BEYOND ENFORCEMENT: Engaging Communities in Combating Illegal Wildlife Trade

Transcription

1 BEYOND ENFORCEMENT: Regional workshop for Southeast Asia, with a focus on the Lower Mekong Basin HANOI, VIET NAM: November 2016 Workshop Communique Jake Brunner Dilys Roe James Compton Jack Laurenson IUCN VN 2016 Rosie Cooney Report prepared by IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group, IUCN Viet Nam, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), TRAFFIC and the ICCA Consortium. Citation: Cooney R., Brunner J., Roe D., Compton J., and Laurenson J. (2016) Workshop Proceedings: Beyond Enforcement: Engaging Communities in Combating Illegal Wildlife Trade. A Regional workshop for Southeast Asia, with a focus on the Lower Mekong Basin. Published by IUCN SULi. The views of the authors expressed in this publication are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN, TRAFFIC, IIED or the ICCA Consortium. We would like to gratefully acknowledge and appreciate the efforts and input of Thuy Le Thi Thanh, Roland Melisch, Nick Ahlers and James Tallant on technical and organizational aspects of this workshop.

2 Background Poaching for illegal wildlife 1 trade (IWT) is a major focus of current conservation and policy development. Poaching and associated IWT in Southeast Asia and the Lower Mekong Region in particular is devastating populations of iconic wildlife species such as tigers and pangolins, and causing severe declines of other wild cats and primates, bears, reptiles, sharks, rays, and pangolins, as well as a host of lesser known commercially valuable plants and tree species. Increasingly organised poaching, with involvement of criminal syndicates, is causing threats to personal security and the natural assets and livelihoods of rural communities that depend on natural resources. While the global and regional policy response has intensified, there is an acute need for the engagement, rights, interests and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and rural communities to be integrated into these responses. Demand from both domestic and international markets for supply of meat, Traditional Medicine ingredients, luxury items and other uses is a key factor driving overexploitation of species in the region. Prior to the 1990s, impacts of overharvesting increased in China, coinciding with a rise in purchasing power in this major market for wildlife products in the region. In the 1990s, overexploitation pressure shifted to Vietnam, then to Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Cambodia, increasing further as their economies opened to international trade, new roads linked previously remote areas to outside markets, and domestic demand for wildlife products increased. The value of some species has escalated dramatically in recent years, to the point that even formerly secure populations are now heavily exploited, and demand is increasingly being supplied from further afield. For example, most pangolins found in trade in Vietnam are now in shipments from Malaysia and Indonesia. In the last few years, illegal trafficking networks have spread even further, to the point that Vietnamese traders have been implicated in a surge in rhinoceros hunting sweeping South Africa and Zimbabwe, and Asian market demand for pangolin products involves trafficking chains that increasingly target pangolins in Africa. IWT has become a major focus of international and regional policy development. Examples include the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders statement (2015: see Leaders-Declarations/2015/2015_aelm.aspx); the Kuala Lumpur Declaration in Combating Transnational Crime (adopted by ASEAN in September 2015); the EU Parliament Resolution on Wildlife Crime (January 2014) and the more recent EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking published at the end of February 2016; and four high-level inter-governmental Conferences on Illegal Wildlife Crime in Paris (December 2013, with an African focus), London (February 2014, with a global focus), Kasane (March 2015, with a global focus), and Hanoi (November 2016). The emphasis in most policy debates and conservation spending, both globally and in this region, is strengthening top-down (State- or sometimes private-led) law enforcement, and on changing consumer behaviour to reduce demand for illegal wildlife species. These responses often inadequately consider the significant impacts of IWT (and enforcement-based approaches to tackling it) on Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) who live alongside the threatened wildlife, and their contributions to combating it. IPLCs can be severely affected by insecurity and the depletion of important livelihood and economic assets. They can also be affected by heavy-handed responses to wildlife crime, which frequently make little distinction between the illegal activities driven by large scale profits (crimes of greed) versus those driven by poverty (crimes of need). Indigenous women and children are particularly vulnerable to and negatively impacted by such interventions. However, it is likely that the long-term survival of many wildlife populations and the safeguarding of wild resources that form part of community assets will depend to a large extent on successful engagement of IPLCs as active partners in combating IWT. Over the last few years there has been an increasing number of policy commitments calling for engaging IPLCs in conservation and enhancing sustainable livelihoods (for example in the statements produced by the London, Gaborone and Hanoi intergovernmental conferences). However, these commitments typically remain vague, with implementation often weak and under-resourced. 1 Wildlife throughout this report includes fauna, flora and fungi, including aquatic and marine species as well as terrestrial. 2

3 Since mid-2014, IUCN (led by IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group, SULi), TRAFFIC the wildlife trade monitoring network, and International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) have collaborated with a range of partners on initiatives to highlight the importance of the role that IPLCs play in conserving wildlife and combating IWT, as well as examining where, when, and how community-level interventions to stop poaching for IWT can be effective. These efforts have included an international symposium with a focus on Southern and Eastern Africa (Muldersdrift, South Africa, February 2015) and a workshop for West and Central Africa (Limbe, Cameroon, February 2016). All of this vital work has been supported by the German Polifund initiative, implemented by GIZ on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the Austrian Ministry of the Environment, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The workshop on which this report is based was held in Hanoi, Vietnam, in November 2016 and was the latest in this series of events, focussing on Southeast Asia, and in particular the Lower Mekong Basin. The workshop This workshop was co-convened by IUCN SULi (lead agency) and IUCN Viet Nam (on-ground organisation), TRAFFIC, IIED, and the ICCA Consortium (Indigenous Peoples and Community Conserved Territories and Areas Consortium). The workshop aimed to draw together regional experiences and lessons learned for engaging IPLCs in combating IWT, in order to draw out lessons and insights for effective approaches. The focus of the workshop was on international IWT (i.e., wildlife trade that involves cross-border transactions), and not illegal use of wildlife for local subsistence use or trade. Workshop participants were invited to apply via a call for contributions by IUCN s Country Program Office in Hanoi, seeking submission of relevant analyses, case studies and experiences. Convenors made active efforts to seek proposals or presentations from people who are members of IPLCs affected by or engaged in tackling international IWT, or community support organisations, and from those with governmental (or inter-governmental) responsibilities or representing donor commitments for addressing wildlife crime. An immediate target of insights from the workshop was the high-level intergovernmental Conference on IWT held in Hanoi on November 17-18, immediately after this workshop. This enabled workshop convenors to hold a side event at the Conference on IWT to deliver key findings, and participate in the official agenda to inform discussions at the global level. The workshop was made possible by the kind support of the German Polifund initiative, implemented by GIZ on behalf of BMZ and BMUB; USAID, through the Wildlife Trafficking, Response, Assessment, and Priority Setting (Wildlife TRAPS) Project; and the Austrian Ministry for the Environment. All presentations are available at IUCN VN

4 Workshop structure The workshop was structured according to the following themes, with presentations of analyses and case studies in each by a facilitated discussion. SESSION 1 Opening and introductions SESSION 2 THEME 1 How is IWT affecting Indigenous Peoples and local communities? SESSION 3 THEME 2 How are top-down enforcement-focused interventions impacting communities and IWT? SESSION 4 THEME 3 Community engagement in enforcement: Where and how can communities be effectively supported or engaged in enforcement against IWT? SESSION 5 THEME 4 Engaging Indigenous Peoples and local communities in conservation: Where and how has strengthening community rights to manage and use or benefit from wild resources successfully reduced wildlife crime? SESSION 6 THEME 5 Alternative Livelihoods: Where and when can they be effective? SESSION 7 Development of Workshop Summary Statement 4

