ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE © 2016 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This document is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ the World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not neces- sarily reflect the views of the executive directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judg- ment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover pangolin photo: Deon De Villiers Contents Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Illegal Wildlife Trade Crisis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Portfolio Review Objectives.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Data Collection Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Data Analysis and Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Annual Commitments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Donor Overview.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 IWT Amounts Committed to Countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 IWT Allocations by Recipient Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 IWT Allocations Across Intervention Categories.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Annex A: Donor Profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Annex B: Maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Annex C: Additional Notes on Donor Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Annex D: Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Tables Table 1. Donors Included in the Portfolio Analysis (Bilateral Agencies Grouped by Country). . . . 9 Table 2. IWT Intervention Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figures Figure 1. Annual IWT Commitment Amounts, 2010–2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 2. Cumulative IWT Commitment Amounts by Donor, 2010–2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 3. Number of Projects per Donor Relative to Portfolio Size, 2010–2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 4. Total Donor Commitments Across Regions, 2010–2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 5. Cumulative IWT Commitment Amounts by Recipient Country or Region, 2010–2016. 12 Figure 6. Breakdown of Regional and Multi-Country Investments, 2010–2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 7. Geographic Overview of IWT Investments across Donor Types, 2010–2016. . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 8. Cumulative IWT Commitment Amounts by Recipient Type, 2010–2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 9. IWT Commitments across Recipient and Donor Types, 2010–2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 10. Cumulative IWT Commitment Amounts by Intervention Category, 2010–2016. . . . . . . 19 Figure 11. IWT Intervention Categories across Donor Types, 2010–2016.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Maps Map 1. Country-Level Commitments by Donor Type—Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Map 2. Country-Level Commitments by Donor Type—Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Map 3. Overview of Global and Regional Projects by Donor Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Map B1. Country-Level Commitments and Number of Projects—Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Map B2. Country-Level Commitments and Number of Projects—Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30  v Foreword 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, which I had the great honor to chair, 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 three 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 conser- vation and sustainable use of the world’s wildlife. John E. Scanlon Secretary-General Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora vi ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE Foreword 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 lever- age $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 Global Environment Facility  vii Preface 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 sustain- ably. 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 increas- ingly 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 inter- national 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$1.3 billion to combat international wildlife trafficking in 2010–2016. 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 viii ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE CITES CoP 17, Johannesburg, South Africa—Delegates from CITES Member countries and conservation organizations deliberate proposals related to legal and illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products. Photo: IISD/Kiara Worth  ix Acknowledgments This report was prepared under the guidance of Dr. Valerie Hickey and Dr. Magda Lovei. Dr. Claudia Sobrevila provided expert advice and support during the implementation of this analysis. Consultations in the context of the World Bank Group’s role in the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) partnership were conducted through Simon Robertson. Various Global Wildlife Program (GWP) steering committee partners also helped inform the portfolio review. The GWP Team at the World Bank Group, consisting of Elisson Wright, Hasita Bhammar, and Ana María González Velosa, collected donor data and prepared the analysis and report. We thank Dr. Jaime Cavelier (GEF), Dr. Michelle Gadd (USFWS), Klemens Riha (GIZ), Dr. Matthias Krause and Magdalena Pallauf (KfW), Crawford Allan (TRAFFIC), Jeremy Eppel, and Rodger Schlickeisen (WildCat Foundation) for their extensive contributions to the analysis. This report could not have been completed without the input of numerous individuals who responded to the questionnaire and provided the data required for the analysis. We thank the following for their efforts and valuable input: Arun Abraham and Maria Narciso (ADB); Kathy Graham and Salma Antonious (Canada); Edward Van-Asch, Haruko Osuku, and Julian Blanc (CITES Secretariat); Philippe Mayaux, Dimitri Harmegnies, and Oscar Mascagni (European Commission); Tony Whitten, Joanna Elliot, and Rob Brett (FFI); Chiron Guillaume (France); Wiebke Peters, Dr. Ralph Kadel, Frank Barsch, Leonie Mueller-Moewes and, Marianna Knirsch (Germany); Tracy Bain (IFAW); Jean-Christophe Vie and Dan Challender (IUCN); Wahito Yamada (Japan); Marcel van Nijnatten and Janny Poley (Netherlands); Linda Lund, Inger Holten, and Trond Rudi (Norway); Christopher Parker and Andrea Frey (Oak Foundation); Andrea Ljung (Sweden); Penny Wallace (TRAFFIC); Claire Millar (UK DEFRA); Midori Paxton, Paul Harrison, Lisa Farroway, Ingela Juthberg, and Jamison Ervin (UNDP); Bianca Notarbartolo di Sciara, Johan Robinson, Jane Nimpamya, and Monika Thiele (UNEP); Jorge Rios, Olga Kuzmianok, and Sinead Brophy (UNODC); Mary Rowen and Andrew Tobiason (USAID); Brandon Neukam, Jessica Graham, and Juli Kim (USDOS); Daphne Carlson Bremer (USFWS); James Deutsch, Val Bush, and Kathleen Gobush (Vulcan Philanthropy); Susan Tressler (WCS); John Baker (WILDAID); Elisabeth McLellan and Lisa Steel (WWF); and Katherine Secoy and David Wallis (ZSL). Finally, we would like to thank other colleagues who supported the analysis, data visualization, research, and production activities—in particular, Bruno Bonansea, Adam Broadfoot, Martin Fodor, Douglas Graham, Nagaraja Rao Harshadeep, Will Kemp, Abdelaziz Lagnaoui, Jeffrey Dean Lawrence, Cassiopeia Lee, Charles Di Leva, Daniel Mira-Salama, Jean-Michel Pavy, Hrishikesh Patel, Giovanni Ruta, Aurore Simbananiye, Sachin Shahria, Vickie Taylor, Sara Thompson, Xavier Vincent, and Andrew Zakharenka. Linda Starke edited the manuscript. Selangor, Malaysia—State custom officials seize a large shipment of ivory in transit. Capacity building programs can strengthen law enforcement capacity to disrupt the illegal wildlife supply chain. Photo: Elizabeth John/TRAFFIC  xi Executive Summary W ildlife 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 local 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 port- folio 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 January 2010 and June 2016 to combat IWT in Africa and Asia, which totals over US $1.3 billion and is equivalent to approximately US $190 million per year. Key findings include: • Since 2010, funding has fluctuated over these years, peaking at US $316 million in 2014. • The top five donors (the Global Environment Facility, Germany, the United States, the European Commission, and the World Bank Group) together account for US $1.1 billion of total funding (86%). • Two of the three foundations included in the analysis were among the top 10 donors. • Twelve of the 24 donors committed less than US $10 million in funding. • Donor funding was allocated to projects in 60 different countries and to various regional/multi- country and global projects. In total, inclusive of country-specific and regional/multi-county and global investments, 63% of the funds were committed to Africa (US $833 million), 29% to Asia (US $381 million), 6% to global programs and initiatives (US $81 million), and 2% to projects covering both Africa and Asia (US $35 million). • The top five recipient countries account for US $328 million: Tanzania (8%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (5%), Mozambique (5%), Gabon (3%), and Bangladesh (3%). • Regional or multi-country investments, combined account for 26% (US $339 million) of total funding. • The majority of the funding is allocated to national governments (61%; US $809 million), followed by funding to international nongovernmental organizations (16%; US $218 million), intergovernmental organizations (9%; US $114 million), and researchers and research groups (4%; US $4 million). • It is estimated that approximately 46% of the funding supported protected area management to help prevent poaching, 19% was for law enforcement that included intelligence-led operations and transnational coordination, 15% for sustainable use and alternative livelihoods, 8% for policy and legislation, 6% for research and assessment, and 6% for communication and awareness raising. xii ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE This analysis provides a baseline to track future donor funding commitments and can be used to sup- port additional donor coordination efforts. The data collected, database created, online repository, and points of contact established with donors can be used to further understand funding processes, effec- tiveness, 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 contribu- tions, trends, and target investment areas can facilitate collaboration and the sharing of lessons learned.  