While the previous section identifies the individual NGOs in joint collaboration with states and IGOs, this section reveals their connections with other NGOs at different levels and across levels in collectively operating to strengthen the CITES monitoring system, regional law implementation and enforcement, and national environmental policy and laws. This section firstly presents how international NGOs, WWF, TRAFFIC, WCS and Freeland have formed their structural network within their structural
organization (WWF-Global, 2017; Freeland, 2015a; WCS, 2017b; TRAFFIC, 2008d). And, secondly, since these actors do not always act alone, these create information sharing links among those who collectively operate to achieve their policy goal. Policy networks are established to support wildlife conservation policy and governing illegal wildlife trade.
International environmental NGOs share similar means in gathering information on the species in their concerns and use their expertise to engage with governments. Defined links as information and resource sharing, the connections between actors at different levels and across boundaries can be identified. TRAFFIC, WWF, IUCN, WCS and Freeland have regional and local offices around the world. Their bases in different countries monitor the environmental situation and keep an eye on development policies affecting the environment and wildlife habitats. In addition, in Southeast Asia, these international NGOs have a key contribution to the improving of environmental policy. For instance, WWF can give a consultation to the government partners on the policy problem because it has political understandings, intelligence and scientific knowledge and databases on the best practices and lessons learned, which are derived from its experiences working with other partners in different parts of the world (Ongsiriwittaya, 2015). Apart from TRAFFIC and WWF, which have offices in several countries across Southeast Asia, WCS also works in similar way in collecting scientific data on protected areas such as in Indonesia and Thailand. In Indonesia, WCS made records on the populations of rare animals in the park including Sumatran tigers, rhinos, elephants and orangutans and reported the decreasing number of them over the past 20 years (The Jakarta Post, 2015s). In Thailand, WCS has conducted research and collected information on hunting and on the trade in species of concern such as tigers; the organization attempts to use this solid information and science-based approach to advise policymakers at the national level (Participant C, 2015). Furthermore, emphasizing regional wildlife law enforcement, Freeland’s offices in Southeast Asia – including Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia – have organized meetings and training courses to promote regional joint efforts through information sharing and best practices among officers and partners from different countries (Freeland, 2015a). Similar attempts resulting from the network of NGOs
include the achievement of recommending the CITES COP17 to make pangolin species fully protected by Appendix I of CITES (Freeland, 2016b).
It can be seen that, at the international level, environmental NGOs have a strong role in providing scientific data in different countries to support the monitoring mechanism of CITES. Within their organization, there are branches around the world to collect information and work with other NGOs and/or government partners to make progress on wildlife conservation. These NGOs have been invited regularly to the CITES COP (Participant G, 2015) as well as the Consortium of the ICCWC (ICCWC, 2013). From the ICCWC perspective, representatives from the NGO community contribute their experiences, lessons learned and recommendations for better implementation in fighting wildlife crime (ICCWC, 2013); however, from some states’ points of view, they complain that NGOs play too much of a role in influencing the CITES meetings (Participant G, 2015).
Information sharing among NGOs can be observed from their projects in updating databases on populations of concern to their organizations. For example, EIA acknowledges information contributed by TRAFFIC, WWF, IFAW and other NGOs in different geographical areas to update the map and data set on illegal wildlife products including rhino horns (EIA, 2017e), elephant ivory (EIA, 2017c), helmeted hornbills (EIA, 2017d), pangolins (EIA, 2017g) and tigers and Asian big cats (EIA, 2017f). Since natural habitats of wild species locate in different areas and some species are more threatened by consumption demand, this also creates information sharing across organizations whose concerns are based on those particular species. For example, tigers and big cats are prioritized by WCS, WWF, TRAFFIC, Wildlife Alliance, Freeland, EIA and EVN. Their offices in different locations in Southeast Asia work closely to monitor the species populations, farming and breeding, illegal trading in black markets, and the improvement of law enforcement in relevant countries. These NGOs also work as alliance in the Global Tiger Initiative, which aims to double the global number of wild tigers by 2020 (GTI, 2008). Likewise, in the case of sharks and rays, TRAFFIC, WWF, WCS, IUCN, Shark Advocates International and the Shark Trust work together to develop 10-year strategies to stop the decline of sharks and rays (TRAFFIC, 2016b).