5 Introduction and overview The meeting was opened with welcoming remarks from Jake Brunner, Head of IUCN s Indo-Burma Group; Craig Hart, Deputy Mission Director, USAID Vietnam; BMZ s Christine Plastrotmann; and BMUB s Frank Barsch. Jake encouraged participants to speak openly, emphasising that we were here to learn from both successful and unsuccessful experiences in order to come to a better understanding of what works. James Compton (TRAFFIC Senior Director, Asia-Pacific) gave an overview of IWT dynamics in Southeast Asia. He highlighted that there has been much attention on increasing law enforcement effectiveness but relatively little to activating IPLCs to play a bigger role in combating IWT. Factors such as rapid economic development (including the rise in connectivity through air, rail, road infrastructure) and increased purchasing power pose significant challenges in Southeast Asia. IPLCs must be recognized as a key element in achieving zero poaching but in addition to site-based protection, there should be a sustained focus on intelligence-led actions that prevent incursions into protected areas and buffer zones by outsiders, as well as disrupting trafficking chains and targeting of nodal locations (including transboundary transit points) that facilitate IWT. Compton observed that while trade seizure data gives us insights into international IWT dynamics, there is a need for more information within national supply chains, and how enabling factors like the general lack of deterrents/ consequences for illegal behaviour, corruption, and relative lack of livelihood options can be addressed. Dealing with new trade dynamics, such as online IWT, stands out as a big challenge in the region, and necessarily requires the engagement of private sector actors such as e-commerce, logistics and transport companies. Rosie Cooney (IUCN SULi, Australia) highlighted the key lessons that had emerged from previous work carried out by the organisers on this topic. Approaches that rely primarily on top-down enforcement can have serious negative impacts, especially on human rights and livelihoods, and can also undermine the legitimacy and perception of conservation in the eyes of local people. Responses to IWT need to keep the broader conservation situation in mind or can inadvertently exacerbate other threats, such as habitat loss and agricultural encroachment. Incentives for IPLCs to conserve wildlife are key. They can be powerful and positive agents of change and can act as the eyes and ears for law enforcement. Cooney further introduced the Theory of Change that SULi, IIED and other partners have developed and published to guide interventions on this issue. Sue Lieberman (Wildlife Conservation Society, USA) shared key lessons from an analysis carried out by WCS on the risks and rewards for IPLCs in engaging in anti-poaching efforts. Literature on community policing (including in urban settings) highlights that enforcement agencies need communities to co-produce public safety, and that mutual trust is essential. The community based natural resource management literature highlights three key factors in success: rights of ownership/rights to benefit, capacity to enforce those rights, and community cohesion. A number of different IWT scenarios were distinguished and successful examples presented of each. Chrisgel Ryan Ang Cruz (WWF Greater Mekong Programme, Cambodia) gave an overview of WWF s Community-based Wildlife Crime Prevention Framework. This approach sits within a broader zero poaching framework that has community as one of six key elements in reducing IWT, alongside assessment, technology, capacity, prosecution and cooperation. Cruz highlighted the importance of communities in working with police to address issues leading to crime, and enabling intelligence-led policing based on information provided by local informants. He distinguished different types of offenders (opportunistic, premeditated and provoked) and described the different policing techniques appropriate to respond to each. He described use of this framework in field sites in Cambodia and Indonesia. Cruz called for community-based programs to explicitly incorporate IWT prevention as an evaluated and monitored programmatic objective, and for enforcement programs to integrate community participation, especially in identifying wildlife crimes and solutions, building positive relationships, and de-escalating conflicts. 5

6 THEME 1 How is IWT affecting Indigenous Peoples and local communities? This section of the workshop explored the social, economic, cultural and governance impacts of the illegal wildlife trade on IPLCs, including negative or positive impacts. Seree Wantai (Karen Wildlife Conservation Initiative, Myanmar) highlighted the challenges and lessons learned in Kawthoolei, Karen State, Myanmar. Wantai open by noting the wide range of impacts illegal hunting for IWT had in Karen communities. First, it affects farmers and farming since a reduction in the population of predators (i.e. tigers) and insectivores (e.g. pangolin) as a result of IWT can lead to an increase in crop-damaging animals, such as wild pigs and harmful insects. Farmers have not only lost valuable crops as a result of this damage but have also had to invest more in chemical pesticides as a result of the loss of natural insect predators. Second, increased poaching for the market is changing people s behaviour from collective to individualistic. Increasing demand and substantial short-term gain is making villagers more greedy and more inclined to poach. It is eroding traditional hunting practices and customs of sharing the wildlife that they hunt, and reduces the amount of prey species available for customary hunting practices. Small mammals and birds aren t the only targets, with iconic species like tiger (for bone), elephants (for ivory), guar (for horn) as well as gibbons and hornbills being targeted too, despite prohibitive traditional beliefs and local/regional laws. Third, it affects traditional healthcare based on traditional/cultural use of wild species. Substances used in traditional healthcare, like tiger bone or bear gall bladders, are no longer available to local people as poachers sell these in commercial markets. Finally, poachers sometimes use fire to flush out prey and this causes loss of soil and wildlife. Local communities are both a problem and solution, with some engaging in IWT while others act as vital support mechanisms for the Karen Forestry Department s Wildlife Protection Unit. The Karen pray to the spirit of nature to protect the forest and punish the poachers but need support from the international community too. Prom Tola (independent consultant, Cambodia) highlighted the impacts of Economic Land Concessions (ELCs) in facilitating illegal timber trade and undermining local livelihoods. Forest loss in Cambodia has accelerated rapidly in recent years, largely resulting from logging and agricultural concessions and illegal harvesting. Certain forest dependent communities have traditional rights to tap resin. Resin harvesting is generally sustainable and is an important income source for these communities, who face high levels of poverty, generating US$558 per household/year for almost 18,000 households. However, over 1 million hectares of forest has been granted as ELCs for agricultural development, often for years, with little if any local consultation. ELCs provide a loophole for illegal logging for commercial markets. They reduce availability of resin trees and reduce livelihood benefit flows, posing a major threat to traditional livelihoods. Wilaiwan Kalyakool (Freeland Foundation, Thailand) highlighted the social and security impacts of organized criminal gangs involved in IWT in eastern Thailand. In 2016, most poachers who were caught operating in Thailand were foreigners, often Vietnamese. Rosewood poaching is a particular problem, involving bribery and corruption and firearms (including AK 47s). Poaching gangs cause fear and insecurity among villagers and concern about loss of forests. They bring narcotics into villages, pay villagers to join them, and use narcotics to make them work longer. Drugs cause serious social problems. Kalyakool highlighted the work of the Soeng Sang Conservation Club to combat illegal logging, engaging community members as the eyes and ears of enforcement efforts. But there are disincentives to cooperate: villagers are not armed, don t trust rangers, and may face reprisals. Priorities are empowering civil society organisations to monitor IWT, while recognising this can be dangerous; combating official corruption, including ensuring rangers do not accept bribes from poachers; building trust between communities and law enforcement agencies, which can be facilitated by NGOs; and increasing deterrents by increasing penalties for poaching. Finally, there needs to be more cooperation and exchange of best practices and information between communities, as situations can change quickly. 6

7 Discussion The discussion highlighted the urgency of finding ways to engage communities to combat IWT in the landscapes addressed in these talks, given that they are among the most important in the region for biodiversity conservation. Further impacts of IWT on communities were raised: the spread of wildlife diseases and the incidence of poisoned meat associated with poaching. The vulnerability of some community-based approaches to shifts in market demand was highlighted: a participant cited a program to pay local people to guard hornbill nests, which was undermined by a price surge that drove renewed hunting. The importance of supporting IPLCs to get secure land title to support their engagement in forest protection was pointed out. The potential for communities to lose key tourist attractions such as wild tigers due to IWT was raised. There was discussion on the role of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in the region. While some people clearly benefit from these zones, others lose out and these may disproportionately include IPLCs with insecure tenure. These zones are often implicated in IWT as important markets. Finally, these messages about the challenges facing communities (including the undermining of traditional management systems) need to be taken to higher political levels national, regional and international. THEME 2 How are top-down enforcement-focused interventions impacting communities and IWT? This section focused on seeking to understand how the dominant model of intervention against IWT, relying primarily on State-led enforcement, is currently impacting IPLCs, and in turn how these interventions are succeeding (or not) in reducing IWT. What are the positive or negative impacts of top-down enforcement approaches on communities? What are the consequences for the effectiveness of these enforcement efforts in combating poaching for IWT? As we only had one presentation focused on this topic, a longer discussion period enabled participants to share their experiences. Sharon Koh Pei Hue (WWF Malaysia) presented on the impacts of IWT enforcement on IPLCs in Sabah, Malaysia, within WWF s framework to achieve zero poaching (see presentation by Cruz, above). WWF has found that around 85% of hunting is for subsistence, with around 15% for trade. Most subsistence hunting is technically illegal, as it is from protected areas. However, wildlife reliance seems to be increasing, which may be because these communities are getting poorer, with loss of land and livelihood options. Apparently successful enforcement strategies can have major negative impacts on IPLCs and undermine conservation objectives. Enforcement is applied indiscriminately: there is little attempt to distinguish between subsistence and commercial hunting. IPLCs are soft targets: most people arrested are IPLCs rather than the more powerful traders who capture most of the profits. Financial penalties mean IPLCs have to find funds to pay, which may lead to them selling land. Imprisonment can mean a catastrophic loss of income for families. Stress and resentment leads to IPLCs fighting back, becoming aggressive, and even aiding poachers. Rangers have become demotivated because they are hated by communities. This approach creates barriers to building constructive relationships with IPLCs and may not succeed in the long term. The top down approach needs to be balanced by a bottom up approach. Supporting traditional rights to small scale hunting and land tenure rights could be part of the solution. Discussion In the discussion, participants highlighted the limitations of trying to stop harvest primarily through enforcement. A participant shared experience from Bangladesh where authorities cracked down on turtle harvest and sale at markets during Hindu festivals. However, this approach didn t stop the harvest: trade has just moved underground, facilitated by use of cell phones rather than physical markets. This moving of trade underground has the disadvantage of meaning it can t be monitored. In Sarawak, Malaysia, communities are allowed to hunt but can only possess <5 kg meat for own use. This sort of approach, which recognises communities needs, may offer more potential than strict bans. A participant from Viet Nam shared a case where efforts to engage 7