1 INTRODUCTION The Illegal Wildlife Trade Crisis of the 18 countries surveyed, primarily due to poaching.4 Similarly, as shown in the World Wildlife Crime Report from Wildlife brings significant ecological, cultural, and eco- the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), nomic benefits to countries and regions across the world. African rhinos are under constant pressure from poach- In many developing countries, it is an engine for tourism, ing, and all rhino species have reached a crisis point. In job creation, and sustainable development. In Kenya and 2015, African rhinos killed by poachers increased for the Tanzania, for example, wildlife-based tourism represents sixth year in a row, with at least 1,338 deaths.5 This is the 12% of gross domestic product, and it makes up even 1 highest level since the poaching crisis started in 2008 and larger shares of the economy in Madagascar (13.1%)2 an exponential increase from the 13 rhinos poached in and Namibia (14.9%).3 Wildlife populations for some of 2007. Poaching and illegal logging are also a major threat the most iconic species are currently to populations of other fauna and flora under threat due to illegal wildlife species, including big cats, pangolins, trade (IWT). As of 2011, the value of The goal of this portfolio review gorillas, and timber such as ebony and global trade of wildlife and wildlife is to assess the current state of rosewood. Due to the cross-border and products (excluding fisheries and tim- multi-dimensional nature of IWT, the international donor funding to combat ber) was calculated to be between US development community must partner $7.8 billion and US $10 billion per illegal wildlife trade and to identify with stakeholders from multiple sec- year (GFI 2011). Together with illegal trends in investment in this sector in tors and countries to reduce poach- fish and timber utilization, this indus- Africa and Asia since 2010. ing, trafficking, and the demand for try is the fourth largest global illegal wildlife and wildlife products. trade—after narcotics, humans, and counterfeit products. In addition, factors such as compe- In recent years, there has been growing political momen- tition over water and grazing lands, pressure of growing tum in the international donor community to combat IWT populations and urban areas, the proliferation of illegal and ensure the survival of not only iconic species but also small arms, and instability in some regions threaten the other species that are essential for the livelihoods of many survival of healthy populations of critically endangered communities globally. Numerous international financial species and create an environment conducive to poach- institutions, governments, nongovernment organizations ing, illegal trade, insecurity, and corruption, which in turn (NGOs), and foundations have launched strategies, pro- stifles economic development. grams, and projects to address IWT. The recently completed Great Elephant Census found that This report on the Analysis of International Funding to the African savanna elephant population declined by 30% Tackle Illegal Wildlife Trade is part of an effort initiated at (equal to 144,000 elephants) between 2007 and 2014 in 15 the 16th Meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP) in Bangkok in March 2013. At CoP16, CITES Decision 1 https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic%20impact%20 16.5 was adopted to organize a Wildlife Donor Roundtable research/countries%202015/tanzania2015.pdf. Accessed on September 24, 2016. to share information on existing funding programs on 2 http://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/ countries-2016/madagascar2016.pdf. Accessed on September 24, 2016. 4 http://www.greatelephantcensus.com/final-report/. Accessed on 3 https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic%20impact%20 September 11, 2016. research/countries%202015/namibia2015.pdf. Accessed on September 24, 5 https://www.iucn.org/content/iucn-reports-deepening-rhino-poaching- 2016. crisis-africa. Accessed on September 11, 2016. 2 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE wildlife, understand the long-term financial needs of supported by other donors. This lack of accessible infor- developing countries to implement the Convention, and mation can lead to inefficiencies in donor strategic plan- explore the potential for scaled-up financial resources to ning and allocation of funds. This portfolio review was ensure the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife designed to address for the first time these challenges by and to tackle wildlife crime. Subsequently, on 7 July 2015, collecting and analyzing IWT funding information across a Donor Roundtable on Wildlife and Forest Crime was key international donors. It is intended to facilitate col- hosted by the United Nations Development Programme laboration among donors and to maximize impacts of and the CITES Secretariat in New York on the sidelines project and program activities. of the High-Level Political Forum. At this meeting, the World Bank Group (WBG) agreed to take the lead on an The goal of this portfolio review is to assess the current analysis of funding to combat IWT in support of donor state of international donor funding to combat illegal coordination. The donors that participated in this meet- wildlife trade and to identify trends in investment in this ing were requested to provide input for this analysis. In sector in Africa and Asia since 2010. addition, these donors were asked to help identify other significant organizations that invest in projects or programs Specifically, the portfolio review aims to answer the that combat IWT. following questions: • How much funding was committed to combat IWT in Africa and Asia from 2010 to June 2016? Portfolio Review Objectives • How has funding changed over time? Information on funding trends to combat IWT is not • Who are the major international donors investing readily available, as the donor procedures, processes, and in combating IWT? systems to collect and report on funding data are often • Which countries/regions and organization types complex and time-consuming, and they involve many are the largest recipients of these funds? agencies. In addition, donors often have different IWT definitions, lack a common taxonomy to identify the types • How much funding was committed to different IWT of investments that fall within this type of donor support, interventions that include policy and legislation, and are unable to capture and report these data in an law enforcement, protected area (PA) manage- automated manner. Therefore, donors do not have up-to- ment, alternative livelihoods, and research and date information on the depth and breadth of activities assessment? Park Rangers and rangers from the local Maasai community patrol the landscape with GPS tracking devices to collect data on wildlife and illegal activities. Development of a network of field investigators and informants and monitoring of species population can help combat poaching. Photo: Meredith Nutting 4 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE Campaigns to reduce demand for illegal wildlife products help raise awareness and change consumer behavior.  5 METHODOLOGY Overview commitment year and include the total project amount in US dollars reported in the approved project documents. It This assessment provides a high-level estimate of interna- does not represent actual annual disbursements. tional donor funding that combats poaching and wildlife trafficking and supports demand reduction strategies in Geographic focus: The portfolio analysis focused on key range, transit, and end-use countries. To complete range, transit, and end-use countries in Africa and Asia. this IWT donor funding analysis, the WBG periodically In addition, regional or global programs that combat brought donors together to discuss issues related to the IWT were also considered. Projects in Latin America and portfolio analysis. These regularly scheduled meetings and the Caribbean, the Middle East, and other regions were the project data exchanged served as an initial effort to be excluded. Exceptions included projects that specifically leveraged in the future to facilitate donor coordination and target an IWT component (such as demand reduction enhance strategic donor programs and project activities. efforts or national policy and legislation to combat IWT) in a major consuming country that has a direct link to Prior to conducting this portfolio review, a terms of reference range states. (TOR) was drafted by the WBG to detail the taxonomy and data collection approach for the portfolio review. In January IWT: Wildlife trade is defined as any sale or exchange by 2016 the draft TOR was shared with international donors at people of wild animal and plant resources. This can involve the 66th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee. Donor live animals and plants for the pet and horticultural trades comments were received and incorporated, enhancing or trade in a diverse range of wild animal and plant products the approach and guiding the creation of tools to gather needed or prized by people—including skins, medicinal project data. Representatives from each donor organiza- ingredients, tourist curios, timber, fish, and other food tion were identified as a point of contact for this portfo- products (TRAFFIC 2008). Wildlife trafficking is defined as lio review to assist in data collection and analysis. The the illegal cross-border trade in biological resources taken technical approach and data collection methodology were from the wild (European Union 2015). Fish and timber reviewed with donors during a meeting on February 10, products that are not integrated into broader fauna-focused 2016. Key definitions and data collection considerations interventions were excluded from this portfolio review. are described in this section. In October 2016, the draft IWT includes both poaching and illicit trade. report was presented to the donors at the CITES CoP17. Additional input and recommendations were considered. IWT intervention categories: Investments were allocated to one or more IWT intervention categories: • Policy and legislation (PL) development Definitions • Law enforcement (LE) Time frame: The analysis focused on projects that were • Protected area (PA) management to prevent poaching approved from 2010 to 2016. While some donors included data for 2016, many did not. Therefore, the total funding for • Communications and awareness (CA) to raise IWT 2016 is underrepresented, as it only accounts for a portion awareness and reduce demand for illegal