Resource sharing among NGOs for the better implementation of environmental conservation policies can also be found from NGOs’ projects in implementing conservation policies in protected areas that are home to several endangered species. Apart from supporting ASEAN-WEN, NGOs have also bolstered two subregional initiatives: the Heart of Borneo (HOB) and the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security (CTI-CFF). These activities also represent connections among NGOs in conserving wildlife species in the region.
The HOB initiative was proposed by WWF and led to the governments of Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia signing a declaration to conserve and sustainably manage the core area of Borneo, where most of the forests are located (Suksuwan, 2015). TRAFFIC collaborates with WWF to support HOB, initiated by the three governments with the aim of protecting the last vast contiguous natural Bornean forest. TRAFFIC continues support capacity building efforts of this framework (Schaedla, 2011). Both WWF and TRAFFIC were involved in the meeting to discuss wildlife trade issues as well as strategic outputs and action plan suggested for further collaboration (TRAFFIC, 2015a). Currently, WWF-Malaysia and WWF-Indonesia are playing a role in supporting coordination between the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei (Heart of Borneo Rainforest Foundation, 2013a; WWF-Malaysia, 2016). In addition, this initiative also attempts to create the Borneo Hub to coordinate and map information on research station projects, concession boundaries and communities databases among action groups under one roof (Heart of Borneo Rainforest Foundation, 2013b). This exemplifies how an NGO supports the governments’ initiative through implementing conservation project; it also attempts to set up a database on wildlife conservation by collaborating with civil society actors, communities and businesses to participate in and support sustainable management in the protected area.
On marine conservation, Conservation International (CI), the Nature Conservancy (TNC) and WWF are working together with the Coral Triangle centre, local NGOs and governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste to protect the Coral Triangle under the CTI-CFF cooperative framework (WWF, 2009; UNEP, 2013: 8; CTI-CFF, no date). In
emphasizing the conservation objective, the Marine Protected Areas Governance programme was established and got financial and technical assistance from WWF, CI, TNC and WCS to support the Indonesian government in improving marine protected areas management, which includes activities such as support local partners in monitoring and patrolling the areas, collecting data on endangered marine turtles and preventing destructive fishing (WWF, 2017a; WWF, 2017b).
It can be noted that, while international NGOs can find opportunities to engage with governments and other NGOs through international species-based initiatives and protected areas collaborations, this creates transnational information sharing links among them and national or local partners to support monitoring systems on endangered wildlife species. In addition, it can mean that, aside from ASEAN-WEN, NGOs have more options to engage with other international frameworks or other networks in protecting wildlife and/or monitoring illegal wildlife trade in the region. This assumption is supported by Ongsiriwittaya’s explanation of WWF’s considerations in working with ASEAN. She comments that engaging with ASEAN framework is unlikely to be the best option. Since ASEAN countries insist on the principle of non-interference on domestic issues and environmental issues are always less important than other issues, NGOs engage with other international bodies, which are more constructive and active on environmental issues. NGOs will choose to engage with the body that provides more opportunity for the organization’s success in conducting advocacy with less resources allocated to that activity (Ongsiriwittaya, 2015).