8 local people in anti-poaching activities fell apart when they observed the authorities take no action against trucks transporting illegal timber, while cracking down on local wood collection. Here an escalation in enforcement effort, where unfairly applied, caused resentment and drove local people to return to hunting as it is easier and higher value than collaborating in poaching. Indeed, it worsened the situation through making any future collaboration very difficult. THEME 3 Community engagement in enforcement: Where and how can communities be effectively supported or engaged in enforcement against IWT? This section of the workshop explored an alternative model of enforcement, seeking to engage communities themselves as motivated and active players in combating poaching for IWT in various ways and under various governance models. The questions we explored were: How important is engagement of the community in successful reduction of poaching and IWT? (i.e., without community engagement, what would likely be happening?) Why has the community been motivated to participate in anti-poaching? What are the benefits to them, and what are any risks or negative impacts? Under what circumstances are efforts to mobilise community-based anti-poaching likely to be successful in combating IWT, and in what circumstances are they likely to struggle? Veronique Audibert (NTFP & POH KAO, Cambodia) showcased her organisation s work engaging IPLCs in community patrolling to tackle IWT and reduce biodiversity loss near Veun Sai-Siem Pang National Park in northeast Cambodia. This area holds one of the largest areas of intact forest in Southeast Asia, but is close to wildlife trade routes and targeted by traffickers. Leopard, clouded leopard, fishing cat, bear, gaur, banteng, deer, sambar, turtles and other reptiles and amphibians are heavily hunted. Meat is sold at local markets while body parts are traded on. Villagers are encouraged to hunt wildlife by newcomers who sell to Chinese and Lao traders at the district level who traffic the wildlife abroad (typically to Viet Nam). Since 2007, the organisation has worked with five local communities with a total population of 2,700. Interventions have focused on developing conservation agreements with the communities, co-signed by local authorities, whereby communities gain agricultural inputs. This has led to active local engagement in community patrols, which is the only enforcement that exists. These patrols removed 410 hunting snares in the national park in the last five months of Communities are motivated by concerns about loss of resources to poaching, including loss of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) as a result of illegal logging, and want recognition of their management rights through creation of a Community Protected Area (CPA). Major challenges include the reluctance of some individuals to participate, and the lack of any technical staff at provincial level with the skills and experience to accompany and support community patrols. Htet Eain Khant (Friends of Wildlife, Myanmar) presented on a conservation stewardship program in the Rakhine Yoma Elephant Sanctuary to reduce IWT. Since 2006, FOW has worked with a Chin village, consisting of 24 families with 127 people who live illegally in the forest. The community were previously prolific hunters, using dogs, snares, spears and other traps to hunt wildlife for subsistence and for trade. FOW has convinced them to agree to stop hunting in return for improved education, training and support for alternative livelihoods (cash crop plantations, small-scale livestock farming and agro-forestry). Securing their tenure status was a top priority for the Chin, and FOW has helped negotiate the issue of a 25-year land ownership certificate. Hunting has mainly stopped, the community has embraced alternative livelihoods, and villagers join FOW-led patrols in the sanctuary. Populations of many species, including elephants, appear to be relatively abundant again. Khant emphasised the many years it took to achieve these outcomes. 8

9 Fanie Bekker (WWF Greater Mekong Program, Vietnam) presented the CARBi initiative for forest conservation and livelihoods in the Central Annamite Mountains in central Vietnam and southern Laos. The project has recruited Community Forest Guards to work side by side with law enforcement. Guards benefit from professionalised training, health care, clear career paths, etc. The SMART tool is used, which can be used by community members themselves. The project has instituted an incentive system for informers and is developing payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes. The project and community involvement led to the rediscovery of saola after 15 years. However, while over 100,000 snares have been removed over the past four years, snare numbers have not been reduced. Discussion The question of whether community members involved in enforcement are paid and/or armed was raised. Community patrol members were not armed in any of these examples, but were paid in all. In the CARBi case they are not armed, but are accompanied by an armed government ranger. Discussion moved to why some initiatives sought to end all hunting, rather than stop hunting for the market or by outsiders, while allowing subsistence hunting of non-threatened species. Snares and nets are completely unselective and trap all ground based wildlife, including the most threatened species. In response, the suggestion was made to try banning snaring rather than hunting, which would be culturally appropriate, could support livelihoods, while still having conservation benefits. Traditional knowledge was discussed. While some presentations appeared to suggest local people do not have the knowledge to protect wildlife, there is a great deal of traditional knowledge about protecting wildlife in some areas, particularly among indigenous people. This should be respected and valued in whatever solutions are developed to combat IWT. A further point concerned the long-term sustainability of projects dependent on external revenue for paying guards: what happens when the money runs out? Compared to projects that build communities own capacity and incentives to protect wildlife and meet livelihood needs, are these approaches sustainable? Finally, the importance of enforcement in supporting any benefits/rights gained by local people was underlined. A balance of top down and bottom up approaches is needed to combat IWT, not one or the other. This theme continued with two more case studies presented. Anuj Jain (BirdLife International, Indonesia) presented his work with communities in the North Maluku islands of Indonesia to curb the IWT that is affecting the region s vibrant bird populations. Halmahera Island in North Maluku is home to 24 endemic birds, four endemic genera and six globally threatened endemics, including a number of parrots. Habitats have been decimated by massive, largely illegal, logging and the spread of palm oil plantations, and increasingly by hunting for the pet trade. Despite a government ban on the trade of CITES-listed parrots in 1999, rampant poaching for domestic and international trade has led to serious population declines. Parrots are traded through complex trade chains to other parts of Indonesia and The Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia, and beyond. Government enforcement is extremely weak. Traditionally, most village households keep birds, particularly parrots, as pets or for trade (three-quarters of households in a 2008 survey). Surveys found selling parrots did not provide primary income but opportunistic cash. To prevent poaching, BirdLife drew lessons from its work in the Mbeliling Forest on Flores, Indonesia where it negotiated voluntary resource management agreements (VRMAs) in villages, created local conservation and development groups, and supported alternative livelihoods including coffee, tourism, and NTFPs. This has prevented slash and burn, protected water resources, and triggered tree planting. In Halmahera, the program has trained villagers to become parrot guardians who patrol to monitor parrot populations; enabled younger members to become bird watching guides; and established educational programs to increase awareness on biodiversity and wildlife laws. VRMAs have been developed, and efforts to increase agricultural productivity and support ecotourism are planned. To date, many hunters have given up hunting or reduced its intensity. Results for the parrots currently appear mixed: some species have recovered (e.g., white cockatoo) while others continue to decline (e.g., chattering lory). A key lesson is that the process is slow: working with communities takes time! 9

10 Camille Coudrat (with William G. Robichaud, Project Anoulak, Lao PDR) presented a case study on tackling IWT in the Nakai-Nam Theun National Protected Area. This is the largest protected area in Lao PDR, covering almost 4,000 km2, and is ranked as a priority for biodiversity conservation at both national and global levels. It is one of the largest contiguous forest blocks in the Indochinese peninsula, with high levels of endemism. It has 31 enclave villages with about 7,000 inhabitants of different ethnic groups, who frequently come into contact with the surrounding wildlife. Protection of this protected area was funded as an offset to the biodiversity impacts Nam Theun 2 hydroelectric dam, at the level of US$1 million/year for 31.5 years starting in This makes it one of the best-funded protected areas in the world. But after 10 years it is clear that measures to date have failed: hunting is intense and commercially valuable wildlife and tree species have been wiped out from large areas. While institutional re-structuring has taken place the problem persists. A key problem in terms of engaging communities in protecting and conserving the forest is that there is a lack of incentive for local communities to participate. There is no sense of ownership or confidence in the management authority. While there have been community support projects (roads, livestock, etc.), these have no link to biodiversity conservation and have failed to instil any incentives for, or sense of stewardship. Unequal support to different communities may have created tension and undermined trust. Discussion Discussion returned to the exit strategy of projects that pay communities from external funds to participate in enforcement. How can these be made sustainable? Jain highlighted how their project was trying to develop sustainable livelihoods based on ecotourism, coffee, honey, and rattan, but the intent is to only pay until the market is up and running. The logic is that if communities earn income from the forest they will protect it more. Cultural norms are moving away from resource use. For young people in particular there is growing interest in new livelihoods like tourism and guiding. Bekker made the point that we need to be brutally honest about the economic incentives for poaching and find ways to generate economic incentives for positive behaviour. The discussion turned to whether the projects presented here took into account traditional knowledge and how local people were using their own rights to manage wildlife. Khant explained that in the Rakhine Yoma where the Chin villagers were considered squatters, a big incentive for them was the right to live legally and this motivated their participation in the no-hunting scheme. A participant shared how getting indigenous/local perceptions and values recognised by local government is difficult. A participant raised the question of whether soul was under-represented in discussions, i.e., people s potential to love nature and to want to conserve it for altruistic reasons. This can emerge where trust is built and where conservation actions reflect what local people find important. External groups, including NGOs, need to listen to communities, not impose their views or practices on local people in the guise of education. The underlying question is how can we change behaviours? We can change knowledge, and this can be helpful, especially at governmental level, but this does not necessarily lead to changes in behaviour. Many communities have excellent traditional knowledge and conservation friendly management practices (e.g., open/closed seasons) but these practices are usually ignored in official policy. Instead, their lands may be opened up for agriculture or other commercial purposes and they may lose their hunting grounds. Respect for traditional practices needs to underpin responses to poaching and IWT. 10