wildlife of the year and does not include data for all donor projects. products Cumulative project funds were accounted for in the first 6 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE • Promotion of sustainable use and alternative liveli- to participate in the portfolio review and collect data in hoods (SL) to increase community benefits and avoid the format requested completed the Excel template and human-wildlife conflict provided project-level data using a predefined IWT defini- tion and investment categories. Data collection, review, • Research and assessment (RA) and analysis occurred from March 2016 to June 2016. From July through September 2016, data validation was Donor types: Donors were grouped into one of the fol- completed and additional feedback was incorporated into lowing categories: donor-specific portfolios. • Multilaterals • Bilaterals The Excel template was used by the donors to provide detailed information on their projects, including informa- • Foundations tion on recipients, dates, countries, protected areas, and • United Nations Programs total funding amounts. In addition, donors estimated the percentage of total funding going toward combating IWT • International NGOs6 within each project and allocated the IWT funding amount into six IWT intervention categories defined above. Email Recipient types: Recipients were put into one of the fol- communications and follow-up meetings with donors were lowing categories: then conducted to validate data and address specific issues. • Academic institutions • Intergovernmental organizations The IWT data included in the analysis are estimates, were not audited, and do not supersede any data provided • International NGOs through formal reporting mechanisms. For donors that • National governments did not specify the IWT percentage and allocation for the six IWT categories, the WBG used data provided by • National or local NGO implementation partners, publically available reports, • Private sector project profiles, and online research to estimate values. • Researchers or research groups In most cases, estimates were reviewed and agreed to by the donors. The WBG team also completed a quality • Subnational or local government assurance effort to verify estimations made for IWT per- centages and IWT categories, and follow-up meetings were carried out to address any discrepancies in the analysis. It Data Collection Methods is important to note that estimates are based on technical input received from various specialists and donors and are Methods to obtain and analyze donor data varied slightly subject to interpretation. from donor to donor and included a questionnaire/survey, online research, and interviews with representatives from For donors that reported data in a currency other than U.S. each donor organization. Bimonthly conference calls were dollars, statistical historical data from the Federal Reserve held with donors to provide an update on progress and to System was used to calculate the foreign exchange rate to seek guidance on next steps. convert the currency provided into US dollars. The foreign exchange rate for the day, month, and year funds were To facilitate and standardize data collection, a question- committed was used to calculate the dollar equivalent. naire and an Excel template were created by the WBG team and disseminated to the donors identified in Annex The donor portfolio data were reviewed, and a PowerPoint A. The donors then participated in a telephone interview presentation was developed to summarize key aspects of to discuss the portfolio review, data collection tools, and each donor’s investments. Donors were then asked to review information on their IWT program. Donors that agreed their data, which upon validation were consolidated into a single database. This database was used to store and 6 International NGOs were included as donors in this analysis to serve analyze data from 1,105 projects that combat IWT. This as a proxy to represent funding from memberships, foundation grants not already included in the analysis, online donations, and individual information served as the basis for analysis and to derive contributions and bequests. high-level results and recommendations. METHODOLOGY 7 Data were collected from 24 international donors, includ- Projects that did not contain information directly linked ing the major funders of efforts to combat IWT in Africa to IWT were generally allocated a relatively smaller per- and Asia, allowing the dataset to serve as a representative centage. For programs or projects that included a country sample to conduct analysis and determine funding trends or region outside of Africa or Asia, a reduction in alloca- and geographic investments. Additional data are unlikely tion was made to account for project funding outside the to alter the outcome of the trends in funding, as the major- target regions. In some cases, information obtained from ity of funding for this period was included. In addition, implementation partners or other similar programs/projects data from implementing partners, including CITES, the implemented by the same recipient was used to inform the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), allocation of funding across IWT categories. and UNODC, were collected and used in the analysis to assist with checking against double counting and to vali- Double counting: Double counting can be a significant date IWT allocations. bias if the same funds are reported by multiple donors and included in the analysis. Risk of double counting was mitigated by requesting donors to report only on those Data Analysis and Assumptions projects for which they were the “original donors,” by conducting follow-up interviews with donors to discuss IWT percentage: Several donors collaborated with the projects that were reported more than once and clarify project managers or country mission representatives to data discrepancies, by accounting for funding provided determine the IWT percentage for each individual project. by international NGOs that was obtained from donors not Where this was not possible due to the large number of included in the analysis or directly raised from individuals projects in the donor portfolio and constraints in time or corporations, and by excluding national investments in and resources to obtain and validate this information, the the analysis as it would be challenging to determine the program managers estimated the IWT percentage for the original sources of these funds. projects. The WBG team excluded the following types of projects from the consolidated analysis unless there was a Project timeline: Project approval dates and the commit- direct reference to anti-poaching or anti-trafficking: ted amounts when projects were approved were used to allocate IWT funding across the years under consideration. • Forest/timber Actual disbursement of funds may vary, as projects span • Marine and/or coastal management multiple years and may encounter delays. In some cases, the committed amounts are not fully disbursed or projects • Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest may be cancelled. Therefore, in some cases committed funds Degradation (REDD+) at the time of approval may result in an overestimation • Payment for ecosystem services when compared with actual spending levels. • Green economy Co-financing: Co-financing for projects was not included • Food security in the analysis unless it was reported by another “original donor” that participated in the portfolio review. In many • Waste reduction cases, there is significant co-financing, which may rep- • Recycling resent additional funding to combat IWT in the regions. Additionally, in-kind contributions were also excluded. • Pollution management • Climate change mitigation/adaptation Data consistency: The WBG analyzed the consolidated • Industrial greening portfolio to identify potential data discrepancies due to variations in interpretation of IWT allocations and inter- • Construction/building vention categories. In cases of discrepancies, additional discussions were held with the donor or the technical team supporting the portfolio analysis. Additional notes on donor data are included in Annex C. 8 Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania—Investments in protected area management help preserve natural habitats that are essential to wildlife conservation  9 RESULTS Overview donors and implementing partners and by researching websites, annual reports, and other documentation. The The data set used for this analysis included project-level additional donors assessed but not included in the analysis detail from 24 international donors (see Table 1), which are Novamedia Charity Lotteries, the Howard G. Buffett collectively committed over US $1.3 billion to combat Foundation, the Wyss Foundation, the Leonardo DiCaprio IWT in Africa and Asia since 2010. The percentage of total Foundation, and Google.org. These donors collectively project funding directed to combat IWT for each respective represent an additional commitment of approximately project ranged from 5% to 100%. IWT commitments by US $70 million to combat IWT. Funding data were also project ranged in size from US $2,000 to US $45 million, obtained from the International Fund for Animal Welfare with the average IWT funding per project valued at US and TRAFFIC International. As the data obtained on the $1.2 million. In total, 1,105 projects were included in the additional organizations were not at the project-detail level, analysis. The number of projects by donor ranged from 1 it was not possible to compare them with the more-detailed to 534, with an average donor portfolio size of 46 projects. data collected from the 24 donors. From fiscal year 2012 to 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) alone awarded grants, cooperative agree- ments, and matching funds to 378 projects. Annual Commitments In addition to the project-level data collected for 24 donors, Figure 1 shows the annual amounts committed to com- the WBG gathered high-level estimates on five additional bat IWT. The total funding amount committed by the 24 donors and an international NGO. The data on these international donors between 2010 and June 2016 fluctu- donors were obtained through direct communication with ated, peaking at US $316 million in 2014. The London TABLE 1.  