatelus (EC); Jaime Cavelier (GEFSEC); Rudolf Specht, Neomi Lorentz (Germany); Ani Kanji (UK); Andrew Tobiason, Mary Rowen, Elizabeth Daut, Daphne Carlson-Bremer (US); Lisa Farroway (UNDP); Shana Tischler (Vulcan); Elisson Wright and Claudia Sobrevila (WBG); Scott Robertson (WCS); and David Wallis (ZSL). The working group was supported by members of the GWP team, including Alexandra Schmidt-Fellner, Mark Flugge, and Brad Nestico. Manali Baruah collaborated with the donors and implementing partners to create the story maps. Diana Manevskaya and Susan Pleming provided communications expertise and worked with WBG ITS to publish content online. Numerous other colleagues contributed to the case studies and are acknowledged in the respective case studies.
Finally, we would like to thank other colleagues who supported the data analysis, visualization, research, and production activities—in particular, the Disruptive KIDS (Knowledge, Information, and Data Services) Helpdesk (led by Nagaraja Rao Harshadeep, and in particular Hrishikesh Patel and Csaba Boros), as well as Bruno Bonansea. The World Bank peer reviewers were Nathalie Johnson, Laura Ivers, and Andrew Zakharenka.
Wildlife brings significant ecological, cultural, and economic benefits to countries and regions around the world. In many developing countries, it is an engine for tourism, job creation, and sustainable development. Populations of some of the most iconic wildlife species are under threat due to the illegal wildlife trade (IWT) and other pressures. There is growing momentum in the international donor community to combat IWT and ensure the survival of these species and the realization of benefits to communities that live with them.
Information on investments to combat IWT is not readily available—donor procedures, processes, and systems to collect and report on funding data are often complex and time-consuming. This portfolio review addresses these challenges by collecting and analyzing IWT funding information across international donors and fills the knowledge gap of international donor IWT funding trends. It collects data on the significant international donor funding committed between 2010 and 2018 to combat IWT in Africa and Asia, which totals over US $2.35 billion and is equivalent to approximately US $261 million per year. Key findings include:
This analysis provides a baseline to track future donor funding commitments and can be used to support additional donor coordination efforts. The data collected, database created, online repository, and points of contact established with donors can be used to be further understand funding processes, effectiveness, and impacts and to inform donor strategic planning efforts. This analysis can be built upon in consultation with recipient countries to establish a vision of how best to optimize IWT financing in terms of priority geographic and thematic areas. Finally, a global understanding of existing contributions, trends, and target investment areas can facilitate collaboration and the sharing of lessons learned.