11 THEME 4 Engaging Indigenous Peoples and local communities in conservation: Where and how has strengthening community rights to manage and use or benefit from wild resources successfully reduced wildlife crime? This section explored the underlying incentives communities may have for protecting wildlife versus participating in poaching it. Key questions for this session were: In successful community-based interventions that have reduced IWT, how important has strengthening community rights to access, manage and use wild resources been? How important has increasing benefits from wildlife been? Under what circumstances are these approaches likely to work, and under what circumstances are they likely to struggle? Anastasiya Timoshyna (TRAFFIC) reviewed the role of sustainable, legal trade in NTFPs in combating IWT, with a special focus on medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs). Globally, around 60,000 plant species are now estimated to be used medicinally. Demand is increasing, trade trains are complex, and millions of wild harvesters live in poor and marginalized communities, often without access to viable alternatives for generating income. CITES listings have marginal success. IWT in non-timber plants is a significant but largely overlooked issue in Southeast Asia, while the focus tends to be on illegal logging and timber trade. Timoshyna highlighted the potential for sustainable legal trade in plants to contribute to landscape level conservation, including helping reduce illegal harvest and trade. Tools to promote sustainable, legal and equitable trade are available, such as the FairWild standard, and have scope for making links to species affected by IWT. Further, sustainability market awareness is growing in the region. Two case studies were highlighted. One from was Bac Kan, Viet Nam, where a project was underway to transform unsustainable harvest of medicinal and aromatic plants in protected area buffer zones (including for illegal trade to China) into sustainable and equitable trade, through training and resource management using the FairWild standard. The second was from the Western Ghats, India, where Terminalia bellerica fruits are harvested for Ayurvedic medicine. T. bellerica is a preferred nesting site for the Great hornbill and Malabar pied hornbill. Low prices have led to illegal logging and trade with loss of these nesting sites. An intervention of Applied Environmental Research Foundation (supported by TRAFFIC) is increasing the price gained by harvesters through FairWild certification (twice the market price), saving trees and nesting sites. The European buyer of the fruits is marketing tree/hornbill conservation. Key enabling circumstances for this approach include having a clear, credible, verified best practice management system; clarity on tenure, access and use rights; access to markets for legally harvested products; and multi-stakeholder collaboration and co-management arrangements. Greater understanding of the often-hidden NTFP trade is needed in order to shape appropriate policy and practice responses to IWT as well as more broadly in management of timber concessions and production forests. Chavalit Vidhthayanon (Seub Nakhasathien Foundation, Thailand) discussed community forestry projects in the country s Western Forest Complex, a natural World Heritage Site home to about 2,000 people who sporadically poach. The foundation works particularly with the Mae Jun community of Um Phang Wildlife Sanctuary (about 40 villages, mainly Karen). Its work has focused on supporting co-management of community forests and streams, and supporting income streams that do not rely on unsustainable harvest. These livelihood options include sustainable harvesting of NTFPs (such as for dying textiles) and value adding for commercial markets, and eco-tourism. Capacity building for local patrol officers to improve enforcement has also taken place. The foundation s work has led to recovery of forest areas, better management of rivers, including fish sanctuaries. Their research indicates that poaching has been reduced, with the number of tigers and their prey recovering. 11

12 Tanya Conlu (NTFP Exchange Programme, Philippines) discussed the relevance and importance of NTFP harvest and trade in combating IWT. She put this in context by highlighting that NTFPs have been estimated to contribute around 25% of the income of around a billion people. Tanya emphasised the distinction that should be made between the severity of harm caused by subsistence hunting and harvesting, and outsider driven hunting, encroachment, and large agricultural projects. However, restrictive park policies and/or species regulations often prohibit access and harvesting for local, traditional use. At the same time, at the community level, traditional harvest patterns are being challenged by increasing commercialisation and disregard for traditional practices and management measures. Currently, no clear link could be shown between community-based NTFP harvesting enterprises and IWT reduction. However, these enterprises provide incentives to communities to fight for their forests against poachers and encroaching land uses whether legal or not. They can give a strong motivation for communities to fight for tenure rights, and these tenure rights are critical ingredients in achieving community engagement with reducing IWT. Tanya s key message overall was secure tenure + good profitable NTFPbased livelihoods = community conservation and reduction of IWT. The NTFP enterprises that are most likely to succeed are those where the NTFP harvest is consistent with maintaining ecosystem integrity and biodiversity (e.g., honey); where the enterprise draws on long traditions of use (such as production of fibre from Abaça Musa textilis); and where the enterprise upholds traditional resource values and governance systems (such as management of Almasiga Agathis philippinensis). Key challenges faced by NTFP enterprises include exclusionary and restrictive permitting processes and other policies, maintaining interest and involvement of youth in conservation, and maintaining traditions around resource management in the face of the influence of external cultures. Vidhu Kapur (The Energy and Resources Institute, India) presented a case study of community conservation in Nagaland, northeast India, to tackle IWT. Nagaland is a special State in India where 93 per cent of the territory s natural habitats are owned and managed by individuals, tribes, villages and district councils. Civil and criminal cases are tried under Tribal Councils based on customary laws. Hunting is an important traditional practice: wild meat is used for food, medicine and traditional rituals, as well as being an important source of income. While this is illegal under the 1972 Wildlife Protection Act (amended in 2002), this law has been largely ineffective in reducing IWT. However, Community Conserved Areas (CCA) can play a strong role in helping to mitigate IWT. Almost a third of villages in Nagaland have established CCAs. TERI research indicates that 85% were self-initiated, with most of the rest mainly initiated by the Forest Department. The major motivations for communities to establish CCAs were concerns about loss of forests and green spaces, loss of wildlife species to hunting or habitat loss, livelihood and economic opportunities, water, and loss of plant species. Communities perceive key benefits as preventing ecosystem degradation and restoring degraded ecosystems, increasing community support for conservation, increased availability of plants and water, and increased animal abundance. To manage CCAs, the most common practices are patrolling, banning treefelling and hunting, and banning trade in wild products. Experience suggests key ingredients for sustained community participation in conservation include clear and secure communal land tenure, statutory mechanisms for collective and equitable decision making, a transparent system for penalties against offenders, strengthened capacity for resource management, and involvement of women and youth. 12

13 Discussion The discussion highlighted some differences in the link between land/resource tenure and conservation in the different case studies. In the NTFP case study, tenure was highlighted as the most critical factor motivating communities to take action against IWT. Similarly the success of tiger conservation in Sariska has been attributed to changes in the Indian forest law of 2006 that recognised resource rights of forest communities for the first time. This provided the necessary catalyst for reviving traditional conservation practices and for instituting a community based sanction/fining mechanism in cases of illegal activity. In Nagaland, by contract, local people have always had secure land tenure resource tenure and have exploited wildlife with increasing incidents of involvement in IWT (such as poaching of pangolins). It has only been with the setting aside of land specifically for conservation (as a community conserved area) that action against IWT has happened. One participant also noted that even in Sariska the community empowerment is coupled with a high level of enforcement, and it may be that the enforcement is the critical factor rather than just community empowerment. Another participant noted that in the case of Amur falcons, the critical factor resulting in community engagement was firstly international pressure. This subsequently brought about an increased investment in awareness raising and community engagement. A participant from the Western Forest Complex in Thailand highlighted that, while direct tenure rights have not been granted to communities, they have been increasingly involved in discussions with the protected area authority for example to help address issues around boundary demarcation. This has gone some way to reduce conflict with protected area staff. The Chair concluded the session emphasising that IWT is unlikely to be successfully addressed until issues such as conservation conflict, demand for recognition of traditional rights, and the need to establish viable income streams have been resolved. THEME 5 Alternative Livelihoods: Where and when can they be effective? The term alternative livelihoods can be understood to mean an approach to conservation that substitutes a an environmentally damaging one with a less damaging one (for example, replacing bushmeat hunting with fish farming, or firewood collection with LPG stoves). This theme therefore overlaps to some extent with the previous theme, but focuses on livelihoods that do not involve consumptive use of wild resources. The key questions for this session were: Where IWT has been reduced through community based interventions involving alternative livelihoods, how important have the livelihood benefits from these interventions been in lowering rates of poaching? How important is it that the benefits from alternative livelihoods are conditional on the state of wildlife (i.e., they decrease if wildlife declines, and increase where wildlife is healthy)? Where the benefit flows from alternative livelihoods are not conditional, what incentives do they provide for community members to protect wildlife and/or not poach? Under what circumstances are alternative livelihoods approaches likely to work, and under what circumstances are they likely to struggle? 13