Donors Included in the Portfolio Analysis (Bilateral Agencies Grouped by Country) Bilaterals Multilaterals Foundations 1. Canada 1. Asian Development Bank 1. Vulcan Philanthropy 2. France 2. European Commission 2. Wildcat Foundation 3. Germany (BMZ/BMUB) 3. Global Environment Facility 3. Oak Foundation 4. Japan 4. World Bank Group 5. Netherlands (Economic/Foreign Affairs) United Nations Programs International NGOs 6. Norway (Foreign Affairs/Climate and ENV) 7. Spain 1. United Nations 1. Fauna & Flora International 8. Sweden Development Program 2. WildAid 9. United Kingdom 2. United Nations Environment 3. Wildlife Conservation Society 10. United States (USAID/USDOS/USFWS) Program 4. World Wildlife Fund 5. Zoological Society of London Additional Implementing Partners 1. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 1. International Fund for Animal Welfare Wild Fauna and Flora 2. TRAFFIC International 2. International Union for Conservation of Nature 3. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 10 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE FIGURE 1.  Annual IWT Commitment Amounts, 2010–2016 $350 $300 $250 US $ million $200 $150 $100 $50 $— 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Multilaterals Bilaterals Foundations United Nations Programs International NGOs Conference on The Illegal Wildlife Trade, the first major contributed 8% of the total funding committed in 2015. international summit to address the current IWT crisis, was United Nations Programs accounted for 5% in 2014 and for held in February 2014, and several heads of state pledged 1% for the cumulative period of analysis. It is important action and support to address the issues. This international to note that the total funding captured for all other donor political focus may have contributed to increased invest- types for 2016 is likely underrepresented, as many donors ments that year. Average yearly IWT commitments were did not yet have these data available. US $190 million. Bilaterals and multilaterals accounted for the majority of Donor Overview funding across all years. Multilaterals (see Table 1 for a list of organizations included in this donor type) contributed Figure 2 shows the 10 largest international donors investing 75% of the funding in 2011, 44% in 2014, and 69% from in combating IWT. As this Figure highlights, the top five 2016. Bilaterals contributed 66% of the total donor fund- donors are the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Germany, ing in 2012, 49% in 2013, and 58% in 2015. Foundations the United States, the European Commission (EC), and FIGURE 2.  Cumulative IWT Commitment Amounts by Donor, 2010–2016 $400 $350 $345 $300 $293 US $ (millions) $250 $200 $187 $164 $157 $150 $100 $50 $41 $19 $19 $19 $18 $— EF y US EC BG at P ce n UK an ca D C an G UN W m l il d Vu Fr er W G Donor RESULTS 11 the World Bank Group, accounting for US $1.1 billion of project ranged from US $140,000 to US $7.5 million. Projects total funding (86%). These five donors are also the only averaged less than US $500,000 per project for 11 of the donors that committed over US $50 million in IWT funding 24 donors, but more than US $4 million for four donors during this period. Twelve donors committed less than US that are among the top five donors. The concentration of $10 million. Eighteen different donors contributed less than projects in the bottom left side of Figure 3 indicates where 2% of the total funding each. Collectively, this accounts most donors fall in the analysis. The two top donors with for 11% of the total donor portfolio analyzed. the highest portfolio values are GEF with 79 projects valued at US $345 million and Germany 58 projects valued at US Multilaterals account for three of the top five donors $293 million (see top left quadrant of Figure 3). With 534 and represent 50% of total funding (US $668 million). projects valued at US $187, the US has the third largest Bilaterals account for the other two of the top five, and portfolio and the highest number of projects (see right they represent 40% (US $536 million). Two of the three quadrant of Figure 3). foundations included in the analysis, WildCat Foundation and Vulcan Foundation, were among the top 10 donors. The three foundations collectively account for 5% of the entire portfolio (US $65 million). International NGOs account for IWT Amounts Committed to 3% (US $42 million) and United Nations Programs account Countries for 1% (US $19 million) of the total funding. Donor funding was allocated to projects in 60 different Figure 3 compares each donor portfolio in terms of the countries in Africa and Asia and to various regional/multi- total number of projects relative to total funding. Six country and global projects. As shown in Figure 4, 63% donors have more than 50 projects in their portfolio, and of the funds directed to specific countries and to regional 13 donors have fewer than 15 projects. The United States projects was committed to Africa (US $833 million), 29% has 534 projects, including many smaller-sized grants that went to Asia (US $381 million), 6% to global programs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service awards each year. In and initiatives (US $81 million), and 2% to projects cov- 2015, USFWS International Affairs Office awarded grants, ering both Africa and Asia (US $35 million). Figure 5 cooperative agreements, and matching funds to 141 wildlife highlights the countries that are the largest recipients of trafficking-related projects. The average IWT funding per international donor IWT funding. The 43 countries that FIGURE 3.  Number of Projects per Donor Relative to Portfolio Size, 2010–2016 $400 Total Donor Portfolio Size (US $ millions) $350 GEF: 79, $345 $300 Germany: 58, $293 $250 US: 534, $187 $200 WBG: 21, $157 EC: 84, $164 $150 $100 Other Donors $50 $— — 100 200 300 400 500 600 Number of Projects 12 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE FIGURE 4.  Total Donor Commitments Across Regions, 2010–2016 Africa/Asia $35 Global $81 Region Asia $381 Africa $833 $— $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 Total Funding (US $ millions) received the least amount of funding combined account Figure 6 shows the composition of the regional/multi- for 18% of total funding, each having received less than country investments that combined account for 26% of 2% of the total funding. total IWT funding (US $339 million). Of these investments, 67% went to Africa (US $227 million), 23% went to Asia The top five recipient countries, receiving a total invest- (US $78 million), and the remaining 10% (US $35 million) ment of US $328 million (representing approximately 24% went to projects that invested in both regions. Within the of the total IWT funding), are: subset of regional/multi-country funds allocated to Africa (67% in the larger pie chart), funds went to: • Tanzania (8%) • Central Africa (25%) • Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (5%) • Africa: Multiregional programs (18%) • Mozambique (5%) • Southern Africa (14%) • Gabon (3%) • East Africa (5%) • Bangladesh (3%) • West Africa (5%) FIGURE 5.  Cumulative IWT Commitment Amounts by Recipient Country or Region, 2010–2016 $400 $350 $339 $300 US $ (milliions) $250 $244 $200 $150 $109 $100 $81 $73 $62 $50 $44 $41 $40 $39 $38 $38 $27 $27 $24 $22 $22 $21 $21 $20 $— ag a ia Vi le) Ca nam n Za a a ire co try Ta es) ia l am a) G e ng on sh In s c a r lic d’ ia ra c of (K ba bi a d in ny oo qu an ng am atic nes d oz as pu Re ub de il Ivo Ba a b 4 3 ou n t ri M Ch m In lo av Ke i bi M nsh er a nz l et Re ia, ep ic ub la un G o zz m d -c R i p te e n l ti (B Cô e s Mu o ng N cr ts l/ bl ib Co o (re ona em of i io Reg D pr ic ’s o, bl le pu op us Co Re Pe r tic Va o La ra oc em Recipient Country D RESULTS 13 FIGURE 6.  Breakdown of Regional and Multi-Country Investments, 2010–2016 Africa/Asia Africa: 10% Multi-Region 18% Africa Central Africa 67% 25% Southern Asia Africa 23% 14% West Africa 5% East Africa 5% Note: Includes donor commitments to projects that were regional or involved more than one country. A detailed overview of country-level and regional invest- Figure 7 shows the regional profile of the investments ments by donor types is included in the maps shown across donor types. This geographical analysis shows that on pages 18–20 and in Annex B. The largest recipient of bilateral agencies allocated 74% of their IWT investments multilateral funding was Tanzania (US $56 million; 8% of to Africa, while foundations allocated 84%. Multilaterals total multilateral commitments). The largest recipient of allocated 55% of their IWT funding to Africa, while U.N. funding from bilaterals was the DRC (US $57 million; 11% of programs invested 84% of their funds in Asia (with a bilateral commitments). Compared with other donor types, single large project in Myanmar representing 59% of their foundations committed the most funding to regional projects IWT portfolio). International NGOs had a more balanced categorized as “Africa: Multi-Country” (US $12 million; distribution between Africa and Asia. 19% of foundation commitments). The largest recipient of international NGO funding was Mozambique (US $8 mil- lion; 19% of international NGO commitments). FIGURE 7.  Geographic Overview of IWT Investments across Donor Types, 2010–2016 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Multilaterals Bilaterals Foundations United Nations Programs Africa Africa/Asia Asia Global 14 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE MAP 1.  Country-Level Commitments by Donor Type—Africa Total IWT Commitments (2010–2016*) in millions USD 0 20 40 60 80 100 Tanzania Congo, D. R. of Mozambique Gabon Madagascar Namibia Congo, Rep. of Cameroon Kenya Zambia Côte d’Ivoire South Africa Zimbabwe Malawi Chad Uganda Angola Ghana MALI NIGER ERITREA $4.3M $1.4M SUDAN REP. OF YEMEN $5.6M Botswana SENEGAL $1.3M CHAD $0.3M $4.6M THE GAMBIA BURKINA FASO $10.0M Ethiopia $1.2M $0.4M GUINEA Liberia $1.3M NIGERIA CÔTE GHANA $0.3M ETHIOPIA SOUTH South Sudan D’IVOIRE $7.6M CENTRAL AFR. REP. SUDAN $6.6M $19.6M $4.1M SOMALIA LIBERIA $6.3M CAMEROON $5.8M Benin BENIN BENIN $0.1M $22.2M $5.8M $5.8M Eritrea EQ. GUINEA $0.1M UGANDA REP. OF $8.2M KENYA Swaziland SÃO TOMÉ & PRÍNCIPE GABON $21.5M CONGO $0.3M $43.5M $26.7M RWANDA Rep. of Yemen $0.8M DEM. REP. OF CONGO $72.5M Mali Total IWT Commitments TANZANIA Central Afr. Rep. (2010–2016*) in millions USD: $109.1M *Partial year data for 2016 Niger ANGOLA Guinea 50 $8.1M MALAWI ZAMBIA $15.2M Senegal 25 $21.1M The Gambia 15 MOZAMBIQUE ZIMBABWE $61.5M MADAGASCAR Rwanda 1.5 $16.0M NAMIBIA $39.1M $27.1M Burkina Faso Donor Type: BOTSWANA $7.2 M Sudan Bilaterals São Tomé and Foundations SWAZILAND Príncipe $5.2M Nigeria International NGOs SOUTH AFRICA $19.0M Equatorial Guinea Multilaterals Somalia United Nations Programs IBRD 42524 | OCTOBER 2016 This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information Budget, Performance Review shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank & Strategic Planning General Services Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any Printing & Multimedia endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Total IWT Commitments (2010–2016*) in millions USD 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Bangladesh RESULTS China Indonesia Lao, P.D.R. Vietnam India RUSSIAN FEDERATION Myanmar $1.1M Thailand Sri Lanka Malaysia Afghanistan MONGOLIA $2.0M Cambodia Nepal KYRGYZ REP. $0.4M Bhutan Philippines CHINA AFGHANISTAN $39.8M Pakistan IRAQ $8.6M BHUTAN $1.2M Mongolia $6.6M PAKISTAN MAP 2.  