While species-based collaboration among NGOs provides several options for NGOs to create their networks, it is not easy for NGOs to specify which one should be the centre of the network. According to Ongsiriwittaya (2015), each NGO has its own priority, approach and goal in conservation, while intergovernmental bodies – which her organization engages with – have different mandates and jurisdiction. From her experience in working with other NGOs at the national level, she notes that there are not many NGOs working to protecting the environment; they generally know what each organization is working on and what each other’s standpoints are. Complementary work with environmental agencies in protected areas in different
parts of Thailand can be a good example. NGOs acknowledge each other in their responsible areas. They do not try to work with a department that has already been supported by another, but they instead open up new areas to bolster other agencies in different parts of the country. Therefore, each NGO works individually according to its organizational mandate, but their works are not contradictory (Ongsiriwittaya, 2015). However, this does not mean that there is no network among them. Although they are working in different places to fulfil their organization’s goal, information sharing for monitoring national policy related to wildlife conservation and illegal wildlife trade exists. Ongsiriwittaya (2015) and Participant F (2015) confirm information sharing among NGOs. Since NGOs work to monitor any matter affecting the environment in different geographical areas, together they work as an alliance to raise their voice when an environmental crisis occurs. The kind of alliance depends on the issue (Participant F, 2015). For example, an open letter jointly signed by NGOs in Thailand was sent to the government to include the wildlife agenda into the national agenda (Ongsiriwittaya, 2015). Participant F (2015) also notes that environmental issues are, on the one hand, an opportunity for NGOs to gather together to raise the importance of the issue to the public. On the other hand, the increasing number of environmental issues is also a crucial condition that obscures them from forming a strong alliance. This is because NGOs are facing challenges from limits of resources resulting from the lack of financial support in operations and recruitment (Participant F, 2015).
Apart from supporting agencies to better implement and enforce environmental policy, NGOs have formed a loose network at the national level to monitor national development policy, which potentially causes harm to wildlife habitat. This role is obvious in the NGOs’ work on conservation or protected areas. For instance, when Cambodia’s vast Virachey National Park in Cambodia was handed out for mining exploration, an NGO called HabitatID – supported by other three local NGOs – tried to persuade the Khmer government to end the mining permit by presenting a video recording of rare species found in the national park to show that the area should be protected to serve as a home for wildlife (Mongabay, 2015m). There was a similar example in Thailand, when the Seub Nakhasathien Foundation found that ‘[t]he Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) is attempting
to pass controversial draft amendments to two laws that will allow national parks to be leased to private resort operators and the wildlife trade to be legalised’ (The Bangkok Post, 2015b). The seminar, entitled ‘Amending forest and wildlife laws for whom?’, was held by the foundation itself, along with the Thai Journalists Association and the Thai Society of Environmental Journalists. Learning from the failure of the government’s attempt in integrating tourism into the management of national park in the past, participants in the seminar had strong opposition to this commercialization of the parks in the name of tourist promotion. The strong opposition in the seminar led the DNP’s representative to announce that a public hearing on the proposed amendments was planned later in the month (The Bangkok Post, 2015b).
The network of NGOs can be generally found at the national level in campaigns to reduce demand on wildlife consumption by raising people’s awareness on the importance of the wildlife issue. Campaigning on wildlife protection can often be seen in countries across Southeast Asia. For instance, it is found that the WildAid’s campaign on shark-fin resulted in a 50–70 per cent reduction of the shark-fin trade among consumers in Asia in some markets (Wyler and Sheikh, 2008). Freeland launched a campaign called iTHINK to encourage behavioural change in Thailand, Vietnam and China to persuade people to stop the consumption of endangered species (Freeland, 2016a). With the attempt to reduce commercial demand, which is the key factor driving poaching, celebrities, politicians and doctors have joined the campaign to protect wildlife and change people’s beliefs that rare animal parts can cure diseases (Thanh Nien News, 2015c; Freeland, 2016a). In particular in Vietnam, which is a major market for wildlife consumption, the Vietnamese government, with support from the USAID-funded ARREST group, convened a meeting to form a coalition to address the wildlife trade in Vietnam. NGOs including the Vietnam Association for Conservation for Nature, the Asian Turtle Program, PanNature, Freeland, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the World Society for the Protection of Animals have together developed communication strategies for reducing the illegal consumption of wildlife; a detailed strategic communication plan was drafted (UNEP, 2013: 3). Further, with the attempt to reduce the demand for wildlife resulting from traditional medicine, TRAFFIC and the National Center for Health
Communication and Education of the Ministry of Health (T5G) of Vietnam jointly organized workshops for 600 scientists, professors and traditional medicine students to highlight their roles in creating sustainable and wildlife-friendly practices (TRAFFIC, 2015b).