14 The Chair of this session, Dilys Roe (IIED, UK) opened the session by presenting the results of an evidencebased review IIED and partners had carried out on the conservation effectiveness of alternative livelihoods interventions. 106 interventions were included in the review, of which only 21 had assessed whether they were successful, and only nine of these found a positive conservation impact (and only two of these finding an actual impact on the ground). In three cases, indeed, the impact was negative. Roe highlighted the lack of clarity in many projects about the theory of change involved and the underlying assumptions. For instance, it is often assumed that if household income from beekeeping increases, hunting activities will decrease, whereas often people may pursue the beekeeping while continuing to hunt. External assumptions such as a market for products being available and accessible are often not carefully thought through. Saw Lwin (Ecosystem Conservation and Community Development Initiative, Myanmar) presented a case study focused on intensive cultivation of medicinal orchids in Myanmar as a means to IWT. In Myanmar, forest cover is declining and demand for orchids is growing. Illegal collection by local people of the 841 native wild orchids, and sale to traders for export, primarily to China, is a growing problem, especially in Chin and Shan States. Illegal trade of dried Dendrobium is increasing. Local people earn money by selling these plants and although the Forest Department takes action against orchid smugglers, traders still succeed in persuading the villagers to sell orchids illegally. This ECCDI initiative has started intensive cultivation of orchids to export legally to China in order to provide an alternative method to generate local incomes. This scheme involves previous illegal collectors and has increased their income. The prices for legal products with a permit are greater than for wild-collected plants. The volume of harvest has increased. It appears that there is less collection of wild orchids, although this is not clear. Shahriar Caesar Rahman (Creative Conservation Alliance, Bangladesh) presented a case study from the Chittagong Hill Tracts: a bottom up, long term project seeking to understand and meet community needs in order to shift patterns of hunting behaviour. People in this remote area have a hunting culture similar to those in Southeast Asia, and people are heavily dependent on natural resources as well as shifting agriculture. Government enforcement is virtually absent. Tribal peoples have been poorly treated: in the 1980s the government moved Bengali people into this area. Tribal peoples have the right to do shifting agriculture but do not have formal land tenure. But patterns of agriculture are changing. In the past, land was left fallow for 25 years, but the population is increasing, and fallow period has decreased to just 2-3 years, with corresponding fall in soil fertility and crop production. The political situation is complex and unstable, with insurgents in the area. In the CCA intervention, trust was built by employing tribal people as para-biologists: 28 villages were surveyed by these para-biologists to gather data on hunting practices. This found that around 60 species are hunted for subsistence and commercial wildlife trade, including elephants, pangolin, wild cats, tortoise, hornbills, birds and gibbons. Hunting is opportunistic and subsistence-oriented but people will trade wildlife when there is a market. The project developed agreements by which CCA established primary schools in return for hunting moratoria on threatened species. The project is also seeking to improve livelihoods by helping communities form a community-based organisation to create and gain market access for traditional crafts. There are early indications of success: freshwater turtle hunting has been reduced by about 70%. But there are still problems. Challenges include poaching by outsiders (including insurgents), and the complex mix of tribes in the area. Rahman emphasised that interventions to combat poaching and IWT need to build trust and genuinely meet community needs, in contrast to large externally driven development interventions that often fail. 14

15 Peni Lestari (WCS, Indonesia) presented work on the benefits of livelihood diversification in and around the shark fisheries in Tanjung Luar. Indonesia has the largest shark and ray fisheries in the world and Tanjung Luar is the best known shark fishing village in Indonesia, with 48 shark boats. There is a mix of illegal and legal fishing, with sharks/rays consumed both domestically and for illegal export. The sustainability of these fisheries is unknown. WCS is seeking to diversify the fishery and protect sharks and rays whilst also maintaining livelihoods. Can alternative livelihoods work? WCS research indicates shark fishers are wealthier than other fishers, generally owning their own boats, and if catch declined most would still continue to fish for shark. They have no interest in other livelihoods due to lack of skills and capital. It is thus difficult to encourage livelihood diversification and provide alternatives that are financially attractive. Debt buy-out and/or microfinance schemes could be an option, as well as value-added sustainable fishery supply-chains as a market-driven approach to incentivise diversification. Enforcement and regulation will still be necessary to reduce fishing pressure on sharks and rays. Implementation of recent CITES listings could make shark fishing less lucrative and diversification more feasible, but alternatively could increase illegal activities. Discussion On the shark fishing case, ecotourism as an alternative livelihood was suggested as an option. However, Lestari indicated this was very difficult in Tanjung Luar. CITES Appendix II (in which some shark/ray species are listed) provides a framework for legal and sustainable trade, so why not aim for sustainable trade rather than ending shark fishing? Lestari pointed out that in Indonesia, CITES Appendix II has been implemented by banning exports completely. Hammerhead, for example, can be domestically caught but not exported (although it has been found that fin is being exported anyway). The government approach to the new CITES Appendix II shark listings is likely to be banning all exports due to inadequate data to ensure harvest is sustainable. The practical impact is likely to be that landings will switch to areas that are harder to monitor. A participant raised the question of conditionality as a key underlying dynamic in providing alternative livelihoods. How conditional are livelihood benefits on conservation actions in these cases? For instance, would the CCA in Bangladesh shut down the schools they had established if the villagers broke the conservation agreements? Rahman said they would not, but by providing these benefits and livelihoods support, they aimed to change norms in favour of conservation over the long term. How important is hunting for livelihoods? Is it important for food security or is it just a habit? In the Bangladesh example, Rahman indicated it was not very important for food security, although they do need meat. Also, people may hunt not directly to gain meat but to pay for education or other needs requiring cash income. This was the same situation with Chin hunters in the Rakhine Yoma. The discussion highlighted challenges facing efforts to cultivate wild species to meet trade demand as in the case study presented by Lwin. These can be vulnerable to shifts in the market. The Chinese market for orchids goes up and down and this could threaten the conservation outcomes. Experience indicates that similar cases have often not been successful in long term for multiple reasons, including the nature of market demand Chinese markets usually prefer wild rather than cultivated products. The conservation impacts of shifting to cultivation of wild plants are also about clearing land, which needs to be taken into account when designing interventions. On livelihoods, interventions need to look at who is benefiting, particularly where outsiders are coming in to work in cultivation operations. One challenge is that NGOs have different approaches. Could the approach of communities receiving something in return for not hunting pose a problem for NGOs that focus on enforcing restrictions? Local people don t necessarily live in harmony with nature. Increasingly, traditional cultural values restricting hunting are breaking down and the cash economy is growing. Is it always possible to give something in return for stopping hunting? 15

16 This discussion was followed by three more case studies on alternative livelihoods. Aman Singh (KRAPAVIS, India) shared experiences on engaging IPLCs in conservation at the Sariska Tiger Reserve, one of India s iconic tiger reserves, with a resident population of Gujjar and Meena tribes. All of the reserve s tigers had been lost to poaching by KRAPAVIS s intervention focused on moving from conflict to cooperation, given that success of tiger conservation in Sariska depends on communities willingness to tolerate living with tigers. Previously, conflict was sparked by the lack of official recognition of community rights or role in reserve management. The basis for a more harmonious approach was laid by India s Forest Rights Act, which recognised the rights of forest communities. KRAPAVIS has assessed patterns of resource use, and worked with park authorities to increase their understanding of the potential for coexistence of livestock grazing with wildlife. They have supported the revival of traditional management systems of sacred groves, water sources, and rotational buffalo grazing. They have also strengthened local institutions, including village committees to combat IWT and a self-fine system for illegal wild resource use. These changes have paved the way for a successful re-introduction. There are now 14 tigers in the reserve and no tiger poaching has been reported for 10 years. Om Sophana (Mlup Baitong, Cambodia) presented the results of a community-based ecotourism (CBET) project. The project area is located inside Kirirom National Park, which is part of an elephant corridor that connects Aural Wildlife Sanctuary to the Cardamom Mountains. Before the project, villagers were heavily dependent on forest resource extraction, including wildlife hunting alongside timber cutting and NTFP harvesting. Uncontrolled extraction had led to severe forest loss and degradation. In 2002, Mlup Baitong establishing a CBET project (including homestays, camping, waterfalls, wildlife viewing) with a view to enabling communities to better manage wildlife. The project, which opened in 2003, provided training, helped developed local institutions, and built infrastructure. It aims to generate income that is directly linked to the state of the forest, and promote a sense of ownership and pride. It now benefits around 900 households in nine villages. Poaching has declined significantly (and almost stopped), as has illegal logging. Notably, the project is now entirely locally owned, with Mlup Baitong phasing out support several years ago. One issue is that the project may have just displaced IWT to neighbouring areas rather than stopping it. Thomas Gray (Wildlife Alliance, Cambodia) presented findings also from ecotourism in Cambodia s southern Cardamom Mountains where IWT is a major threat. People have limited income options, insecure tenure, and wildlife traders often lend money to local people to be paid back in wildlife products. A CBET project was established in Chi Phat in 2006 in a highly participatory manner, run by the community itself. The project targeted a community that was particularly implicated in IWT. Wildlife Alliance provided technical support and helped them build governance systems, identify suitable CBET products and services, develop capacity and financial literacy, establish infrastructure, and market the destination. By 2015 it was profitable and self-sustaining, with over 3,000 visitors per year. Outcomes appear to be positive: the initiative has reduced deforestation and forest clearance by over 90% compared to before. But snaring for high value wildlife continues. Rather than Beyond Enforcement, this project highlights the need to go Back to Enforcement. CBET is generating benefits for >70% of villagers, and these benefits are directly tied to the state of the forest and provide direct incentives for conservation. But this does not mean that all resources are protected. Wildlife continues to be poached by both locals and outsiders. CBET has led to greater support for law enforcement, and the need now is for a joint approach, whereby communities gain benefits and are empowered, but are supported by cooperative and effective law enforcement. Discussion It was noted that the recovery of tigers in Sariska was coincident with the imprisonment of a notorious tiger hunter who later died in jail, suggesting that part of effective community engagement is the perception that justice is seen to be done. 16