Country-Level Commitments by Donor Type—Asia Donor Type: $3.1M NEPAL Iraq $6.7M Bilaterals Russian Fed. Foundations INDIA MYANMAR Kyrgyz Rep. $20.8M $19.6M LAO P.D.R. International NGOs $37.6M Singapore BANGLADESH Multilaterals VIETNAM $41.3M THAILAND $13.6M $24.1M United Nations Programs CAMBODIA $7.0M PHILIPPINES $4.9M Total IWT Commitments SRI LANKA SRILANKA $11.3M $11.3M (2010–2016*) in millions USD: MALAYSIA *Partial year data for 2016 $10.9M SINGAPORE 25 $0.02M 15 1.5 INDONESIA $38.1M 15 16 ASIA: MULTI-COUNTRY $77.7M AFRICA: MULTI-COUNTRY $60.0M WEST AFRICA: MULTI-COUNTRY EASTERN AFRICA: MULTI-COUNTRY $18.6M $17.4M CENTRAL AFRICA: MULTI-COUNTRY $84.6M AFRICA/ASIA: MULTI-COUNTRY MAP 3.  Overview of Global and Regional Projects by Donor Type SOUTHERN AFRICA: MULTI-COUNTRY $46.6M $34.6M GLOBAL: MULTI-REGION $81.2M Total IWT Commitments (2010–2016*) in millions USD: *Partial year data for 2016 Donor Type: 80 Bilaterals Foundations 40 *$0.3M United Nations Programs International NGOs 20 Multilaterals United Nations Programs ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE RESULTS 17 FIGURE 8.  Cumulative IWT Commitment Amounts by Recipient Type, 2010–2016 Multiple (government, Private sector Sub-national or local non-government, international) 2% government 3% 1% National or local NGO 4% Researchers or research groups 4% Intergovernmental organization 9% International NGO National government 16% 61% IWT Allocations by Recipient Type FIGURE 9.  IWT Commitments across Recipient and Donor Types, 2010–2016 Figure 8 shows the total funding amounts by recipient 100% type. The majority of the funding is allocated to national governments (61%; US $809 million), international NGOs (16%; US $218 million), intergovernmental organizations 90% (9%; US $114 million), researchers and research groups Sub-national or (4%; US $59 million). The remainder was allocated to 80% local government national or local NGOs, private sector, subnational or local Researchers or government or a combination of the donor types (10%; 70% research groups US $130 million). Private sector 60% National or local Figure 9 shows the recipients by donor types. Multilaterals, NGO bilaterals, and U.N. programs allocate the large major- National 50% ity of their IWT investments to national governments government (74%, 55%, and 98%, respectively). Bilaterals allocate Multiple 21% of funding to international NGOs, while multilat- 40% (government, erals allocate 11% to intergovernmental organizations. non-government, international) These efforts include EC, GEF, and WBG investments 30% International NGO to support the CITES Minimizing the Illegal Killing of Elephants and other Endangered Species (MIKES) pro- Intergovernmental 20% Organization gram, BIOPAMA (IUCN component), and the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime initiatives. 10% Foundations allocated 63% of IWT funding to interna- tional NGOs, although in some cases this included pass- 0% through support to other NGOs or funding for national at und ls Bi als na ms s te s Pr ons O a government efforts. The major recipients are the Ministry er i G ra er ti lN t og a at la Natural Resources and Tourism of Tanzania, the Central til ul io Fo African Forest Commission, and the Southern African M n at io rn Development Community Secretariat. N In d ite Un 18 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE IWT Allocations Across Figure 10 shows the total allocations across IWT categories. Approximately 46% of the funding supported protected Intervention Categories area management to prevent poaching (US $609 mil- lion). This category includes on-the-ground investments There are many drivers related to wildlife trade and other in PAs to support rangers, equipment, and other similar development issues that must be addressed to decrease investments. Donor-funded projects also supported law the current levels of poaching and trafficking, including: enforcement (19%), sustainable use and alternative liveli- • Lack of ownership and value of wildlife by local hoods (15%), policy and legislation development (8%), communities research and assessment (6%), and communication and awareness (6%). • Ineffective land use planning, intensive production, and infrastructure development Figure 11 shows the allocations across IWT intervention • Weak legal systems categories by donor type. PA management to combat poaching received the largest share of investments for all • Lack of enforcement capacity donor types. The large share of the investments in tradi- • High corruption levels tional PA management reflects the higher costs associated with trying to protect PAs that cover vast areas and that • Insufficient coordination, knowledge, and capacity typically require a significant number of staff, equipment, • Lack of awareness of impact of wildlife and wildlife and capacity building. It may also reflect the theory that product consumption to species population by investing to protect the habitat where many threatened and endangered species live, it helps address the ecological, International donors have supported programs and projects social, security, and economic drivers tied to poaching. that tackle the root cause of the above issues through direct and indirect interventions aimed at reducing poaching, In terms of how donor types allocate funding, bilaterals trafficking, and demand for wildlife products. For the pur- had the highest relative investments in sustainable use pose of this analysis, the types of activities or categories and alternative livelihoods (SL), with 17% of the invest- illustrated in Table 2 were considered. ments in that category. Foundations had 16% of their TABLE 2.  IWT Intervention Categories IWT Intervention Category Description Policy and legislation (PL) Inter-sectoral policies and regulatory frameworks that incorporate wildlife conservation and management considerations; strengthening laws and customs/trade facilitation processes Law enforcement (LE) Coordination mechanisms and establishment of operational units, intelligence-led operations, and transnational law enforcement coordination to tackle higher-level operatives; increased capacity of customs officials, transportation, and detection technologies Protected areas (PA) Protection of natural habitats for species; on-the-ground support to PAs to address poaching (i.e., management to prevent rangers, equipment etc.); investments to increase community, private, and state reserves and areas poaching surrounding protected forests under land use policies that mitigate wildlife poaching and promote wildlife management best practices Communications and awareness Outreach and communications efforts to raise awareness and reduce demand across range, transit, (CA) and end-use countries; demand reduction efforts and campaigns to increase awareness, change consumer behavior toward consumption of illegal wildlife products, and reduce market participants in the illegal trade Promoting sustainable use and Incentives for communities to live with and manage wildlife and to avoid human-wildlife conflict; alternative livelihoods (SL) income derived from wildlife management in support of sustainable development and integrated natural resource management practices; alternative legal livelihoods to those involved in the illegal supply chain Research and assessments (RA) Decision support tools, research, analysis, databases, stakeholder coordination, knowledge management, and monitoring and evaluation efforts RESULTS 19 FIGURE 10.  Cumulative IWT Commitment Amounts by Intervention Category, 2010–2016 Communications and awareness (CA) $79 ITW Intervention Category Research and assessment (RA) $88 Policy and legislation (PL) development $103 Promoting sustainable use and alternative $199 livelihoods (SL) Law enforcement (LE) $253 Protected areas (PA) management $609 $— $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 Cumulative ITW Funding Committed (2010–2016) in USD $ millions FIGURE 11.  IWT Intervention Categories across respective funding dedicated to research and assessments. Donor Types, 2010–2016 International NGOs had the highest relative share of invest- ments in law enforcement, communications and awareness, 100% and policy and legislation. Although investments across all donor types in communications and awareness received the 90% least amount of combined funding (5%; US $64 million), Research and efforts to reduce demand for illegal wildlife and wildlife 80% assessment (RA) products are an important consideration in combating IWT. Promoting Demand reduction activities complement anti-poaching 70% sustainable use and anti-trafficking interventions. and alternative livelihoods (SL) 60% Communications and awareness 50% (CA) Protected areas 40% (PA) management Law enforcement 30% (LE) Policy and legislation (PL) 20% development 10% 0% Bi als nd ls te s P ons na ms s O a er Fo ter G a ti gr lN at a la ro til ul u io M n at io rn at N In d ite Un 20 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE Himachal Pradesh, India—Promotion of alternative livelihoods for local communities can help restore ecosystems and mitigate human-wildlife conflict. Photo: Aishwarya Maheshwari/Wildlife Institute of India  21 CONCLUSION This analysis fills a gap in knowledge regarding interna- donors helped to obtain input on the proposed approach tional donor funding to combat IWT. It has collated data and methodology. A donor engagement platform would on international donor funding committed to combat IWT allow a community of donors to proactively discuss issues, in Africa and Asia from 2010 to June 2016, which totals share information and lessons learned to enhance decision over US $1.3 billion and is equivalent to approximately making, establish synergies, and support wider efforts to US $190 million per year. Given the current magnitude combat IWT. Data should be exchanged at least on an of the wildlife crime crisis, additional resources over a annual basis. sustained period of time will be required to reduce poach- ing, trafficking, and