Applying the network approach to identifying policy networks governing the illegal wildlife trade issue in the region, it is obvious that, even though NGOs can individually operate to support wildlife conservation and policies that tackle the trade in illegal wildlife, they are collectively complementary in their work to support the monitoring system of CITES in the broader picture. Policy networks are composed of actors at different levels of governance who are linked by information and resource sharing activities. Although the networks among national NGOs are not distinct owing to their responsibility to support government agencies in different areas, their contributions in gathering field evidence on wildlife populations, monitoring national law enforcement and increasing capacity building to state agencies make them parts of policy networks. Since some international NGOs have their offices based in different countries, on-the-ground information is sent to their headquarters. Then, this information can be disseminated to other network actors to be applied further in proposing policy recommendations to government actors and IGOs at different levels. Moreover, collaborations between NGOs for better implementation can also be pointed out. International NGOs – especially EIA, TRAFFIC, Freeland and WWF – which have offices based in various countries, can always find alliances at the national level to improve states’ agencies capacities. For example, EIA and its partner offer hard intelligence to Interpol and WCO (EIA, 2017a); similarly, WWF-Malaysia and TRAFFIC-Southeast Asia (TRAFFIC-SEA) work closely with the Department of Wildlife and National Parks to fight a secret army of poachers in Malaysia (WWF-Malaysia, 2017). Policy networks, therefore, take a critical role in supporting national governmental agencies, increasing the ability of ASEAN-WEN in regional implementation and law enforcement of CITES, and providing solid evidence for the CITES to strengthen the monitoring and compliance mechanism.
5.5
Conclusion
Southeast Asia is rich in biodiversity. However, these natural resources, especially wildlife species, are threatened by unsustainable exploitation. The region has become a hotspot for illegal wildlife trade and trafficking. Although there is intergovernmental cooperation through CITES as well as ASEAN cooperation to tackle the illegal wildlife trade, this is insufficient and ineffective. At the international level, there are information gaps resulting from IGOs’ incomplete information on states’ enforcement of CITES. This weakens the ability of CITES to legitimately apply sanctions to non-compliant states. In addition, the problem of communication and coordination among law enforcement agencies can be pointed out at both global and regional levels. Although ASEAN-WEN was established to better implement and enforce CITES at the regional level, this difficulty is only partly resolved. In addition, inadequate resources of ASEAN-WEN in activities for improving agencies’ capacity bring about governance gaps in regional implementation and law enforcement. At the national level, governance gaps include the inability of each individual country to formulate, implement and enforce national law and policy to effectively stop the illegal wildlife trade. The absence of political will can be a key explanation for why sufficient resources are not allocated to implement environmental policy on wildlife conservation or operations to fight illegal wildlife syndicates.
Exploring governance gaps in lengthy international policy process for tackling illegal wildlife trade, it is found that several NGOs can find opportunity in complementary work with IGOs, states and national environmental departments to close the governance gaps. At the national level, NGOs individually and collectively act in the form of networks, supporting government agencies to develop policy and laws, identify legal loopholes, implement conservation projects, increase state agencies’ capacity and supply their expertise and technical assistance to governmental officials, for example. NGOs working in and responsible for different areas also form networks in monitoring national development policy that potentially causes negative effects for the environment. At the regional level, TRAFFIC, Freeland and Wildlife Alliance are included in ASEAN-WEN. With support from these NGOs, communication and coordination among ASEAN members has been improved through meetings and workshops. This results in better implementation of CITES, for instance in the
increased seizures of illegal wildlife at international ports and borders. At the global level, NGOs support the monitoring system of CITES by collecting and analysing information on wildlife situations and reporting the progress of wildlife law enforcement of states.
Linked by information and resource sharing for better monitoring and implementation of wildlife conservation and anti-illegal wildlife trade policy, policy networks are formed at different levels and across levels. While some NGOs’ organizational structures have constructed their own networks by linking their national and regional offices with their headquarters, these offices have also collectively worked with other NGOs and partners to meet particular wildlife policy goals. Further, the networks can be based on particular endangered species in relevant countries where species’ and/or their natural habitats are severely threatened. Working with states, IGOs and environmental or law enforcing departments to close governance gaps, NGOs can find opportunities to engage with those actors. Therefore, links among them are present. NGOs in policy networks take two roles in supporting networks’ operations for improving the effectiveness of the CITES regime. Firstly, they take a crucial role in monitoring wildlife conservation and