17 Workshop summary statement Process In the lead-up to the final session of the workshop, the organisers drew up a summary of key points raised across all sessions to date. A copy of this was given to all participants, who spent half an hour going through it. Each table was then passed the microphone to raise any issues or comments, and these were collected in real time through editing the text of the summary, which was projected on a screen to the room. After the workshop an edited version of the summary was circulated to all participants for further comment before this final version was prepared taking into account all comments. We are therefore confident that while not all participants will agree with every word of this document, it represents a reliable summary of generally agreed insights drawn from this meeting. HANOI LESSONS LEARNT : Communities and illegal wildlife trade This statement summarises key messages, insights and views emerging from presentations and discussion at this workshop. This workshop focused on the Lower Mekong Basin, but drew case studies from South and Southeast Asia. However, we recognise that not every point will apply in every place. Key messages and regional insights 1. IWT in SEA Asia needs to be urgently addressed, but it is difficult a. SE Asia is a major source region, not just a transit/demand region, for IWT. Poaching for IWT is widespread, often indiscriminate, and raising threats to many species in the region. b. The region is characterised by rapid economic and trade growth, market integration, vast and remote border regions, widespread debt bondage, and escalating internet wildlife trade these all magnify the challenges. c. IWT has serious and diverse impacts on the Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) living with wildlife, from loss of natural resource assets to social breakdown. 2. Effective enforcement is critical, but is frequently inadequate or poorly targeted a. IPLCs need responsive and trustworthy armed backup to assist them to protect their wildlife, particularly where poaching is carried out by armed outsiders. b. Law enforcement needs to be fair IPLCs need to see kingpins and middlemen targeted, not just village poachers who are easy targets. c. However, in much of the region the State is weak or absent in wildlife areas, particularly in remote border areas, and enforcement officials often corrupt. 3. Enforcement is far more effective where communities are motivated and active partners a. IPLCs can act as guards and rangers (armed or unarmed), can cooperate with official enforcement authorities, can provide information and intelligence to authorities, and can carry out monitoring of wildlife or illegal activities all vital roles to effectively combat IWT. b. IWT is lucrative so IPLCs need strong incentives (financial or non-financial) to protect wildlife and not get involved in poaching and trafficking. c. There is little scope for wildlife-viewing tourism in dense forest, which limits options to generate income that create direct incentives to protect wildlife. d. Benefits from sustainable use/trade of plants and animals can be important, as can other non-wildlife based benefits, as long as the flow of benefits is conditional on protecting the wildlife. e. Customary hunting is widely banned in the region, but these bans are ineffective, resented, and widely ignored, and may undermine the cooperative relationships needed to stop poaching. f. Rights and tenure can be as or more important in motivating IPLCs, but it is frequently absent, weak or unclear in this region. 17

18 4. Solutions can t be imposed on IPLCs from outside a. Approaches to reduce IWT are much more likely to work over the long term where they are planned by or with IPLCs, are built on trust, address community needs, and respect and build on traditional use and governance of natural resources. b. The ability of IPLCs to express their views and needs and participate in planning and decision-making on IWT needs to be strengthened. Full Statement 1. IWT in SEA Asia needs to be urgently addressed, but it is difficult a. South-East Asia is usually viewed as a demand region for illegal wildlife 2 trade, but it is in fact a major source region, in which high levels of poaching for IWT (particularly timber; elephants; rhinos; primates; bears; cats; turtles, tortoises, and other reptiles; pangolins; birds; and sharks, rays and other fish) have acute and widespread conservation and local community impacts. Snaring is highly destructive, indiscriminate, and widespread in the region. b. This region has high levels of rural poverty and inequality and is experiencing rapid and intensifying economic development and escalating movement of people and goods. These are major risk factors for illegal wildlife trade. c. Economic development in the region is characterised by creation of local economic or special economic zones. While these can bring local jobs, they can also inadvertently facilitate IWT. d. There is increasing, and increasingly secret, internet and mobile phone-based trade, sometimes in response to increased enforcement efforts and/or market dynamics. This brings a new set of consumers into IWT. e. Enforcement of wildlife laws is generally very weak, and sometimes non-existent. While some efforts to tackle IWT have been made by some countries over recent years, there remain large, open, effectively unregulated marketplaces for illegally sourced wildlife (particularly in border areas) and there is low enforcement capacity and conservation awareness. In some countries, core conservation functions are essentially carried out by NGOs, as State presence and/or capacity is entirely lacking in wildlife areas. f. In general, community land/resource tenure and customary rights, laws and practices of IPLCs are often not legally recognised and may be actively undermined by state interventions, including government concessions, conservation laws, and protected areas. g. In Southeast Asia there is often a major overlap between hunting 3 of species for local use and trade of wildlife into national and international markets, in part due to widespread use of indiscriminate snares. IPLC members may be involved in all these forms. For example, village hunters may go hunting primarily to meet family needs, but may also take additional species and/or sell their catch to visiting traders when there is a demand. h. In recent years there has been an increase in poaching for IWT by outsiders (i.e., non-community members), including the military. i. Hunting bans are widely imposed in Southeast Asia, but are frequently ignored in practice (both by IPLCs and enforcement authorities). Where they are enforced, they may have negative impacts on community livelihoods and their motivation to contribute to conservation. j. Hidden drivers of IPLC involvement in IWT can include servicing debt to money lenders (debt bondage) and generating cash to pay for needs like medical bills. k. Heavy forest cover in the region, coupled with depletion of conspicuous species, means options to generate incentives for species conservation from tourism based on viewing wildlife are very restricted. 2 Includes plants and animals. 3 Hunting refers throughout to hunting of terrestrial animals. 18

19 l. The impacts of IWT on communities are varied and serious, and can include: i. Decreased availability of species for subsistence and cultural use, and corresponding loss of traditional knowledge and management practices; ii. Decreased availability of species important for local income generation; iii. Increased levels of human-wildlife conflict, resulting from decreased levels of predators, with corresponding increases in species that damage crops (such as wild pigs); iv. Increased habitat degradation due to burning practices associated with IWT, with knock-on impacts on e.g. soil fertility; v. Social breakdown, as behaviour changes from communally-minded (where everything is shared) to individually-minded (where individual benefit maximisation becomes the prerogative). This shift is likely to take place as a community becomes more integrated into the market economy; vi. Decreased local security as a result of influx of arms; vii. Social and health problems resulting from associated trade in and use of narcotics. 2. Effective enforcement is critical but frequently inadequate or poorly targeted a. There is in many countries in the region little State field-level ranger capacity, with inadequate training and no performance incentives. Cultural and political factors mean there is often no support from higher levels for rangers to engage with local people. b. Even where there are IWT interventions based on strong community engagement, this can be undermined by lack of effective and timely State enforcement to protect IPLC rights/stewardship and stop poaching, particularly by outsiders. c. Yet in those countries and contexts where enforcement is strong, IPLCs potentially suffer the most. Despite generally receiving the lowest level of benefits from their involvement in the trade, they are a soft target for law enforcement against IWT and are often targeted while more powerful players are untouched and continue to remove much higher value wild products (including timber) without prosecution. Fines may result in scarce land or other assets being sold, imprisonment can deprive an entire family of the primary income earner so penalisation can plunge poor people into a downward spiral of increasing poverty and thus reliance on returns from IWT. d. Observing corrupt officials engaging in IWT and seeing kingpins being overlooked while local community members are targeted by law enforcement can drive resentment and anger and undermine trust. This makes collaborative conservation approaches impossible and fuels more IWT and of higher value species. e. Strengthening State enforcement capacity and incentives to tackle IWT, in a way that effectively tackles syndicates, kingpins and corrupt officials, is therefore a critical priority in the region to underpin community efforts against IWT. 19

20 3. Enforcement is far more effective where communities are motivated and active partners a. Effective State-level enforcement against poaching for IWT will be enhanced by cooperative relationships with motivated IPLCs. These can involve, for example, IPLCs being wildlife guardians or rangers, participating in joint enforcement with State agencies, providing intelligence and information to authorities, carrying out field monitoring of illegal activities or of resources. b. This raises the question of what interventions and approaches are likely to support and motivate strong IPLC engagement to combat poaching. In many cases IPLCs are distrustful and resentful of conservation authorities (due to the legacy of dispossession of ancestral lands for protected areas or loss of rights to wildlife) and have little incentive to protect wildlife. c. IWT interventions are often driven by a crisis mindset, but it is critical to consider and build in to project design methods to sustain impacts over the long term and after project intervention periods. d. Wildlife steward/guardian/ranger programs based on paying local people to do these jobs is a common approach taken to promote community involvement in combating poaching. However, these interventions may not be sustainable in the long term, as they rely on ongoing external financial inputs and may not be culturally and socially embedded. e. Interventions should recognise and build on the traditional knowledge, traditional governance systems, and traditional resource management practices of communities, while acknowledging that communities are undergoing social and cultural change and that some traditional activities may have become unsustainable. f. Hunting wildlife (as well as fishing and use of plants) is often traditional and deeply culturally and socially embedded, and there are often conflicts between customary practice and conservation laws. Restrictions on customary use of wild animals and plants, if enforced, may be perceived as illegitimate, and can cause anger and resentment and drive some people to support IWT. g. It is important for interventions to identify who exactly at local level is engaged in IWT, and effectively change their behaviour. h. Lack of knowledge among community members about the larger conservation context and threats to biodiversity may contribute to local poaching for IWT; increasing their knowledge may help change poaching behaviour. i. People s motivations for combating IWT can be financial and non-financial, tangible and intangible. Tangible incentives can be critical to motivate conservation action, as meeting livelihood needs will typically come first for people, particularly those living in poverty. Wildlife products have high value and the significance of financial incentives for poaching for IWT need to be recognized and countered. j. Benefits gained by community members need to be directly contingent on conservation effectiveness in order for these benefits to reliably enhance conservation. Benefits can provide incentives for conservation (e.g. nature-based tourism, PES schemes, wildlife use under sound governance conditions) or can provide alternative sources of income/protein that reduce the incentives for poaching. k. The dense forest habitat in much of the region limits the potential for using wildlife based tourism as an approach to create direct incentives to conserve wild species. l. Lack of legal recognition of customary tenure and rights, or the overriding of these by state land allocations, means development of a stewardship ethic and sustainable resource management is often lacking. Recognition of community stewardship rights, in particular land tenure, may be a critical underpinning for conservation action, although alone often not enough to motivate conservation action. m. Identifying livelihood options that generate enough income to compete with the illicit income from IWT can be challenging, particularly where those involved don t have skills/capacity to pursue other livelihood options. 20