demand. This analysis provides a Coordinate country or regional investments and project baseline to track future donor funding commitments and activities with donor representatives, including embassy can support donor coordination efforts. The data collected, staff and other relevant agencies, to map ongoing and database created, online repository, and points of contact planned IWT investments, sequence, and de-conflict established with donors can be used to further understand activities among donors in countries where coordination funding processes, effectiveness, and impacts and to inform on wildlife trafficking is limited. donor strategic planning efforts. This analysis can be built upon in consultation with recipient countries to establish Pilot donor strategic planning activities in one or more a future vision of how best to optimize the use of IWT countries in Africa or Asia. financing in terms of priority geographic and thematic areas. A global understanding of existing contributions, trends, and target investment areas can also facilitate a ANALYTICAL AND TECHNICAL sharing of lessons learned. • Enhance the understanding of investments and iden- tify gaps: • Leverage data collected from donors on commit- Recommendations ments, trends, and target investment areas to inform strategic efforts that will fill the financing The following recommendations for taking forward this gap of priority geographic/IWT intervention areas. work are proposed for the consideration of donors and are This direct engagement with donors and recipient based on the results of the funding analysis, on feedback countries will facilitate collaboration and assess- received by the donors, and on the WBG team’s experience ment of actual needs through a joint consultative in conducting this portfolio review. The recommendations process and regional meetings to discuss the “future fall into two categories: (i) strategic; and (ii) analytical state” of funding requirements. and technical. • Expand the regional coverage to include other regions, notably Latin America and the Caribbean STRATEGIC and the Middle East. Establish a donor engagement platform to bring inter- • Conduct case studies to capture more-detailed data national donors together in periodic virtual/in-person on projects to assist analysis : meetings to increase communication and collaboration. In -- Collect quantitative and qualitative informa- conducting this portfolio review, bimonthly meetings with tion on donor-funded projects, country-specific 22 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE or regional findings, and unique consider- • Leverage big data and GIS tools to display the project ations of key projects that support specific data in dynamic applications that can be used by IWT interventions. donors to enhance decision making. Consider open -- Compare data collected from donors with data processes, tools, and standards available to share investments made by country governments, data and represent information in a geographic format. including in-kind and annual capital, opera- • Enhance the data collection process by standardizing tions, and maintenance budgets. activity codes, project reporting forms, and data using -- Develop and test ratios/proxy indicators to established standards to streamline data collection measure relative “investment effectiveness” and reporting by donors and implementing partners. across intervention categories. This will help to improve quality of data available, -- Conduct more in-depth analysis, including transparency, and data exchange. an evaluation of issues such as investment impacts, benefit/cost analysis of interventions, or gaps in international donor funding across geographies and interventions.  23 Annex A: Donor Profiles Asian Development Bank (ADB) ADB helps developing member countries improve their living conditions and quality of life by financ- ing infrastructure, environment, regional cooperation, education, health, agriculture, and public sector management projects. In 2015, ADB approved 65 loans and grant projects for more than US $7 billion, contributing to environmental sustainability. ADB’s work on the illegal wildlife trade originated in the Environmental Law and Enforcement component of the Office of the General Counsel’s Law, Justice, and Development Program, which initiated the Asian Judges Network on Environment. Canada—The Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) The ECCC finances environmental protection and conservation of natural heritage. Through ECCC’s Enforcement Branch, the Wildlife Enforcement Directorate (WED) conducts targeted operations to address illegal trade of rhinoceros horn and ivory from elephants and helps conserve habitats and protected areas at high risk for non-compliance. ECCC/WED supports the INTERPOL Wildlife Crime Working Group and the INTERPOL National Bureau to help combat IWT. European Commission (EC)—DG EuropeAid Development & Cooperation (DEVCO) The EC is the European Union’s executive body. It represents the interest of the EU as a whole and works on issues related to human rights, governance, agriculture, economic growth, infrastructure, environment, energy, health, and education. From 2010 to 2016, DEVCO supported over 365 biodiversity- related projects in over 30 countries, with a total volume of more than €1.4 billion. The EC is focused on implementing the recently adopted EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking. Fauna and Flora International (FFI) FFI’s mission is to act to conserve threatened species and ecosystems worldwide, choosing solutions that are sustainable, are based on sound science, and take into account human needs. FFI’s work spans the globe, with over 140 projects in over 40 countries. FFI focuses on reducing poaching, trafficking, and demand. FFI is also developing innovative technologies and finance mechanisms to address IWT more effectively. France—Agence Française de Développement (AfD) Through grants and loans, AfD finances health, education, agriculture, water supply, transportation, energy, nature, and development programs/projects in developing countries. From 2011 to 2013, AfD invested €420 million in biodiversity projects. AfD’s strategic biodiversity priorities include protect- ing, restoring, managing, and enhancing ecosystems, while fairly sharing the benefits of their utiliza- tion, mainstreaming ecosystem conservation in all sectoral development policies, and strengthening partnerships. 24 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE Global Environment Facility (GEF) The GEF has supported over 1,300 global biodiversity projects in more than 155 countries, with a total volume of more than US $4.2 billion. The GEF is the largest funding mechanism for protected areas worldwide. Combating IWT is a high priority for the GEF, and its investment in the Global Wildlife Program provides over $131 million across 19 countries in Asia and Africa and will serve as a catalyst to channel financial and technical resources to combat IWT. Germany—German Development Cooperation The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) works to combat poverty; secure food; establish peace, democracy, and human rights; and preserve the environment and natural resources. Since 2013, the German government has provided €500 million annually for the global conservation of forests and other ecosystems. The German Development Cooperation is committed to supporting priority IWT investments that strengthen protected area management, law enforcement capabilities, and demand reduction. Japan—Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MoFA) Japan finances programs in development, emergency humanitarian assistance, infrastructure develop- ment, disaster risk reduction, health, women’s empowerment, education, the environment, and cli- mate change. The Japan Biodiversity Fund was created to help developing countries develop capacity to implement the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 (the Aichi Biodiversity Targets), to revise their National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans, and to strengthen their capacity to implement the Convention. Netherlands—Ministry of Economic Affairs and Ministry of Foreign Affairs The government of the Netherlands finances biodiversity and wildlife crime projects through the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Specifically for the biodiversity sec- tor, the Netherlands invests in park management globally. The Dutch goals for international policy on biodiversity are to bring loss of biodiversity to a halt by 2020, to consolidate the Natura 2000 network, and to compensate for biodiversity loss by applying the No Net Loss principle. Norway—Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) NORAD’s main focus areas are climate change and the environment. Specific programs within this sector include the International Climate and Forest Initiative, which aims at supporting efforts to slow, halt, and eventually reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from deforestation and forest degra- dation in developing countries (REDD+). Additionally, Norway contributes to sustainable fishing in developing countries. Sweden—Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) SIDA finances democracy, human rights, sustainable infrastructure, health, market development, peace and security, the environment, agriculture, and education. All of SIDA’s initiatives and all sectors of development cooperation have integrated environment and climate aspects. In 2012, approximately SEK 1.9 billion (approximately US $223 million) of aid channeled through SIDA was used for efforts to promote environment and sustainable development. ANNEX A: DONOR PROFILES 25 United Kingdom—Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) UK-DEFRA hosts the Darwin Secretariat, which is a major U.K. government grants scheme that helps to protect biodiversity and the natural environment through locally based projects worldwide. Through the IWT challenge fund, DEFRA supports over 34 wildlife crime projects in more than 25 countries, with a total volume of more than £9.8 million (approximately US $15 million). The U.K. government aims to end illegal wildlife trade by improving enforcement, reducing demand for products, and sup- porting sustainable livelihoods and economic development in affected communities. