Wanting What WENs?Observations on Ontogeny of Multinational Wildlife

Enforcement Networks

William SchaedlaEcolloquium

Never apologize, mister, it’s a sign of weakness.

― John Wayne

When the WENs?The early days…

2 October 2004 ― Thai Prime Minister Taksin Shinawatra calls for a Southeast Asian Regional Law Enforcement Network to Combat Nature Crimes

1 December 2005 ― AEG-CITES meeting votes to create the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN)

22 May 2008 - South Asia Nations Wildlife Enforcement Network (SAWEN)

5 September 2010 - Red de Observancia y Aplicación de la Normativa Silvestre para Centroamérica y República Dominicana (ROAVIS)

When the WENs?Reproducing the model

2004 - State Department scoping grant to WildAid (now FREELAND) and TRAFFIC

USD 50,000

2005 - USAID funding for the ‘ASEAN-WEN Support Program’ to WildAid (now FREELAND) and TRAFFIC

USD 5,000,000

Cash as cash can

2010 (11)

US State Department grant to Support for the South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Network (SAWEN) to TRAFFIC

USD 450,000

US State Department grant for Assessing Feasibility of an Andean Wildlife Enforcement Network to TRAFFIC

USD 50,000

US State Department grant for the Central American Wildlife Enforcement Network (CAWEN) to TRAFFIC

USD 300,000

New Geographies

Exciting new focal areas

2010 - US State Department grant to Build ASEAN-WEN Capacity to Combat Illegal Trade in Marine Turtles and other Marine Species awarded to TRAFFIC

USD 120,000

2010 (11) USAID grant ‘Combatting Illegal Wildlife Trafficking in Asia’ Asia’s Regional Response to Endangered Species Trafficking (ARREST) awarded to FREELAND

USD 8,000,000

Reprising familiar roles

2011 USAID grant for the Bhutan, China, India and Nepal launch of Project PREDATOR to INTERPOL

USD 600,000 2012 USAID grant to create Project Predator links with the South Asia Wildlife Enforcement Network (SAWEN) to INTERPOL

USD 720,000

Enforcement, Partner…

So, what’s the point?

Whither the locals?

Uneven national uptake and ownership

Some countries marginalized or excluded

Communication and engagement uneven

Cross-cultural follies

Messaging right?

Working through existing regional trade agreements can moot criticism of partners

Opposition to US Government ‘interference’

Inappropriate attire

Sub-optimal or wrong agency leadership

WEN participation a mechanism for alleviating international criticism on other fronts

NGO-ing the focus

Priority setting by outsiders

Dependence on publicity as a motivator

Civil society organizations become interlocutors with international bodies like INTERPOL, the World Customs Organization, and (to a lesser extent) CITES

NGO-ing how to get along

Countries in conflict with NGOs declining participation

NGO disunity and turf-wars detrimental to ownership transfer, engagement by external bodies

Dubious securitization

Drive towards common-denominator goals can sideline country motivation to participate

Current WEN arrangement places a premium on high profile species and commodities

External connectivity

INTERPOL, CITES Enforcement, World Customs Organization, all invited to early planning, but then left outside the funding stream. (Not addressed until USAID grants to INTEPOL)

.

Non-WEN countries other than the US largely absent from meetings, discussions

Internal connectivity

Some existing Mechanism for communication ignored – either because of ignorance or by choice

.Forced use of languages the outside funding and implementing agencies can understand.

We are all full of weakness and errors; let us mutually pardon each other our follies - it is the first law of nature.

― Voltaire

Thank You