21 n. Use and trade of wild species has major livelihood importance in the region, and where well managed and legal can provide incentives to conserve landscapes and species, including species other than the ones traded. Making links between communities and the market, enabling value-adding, enhancing access to new technology and ideas in order to increase local benefits from use and trade of wildlife are big challenges. However, benefits from use may be inadequate to motivate conservation where recognition of secure community land tenure is lacking. o. However, the forms of wildlife use or other alternative livelihoods supported should be culturally appropriate, chosen by communities, provide broader conservation benefits where possible, and support traditional practices and governance. Interventions should be rooted in a deep understanding of the local context while a wide range of case studies exists to share and learn from, there is no replicable model given the diversity of any given situation. p. Interventions need to build in consideration of equitable and transparent benefit-sharing within the community, fully including women; sound compliance mechanisms (which can include social stigma); and clear accountability and financial governance mechanisms. Channelling benefits to women rather than men has been effective in supporting long-term success of interventions in a number of cases. q. Local livelihood innovations (community forestry, ecotourism, wildlife enterprises) may be limited because subject to multiple levels of government discretion and cooperation. r. Best practices e.g. FairWild standard and other third party certification and compliance mechanisms can help foster sustainability and promote compliance in use of wildlife. s. In assessing whether a livelihood intervention will benefit conservation, those planning the intervention need to assess not just a potential decrease in illegal harvesting, but any land use and ecological impacts of suggested alternatives. For instance, where intensified cultivation is proposed the impacts of clearing forest need to be assessed. 4. Solutions can t be imposed on IPLCs from outside a. Interventions against IWT are likely to be more sustainable when planned and led by IPLCs themselves, or with IPLCs integrally involved in design and decision-making b. Establishing trust is a vital first step, and can take a long time. Building one-on-one personal relationships (rather than having a changing series of external consultants) is important. c. Interventions will be more effective when they respond to self-determined IPLC priorities, needs and values in a meaningful way rather than imposing external values or conceptions of community needs. This will require enabling IPLCs to participate in relevant meetings at various levels and articulate and present their views and priorities. 21

22 ANNEX 1 Participant list NO. TITLE NAME ORGANISATION POSITION 1 Dr Nguyen Ba Ngai Vietnam Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) Deputy Director General, VNFOREST 2 Mr Craig Hart USAID Vietnam Deputy Mission Director 3 Mr Nguyen Vu Linh MARD Deputy Head, Department of Nature Conservation 4 Mr Nguyen Manh Hiep MARD Officer, Department of Nature Conservation 5 Ms Christine Plastrotmann German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) 6 Mr Frank Barsch German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) 7 Dr Bibhab Kumar Talukdar 8 Mr HRANG KIL All Country Agency for Rural Development (ACRD) Division 310 (Environment, Sustainable use of natural resources, Marine conservation and Biodiversity) Division NI3 (Species Conservation) linhbachma@gmail.com hiepnguyen.kl@gmail.com christine.plastrotmann@bmz. bund.de frank.barsch@bmub.bund.de Aaranyak Chief Executive Officer bibhab@aaranyak.org Assistant Manager hrangkil@gmail.com 9 Mr Anuj Jain BirdLife International Program Officer anuj.jain@birdlife.org 10 Mr Shahriar Rahman Creative Conservation Alliance CEO caesar_rahman2004@yahoo. com 11 Ms Wiebke Peters Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit 12 Mr Saw Lwin Ecosystem Conservation and Community Development Initiative (ECCDI) Advisor Executive Committee Member wiebke.peters@giz.de myanmarorchid@gmail.com 13 Ms Marina Ann Kenyon Endangered Asian Species Trust CEO marina@monkeyworld.org 14 Ms Wilaiwan Kalyakool Freeland Foundation Field Manager wilaiwan@freeland.org 15 Ms Htet Eain Khant Friends of Wildlife Project Assistant hekforester@gmail.com 16 Mr John Fellowes Full Circle Programme Director jrfellowes@yahoo.com 17 Ms Karthiyani Krishnasamy 18 Ms Tham Thi Hong Phuong Full Circle Foundation Programme Manager karthimartelli@yahoo.com.sg GIZ Biodiversity and Forestry Program Project Officer phuong.tham@giz.de 19 Mr Ha Thang Long Green Viet Chairman thg.long@gmail.com 20 Ms Holly Jonas ICCA Consortium International Policy Coordinator holly@ridge-to-reef.org; holly@ iccaconsortium.org 21 Dr Dilys Florence Roe International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Principal Researcher dilys.roe@iied.org 22 Mr Saw Eh Kler Soe Karen Forestry Department Forest staff ehnadoh@gmail.com 23 Ms Naw Eh Dee Karen Forestry Department Forest Staff ehnadoh@gmail.com 24 Mr Seree Wantai Karen Wildlife Conservation Initiative wildlife survey team leader naturalflowers2003@gmail. com 25 Mr Aman Singh KRAPAVIS (Krishi Avam Paristhitiki Vikas Sansthan) 26 Mr Phothitay Chanthone Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Department of Forest Resource Management Chief Coordinator Deputy Head of Wildlife Management Division krapavis_oran@rediffmail.com chanthone2011@hotmail.com 27 Mr Om Sophana Mlup Baitong Deputy Executive Director mlup@online.com.kh 28 Mr Va Moeurn Mlup Baitong Executive Director 29 Mr Prom Tola N/A: Independent Consultant Independent Consultant tolaprom@yahoo.com 22

23 ANNEX 1 Participant list continued NO. TITLE NAME ORGANISATION POSITION 30 Ms Tanya Nava Conlu Non-Timber Forest Products Exchange Programme Conservation and Resource Management Coordinator tanya.conlu@ntfp.org 31 Ms Veronique Audibert NTFP & POH KAO Cambodia Technical Advisor audibert.pohkao@gmail.com 32 Ms Camille Coudrat Project Anoulak Founder, Director camillecoudrat@gmail.com 33 Dr Shannon Randolph SanDiego Zoo Postdoctoral Scholar randolph.shannon@gmail.com 34 Ms Ho Thi Kim Lan Save Vietnam's Wildlife Education Outreach Manager lan@savevietnamswildlife.org 35 Mr Chavalit Vidthayanon SeubNakasathien Foundation Scientific Committee chavaliv@hotmail.com 36 Ms Vidhu Kapur The Energy and Resources Institute Research Associate kapur.vidhu1986@gmail.com 37 Mr Nicholas Allan Ahlers TRAFFIC Wildlife TRAPS Project Leader nick.ahlers@traffic.org 38 Mr Compton James Gregory Spencer TRAFFIC Senior Director, Asia-Pacific james.compton@traffic.org 39 Ms Anastasiya Timoshyna TRAFFIC Programme Leader Medicinal Plants 40 Mr Thomas Neill Edward Gray anastasiya.timoshyna@traffic. org Wildlife Alliance Director of Science gray@wildlifealliance.org 41 Ms Susan Lieberman Wildlife Conservation Society Vice President, International Policy slieberman@wcs.org 42 Ms Widyaningsih Peni Lestari Wildlife Conservation Society Indonesia Program Socio-economic Specialist Marine Program plestari@wcs.org 43 Ms Ezra Nede WCS Technical Advisor enede@wcs.org 44 Mr Stefanus Johannes Bekker WWF Greater Mekong Trans Boundary Director: CarBi Programme fanie.bekker@wwf.panda.org 45 Ms Kristina Rodina WWF Myanmar Wildlife Trade Project Manager kristina.rodina@ wwfgreatermekong.org 46 Mr Chrisgel Ryan Ang Cruz WWF Greater Mekong Regional Technical Adviser on Wildlife Trade chrisgel.cruz@ wwfgreatermekong.org 47 Ms KOH PEI HUE WWF MALAYSIA Manager (Patrolling and Enforcement) skoh@wwf.org.my 48 Mr Sonephet WWF Laos 49 Ms Mary Rowen USAID Senior Biodiversity Policy Advisor mrowen@usaid.gov 50 Ms Cristina Vélez Srinivasan USAID Ecosystems Management & Trade Team Lead, Regional Development Mission for Asia cvelez@usaid.gov 51 Ms Nguyen Thi Cam Binh USAID bnguyen@usaid.gov 52 Mr Scott Bantur USAID Environment Officer sbantur@usaid.gov 53 Mr Nguyen Manh Ha USAID GIG Program Manager ha.nguyenba@gmail.com 54 Dr Rosie Cooney IUCN SULi Chair rosie.cooney@gmail.com 55 Dr Dublin Holly IUCN/CEESP/SSC SULi SULi Steering Committee Member holly.dublin@iucn.org 56 Ms Plasmeijer Anouska IUCN European Regional Office Eu Partnerships Officer anouska.plasmeijer@iucn.org 57 Mr Jon Paul Rodriguez IUCN Species Survival Commission Chair jonpaul.rodriguez@gmail.com 58 Ms Phoutsakhone Ounchith IUCN Head of Lao Office phoutsakhone.ounchith@ iucn.org 59 Mr Petch Manopawitr IUCN Deputy Indo-Burma Group, Thailand Programme Coordinator petch.manopawitr@iucn.org 60 Mr Vanny Lou IUCN Cambodia National Coordinator For Cepf vanny.lou@iucn.org 61 Ms Bui Thi Thu Hien IUCN Marine And Coastal Programme Coordinator hien.buithithu@iucn.org 62 Mr Jake Brunner IUCN Head, Iucn Indo-Burma jake.brunner@iucn.org 63 Mr James Tallant IUCN Cepf Rit Manager james.tallant@iucn.org 64 Mr Nguyen Duc Tu IUCN Cepf Coordinator In Vietnam tu.nguyenduc@iucn.org 65 Mr Jack Laurenson IUCN English Editor jack.laurenson@iucn.org 66 Ms Le Thi Thanh Thuy IUCN Programme Support Officer thuy.lethithanh@iucn.org 23