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) UNDP works in over 170 countries and territories, helping to eradicate poverty and advance sustainable development that leads to transformational change and real improvements in people’s lives. Its biodi- versity and ecosystems program covers more than 120 countries and 400 projects, with US $1.6 billion in funding and US $5.1 billion in co-financing. UNDP has supported more than 3,000 protected areas around the world, covering 669 million hectares, including marine, terrestrial and indigenous and com- munity conserved areas. UNDP partners with governments and other U.N. agencies to tackle poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking and to reduce the global demand for wildlife and wildlife products. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) UNEP finances projects that address climate change, disasters and conflict, ecosystem management, environmental governance, and much more. As of 2012, UNEP implemented GEF-supported projects over 14 global, 16 regional, and 30 national global biodiversity projects with a total volume of more than US $413 million. UNEP’s contributions to addressing IWT consist of maintaining political momentum to support international cooperation; providing support to legal, judicial, and enforcement measures; and promoting capacity development and targeting approaches to awareness raising and demand reduction. U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) USAID works to end extreme global poverty and enable resilient, democratic societies to realize their potential. USAID has invested more than US $2.7 billion in biodiversity conservation since 2000, includ- ing support for community-based natural resource management, new and stronger protected areas, and policy reform at local and national levels. Funding for actions that combat wildlife trafficking has increased steadily in the last five years, with more than US $67 million in 2015 for fighting poaching, improving enforcement and prosecution, disrupting transit, and reducing consumer demand in Africa and Asia. Prominent USAID programs include the Wildlife Crime Tech Challenge, ROUTES, ARREST, and Wildlife TRAPS. U.S. Department of State (USDOS) The USDOS Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) is a key agency on the U.S. government’s Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking. The USDOS supports priority IWT invest- ments that strengthen national partners’ legislative frameworks, improve anti-poaching efforts, advance investigative techniques, enhance prosecutorial/judicial capabilities, and achieve robust prosecutions and serious punishment for wildlife traffickers. 26 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) USFWS’s International Affairs Program coordinates domestic and international efforts to protect, restore, and enhance the world’s diverse wildlife and their habitats, with a focus on species of international concern. USFWS is a key agency on the U.S. government’s Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking. In 2015, USFWS awarded more than US $50 million (in grants, cooperative agreements, and matching funds) to 141 wildlife trafficking-related projects through its International Affairs Office. USFWS is committed to supporting priority IWT investments that strengthen enforcement and enhance cooperation. Vulcan Philanthropy/ Paul G. Allen Family Foundation Vulcan Philanthropy supports innovative approaches that can deliver solutions related to smart cit- ies, ocean health, conservation, climate change, impact investing, global health, and education. In 1990–2014, The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation awarded more than US $494 million to nonprofit organizations. In the biodiversity sector, Vulcan Philanthropy finances projects related to data, innova- tion, strengthening communities, policy change, and public engagement. Vulcan Philanthropy funded The Great Elephant Census—the first pan-African aerial survey in 40 years. Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) WCS works to save wildlife and wild places worldwide through science, conservation action, education, and inspiring people to value nature. With programs in nearly 60 countries worldwide and 120 years of experience, WCS works to ensure that species are conserved, ecosystems are intact and functional, and nature provides benefits to local communities and economies. WCS’s law enforcement, anti-trafficking, and global policy expertise enables the organization to address wildlife exploitation and illegal trade in source, transit, and consumer countries at all points along the illegal trade chain—from protecting species in the wild to anti-trafficking and enforcement assistance and influencing consumer behavior. The Wildcat Foundation The Wildcat Foundation is a private not-for-profit philanthropic foundation. Its mission is to support extensive, comprehensive, and creative responses to combat poaching and improve wildlife conser- vation in Africa. During 2014 and 2015, the foundation approved over US $20 million in support of wildlife conservation projects in more than nine countries. Wildcat supports priority IWT investments that strengthen law enforcement capabilities and on-the-ground support to protected areas to address poaching. World Bank Group (WBG) The World Bank has two main goals: to eradicate poverty and promote shared prosperity. In the biodi- versity sector, from 2004 to 2013 the WBG supported over 245 global biodiversity conservation projects across 74 countries worth over US$ 1 billion. Additionally, the WBG is one of the largest providers of development assistance for combating environment and natural resources crime. The WBG is commit- ted to helping countries achieve poverty reduction and prosperity goals by helping them manage their natural resources more sustainably. The WBG helps countries combat wildlife crime through efforts related to the Global Wildlife Program, the International Consortium on Combatting Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), and implementation of regional and country-specific investments. ANNEX A: DONOR PROFILES 27 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) The WWF Network focuses on six key goals related to Climate & Energy, Food, Forests, Freshwater, Oceans, and Wildlife. Since its founding, WWF has invested US$11.5 billion in more than 13,000 conservation projects. WWF launched the Wildlife Crime Initiative (WCI) with the goal of halving the impact of wildlife crime on iconic species by 2024. WCI is focused on all points along the IWT chain (poaching, trafficking, and consumption) as well as advocating for the adoption and implementation of more-effective national and international policies. Zoological Society of London (ZSL) ZSL’s Conservation Programme leads over 150 projects worldwide. Going forward, ZSL’s projects will include securing key habitats in Asia and Africa through improved site-based protection and strength- ened law enforcement capacity; developing technology to monitor species and creating real-time alarm systems for protected areas; continued training and capacity in implementing the SMART approach; and developing innovative financing mechanisms to generate long-term sustainable funding for rhino conservation and effective protected area management at scale. IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) CITES is an international agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. The CITES Secretariat plays a coordinating, advisory, and servicing role in the working of the Convention, monitoring its implementa- tion and providing assistance in the fields of legislation, enforcement, science, and training. CITES is the lead agency for the implementation of the National Ivory Action Plans, Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE), and the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS). International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) IUCN is the world’s largest environmental network, harnessing the knowledge, resources, and reach of more than 161 member countries, 1,300 member organizations, and 16,000 experts. IUCN manages the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; the IUCN Species Programme, in conjunction with the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and partners, is driving the fight to save species for people and nature. IUCN, with partners, is supporting on-the-ground conservation with two funding mechanisms: Save Our Species (SOS) and the Integrated Tiger Habitat Conservation Programme (ITHCP). TRAFFIC International TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade-monitoring network, works globally on trade in wild animals/plants as it relates to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. TRAFFIC is a strategic alliance of WWF and IUCN. Key IWT programs implemented by TRAFFIC include ROUTES (Reducing Opportunities for Unlawful Transport of Endangered Species), W-TRAPS (Wildlife Trafficking, Response, Assessment and Priority Setting), and DETER (Demand Reduction and Enforcement Supporting the Conservation of Elephants and Rhinos). 28 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) The UNODC Global Programme for Combating Wildlife and Forest Crime (GP), a four-year program, aims to link existing regional efforts in a global system and to enhance capacity building and wildlife law enforcement networks at regional and subregional levels. UNODC has implemented 10 Wildlife and Forest Crime toolkits globally and in the next few years will implement the toolkit in nine additional countries. Key programs such as the UNODC-WCO Container Control Programme (CCP) and Wildlife Forensic Capacity support to Africa will continue to help combat IWT.  29 Annex B: Maps MAP B1.  Country-Level Commitments and Number of Projects—Africa MALI $4.3M 4 Projects CHAD $10.0M NIGER $1.4M 5 Projects SUDAN $0.3M ERITREA $5.6M 1 Project 3 Projects 1 Project SENEGAL $1.3M REP. OF YEMEN 1 Project BURKINA FASO $4.6M-1 Project THE GAMBIA $0.4M-1 Project $1.2M-1 Project BENIN NIGERIA $0.3M ETHIOPIA $6.6M GHANA $5.8M 4 Projects 2 Projects GUINEA $1.3M 5 Projects $7.6M 5 Projects CENTRAL AFR. REP. SOUTH SUDAN $5.8M SOMALIA $0.1M 2 Projects $4.1M-11 Projects 5 Projects 1 Project LIBERIA $6.3M CAMEROON 3 Projects $22.2M-26 Projects EQ. GUINEA $0.1M UGANDA $8.2M 2 Projects DEM. REP. OF CONGO 11 Projects SÃO TOMÉ & CÔTE D’IVOIRE $19.6M $72.5M-51 Projects PRÍNCIPE $0.3M-1 Project KENYA $21.5M 5 Projects 58 Projects TANZANIA $109.1M RWANDA 69 Projects $0.8M-6 Projects GABON $43.5M 39 Projects REP. OF CONGO $26.7M 35 Projects ANGOLA $8.1M 2 Projects MALAWI $15.2M 10 Projects ZAMBIA$21.1M 31 Projects Total IWT Commitments ZIMBABWE (2010–2016*) in millions USD: $16.0M-14 Projects MADAGASCAR *Partial year data for 2016 $39.1M-13 Projects NAMIBIA $27.1M 100 17 Projects BOTSWANA Number of $7.2 M-5 Projects Projects: 50 50 MOZAMBIQUE $61.5M 25 10 29 Projects 10 SOUTH AFRICA $19.0M 25 Projects 1 1 SWAZILAND $5.2M 1 Project IBRD 42527 | OCTOBER 2016 This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information Budget, Performance Review shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank & Strategic Planning General Services Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any Printing & Multimedia endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. 30 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE MAP B2.  Country-Level Commitments and Number of Projects—Asia RUSSIAN FEDERATION $1.1M 5 Projects MONGOLIA $2.0M 3 Projects KYRGYZ REP. $0.4M-1 Project CHINA $39.8M 38 Projects BHUTAN $6.6M 5 Projects AFGHANISTAN NEPAL $6.7M IRAQ $1.2M 19 Projects $8.6M-3 Projects 1 Project VIETNAM $24.1M PAKISTAN $3.1M 36 Projects 2 Projects MYANMAR $19.6M 10 Projects INDIA $20.8M 31 Projects LAO P.D.R. $37.6M 14 Projects CAMBODIA $7.0M PHILIPPINES $4.9M THAILAND $13.6M 20 Projects 6 Projects 25 Projects SRI LANKA $11.3M 1 Project MALAYSIA $10.9M 16 Projects BANGLADESH $41.3M SINGAPORE 7 Projects $0.02M 1 Project INDONESIA $38.1M 65 Projects Total IWT Commitments (2010–2016*) in millions USD: *Partial year data for 2016 Number of Projects: 40 50 20 25 10 10 1 1 IBRD 42528 | OCTOBER 2016 This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information Budget, Performance Review shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank & Strategic Planning General Services Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any Printing & Multimedia endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.  31 Annex C: Additional Notes on Donor Data Due to differences in how USFWS and USAID categorized activities for this analysis, some funding levels differ from those used to calculate prior USAID reporting on combating wildlife trafficking pro- gramming in Central Africa. USAID data includes projects for fiscal year 2014 and 2015. USFWS includes data for fiscal years 2012–2015. USDOS includes data for fiscal years 2013–2015. The EC funding  comprises of selected biodiversity-related projects funded  by the Commission’s Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO), from 2010 to 2016. GEF funding was categorized as GEF, rather than through the implementing agencies and only includes GEF-5 and GEF-6 replenishment cycles. For Germany, the funding analyzed is provided by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development  (BMZ),  and  supplemented  with Federal Ministry for the Environment,  Nature  Conservation, Building  and NuclearSafety (BMUB) funds. The  majority of BMZ’s financing,  plan- ning, and coordinating development cooperation is channeled through Germany’s bilateral development cooperation arrangements: • Financial cooperation by the German development Bank (KfW) • Technical cooperation by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH GIZ staff estimated IWT intervention categories by analyzing internal project documents. The World Bank data comprises of funding from IBRD, IDA, DGF and Technical Assistance loans only. Funding does not include any GEF grants. 32 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE Annex D: Bibliography Castro, G., I. Locker, V. Russell, L. Cornwell, and E. Fajer. 2000. Mapping Conservation Investments: An Assessment of Biodiversity Funding in Latin America and the Caribbean. Chase, M. J,, S. Schlossberg, C. R. Griffin et al. 2016. Continent-wide survey reveals massive decline in African savannah elephants. PeerJ. 4:e2354. doi:10.7717/peerj.2354. de La Mata, G. C., and S. Riega-Campos. 2014. An Analysis of International Conservation Funding in the Amazon. Duffy, R., and J. Humphreys. 2014. Mapping Donors: Key Areas for Tackling Illegal Wildlife Trade (Africa and Asia). London. European Union. 2014. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/efe/themes/nature-and-biodiversity/what- do-about-wildlife-trafficking_en. Accessed on September 26, 2016. European Union. 2015. Larger than Elephants, Inputs for an EU Strategic Approach to Wildlife Conservation in Africa—Synthesis. Brussels. GFI (Global Financial Integrity). 2011. Transnational crime in the development world. http://www. gfintegrity.org/storage/gfip/documents/reports/transcrime/gfi_transnational_crime_web.pdf. Accessed on September 26, 2016. TRAFFIC. 2008. What’s Driving the Wildlife Trade? A Review of Expert Opinion on Economic and Social Drivers of the Wildlife Trade and Trade Control Efforts in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam. Washington, D.C. UNEP, CITES, IUCN, and TRAFFIC. 2013. Elephants in the Dust … The African Elephant Crisis. A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal. Nairobi. UNODC. 2016. World Wildlife Crime Report: Trafficking in Protected Species. World Bank. 2014. Enforcing Environmental Laws for Strong Economies and Safe Communities. Agriculture and environmental services discussion paper no. 5. Washington, D.C. DONOR AND IMPLEMENTING AGENCY REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS REFERENCED Asian Development Bank—https://www.adb.org/ Asian Development Bank (2015). Annual Report—Scaling Up to Meet New Development Challenges. Philippines. Canada—https://www.ec.gc.ca/ Environment Canada (2014). Wildlife Enforcement Directorate Annual Summary 2013–2014. Gatineau QC. CITES—https://www.cites.org/ European Commission—http://ec.europa.eu/environment/index_en.htm European Commission (2016). The EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking. Brussels. Fauna and Flora International—http://www.fauna-flora.org/ Fauna & Flora (2014) International Conservation Report 2014–2015. Cambridge. France—http://www.afd.fr/ Agence Française de Développement (AfD) Biodiversity Action Plan 2013–2016. Paris. ANNEX D: BIBLIOGRAPHY 33 Germany—http://www.bmz.de/en/index.html, http://www.bmz.de/20150601-1en, and http:// www.bmub.bund.de/en/, http://www.bmub.bund.de/en/topics/nature-species-protection-tourism/ artenschutz/internationaler-artenschutz/combating-poaching/ GIZ (2015). Combating Poaching and the Illegal Wildlife Trade (Ivory, Rhino Horn) in Africa and Asia. Bonn. BMZ and BMUB (2014). Committed to Biodiversity. Germany’s International Cooperation in Support of the Convention on Biological Diversity for Sustainable Development. Bonn. BMZ and BMUB (2015). Combating Wildlife Crime, a collaborative approach of the German Government. Bonn. KfW (2016) Current Topics—Biodiversity. Frankfurt. Global Environment Facility—http://www.thegef.org/ GEF (2015) Behind the Numbers 2015—A Closer Look at GEF Achievements. Washington, D.C. GEF (2014) Poaching and the Illegal Wildlife Trade Crisis: The GEF response. Washington, D.C. GEF (2014) The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy. Washington, D.C. International Union for Conservation of Nature—https://www.iucn.org/ http://saveourspecies.org/sites/sospecies/files/content/documents/sos_report_2016.pdf. Accessed on September 26, 2016. https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/ithcp_project_portfolio_snapshots.pdf. Accessed on September 26, 2016. Japan—http://www.mofa.go.jp/ Netherlands—https://www.government.nl/ Norway—https://www.norad.no/en/front/ Oak Foundation—http://oakfnd.org/ Sweden—http://www.sida.se/ TRAFFIC—http://www.traffic.org/ United Kingdom—http://www.darwininitiative.org.uk/ United Kingdom (2015) UK Commitment to Action on the Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT)—an update. London. DEFRA (2015). Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT) Challenge Fund: Project Funding. London. United Kingdom (2014) UK Commitment to Action on the Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT). London. United Nations Development Programme—http://www.undp.org/ United Nations Environment Programme—http://www.unep.org/ United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime—https://www.unodc.org/ United States Aid for International Development—https://www.usaid.gov/ USAID (2016) Biodiversity Conservation and Forestry Programs, 2015 Report. Washington, D.C. USAID (2015) Conservation is Wildlife. Washington, D.C. USAID (2015) Biodiversity Conservation and Forestry Programs, 2015 Report. Washington, D.C. USAID (2014) Biodiversity Conservation and Forestry Programs, 2014 Report. Washington, D.C. USAID (2013) Biodiversity Conservation and Forestry Programs, 2013 Report. Washington, D.C. USAID (2015) Measuring Efforts to Combat Wildlife Crime: A Toolkit for Improving Action and Accountability. Washington, D.C. United States Fish and Wildlife Service—https://www.fws.gov/ United States Department of State—http://www.state.gov/ U.S. National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking—2015 Annual Progress Assessment. Washington, D.C. 34 ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE Vulcan Philanthropy—http://www.vulcan.com/ Chase et al. (2016), Continent-wide survey reveals massive decline in African savannah elephants. http://www.greatelephantcensus.com/final-report/. Accessed on September 26, 2016. Wildlife Conservation Society—https://www.wcs.org/ WCS (2015) Annual Report. Bronx. Wildcat Foundation—http://www.wildcatfoundation.us/ World Bank—http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/biodiversity/overview WWF—http://www.worldwildlife.org/ WWF—US (2015) Annual Report. Washington, D.C. Zoological Society of London—https://www.zsl.org/ ZSL (2015) Conservation Review. London. ADDITIONAL DONORS AND IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS Association of Zoos and Aquariums—https://www.aza.org/cgf Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund—http://www.cepf.net/ Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund Corporation—https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/environment/ Google—Global Impact Awards—https://www.google.com/intl/en/giving/impact-awards.html International Fund for Animal Welfare—http://www.ifaw.org/ Howard G. Buffett Foundation—http://www.thehowardgbuffettfoundation.org/ Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation—http://leonardodicaprio.org/ Liz Claiborne Art Ortenberg Foundation—http://www.lcaof.org/ Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund—http://www.speciesconservation.org/ Novamedia—Dutch and Swedish Lottery—http://www.novamedia.nl/ Rufford Foundation—http://www.rufford.org/ The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust—http://www.helmsleytrust.org/ Wyss Foundation—http://wyssfoundation.org/ Photo: Andrey Danilovich Printed by World Bank Group Printing & Multimedia Services ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL FUNDING TO TACKLE ILLEGAL WILDLIFE TRADE 3352