24 ANNEX 1 Participant list continued NO. TITLE NAME ORGANISATION POSITION SUPPORT STAFF 67 Ms Nguyen Thuy Anh IUCN Communication and Outreach Officer thuyanh.nguyen@iucn.org 68 Ms Pham Hong Nhung IUCN Admin Assitant nhung.phamhong@iucn.org 69 Ms Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy IUCN HR and Admin Manager thuy.nguyenthithanh@iucn.org 70 Ms Ngo Thu Ha IUCN Account Officer ha.ngothu@iucn.org 71 Ms Thai Hai Van IUCN Finance Assistant van.thaihai@iucn.org 72 Ms Nguyen Thi Kim Dung IUCN Senior Finance Officer dung.nguyenthikim@iucn.org 73 Mr Nguyen Hai Long IUCN Admin Assitant long.nguyenhai@iucn.org 24

25 ANNEX 2 Workshop agenda Beyond Enforcement: Involving Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in Combating Illegal Wildlife Trade Regional workshop for Southeast Asia, with a focus on the Lower Mekong Region Hilton Hanoi Opera, Vietnam, November 2016 AGENDA Day 1: Tuesday, 15 November :00-08:30 Registration IUCN INTRODUCTION Chair: Jake Brunner, IUCN 08:30-09:10 Welcome and introductions Jake Brunner, IUCN Opening remarks Dr Nguyen Ba Ngai, Deputy Director General, Administration of Forestry, Vietnam Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Opening remarks Craig Hart, Deputy Mission Director for USAID Vietnam Opening remarks Christine Plastrotmann & Frank Barsch BMZ & BMUB Background and introduction to agenda Dilys Roe, IIED, UK IWT OVERVIEW Chair: Nick Ahlers, TRAFFIC 09:10-10:30 Overview of IWT in Southeast Asia James Compton (and Madelon Willemsen), TRAFFIC, Vietnam Beyond Enforcement: what have we learned? Rosie Cooney, IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group Wildlife Crime Initiative - Introducing the Chrisgel Ryan Ang Cruz, WWF Greater Mekong Program Community- Based Wildlife Crime Prevention Framework Engaging in anti-poaching: risks and rewards for Sue Lieberman, Wildlife Conservation Society, USA local communities Questions and Discussion 10:30-11:00 Coffee break THEME 1: HOW IS IWT AFFECTING COMMUNITIES? Chair: Dilys Roe, IIED 11:40-12:15 Without Indigenous People involved in the Conservation work plan, we could not save the Wildlife and Forest Cross border trading of resin trees (Dipterocarpus alatus) in Cambodia Engaging Communities to Improve Law Enforcement Around Parks in Eastern Thailand Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary: Beyond Enforcement: Involving indigenous peoples and local communities in combating illegal wildlife trade Discussion: How is IWT affecting communities? 12:15-13:15 Lunch Seree Wantai, Karen Wildlife Conservation Initiative, Myanmar Prom Tola, independent consultant, Cambodia Wilaiwan Kalyakool, Freeland Foundation, Thailand Saly Por, Wildlife Conservation Society, Cambodia 25

26 ANNEX 2 Workshop agenda continued THEME 2: HOW ARE "TOP-DOWN" ENFORCEMENT-FOCUSED INTERVENTIONS IMPACTING COMMUNITIES AND IWT? Chair: Holly Jonas, ICCA Consortium 13:15 13:45 How are current enforcement strategies impacting IPLCs in Sabah, Malaysia? Discussion: How are enforcement-led interventions affecting communities and IWT? THEME 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN ENFORCEMENT: Sharon Koh Pei Hue, WWF, Malaysia Where and how can communities be effectively supported or engaged in enforcement against IWT? Chair: James Compton, TRAFFIC 13:45 15:30 Engaging indigenous peoples in community patrols in North East Cambodia Breakthrough from the conservation stewards program in Southern Rakhine Yoma Elephant Sanctuary, Myanmar The Carbon Sinks and Biodiversity (CarBi) programme: conservation beyond flora and fauna Discussion: Where and how can communities be effectively supported or engaged in enforcement against IWT? Working with local communities to curb illegal parrot trade in Indonesia Community based patrolling teams to combat illegal wildlife trade in Laos Discussion: Where and how can communities be effectively supported or engaged in enforcement against IWT? 15:30-16:00 Coffee break All Véronique Audibert, NTFP & POH KAO, Cambodia Htet Eain Khant, Friends of Wildlife, Myanmar Fanie Bekker, WWF Greater Mekong, Vietnam All Anuj Jain, BirdLife International Camille Coudrat, Project Anoulak, Lao PDR THEME 4: ENGAGING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN CONSERVATION: Where and how has strengthening community rights to manage and use or benefit from wild resources successfully reduced wildlife crime? Chair: Rosie Cooney, IUCN SULi 16:00 17:15 Role of non-timber plant products in creating incentives for the involvement of local communities and indigenous peoples in sustainable and legal wildlife trade and tackling IWT Community Forest and Stream Practice in Thailand's Western Forest: Engaging community for wildlife conservation and restoration to counter illegal wildlife trade Trees and Tigers Conservation by Tribes: Experiences from KRAPAVIS, Sariska Traditional knowledge, sustainable livelihoods, and NTFPs Network of community conserved areas and enforcement of rules to prevent hunting and tree felling Discussion: Where and how has strengthening community rights to manage and use or benefit from wild resources successfully reduced wildlife crime? 19:00-21:00 Reception dinner at Pan Pacific Hotel All Anastasiya Timoshyna, TRAFFIC, UK Chavalit Vidthayanon, Seub Nakhasathien Foundation, Thailand Aman Singh, Krishi Avam Paristhitiki Vikas Sansthan (KRAPAVIS), India Tanya Conlu, Non-Timber Forest Products- Exchange Programme, Philippines Vidhu Kapur, The Energy and Resources Institute, India All 2 26

27 ANNEX 2 Workshop agenda continued Day 2: Wednesday, 16 November :30- Registration 09:00 09:00- Recap of Day 1 09:15 9:15-10:30 10:30-11:00 11:00-12:00 12:00-13:00 13:00-16:00 SULi/IIED THEME 5: "ALTERNATIVE" LIVELIHOODS: WHERE AND WHEN CAN THEY BE EFFECTIVE? Chair: Dilys Roe, IIED Introduction Conservation oriented medicinal orchid growing with local community participation in Myanmar Schools for conservation and hunting bans in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, south-eastern Bangladesh Pushing livelihoods diversification for shark fisheries in Tanjung Luar, Indonesia Discussion: Where and when can alternative livelihoods be effective? Coffee break How to combat IWT through community-based ecotourism Communities, Wildlife Trade, and the Cardamom Rainforest, Cambodia Discussion: Where and when can alternative livelihoods be effective? Lunch Dilys Roe, IIED Saw Lwin, Ecosystem Conservation and Community Development Initiative, Myanmar Shahriar Caesar Rahman, Creative Conservation Alliance, Bangladesh Peni Lestari, Wildlife Conservation Society, Indonesia All Om Sophana, Mlup Baitong, Cambodia Thomas Gray, Wildlife Alliance, Cambodia Development of workshop statement and closing remarks Chair: Rosie Cooney JOINT "IDEAS MARKETPLACE" SESSION WITH WORLD BANK GLOBAL WILDLIFE PROGRAM PROJECT LEADERS Drinks and finger food will be served All 3 27

28 We gratefully acknowledge the generous support of